1
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
A POSTERIORI ARGUMENT
ESSENCE: WORLD COMPLEX, ORDERED, PURPOSEFUL,
EXHIBITS REGULARITY
COMPLEXITY AND ORDER  DESIGNER
 WORLD HAS DESIGNER
DESIGNER = GOD
(GOD = OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT,
OMNIBENEVOLENT)
PLAYERS:
PRO: AQUINAS, PALEY, BROWN, TENNANT &
SWINBURNE
V
CONTRA: HUME, HAWKING, KANT, DARWIN
2
TWO FACETS TO DESIGN ARGUMENT:
1 DESIGN QUA REGULARITY
2 DESIGN QUA PURPOSE
DESIGN QUA REGULARITY - ORDER IN U
PLANETARY MOTIONS, NATURAL LAWS
AQUINAS SUBSCRIBED TO THIS
DESIGN QUA PURPOSE
EVIDENCE: HOW U FITS TOGETHER FOR PURPOSE
U LIKE MAN-MADE MACHINE
3
MACHINE  PURPOSE
PALEY:
ARGUED IN NATURAL THEOLOGY (1802)
1 ARGUMENT FROM PURPOSE
WATCH & STONE
WATCH’S PUPOSIVENESS  WATCHMAKER
WORLD’S PURPOSIVENESS  GOD
2 ARGUMENT FROM REGULARITY
ASTRONOMY, GRAVITY, NEWTON’S LAWS OF
MOTION 
DESIGN IN U

GOD
4
COMPATIBLE LAWS – NARROW LIMIT
BROWN:
OZONE LAYER
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
(NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE WEAK
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE)
STRAND OF TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THEORY DEVELOPED BY F R TENNANT IN
PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY (1930)
COSMOS CONSTRUCTED FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE
SMALL CHANGE = NO LIFE
‘CHANCE’ EXPLANATION TOO COINCIDENTAL
BEST EXPLANATION = GOD
5
TENNANT:
THREE TYPES OF NATURAL EVIDENCE  GOD
1 U CAN BE ANALYSED RATIONALLY
2 INORGANIC WORLD VERY SUITED FOR LIFE
3 EVOLUTION PROGRESSED TO PRODUCE HUMAN
LIFE
ALSO DEVELOPED AESTHETIC ARGUMENT
APPRECIATION OF BEAUTY NOT NECESSARY FOR
SURVIVAL?
COMPARE THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE.
SWINBURNE:
ACCEPTED ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
6
LOOKED AT PROBABILITIES
MATTER ORDERLY 1960…..CHANCE?
1961, 1962…..STILL CHANCE?
HUME:
EFFECT  CAUSE INFERENCE LIMITS
WORLD FINITE & IMPERFECT
 GOD FINITE & IMPERFECT?
(BUT GOD ALSO POWERFUL & PURPOSIVE?)
HUME:
UNIVERSE UNIQUE
PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
WORLD  GOD?
7
HUME:
PROBLEM OF INFINITE REGRESSION
IF GOD CAUSED UNIVERSE
WHAT CAUSED GOD?
GOD   WHY NOT MATTER AND ENERGY ?
(OCCAM’S RAZOR  GOD DISPENSABLE)
HUME:
ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN DEPENDS ON ANALOGY
HUMANS HAVE BODIES
 GOD MUST HAVE A BODY
8
(COUNTER: GOD  EXACT BUT AMPLIFIED HUMAN)
WHERE IS GOD’S BODY?
PHYSICAL BODY  PART OF CREATED UNIVERSE?
PARADOX?
BODY IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE?
HUME:
ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN DEPENDS ON ANALOGY
ARTEFACTS OFTEN CREATED BY MORE THAN ONE
PERSON
 PLURALITY OF GODS?
HUME:
DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN UNIVERSE & ARTEFACTS
9
UNIVERSE HAS SELF-GENERATIVE POWERS
ARTEFACTS DO NOT
(COUNTER: BUT U BEHAVES IN PREDICTABLE,
REGULAR WAY – SCIENTIFIC LAWS  SIMILAR
ENOUGH?)
HUME:
UNIVERSE IS PERHAPS RESULT OF CHANCE,
NOT DESIGN
EPICUREAN HYPOTHESIS
FINITE NUMBER OF PARTICLES IN U
IN RANDOM MOTION
  EVERY COMBINATION
10
COMBINATION X = STABLE
(REMEMBER SWINBURNE?)
HUME:
NATURAL DISASTERS
 UNIVERSE DISORDERED
(CONTRA: BUT DISASTERS OBEY SCIENTIFIC LAWS)
REVISION: DISASTERS  U MORALLY DISORDERED
PROBLEM OF THEODICY
HAWKING:
WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
HUMANS HIGHLY ORDERED
 U HIGHLY ORDERED
11
OR ELSE U  HUMANS
HOWEVER, CONSIDER THIS ….
U1 = PART OF U WHERE WE HAVE EVOLVED
U2 = THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE (UNOBSERVABLE)
U1 = HIGHLY ORDERED
(OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED HUMANS)
U2 HOWEVER PERHAPS CHAOTIC
U1 IS PERHAPS A POCKET OF ORDER IN U2
ONE OF SEVERAL/MANY?
KANT:
HE ALSO HAD A VIEW THAT RESEMBLES THE
12
WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
BUT HE DID NOT CALL IT THAT!
KANT SAID: SPACE, TIME, CAUSALITY ARE
PRECONDITIONS
OF KNOWLEDGE
A PRIORI FACT THAT U WE OBSERVE IS ORDERED
OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TO OBSERVE
IT!
CAN HAVE NO CONCEPTION OF ALTERNATIVE
WORLD
PERHAPS ONLY PHENOMENAL WORLD ORDERED
NOUMENAL/DING-AN-SICH CHAOTIC?
DO OUR MINDS IMPOSE ORDER ON REALITY?
DOES ORDER DIE WITHOUR MINDS?
13
(BUT KANT BELIEVED OUR SOULS WERE IMMORTAL)
DARWIN:
CAN ACCOUNT FOR IMPRESSION OF DESIGN IN
TERMS OF RANDOM PROCESSES
BUT DID GOD USE EVOLUTION TO CREATE
HUMANS?
DOES HE GUIDE EVOLUTION? (ANTHROPIC
PRINCIPLE)
WHAT ABOUT SUBATOMIC PARTICLES – DID THEY
EVOLVE?
DID GOD CREATE SUBATOMIC PARTICLES AND LET
THEM INTERACT RANDOMLY TO CREATE US?
IF SO, DID GOD KNOW THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY
CREATE US?
(REMEMBER EPICURUS?)
14
CONCLUSION:
DOES HUME MAKE DESIGN ARGUMENT LESS
CONVINCING?
IS IT STILL REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IN ITS
VALIDITY?