What Can Be Concluded From The Teleological Argument Essay Example
What Can Be Concluded From The Teleological Argument Essay Example

What Can Be Concluded From The Teleological Argument Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 8 (1967 words)
  • Published: September 6, 2017
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The Design Argument, also referred to as the teleological argument, posits that the world is not a haphazard product of randomness but rather an expertly crafted creation by a supreme creator. Paley identifies this mastermind as God who falls under classical theism's categories of being "all-loving," "all-powerful," and "all-knowing."

Throughout the discourse, one can observe the importance of the Greek terms 'telos' and 'logos', which respectively denote aim, goal, purpose, and reason. For over two centuries, numerous philosophers have utilized this argument to demonstrate that God created the world with a specific objective and intention. William Paley, a devoted Anglican hailing from Peterborough, was the first to present an intricate explanation of the Teleological Argument in his publication Natural Theology (1802), although David Hume had previously put forth a similar proposition. Durin

...

g that period, Paley's works on Christianity and philosophy held substantial sway. To illustrate his argument to readers, Paley employed an analogy of himself situated on a heath.

Upon observing a stone and a watch, one can conclude that the simplicity of the former requires little explanation, while the complexity of the latter's parts and function demands a watchmaker. Despite not having met the creator, it is believed that the watch was designed and crafted in order to fulfill its purpose, as demonstrated by its apparent design and organization. This argument is significant, as it highlights the principles of design and order present throughout the universe.

Paley applies the idea of order and design in the natural world, illustrated through examples such as the human eye and the wings of a bird. He argues that chance alone cannot account for such apparent order and design. This concep

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

could be extended to encompass the entire world at large.

The conclusions drawn are twofold. Firstly, the existence of a maker for the watch implies the existence of a maker for the far more complex world, and this maker is God. Secondly, the creator of the world must possess intelligence and power beyond that of the watchmaker. William Paley anticipated objections to his argument and addressed them by providing a defense mechanism. Some may argue against Paley's conclusion based on the belief in an all-loving God and the imperfections present in the world. However, Paley explains that just as machines can malfunction, not all aspects of the world are perfect.

Despite the imperfections of the world, it cannot be inferred that the absence of a designer exists. It may, however, suggest that a higher being is not all-powerful or even no longer present after creating the world. Our limited knowledge about the world does not negate the presence of design. Similar to an incompletely understood watch, we can still infer that it was crafted by someone. Nevertheless, this argument is debatable as scientists continue to propose theories regarding natural creation – including evolution and the big bang. Some may counter this claim by insisting that God designed evolution to shape the world.

According to Paley, the presence of tangible evidence is not necessary for God's existence. He compares this to the idea that just because one has never seen a watchmaker, it does not mean they do not exist. Similarly, air cannot be seen but its existence is accepted. Despite the vastness of the world, there is ample evidence of its effectiveness. Hume's argument in Demea, Cleanthes,

and Philo predated The Natural Theology by a few decades but had similarities with Paley's view. Both agreed that the world operates like a machine and has a designer larger than any human creator.

That is to say, if God exists, he possesses far superior intelligence than humans, as the level of precision and flawlessness present in the world surpasses human capability.

Both arguments begin with the concept of human invention and lead to the existence of a God. However, Hume's argument faces significant issues which are evaluated by Philo. The primary criticism is that using an analogy to compare the creation of the world to a human-made object is inappropriate due to the vast difference in scale. While people have experience with constructed items, nobody has yet created an entire universe. This argument holds weight as many would contend that a watch and the universe cannot be compared.

On the one hand, it can be argued that God gave the watchmaker the necessary skills to create the watch, strengthening the case for a supreme designer. On the other hand, Hume's second criticism undermines his first as he suggests that the world is more akin to a growing vegetable than a mechanical object. Hume, writing as Philo, posits that the world develops naturally and thus lacks a designer unless it resembles a human creation. However, there is great variation in size and complexity of human creations, and advancements in science and technology allow us to understand and replicate natural phenomena such as cloning, artificial pregnancy methods, and organ growth outside of the body. These developments suggest that one day we could potentially create our own world.

The idea that

God is highly intelligent can be supported by the complexity of the world. Yet, the existence of evil counters the belief in an entirely benevolent God, and the variety in the universe challenges the concept of a single God, which goes against Classical Theism's principles. Another argument proposes that only a cause powerful enough to produce its effect could create something. Thus, it seems unlikely for a necessary being to create a contingent world like ours.

God can be seen in multiple forms, as explained by an analogy of a ship created by multiple builders. It is possible that many Gods cooperated to create the world. Hume suggests that if the God of Classical Theism did not create the world, it could have been made by an apprentice God, offering an explanation for the world's imperfections. The teleological argument does not prove the current existence of a single creator God, as some Christians believe that this entity is destructible. This adds another layer of explanation for the imperfections in the world.

Despite using different analogies, Hume's criticisms of Paley's argument cannot be disregarded. Hume provides a wider variety of critiques in comparison. In my viewpoint, Paley's argument holds a stronger case because it pertains to a specifically designated object, and is relevant to modern society. Conversely, Hume's argument is more general, relating to man-made machines and therefore it can be associated with a wider population. Additionally, it is worth noting that machines fail due to human error in design, manufacture or operation. Yet an omniscient God would be considered beyond error. However, this proposition could be countered by presuming that the God who created humans did

so with the intention of leaving them to care for the world.

The idea that God entrusted humankind with the responsibility of shaping and safeguarding the world implies that humans possess free will to make decisions and bring about progressive developments. Nonetheless, this notion does not negate the teleological argument, which questions the origin of the world's design and the creation of humans as its stewards. If there were no fundamental coherence in the universe, it would not exist. The Epicurean Hypothesis proposes that random, infinite particles in motion will eventually fall into an order that secures their stability and potential. This outcome arises by chance rather than any divine intervention. Conversely, some people contend that God predestined these particles and their eventual formation. Richard Swinburne (1934 to present) refuted Hume's critiques with three points.

In his argument, Swinburne contended that drawing conclusions about the origins of the universe is not possible due to its possible lack of uniqueness. Scientific theories regarding the universe are constantly emerging and being proven. Additionally, he rejected the comparison of the world to a vegetable as insufficient, as natural laws, such as gravity, have consistently operated throughout time and demonstrate greater complexity than a developing vegetable. In his disagreement with the concept that an effect only has a cause sufficient to create it, Swinburne maintained that causes may possess characteristics beyond those directly responsible for creating an effect.

Although Hume's third criticism rests on inaccurate evidence, Swinburne offers compelling objections based on clear scientific evidence of consistent natural laws that have existed since the creation of the world and can be either substantiated or debunked. John Stewart Mill and Albert Camus also

shared similar beliefs in debunking the teleological argument, with Mill's views remaining relevant almost a century later during Camus' work.

The teleological argument suggests the existence of a God and creator, but it does not exclusively endorse the Christian conception of God due to the presence of evil like volcanic eruptions in the world. Mill has discussed this matter in three essays, noting that "Nature kills at random and inflicts tortures at apparent wantonness..."

The idea of a God who is not benevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient arises from the belief that the creator of this world can do as they please and therefore cause misery. John Keats supports this conclusion in his poem with the line "the Vale of Soul Making, although the evil is still evil." Hume and Mill also come to this conclusion after examining the world and determining that a limited and imperfect God may not be problematic but is unworthy of worship. Maurice Wiles agrees, providing examples of a God who ignores widespread suffering while selectively intervening in individual lives. Darwin's theory of evolution challenges the teleological argument by contradicting Genesis' Christian account of creation and raising doubts about the Bible's credibility. Genesis states that God created man in their own image, while natural selection suggests that man's higher faculties developed through an extended process guided by "survival of fittest."

Genesis and Darwin present contrasting views on the origin of humanity. According to Genesis, humans started off as perfect but fell into sin and evil. Whereas, Darwin's theory suggests that humans evolved over millions of years. This idea challenges the previous belief that wonders could only exist through a divine force. Despite this,

Darwin admitted to experiencing conflicting emotions about his theory, recognizing how it contradicted the fact that humans often care for weaker members of society.

According to James Sadowsky, the explanation for both moral origins and individual personalities cannot solely be accounted for by evolution. He proposes that God intentionally designed the universe to evolve independently through the use of evolution as a creation tool. However, this theory falls short in explaining genetic abnormalities. If God created evolution in its current form, why would he allow for such horrific diseases to be inherited? Unless Hume's belief that God is not entirely loving holds true.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle refers to the ideas of Sadowsky and F R Tennant. It suggests that God and evolution are compatible, as the universe must have had a designer for evolution to take place in a specific way. This argument supports the notion that God created beings capable of evolving into humans with free will or created the world and ceased to exist. The imperfections in the world can be accounted for by human's free will. While this argument may inspire awe, it is unlikely to convince atheists of God's existence. Criticisms may not deter those already fascinated by the world.

While the argument for the existence of a single god or deity with Classical Theistic qualities is popular, it lacks conclusive evidence and logical force due to its a posteriori nature. However, I personally find the Anthropic Cosmological Principle convincing as it suggests that God played a part in creating the universe while also acknowledging natural evolutionary processes. Scientific evidence strongly supports this view, despite evolution remaining grounded in theory.

Experiment on pea

plants.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New