The Teleological Argument
also known as “the argument from design”
 ‘teleological’ comes from the Greek word ‘telos’ –
meaning ‘design’ or ‘purpose’
 the cosmological argument is based on the fact of
the universe’s existence: (All things that exist must
have a cause. Therefore, the ‘first cause’ [the cause
of everything including itself] is God.)
By contrast, the teleological argument is based on
the character of the world and the universe.
According to the argument, our world is a place of
such extraordinary interlocking complexity that the
only rational explanation is the presence of an
intelligent designer. A basic form of the argument
can be set out as follows:
1.
the complexity of life on earth and the
harmonious organization of living organisms
exhibits evidence of intelligent design
2.
a design necessitates the presence of a designer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
∴
that designer is God

like most arguments, the teleological argument has
a number of variations:
1. William Paley’s argument from design
(referred to in your text p.227
as ‘the argument from organisms’)
William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Natural Theology, made
the argument that the complexity & efficiency of natural
objects (eg. the eye, the brain, etc.) are evidence that they
must have been purposefully designed. How else could they
have come to be as they are – perfectly adapted for the
purpose they serve?
(see the example in your text about human skin – p.227)
Paley uses a watch & its maker to draw an analogy. Just
by looking at a watch and all its intricate parts working
together in unison, we can tell that it was designed by a
watchmaker. So, just by examining the complexity of
the eye and how it suits its purpose so well (to see), it
must have been designed by some sort of ‘Divine
Watchmaker’ (God).
Supporters of this form of design argument point to
evidence of features of the natural world – microorganisms to entire galaxies – as confirmation of God’s
existence. Because such things are far more intricate &
complicated than a watch, the ‘Devine Watchmaker’
must correspondingly be more intelligent than the
human watchmaker. This ‘Divine Watchmaker’ is what
we refer to as God.
Criticisms of Paley’s design argument
A number of criticisms of the design argument
have been put forward, notably by the famous
British philosopher David Hume (1711-1776):
1. the analogy employed by Paley is weak – it assumes without
justification that there is a significant resemblance between
objects which occur naturally (eg. the eye) and those which
have been designed by humans (eg. a watch). Is there a
strong similarity between the two sufficient to make the
analogy strong?
Hume argued that we cannot infer from the fact that
examples of order in our universe have human causes (eg. the
watch) that the universe as a whole has a cause & has been
designed, because the universe is unique. Therefore, because
the universe is unique, we cannot rely on analogy to explain it.
2.
if the world/universe was designed, who designed the
designer?
This point takes us to a similar debate we saw with the
cosmological argument. We can either accept the
existence of God as the cause of the universe, and then
accept God’s existence as necessary (ie. always existing);
or, we could just stop at the universe and accept it’s
existence as necessary (always in existence) without
positing God to explain it.
3.
the argument of design tells us little about God except God
is a design-producing being (albeit an extremely powerful
one!). The argument doesn’t allow us to draw any
conclusions as to God’s nature or character beyond that.
The design argument doesn’t prove the existence of only
one God, as there may be multiple designers.
(see your text p.228)
4. the scientific theory of evolution (discovered by Charles
Darwin - 1809-82) now provides us with an explanation of
how complex life develops without the need for a ‘designer’.
Darwin showed how, by a process of survival of the fittest, over
millions of years, those animal & plant species best suited to
their environments live to pass on their characteristics to their
offspring, whilst less well suited species perish. This process
explains how such marvelous adaptations to environments as
are found in the plant & animal kingdom have occurred,
without needing to introduce the notion of God.
Keep in mind though that the theory of evolution doesn’t
disprove the existence of God. Many Christians & people of
other faiths see evolution as compatible with belief in the
existence of God as:
i) evolution is merely the mechanism used by God to create &
sustain life; &/or
ii) the actual mechanism of evolution must have a cause –
which is God
(see text pp.228-9)
2. The ‘fine-tuning’ argument
(referred to in your text as ‘the argument from the
interconnectedness of things’ p.225-6; 229-30. )






This is a contemporary version of the design argument.
Proponents of the argument point to an increasing body of
scientific research which indicates the statistical likelihood of
life developing anywhere in the universe is incredibly small.
Life on earth has only managed to develop because of the
favourable (& statistically incredibly unlikely) alignment of a
wide variety of factors. Such factors include:
the values of the laws of physics
the values of the laws of chemistry
the position & angle of the earth relative to the sun
the earth’s circular (& not elliptical) orbit around the sun
the earth’s meteorological patterns
the ability of stars to produce base elements that support life
If any of these things operated differently (even by a small
degree), life as we know it on earth would not have
developed.
Therefore, the immense statistical improbability of these
factors aligning suggests the presence of an intelligent
designer – God must have controlled the physical conditions
in our universe, and fine-tuned them to allow human life to
evolve.
Criticisms of the ‘fine-tuning’ argument
 reading: Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” (2006)
pp.134-143.
HOMEWORK:
Explain in detail Dawkin’s objection to the ‘fine-tuning
argument’. Prepare your response on a separate sheet of
paper with your name on it to be handed in.
 also, see your text pp.229-30 for assistance.