Evaluate the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

Evaluate the teleological argument for the existence of God

The arguments for the existence of God are usually understood as arguments for classical theism. H.P. Owen , in his book Concepts of Deity, defines theism as "...belief in one God, the Creator, who is infinite, self-existent, incorporeal, eternal, immutable, impassable, simple, perfect, omniscient and omnipotent." (pg 1)

H.P.Owen uses Aquinas' Summa Theologica as his chief source for classical theism. It is here, as the last of Aquinas' Five Ways, that we are presented with the argument for the existence of God from design, otherwise known as the teleological argument or the "Armchair argument". Aquinas says that we can come to a proof of the existence of God simply by reflecting on the nature of the universe. Lucilius, in Cicero's De Natura Deorum presents us with one of the earliest mentions of the teleological argument suggesting that the existence of "some divinity or superior intelligence" (Davies pg50) seems obvious in the light of any contemplation about the world. Aquinas said we could observe that unintelligent things appear to fulfil a function. The world is not made up of separate entities that are entirely individual, rather these entities interact with each other often in complex networks that seem to fulfil functions, such as an ecosystem. For instance, trees, whilst appearing unintelligible, serve to provide oxygen, fuel and building materials for us, provide food and shelter for many animals and also serve recreational and aesthetic purposes. They have all the appearance of being proposed by an intelligence, to build towards a purpose. "Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly." (Hick The Existence of God pg 85) Something that is unable to think or act for itself, yet still moves towards an end, must be propelled by something that does have knowledge and intelligence. The intelligent being that moves things towards their end, Aquinas said, we call God.

In his 1802 publication, Natural Theology, Archdeacon William Paley uses the watchmaker analogy to illustrate Aquinas' position. He talks about coming across a stone whilst crossing a heath, and asking about the stones origin. Paley says that we may well assume that the stone has always been there as there is nothing about the stone which would make us think anything else. If we were to come across a watch, though, we could not give the same response to the question of its origin. On examination, the watch would unequivocally show that, not only had it been designed, but that it had been designed for purpose, in this case to show the passing of time. If all the components of the watch were put together in any other way, either the watch would not work, or it would show the wrong time, neither of which would be of any use. Paley says that all the elements of design present in the watch are present in nature and its works, the only real difference being the vast dissimilarity in size between the watch and the world. Whilst we can imagine that the watch could be the result of human endeavour, in no way can we say the same about the universe. The manner in which aspects of nature are so suited to their task, and the way in which these tasks are fulfilled, show all the magnificence and grandeur of the most perfect invention. Only God could have created the universe in the fashion it can be observed. If the teleologist says that the world, has been designed like the watch, he may then go on to say that the world, like the watch has a purpose. I would argue that there is nothing in the world that could make me believe that it has a purpose, however much it shows elements of design. Indeed, if it does have a purpose then it is nothing that the human can discern, but only the creator, for whom the creation has been made.

Derham is another theologian who would agree with Aquinas' teleological argument for the existence of God. In his book Physico-Theology, first published in 1713, Derham presents us with an argument which Paley seems to have mirrored. In the same manner as the watch, "For what less than infinite, could stock so vast a globe with such a noble set of animals.... What, but the great God could so admirably provide for the whole animal world, everything serviceable to it, or that can be wished for, either to conserve its species, or to minister to the well being of individuals. He, could provide such commodious clothing for every animal; such proper houses, nests and habitations; such suitable armature and weapons...". (Hick Arguments for the Existence of God pg 6 ) Derham's eloquent words seem wholly convincing. The nature of the human body, as with all the other bodies in this world, gives all the impression of being designed. The eyes are more sophisticated than any man-made lens, The skeleton provides support and movement, and the skin and flesh, cushioning and protection. The human body holds an endless number of opportunities, functions and interrelated parts from its largest to its smallest of components, the most sophisticated of man made robots seems still to be limited.

One person who gives us a critique of the teleological argument is the Scottish philosopher David Hume. (Epicurean Hypothesis) (1711-1776) It is in his Dialogues between Philo and Cleanthes where Hume presents his argument. Hick splits this criticism into five main parts. Hume rejects the watchmaker argument of William Paley by saying that the analogy he makes between the watch, a human "artefact" and the world is a tenuous one. The reason we make such things as clocks and houses is because we need them and because they re not found in nature, we are not provided with them. Hume says that we may quite reasonably make an analogy between the world and a vast organism or as a vast "floating vegetable"(Hick Arguments for the existence of God pg 9) Something like an animal or a plant, stemming from generation or vegitation seems to resemble the world far better than any man made object. Hume's second objection is that, in suggesting that the world has been designed, and therefore that there is order in the creator, we may wrongly be assuming that, the " agitation of the brain", we call thought is the measure of the universe. We question the order in the physical world, but not that of the creator's mind. We may be alluding ourself if we limit any creator to human confines. Hume's third point is that there is no reason to have to turn to a creator to explain the origin of the world because the line of argument (one that has been confirmed in more recent times) that the material world is capable of "self-regulating development"(Hick Arguments for the existence of God pg10), that the world,