Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Teleological Argument - Coggle Diagram
The Teleological Argument
Aquinas' 5th Way
Things we observe in the universe are goal-directed. e.g. flowers move towards the sun
Things are not intelligent, or not intelligent enough, to direct their own behaviour
This means there must be natural laws (laws of nature/physics) which govern the behaviour of things in the universe
Natural laws must have an origin - an intelligent designer
So, God exists
Analogy:
archer and the arrow. If you see an arrow - it's goal directed towards a target - you can know there must be an archer who shot it
Similarly, observing goal-directed behaviour of objects in the universe suggests there us a being which directed their behaviour through creating natural laws (God)
Paley's design qua purpose (watch)
Paley's watch-maker argument: If you find a watch, you know it has a designer because of its complexity and purpose
It is made of smaller parts which are each complex and arranged in a complex and precise way in order to achieve an overall purpose - telling the time
We also find complexity and purpose in nature
Paley points out the human eye is the same - composed of small complex parts arranged in a complex precise way in order to achieve an overall purpose - sight
Complexity and purpose can't come about by chance - there must have been a designer who intentionally arranged it with the purpose in mind
There are many cases like this in nature - the wings of a bird, the fins of a fish - all complex and purposeful
So nature has a designer - it must be much greater and more powerful than any human designer - God
Hume's critique: evidential problem of evil
We have evidence of evil in the world, so it's not possible to infer the existence of a perfect God from the world
e.g. human suffering due to having frail bodies, animal suffering, most of the earth's surface is too hot, cold or wet to live on. It doesn't appear designed by a perfect God
Evaluation
Paley's response: even a broken watch still has a designer
Soul-making theodicy attempts to explain the evil we see around us as something God allows so we can have soul-making (Hick's development of Irenaeus' theodicy)
Hume's critique of analogy (Paley's watch and Aquinas' archer/arrow)
Paley and Aquinas are trying to argue that because things in the world are like things humans create (watch) or do (goal-direct an arrow) - that therefore the cause of those natural things must be analogous too - must be an intelligent mind
But - things which are like each other can have very different causes - e.g. dry ice and fire produce very analogous effects (smoke) - but they are very different as causes
So, even if nature is like a watch or an arrow - that doesn't mean the cause of nature is like the cause of a watch/arrow (i.e., an intelligent mind)
Evaluation
Paley's argument is not actually based on analogy
Paley isn't saying that the universe is designed because it's like the watch which is designed
Paley is saying that the universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose and the best explanation of that is a designed mind
The watch/arrow are just illustrations. The watch is just an illustration of how complexity and purpose comes from a designer. The arrow is just an illustration of how goal-directedness comes from a designer
Hume's critique: God not the only explanation (committee of Gods)
Hume points out that even if the design argument worked - it would not prove a particular God - it could have been designed by a committee of Gods, a junior God, or even a God who then died
Swinburne's response and Aquinas/Paley's natural theological approach
Swinburne says one God is simpler than multiple (Ockham's Razor - we should go with the simplest explanation that works)
Swinburne accepts the design argument can't prove the Christian God in particular - however, Aquinas and Paley also accept that
They aren't trying to prove the Christian God in particular, they are only trying to shown that it is rational and reasonable to believe in a God (Natural theology - intended to support faith rather than categorically prove the Christian God in particular)
So the proponents of the design argument never claimed that it proved what Hume is accusing them of
Evolution as a counter to the design argument
Explain how evolution works and how it explain the 'appearance' of design without recourse to a designer
Organisms might seem designed for survival in their environment, but really adapted to its environment
Response
Paley's examples of natural complex and purposeful things were biological, like the human eye and the wings of a bird
However, Aquinas' 5th way is about all natural bodies and phenomena. This would include the motion of the planets. That can't be explained by evolution, since evolution only explains the appearance of biological organisms.
Tennant's aesthetic principle as a response to evolution
Aesthetic means beauty
Human beings have the ability to perceive beauty
Tennant points out that this could not have evolved by itself because it cannot give survival advantage and therefore couldn't be naturally selected for
So, God must have intentionally controlled evolution to add traits like aesthetic perception
Evaluation
Perhaps perception of beauty is essential to mate-selection - it allows animals to be attracted to each other (Dawkins' response)
Optional Further Evaluation
However - this response isn't very satisfying - it's hard to see things like appreciation of art and music as a by-product of sexual attraction - it seems totally different
Tennant's anthropic as a response to evolution
Evolution wouldn't even be possible without a planet with the right chemical composition and astronomical features (right distance from a sun, etc.)
So, a God must have designed this planet for evolution to even be possible
Evaluation
There are 10 hexillion planets in the universe - so we should expect a planet like earth to exist just purely by chance - it doesn't need a special explanation like a God
However - defense of anthropic argument
Swinburne developed this anthropic argument - applying it to the laws of nature themselves (like Aquinas did) and pointed out that the laws nature are fine-tuned for human existence to be possible
If the laws of nature were slightly different - we couldn't exist
e.g. if the change of the electron were any greater or lesser, to a tiny degree, atoms couldn't exist and we couldn't exist
So, there must be a God who designed the laws of nature themselves
Evolution clearly can't explain the laws of nature/physics