Key words Teleological: explanation by reference to end or purpose. Anthropic argument: nature planning in advance for the needs of humans. Analogy: a comparison of twoor more things to show howthey are similar This chapter covers the classical forms of the teleological argument for the existence of God by Aquinas andPaley. A modern form by Swinburne is also discussed as is the anthropic form of the design argument. The arguments are then evaluatedin respect of their strengths and weaknesses and the extent to which they can be considered a proof for God. The cosmological argument attempted toinfer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos. What it really did was to look at a feature of the universe, namely that the universe cannot account for its own existence. The teleological argument is similar in approach. Probably the most popular and most often expressed by people, it infers the existence of God from a particular aspect or character of the world, namely the presence oforder, regularity and purpose. Order, regularity and purposeare seen as marks ofdesign, and the argument concludes that God must be the source ofthat design. The kindofthing that is usually appealed to as evidence of order in the universe is the solar system, with the planets revolving in their predictable orbits, or the human eye. The wordteleological is derived from the Greek wordtelos 2d in meaning ‘end’ or‘purpose’. Thus nature is viewed as direc order that something beneficial mayresult. More popularlyit is referred to as the ‘argument from design’, but this wording assumes the very thing that has to be proved. A better description would be the ‘argument fordesign’. Design arguments are a posteriori and there are various types of argument, with different philosophers giving them different names. Swinburne identifies the argument from design and the argument to design (also known as the anthropic argument). Theformeris the popular form usually involving analogy. The latter involves arguing
12
Embed
design (also knownasthe anthropic argument).Theformeris the · Anthropic argument: nature planning in advance for the needs of humans. Analogy: a comparison of twoor more things to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Key words
Teleological: explanation by
reference to end or purpose.
Anthropic argument: nature
planning in advance for the needsof humans.
Analogy: a comparison of twoor
more things to show howthey aresimilar
This chapter covers the classical forms of the teleological
argument for the existence of God by Aquinas andPaley. A
modern form by Swinburneis also discussed as is the anthropic
form of the design argument. The arguments are then
evaluatedin respect of their strengths and weaknesses and the
extent to which they can be considered a proof for God.
The cosmological argument attempted toinfer the existence of God
fromthe existence of the cosmos. What it really did was to look at a
feature of the universe, namelythat the universe cannot account for
its own existence. The teleological argumentis similar in approach.
Probably the most popular and most often expressed by people,it
infers the existence of God froma particular aspect or character of
the world, namely the presence oforder, regularity and purpose.
Order, regularity and purposeare seen as marks ofdesign, and the
argument concludes that God must be the source ofthat design.
The kindofthing that is usually appealed to as evidence oforderin
the universe is the solar system, with the planets revolving in their
predictable orbits, or the humaneye.
The wordteleological is derived from the Greek wordtelos
2d in
meaning ‘end’ or‘purpose’. Thus nature is viewed as direc
order that something beneficial mayresult. More popularlyit is
referred to as the ‘argument fromdesign’, but this wording assumes
the very thing that has to be proved. A better description would be
the ‘argument fordesign’.
Design argumentsare a posteriori and there are various types of
argument, with different philosophers giving themdifferent names.
Swinburne identifies the argument from design and the argument to
design (also knownas the anthropic argument). Theformeris the
popular formusually involving analogy. Thelatter involves arguing
in
Key question
Can there be purposefulnesswithout a guiding intelligence?
Key quote
‘Since therefore the effects
resemble eachother weare led toinfer, by the rules of analogy, that
the causes also resemble; andthat
the Author of nature is somewhat
similar to the mind of man
HUME
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD— 3: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
that nature provides for the needs ofintelligent beings. This
provision requires an intelligence — God.
This argument has been used downthe ages. For instance, Plato
suggested that mindorderedall things. Nevertheless certain
philosophers are particularly associated with the argument.
a) St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)
Aquinas(see page 35) features this argumentasthe fifth ofhis Five
Ways. The heart ofthis argument is that non-intelligent material
things produce beneficial order, and therefore require anintelligent
being to bring this about, that is, God. Aquinas’ views about nature
includedthinking that things develop towardthe realisation of ends
that are internal to their own natures. An archer mustdirect an
arrow. In the same way God must direct nature. Aquinas arguedthat
there cannot be purposefulness without a guiding intelligence.
b) David Hume (1711-76)
Oneofthe classical statements of the argument, and one that
particularlyreflects eighteenth-century thinking, appears in Hume's
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. His book was written in the
formofa dialogue between three main characters. Hence, two
characters express the argument for design and then Hume,through
another character (Philo), criticises the argument. This criticism is
thought to be Humereal view. However, he does give a fair
presentationofthe case for design:
Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part ofit: You
will findit to be nothing but onegreat machine, subdividedinto an infi-
nite numberoflesser machines ... All these various machines, and even
their most minute parts are adjusted to one another with an accuracy,
which ravishes into administration all men, who have ever contemplated
them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature,
resembles exactly, though it nich exceeds, the productions ofhuman con-
trivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since
thereforetheeffects resemble cach other weareledto infer, bythe rules of
analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of nature is
somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger
faculties, proportional to the grandeurofthe work, which Hehas execut-
ed. Bythis argumentaposteriori, we do proveat oncetheexistence ofa
Deity, and his similarity to human mind andintelligence. (p. 22)
This appeal to analogy was the popular formof expressing the
argument.It was based on the argumentthatsimilareffects imply
stion
argument
world of contrivance
support the conclusion
intelligent creator.’
PHILOSOPHY OI
Donatural objects resemble
machines made by human beings?
Hume did not write a criticism ofPaley's argument, since Hume had
died some 26 years before Paley
wrote his book. However, Hume's
criticisms can be applied to Paley's
e there no examplesin the
at theeye, it alone wouldbe sufficient to
of an
PALEY
RELIGION
similar causes. What counted as marks ofdesign are those features inwhich natural objects resemble machines made by humanbeings:the fitting of parts and what can beseen as the adaptation of meansto ends. Three kinds ofthese featuresparticularly impressedeighteenth-centurythinkers: the world as a whole, especially thesolar system as described by Newton’s gravitational theory; thebodies ofall sorts of plants and animals, especially certain organs liketheeye; and the providential arrangement of things on the Earth.One ofthe man-made objects which impressed people at that
time was the pocket watch, which had just been invented. In hisDialogue 5, Humeuses the analogy of houses and watches, becausetheyare so clearly produced by human designe
s. He says the worldis like a house or a watchor a collection of houses or watches,thereforeit is probably produced by something like a human
designer. As has been noted, the purpose ofhis writing was in fact tocriticise the argument, andto thesecriticisms weshall returnlater,
c) William Paley (1743-1805)Hume's Dialogues was actually published in 1779, after Humehaddied. William Paley wrote his book Natural Theology in 1802 and,thoughheneverrefers to Hume,it is thought that he included anattempt at answering thecriticisms that Hume had made ofthedesign argument. He uses the analogy of the watch (for whichhe is
particularly remembered, though, as we haveseen,it is by no meansoriginal). Suppose youare crossing a heath and comeacross awatch. Paley argued that even if you had never seen a watch before,
you would knowthat this instrument did not happen by chance,but must be the result of the work ofan intelligent mind. All theparts fit together andachieve the purposeof telling the time.Thewatch must have had an intelligent and skilled maker who designedit to do what it does. The watch demands a watchmaker, and noentirely naturalistic explanation would be acceptable. Likewise, the
way the universefits together for a purpose demandsanintelligentdesigner. The designer would have to be God.
Paleyalso supported his argument bygivingfurther examples of
complexpurposeful design foundin nature. Forinstance, he referred to the eye as being designed forthe particular purpose ofseeing.
Paley regards both the watch andthe universe as teleological
systems that require an intelligent mind to bring themintobeing.
ures 10
pang:
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD — 3: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Paley became Archdeaconof Carlisle. He argued that humanbeings had the capacity to reason from
the natural world about God's existence. Equally he believed in the necessity of revelation for grasp-
ing certain Christian doctrines. He is particularly famousfor his watch analogy.It is interesting that
in Darwin's autobiography, he refers to Paley: ‘In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also,
necessary to get up Paley's Evidencesof Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy... The logic of this
book and as | may addof his Natural Theology gave me as muchdelightas did Euclid ...'
Richard Swinburne (b 1934)
is an Oxford professor of
philosophy who has devoted
himself to promoting arguments
for theism
quote
“So either the orderliness of nature
is where all explanation stops, or
we must postulate an agent of
great powerand knowledge
the simplest such agentis ... God.’
SWINBURNE
y word
Intelligent design: the view that
anintelligent cause (whichis not
identified) accounts for certain
features of the universe. Its
supporters claim that it is a
‘scientific’ theory.
Besides purpose, Paley also argued that the regularity observed in
the universe required the idea ofanintelligent mindas explanation.
Heusedas evidencescientific findings from his owntime, from
astronomyand from Newton’laws. Aninstance ofthis was the way
the planets obeyed laws in their movements. The whole universe
andall its parts seemed ordered andactedin a regular and
predictable way according to fundamental laws. The agent
responsible for such order must be God.
d) Richard Swinburne (b 1934)
Swinburne acknowledges that the argument from spatial order, used
byPaley and Hume,is not very persuasive. Byspatial order,
Swinburne means the complex structures of things such as plants
and animals. In The Existence of God (1979), herefers to‘the subtle
and coherent arrangementoftheir millions ofparts’ (p. 134) and
calls this spatial order‘the regularities of co-presence”. lt is not
persuasive, because such ordered complexities can be explained by
modernscience(theory ofnatural selection) and so does not require
the introduction of a God.
However, Swinburne focuses on temporal order (what he calls
regularities ofsuccession). By temporal order he meansthelaws of
nature throughout the universe. The universeis orderly, yet it could
have been chaotic. Nature seems to conformto a formula. Ifthere is
an explanation to accountforthis, then it cannot beascientific one
because we explain the operation of scientific laws in terms of more
general scientific laws. Swinburne concludes:
Soeither the orderliness of nature is where all explanation stops, or we
must postulate an agent ofgreat power and knowledge ... the simplest
such agent is ... God. (pp. 140-41)
Intelligent design
This is a relatively recent addition to the debate and argues that an
intelligence is necessary to explain the complex, information-rich
structures ofbiology, and that this intelligence is empirically
detectable. The evidence includes irreducible complexities.
PHILOSOPHYOF
Irreducible complexity: whenall
parts of a system must be in place
in orderfor the system to work.The removal of any one of the
parts causes the systemto stop
functioning.
Key people
Michael Behe(b 1952)
is a professor of biochemistry who
termedthe concept ‘irreducible
complexity’
YKey question
Is ‘intelligent design’ scientific?
Key word
Anthropic argument: natureplanning in advancefor the needs
of humans
Key quote
‘As we look outinto the Universe
and identify the manyaccidents of
physics and astronomythat have
workedto our benefit, it almost
seemsas if the Universe mustin
some sense have known that wewere coming.”
DYSON
RELIGION
Irreducible complexity meansthat all the parts of a system must
be in place at once for the system to work. The different parts
could not havearisen separately or by gradual change. The claimis
that there are examples of such complexities in our biochemical
systems. The originator ofthis approach is Michael Behe.
Intelligent design supporters claim that their approach is a more
adequatescientific explanation ofthe biological evidence than the
theory of evolution. It does not say anything about the nature of
the source ofdesign, though it could be seen as pointing towardstheism.
Philosophical ways to express the argument
This argument could be formallystated in a variety of ways.
CStephen Evans in Thinking about Faith (1985) suggests one
that centres on the analogyaspect:
Objects in nature are analogous to man-made machines.
Man-made machines are theresult ofintelligent design.
Analogous effects will have analogous causes.
Therefore objects in nature are theresult of something analogoustointelligent design.
The argument fromdesign really consists of two steps:
Showing that the world exhibits ‘apparent design’ (the