-8-
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
• The teleological argument draws its premises from the natural order and purpose observed in the universe. The argument is also called «the argument from design».
• The argument has been significantly defended in various forms by Ibn Rushd, W. Paley, R. Swinburne M. Behe, W. Dembski.
• Ibn Rushd: All the natural order operates to satisfy the conditions needed for the survival of humans and other living creatures or organisms, which leads us to the conclusion that it was purposefully designed/ created by an absolute will. It cannot be a matter of chance/ coincidence.
• Everything in the natural order is designed for a single purpose. Such an order, design and purpose can only be explained by the creative activity of God.
W. Paley and Watch Analogy
• The entire universe is not like a uniform stone, but rather like a watch that works together with its parts in a regular way. Hence it needs an explanation.
• It is natural to think that the structure and functioning of a watch should lead us to the idea that there is a maker or designer of it.
• By the same token, it is natural to think that the orderly operation in the universe, which is much more complex than a watch, should lead us to the thought that it has a designer, i.e., God.
• But cannot the order in the universe be explained otherwise?
THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE and THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
• Can the theory of evolution provide an alternative explanation?
• Based on the theory of evolution, some have argued that the
environment had not been designed for living things but that living beings developed to adapt themselves in the environmental
conditions in which they found themselves.
• However, it is not clear that the theory of evolution as such, can undermine the teleological argument. What seems to be
incompatible with the argument is the naturalistic or atheistic interpretation of the theory.
M. Behe and «Irreducible Complexity»
• Every living thing forms a molecularly sensitive and complex biological system that works in harmony with each other like parts / gears of a machine.
• M. J. Behe argues that this delicate (irreducible) complexity cannot be explained by the evolution theory inasmuch as it was unknown to Darwin (it was a black box in Darwin's time).
• Thus, according to Behe, the scientific evidence about living things clearly supports the idea of an intelligent design.
Guiding Principles of Teleological Argument
• If the results are similar, then the causes are similar.
• When we see a watch, if we say “someone must have designed it”, similarly we have to look for a designer when faced with the order in the universe.
• Is there sufficient similarity between the watch-design and the design in the universe?
• David Hume argued that we cannot deduce from cause-effect relationships within the scope of our experience to cause-effect situations beyond the scope of our experience. For Hume, the detection of causality in the universe is not clear, and we do not have experience for concluding that that the order in the universe is caused by God.
Evaluation of Hume's Objections
• Although it might be true that we do not have direct experience of the cause of the
regularities in the universe, this does not go against the rational investigation to discover the reason behind this order.
• Naturally, there should be a difference between the cause-effect relation man and his artifacts and the cause-effect relation between God and the universe. One should not expect an exact similarity.
• Such a difference however should not lead us to the idea that the order/design in the universe has no cause. Rather, it can lead us to think that the cause of such a design is different from human agency/ causation. Even so, one can still draw some similarities.
• Given that God, unlike human beings, is an immaterial being with perfect properties it is natural to expect His causal activity to be different in some important respects. This
however does not undermine that there cannot be a causal explanation for the order and purpose seen in the universe.
Teleological Argument and Divine Oneness
• Hume argues: Just as it is reasonable to think that more than one person collaboratively responsible for building a house, it would be reasonable to think that more than one designer can be responsible for the order in the universe.
• However, unlike finite agents, the need for a mutual assistance and cooperation of deities is inconsistent with the concept of God. A being in need of such a cooperation cannot be a proper God.
• Moreover, given the principle of simplicity (Ockham’s razor), if one God is sufficient for explaining the natural order, there is no reason for postulating more.
