Explain the origins and development of the teleological argument

Aquinas observed the universe and saw that everything in the universe appeared to be working in some sort of order. In particular he noticed that ‘natural bodies’ – such as plants - behaved in a regular way. He then goes on to notice the fact that these natural bodies ‘lack intelligence’. By this he means that they are not conscious of their own movement, yet even so they appear to move or act in regular fashion, as our daffodil flowers every spring time. Aquinas suggests that these things cannot provide their own movement as they lack the intelligence to do so. This must mean that their movement or regularity must come from somewhere other than themselves. He suggests that this movement does not occur ‘fortuitously but designedly’. The analogy of the arrow and the archer is used by Aquinas to demonstrate the link between God and creation: God, the archer, must direct and control the arrow, the universe, before it can function. For Aquinas this intelligence that provides regularity of movement in the universe is God.

The argument can be divided into two main sections that are closely interlinked: ‘qua purpose’ and ‘qua reality.’ Starting with qua purpose, this branch argues that everything in the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose. A proponent of this argument was Paley. William Paley wrote his book, Natural Theology in 1802 and it is assumed that he tries to answer Hume's criticisms of the design argument. He uses the analogy of the watch - suppose you are crossing a heath and come across a watch. Paley argued that even if you had never seen a watch before, you would know that this instrument did not happen by chance, but must be the result of the work of an intelligent mind. Each tiny cog in a watch has a purpose and if one tiny element ceased to work the watch would become useless. Likewise, the teleological argument asserts that God has designed every element of the universe with a distinct purpose. The watch demands a watchmaker. Likewise the order in the universe demands a designer. Paley is often depicted as someone who is trying to prove God to the unbeliever, unlike Aquinas.

Moving on to qua reality, this form of the teleological argument suggests there is evidence for a creator in the regularity of the universe. It is similar to the argument from design. Although the Argument from Design has been largely discredited, it has been revived in a new form by an interpretation of the Anthropic Principle according to which it is only because of the extremely precise physical conditions that pertain in our universe that human life has evolved. Even the minutest variation in just one of the many basic physical constants which regulate the nature of the universe would prohibit such a development. An example of this is the Earth’s magnetic field. If it were weaker, our planet would be devastated by cosmic radiation. If it were stronger, we would be devastated by severe electromagnetic storms. The contemporary scientist-theologian, John Polkinghorne, among others, argues that the most plausible explanation for this is a divine, creative mind who has carefully set the parameters for the evolution of human life.

Finally, the argument has Biblical foundations: in Genesis it describes the whole world as a result of an orderly and carefully prepared creation taking place over 2 lots of 3 days. In the first 3 the world is distinguished into separate compartments: light/dark, sea/sky/land, and on the second 3 days the compartments are furnished: heavenly lights, birds, sea beasts, animals and humans; and God “saw that it was good.” This reflects a careful and well planned creation. This view was supported by H. More in his “Antidote Against Atheism” (1659): “Nature had made the hindermost parts of our body which we sit upon most fleshy, as providing for out ease, and making us a natural cushion.”