Teleological Argument

William Paley

1. 1743 - 1805

2. Archdeacon of Carlisle.

3. Wrote ‘Natural Theology’ published in 1802.

Paley’s Arguments

1. Design qua regularity - he argues that the world follows some regularity/order.

2. Design qua purpose - he argues that the world is designed to fulfil a purpose.

Paley’s analogy of the Watch

1. You find a watch in a field.

2. A watch has a purpose, telling the time.

3. The parts work together, so are fit for purpose.

4. The parts are ordered and put together in such a way to make the watch function.

5. If the parts are arranged in a different way, the watch does not work, it does not fulfil its purpose.

Paley’s Conclusion of the Watch Analogy

1. A complex watch needs a watchmaker to explain how it came into being.

2. It is clear, from the natural world, that the world is very complex so must also have a designer.

3. Nature is too complex for any human to make.

4. Thus the whole of nature requires a designer e.g. G-d.

Paley’s Natural Theology Quote

Paley, ‘Natural Theology’, 1802:

“…the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”

Arguments For Paley

1. It is based on observation.

2. Anthropic principle - The idea that the constants of the universe are remarkably suited for intelligent life, could suggest an intelligent designer.

3. A designer would know what to create and why.

Arguments Against Paley

1. Too many assumptions.

2. It could have happened by chance.

3. The existence of a multiverse means that it actually could exist in other ways.

4. There is no standard for complexity - at what point is something so complex that it needs a designer.

5. The world is imperfect.

Hume’s Relationship with Paley

He died before Paley so he did not directly comment on his work.

Hume’s 2 Criticisms of the Teleological Argument

1. Problems with using analogies.

2. Problems with using observation.

Problems with Using Analogies

1. Analogies can lead to mistaken conclusions - e.g. the watch analogy as presented by Paley leads to mistaken conclusions as a watch is so unlike the world that just because it has a cause does not mean the world does.

2. It does not necessarily lead to a grand designer, it could be a human-like G-d or many gods - Hume uses the examples of a pair of scales, where one end is visible and the other is concealed. The visible end that contains 10oz is weighed down. We can infer that the other end contains more than 10oz, but we do not know how much, it could be an infinitely heavy weight, a 11oz weight, or 5×30oz weights, we don’t know.

Problems with Using Observation

We observe in the natural world that there are many imperfections and flaws, which could indicate an imperfect G-d.

‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ - Quote:

“This world… is very faulty and imperfect, and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance.“

Wider Reading:

1. Nietzsche on evil - “G-d is dead. G-d remains dead. And we have killed him.”

2. Traditional conceptions of G-d being omnipotent and omnibenevolent no longer hold sway in our society, due to things like the problem of evil.

Counter to Hume’s Problem of Observation

1. Free will defence - the existence of evil is a balance to preserve our free will, without evil we cannot have free will.

2. Eschatological defence - Abrahamic faiths believe that man will serve ultimate justice in the afterlife, so if he is not punished in this world for evil, he will be punished there.

Hume Argument against Teleological Argument

1. A finite number of particles, given eternal time, may eventually fall into order by time.

2. It might appear to be designed but it was simply down to trial and error.

3. This is supported by the existence of a multiverse - showing that multiple different universes exist - trial and error.

Evolution

It is the process by which organisms have developed, starting from a single-celled organism, that mutated and reproduced, producing different organisms that were naturally selected, eventually resulting in the organisms we have today.

Charles Darwin

1. Said the world was a result of natural selection as opposed to intelligent design.

2. He said that creatures adapted to their environment to survive.

Argument in Favour of Evolution over Teleological Arguments and Counters

Argument: There is no need for a designed if everything is simply random mutations.

Counter:

‘Randomness’ or perceived ‘randomness’ might be the mechanism by which G-d made the world.

Richard Dawkins

1. Modern supporter of Darwin.

2. Argues against religion as he believes that religion is an excuse not to investigate science.

3. Argues that nature is neither cruel nor caring, but it is indifferent.

John Stuart Mill

1. Says that we see the world is governed in a cruel and violent way with unnecessary suffering.

2. If the world was designed by G-d, he can’t have been very loving.

Anthropic Argument

1. Argues that nature seems to plan in advance for the needs of humans.

2. The world had to exist as it is ordered for us to be here.

3. This means there must be more than just the laws of physics as work here.

Anthropic Principle

1. We have discovered via science that here are several physical constants that have determined how the world has developed.

2. If any of them were different by any degree the world wouldn’t have developed as it has, and its existence may not even be conceivable.

Aesthetic Design Argument

1. The existence of G-d is based on the beauty of the world.

2. Argues that the universe is not just beautiful in places, it is saturated in beauty from the microscopic to macroscopic.

3. Beauty does not perform a utilitarian function in the world, so it has no reason to exist unless G-d put it there for human enjoyment.

COUNTER:

Beauty is not an absolute quality, but a subjective opinion.

Counters

1. Evolution doesn’t explain how the first single-celled organism came into existence - cant explain origins.

2. Altruism problem - some people act in an altruistic way that seems to harm them and benefit others, surely our evolutionary selfishness prevents that.

Telos Meaning

‘End’ or ‘Purpose’

Telelogical Argument

1. Also known as the design argument.

2. Based on observations of apparent order, design and purpose.

Premise 1: Complexity of the universe shows evidence of design.

Premise 2: Such design implies a designer.

Conclusion: The designer of the universe is a universal G-d.

Maimonides on Teleological Argument

“The universe is not empty; we can at least be sure that things we perceive with our senses exist.

We can explain the existence of these things in one of three ways

(1) All things are eternal and exist necessarily. (2) Nothing is eternal and exists necessarily. (3) Some things are eternal and exist necessarily, some things not.”

1. Maimonides says that the first one is wrong, as we see things come into existence one moment and perish in another.

2. The second is wrong as if nothing were permanent, it is conceivable that everything might perish and nothing will take its place.

3. Therefore, a necessary being must exist as the third one is correct.

Natural Theology

Seeks to understand the existence and nature of G-d through looking at the things we can observe in the world around us.

Aquinas’ Fifth Way

1. Things that lack knowledge, such as ‘natural bodies’ work/move towards a goal.

2. However, this cannot occur unless it is directed by something intelligent e.g. an arrow by an archer.

3. We call this intelligent being G-d.

Link to Aristotle’s Four Causes

1. Everything has a final cause (purpose).

2. Purpose in the universe comes directly from G-d.

Criticisms of Aquinas’ Teleological Argument

1. Confuses the idea of a natural cycle with reaching an end goal, natural things don’t work towards a goal, they are just following a natural cycle, e.g. water cycle.

2. Doesn’t assign any attributes to G-d, Aquinas even says ‘We call this being G-d’. Similar to Maimonides criticism, who says that it “does not lead to the establishment of the Law and the principles of Religion”

3. Modern biology says that not everything has a purpose. Purpose implies a mental state and inanimate objects don’t have a mental state. In the arrow example, the arrow doesn’t have a purpose at all - the archer has a purpose for it.

4. Not everything has a good purpose. E.g. design of a bed of nettles next to dock leaves. Dock leaves are the antidote to nettles, so this appears to have purpose. But what is the purpose of the nettles?