The Design or Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

Key Word Test

1. Teleological Argument2. Cosmological Argument3. Ontological Argument4. A posteriori5. Deductive6. Omnipotent7. Infinite regress8. Contingent9. In intellectu10. Analytic Statement

FAST FACTS

Teleology is from the Greek word meaning end or purposeThe teleological argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of GodAdvocates include Thomas Aquinas and William PaleyCritics include David Hume, J S Mill and Bertrand Russell

The Basics

• The teleological argument is part of Aquinas’ five ways, his last way. It looks at the world around us and attempts to use that as evidence for God’s existence.

• This makes it a posteriori, like the cosmological argument

• The teleological argument is an argument from order and design to God as the explanation for this order and design.

This sentence summarises the argument concisely and would be a good first sentence in an essay.

The Final Way

P1: Things lacking intelligence, like trees, have a purpose.

P2: These things can’t move towards their end without an intelligent being.

P3: By analogy: an arrow cannot reach its target without a skilled archer.

C: Therefore, by analogy, there must be some intelligent being which directs all unintelligent beings to their end. This is what we call God.

Inference• ‘Inference’ is the process of deriving

conclusions from what is known or assumed to be true.

• Task: what (if anything) can you infer about the producer of the following objects? …

Notebook computer, Christian Louboutin slingbacks, chocolate soufflé

What is the argument?• The argument basically works as follows:

1. The world contains order, regularity, purpose, and beauty.

2. By looking at an object containing these properties, we may infer that is was designed.

3. The world is an object containing the properties in P1

CONCLUSION: the world was designed; the designer we call ‘God’

Rate my argumentConvincingUnconvincing

William Paley

• English philosopher and clergyman, 1743-1805.

• Reforming tendencies, ‘progressive’ in the Church and abolitionist (opposed to the slave trade).

• Author of Natural Theology (1802), his masterwork arguing for philosophical knowledge of God.

Terms for the argument• We call this the ‘Design Argument’ because it

attempts to prove God through the concept of design.

• It is also known as the ‘Teleological Argument’ from the Greek telos, meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’. The argument claims that the world displays God’s purpose or end-goal.

• Some (not all) versions of this argument are called analogical arguments, because they attempt to make a proof based on analogy (comparisons).

The reasoning used in the argument:

• a posteriori – it is based on our experience of the world around us.

• Inductive – the premises support but do not entail the conclusion – probabilistic.

• Synthetic – the argument is not true or false by the definition of its premises – it has to be tested.

Responding to the world

• Very briefly, look at the following images.

• Then write down:– What is your emotional response to the images?– Can you infer any conclusions from the images? If

so, what are they?– Is it in human nature to interpret these images in

the same or similar way?

He then took the analogy one stage further• He chose the human eye as an example of a

complex mechanism designed specifically for a purpose, yet lacking its own intelligence

Paley in detail (qua purpose) In particular Paley focuses on the human eye to demonstrate complexity and purpose. He observed that the human eye was made up of different complex components, the lens, iris and cornea etc, and that the coming together of these different parts could not have come about by sheer chance alone as the eye is too complex. He suggested that just as in the case of the watch with its clear complexity and purpose, we must conclude a designer of the eye because of its obvious purpose of seeing. If the eye were put together in a different manner either it wouldn't see at all or would only provide partial sight, either case would see it falling short of its purpose.

Qua purpose• Paley also provides other examples of design qua purpose

through the example of animal lacteal systems. His argument suggests that animals such as cows, horses and sheep have a small number of teats and because of their small number young, yet the sow, bitch and cat have many teats or because they have a large number in their litter. For Paley clear complexity and purpose of the eye, and something as straightforward as animals having the number of teats that correspond to the number of young points to clear evidence of design in the world. This designer or provider of purpose in the universe is, for Paley, the God of Christianity. Yet Paley does not stop there, he continues onto a design qua regularity similar to that of Aquinas.

Qua regularityPaley looks at the universe and in some ways updated Aquinas’ views. In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity suggests that the universe is like a machine, working like clockwork in predictable patterns. Paley suggests that the rotation or ellipses of planets are so regular as to provide the opportunity for life on earth. He focuses on gravity and suggests that without the continuity or regularity of gravity then we would have a very different universe and probably no life on earth.He argues that this regularity did not come about by chance but that it has been directed to be the case by some higher power. This being, for Paley, is God.

Strengths and Weaknesses

• Sort the strengths and weaknesses cards

• Pick out the ones marked Hume (have a guess, you need to know these) and pick out three more that you think are particularly convincing

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)• Naturalist and first exponent of the

theory of evolution.• Expected to join the Anglican priesthood

and studied theology, but became more interested in natural history.

• Travelled to the Galapagos Islands; his experience of the animal life there inspired him to develop his ideas.

• Darwin kept his ideas secret for a long time, eventually publishing them in 1859.

Extract from Charles Darwin’sThe Origin of Species (1859):

Let it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life; and consequently what infinitely varied diversities of structure might be of use to each being under changing conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.

Questions:

• Why does this cause a problem for the design argument?

• Which aspects of Paley’s argument are challenged by Darwinism?

• How damaging is the Darwinist objection to the design argument? Does it rule it out completely?

Counter points

• See the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement – it claims the theory of evolution is wrong or over-stated (note: this has little / no scientific support).

• God may have caused the process of evolution as a means of bringing order and purpose into the universe (James Sadowsky).

• Evolution depends on a careful balance of conditions, possibly caused by God (F.R. Tennant – the ‘anthropic principle’).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8

The ‘Intelligent Design’ Movement

Intelligent Design• A group of scientists and

mathematicians at the Discovery Institute have argued that Darwin was wrong about natural selection.

• The complexity of nature may be due to Intelligent Design.

• Michael Behe – organisms like the bacterial flagellum display ‘irreducible complexity’. They have too many component parts to be explained through natural selection.

Bacterial flagellum – very complicated.

Criticism of Intelligent Design• The evolution of complex organisms is

difficult to explain, but it does not mean that they cannot be explained. ‘Tricky’ examples hardly disprove Darwinism.

• Biologist Richard Dawkins argues that Intelligent Design has no genuine scientific basis; not a single member of this movement is published in a serious scientific journal.

• The attempt to teach ‘Intelligent Design’ as a scientific theory is an under-hand attempt to undermine secular education.

Responding to Darwinism

• Is there any way religious believers can respond to the challenge from Darwinism?

• Could you re-formulate the argument, so that it can survive these criticisms?

David Hume • Scottish philosopher, 1711-1776

• Famed also as an historian and economist, a controversial essayist

• A key figure in the ‘Scottish Enlightenment’

• His views on religion are guarded in his works, perhaps deliberately obscure. Some accused him of atheism, others of having an irregular view of God.

Hume’s arguments in the Dialogues

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkIGF9Uga0A

• Listen to this very clear explanation of The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion from Nigel Warburton and take notes.

• Reflect: what do you think of the arguments presented?

How effective are the criticisms?Very effectiveIneffective

Summary of Hume’s Criticisms

‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, 1779 Hume focuses on the weaknesses of the analogy and the conclusion drawn from the available empirical evidence1) We have no experience of world making2) Arguments from analogy can only be suggestive not conclusive (issue of scale, mechanic/organic)3) The available evidence cannot prove the God of classical theism (multiple designers? The failed attempt of an imperfect designer?)

REMEMBER: these criticisms are applicable to Paley. However, Hume was criticising the design argument in general – Paley had not yet even written ‘Natural Theology’ (1805).

Where do theists go now?

Abandon the argument

Reject theism Base theism onSomething else

Personal faith

Revealed theology

Different theistic arguments

Re-state the argument

Reject / reply toHume & Darwiniancriticisms

Reformulate theargument on adifferent basis

Beauty

Anthropic principle

Argue for non-classical theology

F.R. Tennant and the anthropic principle

• Cambridge academic and clergyman 1866-1957.

• “Nature is meaningless and valueless without God behind it and Man in front.” (Philosophical Theology, 1930)

• Tennant is arguing that humanity is at the forefront of creation, because the circumstances of the universe uniquely and surprisingly enable human life to emerge.

• Tennant was the first theist philosopher to use the fundamental characteristics of the universe as life-nurturing to offer a new form of teleological argument; many have since followed this path.

Anthropic reasoning• From the Greek ‘anthropos’

(human/man); anthropic reasoning argues from the human perspective.

• Write down a list of the factors necessary for your existence.

• Reflect: are humans fortunate in having the conditions of life met? Is it surprising that the world is set up for life?

Anthropic teleological argument1. The emergence of human life in our universe depends on

numerous factors: planetary conditions, fundamental laws of physics, etc.

2. Human life has emerged in our universe.

3. A life-friendly universe such as ours is highly improbable; almost any other set of circumstances we can think of would have been life-hostile.

4. A designer or intelligent Creator would make sense of our improbable universe.

CONCLUSION: God exists

Rate my argumentConvincingUnconvincing

Essay:

(a) Explain the teleological argument for the existence of God [25 marks]

(b) Aquinas and Paley’s teleological argument cannot be defended [10 marks]