Teleological Argument

What is Aquinas’ Fifth Way?

Aquinas’ Fifth Way is the argument that goal-directed behaviour in nature (teleology) shows the universe is governed by an intelligent designer. Natural beings act towards ends (telos), so there must be an intelligence guiding them — “that thing we call God.”

What observations does Aquinas use in the Fifth Way?

Aquinas observes that natural beings don’t behave randomly, but instead behave in regular, goal-directed ways. Examples include:

• flowers turning toward the sun

• birds migrating south in winter

• the motion of planets
  This suggests nature has order and purpose, not chaos.

Why does Aquinas think nature needs an intelligent director?

Aquinas argues natural things lack sufficient intelligence to aim at goals deliberately, so their goal-directedness must come from something intelligent directing them.

What is Aquinas’ “archer and arrow” analogy?

Aquinas compares nature to an arrow flying toward a target:

• An arrow cannot aim itself

• So if it hits a target, we infer an archer directed it
  Likewise, natural beings reach their ends because they are directed by an intelligent being.

What role do natural laws play in Aquinas’ Fifth Way?

Aquinas claims God directs nature through natural laws (laws of physics/nature). Beings behave goal-directedly because their natures incline them toward their ends, and natural laws are the mechanism by which they are guided.

What is “telos” in Aquinas’ argument?

Telos means the goal/end/purpose something is directed toward. Aquinas argues everything has a nature that inclines it toward its proper end (e.g. birds migrate).

What is Paley’s design argument based on?

Paley argues that purposeful complexity implies a designer. When a thing has complex parts arranged to serve a function, it is far more reasonable to infer design rather than chance.

What is the key difference between a rock and a watch in Paley’s example?

• A rock seems like it could have existed forever (no clear sign of design)

• A watch has intricate complexity arranged for a purpose (telling time)
  So the watch strongly suggests a designer.

Why does Paley say complexity alone is not enough to prove design?

Complexity can occur by chance, e.g. sand patterns on a beach can be complex without being designed. Paley says what matters is complexity that enables purpose.

How does Paley use the sandcastle example?

A sandcastle is complex in a way that serves a purpose, and it’s extremely unlikely to form by chance. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer it has a designer.

How does Paley apply the watch argument to nature?

Paley claims nature contains things with the same key feature as the watch: purpose enabled by complexity. Examples:

• the human eye (sight)

• bird wings (flight)

• fish fins (swimming)
  Therefore, nature also points to a designer.

What does Paley infer about the designer of nature?

Since nature is greater than human artefacts, Paley infers the designer must be:

• far more powerful

• more intelligent than humans
  Also, the designer must be a mind distinct from the world (because design implies a designer separate from what is designed).

Is Paley’s argument inductive or deductive?

It is usually interpreted as inductive and a posteriori, because it uses observations of the world as evidence to support the conclusion that God exists.

How does Swinburne defend analogical reasoning in design arguments?

Swinburne argues analogy is scientifically legitimate:
If we don’t know the cause of X but X is similar to Y (whose cause we do know), then it’s rational to hypothesise that X has a similar cause.

How do Paley and Aquinas use analogy?

• Paley compares nature to a watch

• Aquinas compares goal-directed nature to an arrow shot by an archer
  Both suggest natural order is best explained by an intelligent mind.

What is Hume’s objection to analogy in design arguments?

Hume argues that similar effects can have different causes. Example:

• dry ice and fire have different causes

• yet both can produce “smoke”
  So even if nature looks like an artefact, it doesn’t prove the cause is the same.

Why does Hume think the analogy between nature and machines is weak?

Hume argues artefacts (like watches) are:

• mechanical

• precise
  But the universe is more like an organic, messy system, not a clean machine — weakening the comparison.

How can Paley’s argument survive Hume’s critique of analogy? (Evaluation)

The argument can be reinterpreted as a probability argument, not a strict analogy:
It isn’t “nature is like a watch,” but rather:
purposeful complexity is astronomically unlikely by chance, so design is more reasonable.

What is Hume’s “committee of gods” criticism?

Even if design is real, it doesn’t prove the Christian God. It could instead be:

• many gods (polytheism)

• a junior or imperfect god

• a god who later died
  So the argument is limited in what it proves.

How does Swinburne respond to the committee of gods objection?

Swinburne uses Ockham’s razor:
One God is a simpler explanation than many gods, so monotheism is more reasonable.

Why is Hume’s critique arguably unfair? (Evaluation)

Aquinas and Paley aren’t claiming to prove Christianity fully — they aim to show a generic designer (“that thing we call God”). The argument supports natural theology, giving evidence that makes faith more reasonable.

What is Hume’s Epicurean hypothesis?

The universe is made of atoms and has existed infinitely. Given infinite time, every possible arrangement will occur — including an orderly universe — by chance, without needing God.

Why does the Big Bang weaken the Epicurean hypothesis?

The Big Bang suggests the universe is not eternal, so Hume’s infinite-time explanation becomes less plausible.

How does the multiverse modernise Hume’s argument?

Instead of infinite time, the multiverse suggests infinite universes. If every possible set of laws and outcomes exists somewhere, then order and fine-tuning can occur naturally without a designer.

What is the main weakness of the multiverse hypothesis?

It is very speculative, may be unfalsifiable, and lacks direct evidence — so critics argue it’s not a strong alternative explanation.

How does Swinburne respond to the multiverse?

Swinburne argues science can describe which laws exist, but cannot explain why those laws exist, so a deeper explanation (God) is still needed.

Why does the multiverse still weaken design arguments? (Evaluation)

Even if not proven, the multiverse functions as a competing hypothesis, breaking the inference that “order → therefore God.” If multiple explanations are equally possible, the design argument loses persuasive force.

How does evolution challenge Paley’s argument?

Paley claims organisms look designed because of purposeful complexity. Darwinian evolution explains this without God:

• variation exists

• better-adapted organisms survive and reproduce

• traits spread over time
  This produces the appearance of design through natural selection.

How does evolution explain Aquinas’ “telos” in animals?

Instincts and goal-directed behaviours (like migration) can be explained as evolved survival mechanisms rather than being intentionally directed by God.

What does Dawkins mean by “the blind watchmaker”?

Dawkins agrees organisms look like they were designed, but says the “watchmaker” is blind: natural selection is not intelligent or purposeful — it is mechanical and unguided.

How does Darwin use natural evil to challenge design?

Darwin argues nature is cruel and inefficient (e.g. digger wasps laying eggs inside caterpillars). This doesn’t look like the product of a perfect, benevolent designer.

What is Hume’s evidential problem of evil against design?

The world contains excessive suffering and dysteleology (things not directed to “good ends”). If nature were designed by a perfect God, much suffering could have been avoided.

Why is this critique stronger than the “committee of gods” critique?

It doesn’t just claim the designer might not be the Christian God — it suggests the world could not have been designed by an omnibenevolent Christian God due to the scale of suffering.

How do theists respond to natural evil?

Theists argue God cannot remove evil without removing a greater good:

• Augustine: punishment / consequences of sin

• Plantinga: free will defence

• Hick: soul-making theodicy

Why are these theodicies often judged unsuccessful? (Evaluation)

Natural evil affects innocents (children/animals), e.g. Rowe’s fawn dying in a forest fire. Free will or punishment can’t justify this.

How does Hick’s “epistemic distance” idea connect to design?

Hick claims God keeps the world ambiguous so humans can freely develop morally (soul-making). But this means God cannot be inferred from evidence — so it doesn’t help the design argument prove God.

What conclusion does this lead to about design arguments?

Design arguments focus on “helpful” features of nature, but a full picture includes suffering and bad design. This suggests either:

• there is no designer, or

• the designer is not perfectly good (not the Christian God)

How did Tennant develop design arguments after Darwin?

Tennant broadened design beyond organisms to the overall regularity, intelligibility, and structure of the universe, rather than specific biological complexity.

What is Swinburne’s “temporal order” vs “spatial order” distinction?

Swinburne argues Aquinas was wiser than Paley:

• Paley focused on spatial order (organisms like eyes)

• Aquinas focused on temporal order (laws and regularities)
  Evolution can explain organisms, but not the laws of nature.

What is the fine-tuning argument?

Physical constants must be extremely precise for life to exist. A tiny difference would produce chaos. Therefore, fine-tuning suggests God is more reasonable than chance.

What is the key assumption behind fine-tuning?

That the constants of nature are contingent (could have been different). If they must be exactly what they are, fine-tuning collapses.

How might necessity undermine fine-tuning?

The laws of nature might be metaphysically necessary. A future “Theory of Everything” could show constants follow from deeper mathematical necessity — meaning they could not have been otherwise.

What is the “God of the gaps” critique of design arguments? (Evaluation)

Design arguments often rely on current scientific ignorance and insert God as the explanation. Darwin showed biological gaps can be closed naturally, suggesting fine-tuning may also eventually be explained without God.

One sentence summary of Aquinas’ Fifth Way

Goal-directed nature implies an intelligent director: “that thing we call God.”

One sentence summary of Paley’s watch argument

Purposeful complexity implies design, and nature contains purposeful complexity, so nature has a designer.

Best single Hume criticism

Even if order exists, it doesn’t logically require God (weak analogy + alternative explanations).

Best Darwin criticism

Evolution explains apparent design in organisms without needing a designer.

Best modern defence (Swinburne)

Evolution explains organisms, not laws of nature — fine-tuning supports God as the best explanation.