 It is reasonable to infer the existence of God from the fact that the
world is as it is.
 More commonly known as the argument from design, the teleological
argument is called such as the word ‘teleos’ is Greek for ‘end’, ‘aim’ or
‘purpose’.
 It is a teleological argument because it suggests that natural things in
the world have been designed to have a purpose.
 It is also an a posteriori argument because it is based on the
experience of the world and universe.
 It is also inductive; meaning that the premises of the argument at best
make the conclusion probable even highly probable but does not entail
the conclusion.
 Complex machines are made up of
component parts all put together for a
purpose. These machines are put
together by an intelligent designer. For
example Konrad Zuse supposedly
made the first computer – a complex
machine created by an intelligent
designer.
 The world is like a complex machine,
coral reefs for example are complex and all parts work together;
therefore by analogy the world must have a designer.
 William Paley formulated the most well known version of the
argument; stating the universe is like a watch.
 If you stumble across a pocket watch you would assume there to
be a designer of the watch; it would not just be there by chance,
it would not have always been there. Upon inspecting the watch
you find that it is very intricate and complex and must have a
designer who made it. The universe is like this pocket watch;
intricate, complex and working as one, so therefore it is
reasonable to assume there is a designer.
 David Hume in Concerning Natural Religion stated that the
world was like a machine that was then subdivided into smaller
machines. (Important to note that he did go on to criticise the
argument.)
 Aquinas argued that we can perceive that the world is not in a
state of chaos; there are natural laws which govern it to make
sure this is the case.
 The natural laws produce regularity and order in the world.
 It is this order in the world which helps us make sense of it.
 Because the world is not an intelligent thing itself which
produced these natural laws; there must be an intelligent
designer. This designer is God.
“…everything in this world is made just so we can manage to live in the world,
and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it…”
– Bertrand Russell
 Here Russell supports the teleological argument as he is
suggesting that the world is very intricate and precise and if it
was ever so slightly different we could not or would not have
survived in it.
The structure of the cosmos has lead to intelligent creatures to develop and
survive.
The Goldie Locks Factor – not too hot, not too cold, just right!
All the features of the universe has to be how they are in order for us to
develop and thrive in the universe the way we have.
A slight difference either way; e.g. temp, pressure. Components of the
atmosphere, Life could not have developed.
This surely cannot be by chance – therefore there must be an intelligent
designer; God.
The argument from analogy (comparing the universe to human artefacts)
is not a good one; and uses an example of a house to illustrate:
We have a great deal of experience of houses, so when
we see one we can reasonably say it has a designer. We
have experience of houses being built but no experience
of universes being built or made.
There would be no problem if the universe was like a
house, so we could say we know the process of houses
being built and because the universe is like a house we
can infer a designer of the universe. But the universe has no resemblance to a
house!
Hume believed that the universe is a unique object; therefore because it is
unique we cannot arrive at any conclusions about it; including its creation.
Hume also argues that it may have a number of causes for the design of
the universe, not just an intelligent designer.
Hume argues the universe could bear more resemblance to animal bodies or
vegetation than human artefacts like watches – so could the cause of the
world be something similar or analogous to generation of vegetation.
Hume also suggests the universe could have been spun out from the bowels
of an infinite spider!
Hume believed we have as much evidence to infer the cause of the universe’s
design to be the above examples as we do an intelligent God.
Hume’s other criticism is dependant on the principle that we cannot
ascribe any qualities to a cause of anything which is not proportionate of
the effect.
Example: there is a beautiful garden. The flowers are colour co-ordinated and
in perfect rows. We are told it has been designed by one man. We can say he
is a skilled gardener but could not say he is kind or loving.
Just as Hume would suggest we cannot say if God does exist that he is
omnipotent, omniscient and all loving; as this is not mirrored in the world.
A modern supporter of the design argument, Richard Swinburne favoured
one design argument over another:
Aquinas’ version is the stronger version as it talks about temporal order, by
this he means the laws of nature. He postulated that nature was governed by
natural laws and seems to conform to some type of formula. A scientific
answer cannot account for this regularity. Therefore there is an intelligent
designer; God.
The argument from analogy is the weaker argument as it is concerned with
spatial order, complex structures such as plants. The development of plants
and the order of such complexities can be explained by science therefore
there is no need to introduce God into the situation.
Swinburne carefully replied to all of Hume’s criticisms:
Swinburne firstly argued that it is mistaken to make the claim that we cannot
arrive at conclusions about the universe because it is a unique object.
He argued that things are simply not unique or not unique; things are unique
or under some description. Everything can be unique and under description:
Example: My computer is not unique (there are thousands like it) but it is
unique in the sense it is the only one on my table!
Swinburne argues that Hume’s likening of the universe to vegetation does not
explain that there are natural laws in effect which operate temporally – across
time. A vegetable only grows for example because the laws of biochemistry
hold.
 Evolutionary theory can, arguably, account for the fact that we
can live in the world, without postulating the agency of a creator
facilitating this.
 The argument appears to ignore design failure in the universe.
This being evident in, for example, tsunamis and volcanic
eruptions. There are also instances of purposeless design, for
example the male nipple!