It is impossible to write about the teleological argument without mentioning the theory of evolution. This theory had an enormous impact on the normal conventions of the teleological argument. The argument needed reorganizing, and in 1930 Tennant set about achieving this. Tennant developed two principles the anthropic and the aesthetic. The anthropic principle suggests that the cosmos was created for the development of intelligent life. The anthropic principle does not deny the process of evolution indeed this process is how intelligent develops. The argument also suggests that the universe appears to be chaotic but progresses to create an environment suitable for life, and because the universe is so complex and yet it fulfils a purpose it is impossible not to infer a creator. The aesthetic argument is the argument that humans appreciate beauty and yet it is superfluous for survival. Tennant then links this to the fact that because beauty is superfluous it cannot be the product of evolution but a divine creator. In short Tennant seems to suggest that God created humanity, through an evolutionary process to marvel at the world and the universe.
Richard Swinburne approaches the teleological argument through the notion of probabilities. In his book “the existence of God” he outlines his fundamental argument, that it is more probable to believe in God than not. The argument is quite profound in its simplicity. The evidence for this argument is divided into two segments: the teleological and the arguments from providence. Swinburne’s teleological argument is again probability, the fact that the universe is so complex and yet it is governed by “simple” scientific laws which provides the environment for life. These laws, Swinburne says, could not have come about by chance and it is more probable that it is designed, and if it is a design then the simplest explanation is God. The argument for providence is the argument that the laws provide the conditions suitable for life. Swinburne argues that the universe has its fundamental level which God created initially and from which the laws enable the universe to evolve and grow. One example is the earth, the earth is a world in which humans are free to improve or harm, and that the universe was designed for that purpose.
In general the teleological argument is rather Swinburne’s argument: it has a skeletal frame, the design qua regularity and the design qua purpose, on which the arguments grow and develop to its present state. The argument evolves and develops along with scientific theory and history. But perhaps the greatest key feature of the design argument is its greatest flaw; the argument seems to rely on an assumption. That human life is the height and the purpose of the universe. Yet humanity may not be the only intelligent life form in the universe, and if, or when, humans stumble across extra terrestrial life it will be a humbling experience; that fact that humanity may be a diamond among many. Indeed humanity on earth may not be the purpose, there may yet be another mass extinction and from the ashes would arise a greater form of life. In addition to this what place has evil in the design argument, what purpose does it serve? For without evil good cannot exist. Can this really be the design of a benevolent God? What precisely is evil? But the argument it is up to the individual to decide on his/her spiritual journey, for it is impossible to come to a forgone conclusion. When Charles Darwin was asked whether God existed he replied “I don’t know.”
- Identify the strengths of this argument. To what extent are these strengths more convincing that its weakness?(10)
B) The teleological argument is dependent on the perception of the philosopher. For example, scientific laws do not argue for or against the argument and yet they are used for both. The theory of evolution is one scientific theory that has caused a lot of damage to the teleological argument and yet it has been used by Tennant to support the theory. So what are the strengths of the argument that has allowed it hold firm for over 2000 years? The teleological argument is fairly convincing for it is compliant with the way humans understand the universe, for example humans understand the universe and the world to have an order. But also the approach from probabilities presents the argument in a coherent manner and allows universal understanding. In accordance with scientific theory, indeed probability, it is certainly feasible that the order in the universe has been planned. Furthermore, the teleological argument is an attractive one, especially from Tennent’s perspective, which places humanity in a secure position.
The universe has an order, as science shows. This theory is universal from the Platoian view of the universe, Cartesian to the theory of relatively. Plato argues that everything in the universe goes towards a goal, the apple falling from a tree falls to seek perfection. Thomas Aquinas supported this view in his five ways: “Nothing lacking awareness can tend to a goal except it be directed by someone with awareness and understanding; the arrow, for example, requires an archer. Everything in nature, therefore, is directed to its goal by someone with understanding and this we call “God”. During the late renaissance Descartes came up with an updated idea of the cause and view of the universe’s order. Descartes argued that the universe was like a machine, and has a mechanical reason for exactly everything that occurs, and it is God who supplied the movement at the beginning of time and the universe runs from that. Descartes neglects to mention a purpose to the universe as Aquinas did, but it must known that Descartes was approaching the argument from design qua regularity. It was Descartes’ view of the universe that philosophers and scientists used until Einstein’s theory of relatively. Yet with changing scientific theory the argument for regularity remains, because the argument evolves along with science. It has been argued that science is man’s attempt to understand the universe; the universe does not contain an inch of science it is imposed by humans. Indeed Kant argues that it is the human mind which imposes an order to the universe, despite the fact that the universe is chaotic. Indeed the teleological assumes that the universe has a singular level of regularity and order, and that order existed from the creation of the universe. Therefore, Hume argues that the universe is more like a vegetable, something which grows according to its own accord.
Richard Swinburne introduced the concept of probabilities to the teleological argument. This concept of probabilities is the argument that considering the sheer complexity of the universe it is unlikely that the universe came to its present state of order by chance, it is much more probable that there it is the result of a design. If it is design then God is the simplest explanation. This is indeed a strong argument because probabilities cannot be argued with because it is the individual’s preference to decide what is probable. However, some may argue that probability is merely a guess which uses ignorance to come to a conclusion rather than knowledge, but again that is perception. Swinburne also suggested that the universe is a machine making machine, indeed he claims that the world was created for humans to improve or harm, and the universe was designed for that purpose. This is a modern perception that fits in with scientific theory. However, this argument assumes that human beings are the highest form of life and the purpose of the universe. Human beings may only be part of a chain that gradually evolves towards perfection. “We ourselves may just be just as easily an expendable stage on the way to some other divine purpose…as far was the natural facts of evolution are concerned, it is pure prejudice to portray our intelligence as like God’s, rather than God’s as like to something else-we know not what- which will be the final end or outcome of the divine purpose expressed in evolution.” Despite this assumption the idea of a “machine making machine” universe is a strong and convincing one.
To identify whether the teleological is a strong argument it is necessary to identify the weaknesses. Perhaps one of the greatest critics of the argument was David Hume; in his book “Dialogues” written in 1779 he criticised the argument through five main points via his main character Philo. One point is that humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the creation of the world to conclude there is a designer. He argues that humans can only relate to objects they have designed and created and thus they impose a similar process on the universe. The universe is so vast and complex that it is impossible for humans to conceptualise how it works and how it was created. This point presents another argument: that it is not a good analogy to liken a human object to the universe, it could be more like an animal or an inert vegetable that grows organically at its own accord. Furthermore, Hume seems to point out a relatively obvious point, that other philosophers seem to have conveniently forgotten, the existence of evil. If the universe is the result of a benevolent God why does evil exist? Indeed he makes a mockery of the concept of benevolent God via the very existence of evil, stating that the universe could have been the product of a child like deity or lesser God merely playing.
John Stuart Mill builds upon the idea of the imperfections of the world and the existence of evil. In his book “Three essays of Religion” he argues that “the apparent imperfections in the Universe and the amount of natural evils that occur, the most plausible hypothesis were either to deny the designer’s goodness or to deny the designer’s omnipotence.” So if John Stuart Mill is correct then it is impossible not to arrive at the conclusion of a limited God. However, in Western philosophy God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If God was limited would it perhaps be wise to worship such a God? There is an old Christian saying: “God works in mysterious ways.” That Richard Swinburne picks up upon: he argues that if evil must exist if good is to exist and humans are to develop into perfection.
Epicurous was a Greek philosopher argued against the teleological argument. He argued that the universe consisted of particles in random motion, and albeit the initial state was chaotic the natural forces evolved into an ordered system. Furthermore, because the universe is eternal and unlimited it was inevitable that a constant order would develop. He argues that this was not the result of a divine creator but of chance, the chance of particles in random motion coming together to form a stable, ordered universe. This was indeed an original thought, thinking outside the box. If the universe is eternal by the law of probability order will eventually develop without the need for a designer.
The process of development and evolving objects is very much at the centre of the idea of evolution through natural selection. This idea caused such a stir within the philosophical and scientific community that the teleological argument was left hanging by a thread as another ancient, outdated idea. Charles Darwin, who conceptualised the idea was not a philosopher and may not have set out to destroy the teleological argument; portrayed the idea that species could be formed and evolve without the necessity of a God. Indeed natural selection stated that nature is a struggle for survival, where the strong survive and the weak die out. The theory of evolution through natural selection conflicted with Christian dogma on several points: firstly Genesis had stated that the two original humans were perfect but had fallen from grace into sin; however, natural selection pictured man evolving into perfection, the complete antithesis of the Old Testament. Secondly, Genesis states that God created man in his own image; whereas Darwin claimed that man evolved to his present state. But it can argued that this idea man be limited as it does not take into account that evolution is the mechanism that God created man, as Tennant argues. However, if Genesis states that man is God’s image then it must argue that God exists in the form of a human. Yet Christian philosophers argue that God cannot be conceived by human minds. In general the conflict between the teleological argument and Natural selection is that the theory of evolution via natural selection, as Vardy states, “is a mechanism that could explain what had previously been considered to be the handiwork of God” and therefore undermines the teleological argument. Could Vardy be arguing that to appreciate God one has to have a certain degree of ignorance? Perhaps not, for Tennant argues, in the anthropic principle, that natural selection is the process that God began for creation of life. For some this highlights God’s greatness. However, what remains a mystery with the theory of evolution via natural selection, that even Darwin was perplexed by, is the question that if nature was the survival of the fittest then why do humans have morality and appreciate beauty? Tennant ask this question in the aesthetic argument. Perhaps humans were created to appreciate God’s work; if that is the case then God must have an ego problem.
The teleological argument is very controversial, and has been since its creation. The teleological has been reformed over the centuries, competing yet often compatible with modern scientific thinking, such as Tennant’s anthropic principle. Philosophers have supported the argument because it explains the very obvious point that the universe has an order, as the theory of relativity dictates. Indeed, considering the vastness of the universe, even if there is only one, it is certainly questionable that order came about by chance and it is indeed more probable that order is the product of God. But this probability approach seems to argue from ignorance than knowledge, so is the argument from probability really convincing? Furthermore, the teleological assumes that the universe has an order, perhaps it does not. For order is an idea of humans, there may be no such thing in the universe. In conclusion the teleological argument has both its strengths and weaknesses, and as humans sitting on an insignificant tiny planet in the cosmos how is it possible that we can fully understand the universe and argue for or against that may or not be somewhere in the universe, or indeed outside it. The teleological argument does not precisely state what God is, merely what we are supposed to think God does. In the end all philosophical theological arguments are an attempt to understand God, and one can prove or understand anything with argument alone. Until further evidence turns up all we have to go on is personal faith.
Bibliography
God- Alexander Waugh
Isaac Newton and his apple- Kjartan Poskitt
Isaac Newton, the last sorcerer- Michael White
Puzzle of God- Peter Vardy
Footprints of God- Arthur Brown
Dialogue of Education- The design argument- Peter Vardy
Whitefield Briefing- Is the watchmaker really blind? - John Lennox
The design argument for the existence of God- Jordon, Lockyer and Tate
The teleological argument or design argument- John Hick
Alexander Waugh in his book “God”
It must be remembered that he was a monk during the period of the scholastics
In his book “Foot prints of God”
Written within Darwin’s Origin of Species
The quantum theory had an enormous affect on old thinking and re-established lost ideas.
“Dead Famous series” Isaac Newton and his apple by Kjartan Poskitt.
Peter Vardy-Puzzle of God
Gaskin-the quest for eternity