A 'teleological argument', or 'argument from design', is an argument for the
existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word ''telos'', meaning ''end'' or ''purpose''.
Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.
The argument
Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:
# ''X'' is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
# God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
# Therefore, God exists.
''X'' usually stands for the universe, the
evolution process,
humankind, a given animal
species, or a particular organ like the
eye or capability like
language in humans. ''X'' may also stand for the fundamental constants of the
universe like
physical constants and
physical law. Sometimes this argument is also based on the
anthropic principle that these constants seem
tuned specifically to allow intelligent life to evolve.
While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to
monotheism, some versions of the argument may substitute for
God a lesser
demiurge, multiple
gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps
extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument might still imply an
ultimate cause. One can also leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "Designer" completely open, yielding the following simple formulation:
#Complexity implies a designer.
#The universe is highly complex.
#Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by
G.K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."
History of the argument
Plato (c. 427–c. 347 B.C.) posited a "
demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work ''
Timaeus''. For Plato, the ''demiurge'' lacked the supernatural ability to create "ex nihilo" or out of nothing. The demiurge was able only to organize the "ananke" (αναγκη). The ananke was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony. Plato's teleological perspective is also built upon the analysis of ''
a priori'' order and structure in the world that he had already presented in
''The Republic''.
Aristotle (c. 384–322 B.C.) also developed the idea of a creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "
Prime Mover" in his work ''
Metaphysics''. Aristotle's views have very strong aspects of a teleological argument, specifically that of a prime mover who, so to speak, looks ahead in setting the cosmos into motion. Indeed, Aristotle argued that all nature reflects inherent purposiveness and direction.
Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 B.C.) also made one of the earliest known teleological arguments. In ''de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods)'' Cicero stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason that pervades the whole of nature". He was writing from the cultural background of the
Roman religion. In
Roman mythology the creator goddess,
Gaia was borrowed from
Greek mythology. The Romans called her
Tellus or Terra.
:"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, ''De Natura Deorum'', ii. 34)
Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354–430) presented a classic teleological perspective in his work, ''City of God''. He describes the "city of man" and essentially posits that God's plan is to replace the city of man with the city of God (at some as-yet-unknown point in the future). Whether this is to happen gradually or suddenly is not made clear in Augustine's work. He did not, however, make a formal argument for the existence of God; rather, God's existence is already presumed and Augustine is giving a proposed view of God's teleology. Augustine's perspective follows from and is built upon the ''
neo-Platonic'' views of his era, which in turn have their original roots in Plato's cosmogony.
The Muslim philosopher
Averroes developed teleologic arguments based on the thought of Plato and Aristotle and helped make their works available to other medieval scholars.
Aquinas and the scholastics
The most notable
scholastics (c. A.D. 1100–1500) who put forth teleological arguments were
Averroes (
Ibn-Rushd) and
Thomas Aquinas. Averroes was writing in Spain from an Islamic perspective in the latter half of the 12th Century, and his influence was very considerable in interpreting many of Aristotle's ideas for the first time in Latin, thereby directly helping to make Aristotle available to Aquinas. Averroes was a transitional philosopher, partly ''
a priori''
neo-Platonic, and partly ''
a posteriori''
Aristotelian. As a result of his overlapping of the two modes in interpreting Aristotle, and also as a result of what would be known today as a strong disagreement between a
deistic and
theistic viewpoint in religious circles of that era, Averroes' work was highly controversial and fairly quickly became officially banned in both the Christian and Islamic world. Despite the lingering Platonic influence, Averroes' teleological arguments can be characterized as primarily Aristotelian and presuming one God. He argues based mainly upon Aristotle's ''
Physics'', in essence that the combination of order and continual motion in the universe cannot be accidental, and requires a Prime Mover, a Supreme Principle, which is in itself pure Intelligence.
The fifth of
Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God's existence was based on teleology.
This would set the stage for
Aquinas in the 13th Century, whose arguments were much more thoroughly Aristotelian, ''a posteriori'' and
empirically based than his predecessors. Aquinas makes a specific, compact and famous version of the teleological argument, the fifth of his five proofs for the existence of God in his ''
Summa Theologica'':
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." [1]
The British empiricists
The empiricist philosopher
John Locke, writing in the late 17th century, proposed a new and very influential view wherein the ''only'' knowledge humans can have is ''a posteriori'' (i.e., based upon sense experience) and that there can be no ''
a priori'' knowledge whatsoever. In the early 18th century, the Anglican Irish Bishop
George Berkeley determined that Locke's view immediately opened a door that would lead to eventual
atheism. In response to Locke, he put forth a form of "radical empiricism" (not to be confused with
William James' use of the words "radical empiricism", mentioned below) in which things ''only'' exist as a ''result'' of their being perceived (and God fills in for humans by doing the perceiving whenever humans are not around to do it). As part of this approach Berkeley included in his text ''Alciphron'', a variant of the teleological argument that held that the order we see in nature is the language or handwriting of God.
David Hume, in the mid-18th Century, presented arguments both for and against the teleological argument in his ''
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.'' The character Philo, summarizing the teleological argument, uses the example of a watch. Philo is not satisfied with the teleological argument, however. He attempts a number of interesting refutations, including one that arguably foreshadows Darwin's theory. In the end, however, Philo agrees that the teleological argument is valid.
Daniel Dennett maintains that, although Hume was ultimately dissatisfied with the teleological argument, his cultural context prevented him from taking any of the alternatives seriously.
The watchmaker analogy
William Paley's "watchmaker analogy" is one of the most famous teleological arguments.
The
watchmaker analogy framing the argument with reference to a timepiece dates back to
Cicero, whose illustration was quoted above. It was also used by, among others,
Robert Hooke and
Voltaire, the latter of whom remarked: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool." Today the analogy is usually associated with the theologian
William Paley, who presented the argument in his book ''Natural Theology'' published in
1802. As a theology student,
Charles Darwin found Paley's arguments compelling; he later developed his theory of evolution in his
1859 book
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which puts forward an alternative explanation for complexity in nature.
Many others have countered the watch argument, such as by showing that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps (see the
Weasel program).
Richard Dawkins' book ''
The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986) is one of the best-known examples of this approach outside philosophy and theology.
More recently, proponents of
intelligent design have reframed the argument as the concept of
irreducible complexity, the premise that certain biological structures can function only if all their substructures are present. This argument asserts that each substructure confers no benefit on its own, and therefore cannot have been selected by an evolutionary mechanism. The argument then posits that the probability of all the substructures being created in a single mutation is too low to be considered possible. Critics describe this as an
argument from ignorance that assumes that substructures have not changed in function, and give illustrations of how
gradual replacement by a series of advantageous variations can lead to the
evolution of structures claimed as being irreducibly complex.
The anthropic principle and fine-tuned universe arguments
A modern variation of the teleological argument is built upon the
anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is derived from the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. In this line of reasoning, speculation about the vast, perhaps infinite, range of possible conditions in which life ''could not'' exist is compared to the speculated ''improbability'' of achieving conditions in which life ''does'' exist, and then interpreted as indicating a
fine-tuned universe specifically designed so human life is possible. This view is well articulated by
John D. Barrow and
Frank J. Tipler in ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' (1986).
Some of the estimated proportions involved in cosmic "fine-tuning" are remarkable.
John Polkinghorne, for instance, pointed out in 1985 that just one factor among many in the cosmos, the difference between expansive and contractive forces in the expanding cosmos according to then-currently accepted theory, depends upon an extremely fine balance of the total energy involved to within one in 10
60 , a sixty-one digit number equivalent to taking aim from Earth and hitting an inch-wide target at the farthest reaches of the observable universe.
George Wald, also in 1985, wrote in the same context that the conditions for something as fundamental as the atom depend on a balance of forces to within one in 10
18. Proponents of the fine-tuned universe form of teleological argument typically argue that taken together, the various fine-tuned balances appear quite improbable, and hint strongly at something designed rather than accidental. And, of course, "designed" implies a "designer" of some kind.
Many highly regarded scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and a few theologians have weighed in on both sides in an interesting debate. A counter-argument to the anthropic principle is that one could manipulate statistics to define any number of natural situations that are extremely improbable, but that have happened nevertheless. By the critics' view a key problem in terms of being able to verify whether the hypothesized probabilities are correct, is that the improbable conditions were identified after the event, so they cannot be checked by experiment. And very importantly, there is no ability to sample a large enough set of alternatives (indeed we know of no other cosmos to sample) in order to be able to properly attach any odds or probabilities to these natural situations in the cosmos. Moreover, observations of the cosmos to date indicate that the conditions on Earth are but one of widely varying conditions on many, many planets in many, many solar systems, all of which to date do not appear to have met the conditions necessary for life. An analogy from common experience where the odds ''can'' be readily calculated is given by
John Allen Paulos in ''Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences'' (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of
bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt. This perspective on the issue of improbability appears to bolster the position that characteristics of Earth that allow it to sustain life could be just a fortunate and/or accidental "hit", so to speak.
The intelligent design movement
In the wake of the "fine-tuned universe" observations and arguments published in the 1980s, the
intelligent design movement picked up some of the above concepts, added some additional ones such as ''
irreducible complexity'' (a variant of the watchmaker analogy) and ''
specified complexity'' (closely resembling a fine-tuning argument) and attempted to cast the resulting combined form of the teleological argument as scientific rather than speculative. The vast majority of scientists have disagreed with the assertion that it is scientific, as have the findings of a federal court in the United States in a
2005 decision, which ruled that the "intelligent design" arguments are essentially religious in nature.
Formal objections and counterarguments
Complexity does not imply design
The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. It is argued that this is
non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of
systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example
diamonds or
snowflakes.
The design claim is often attacked as an
argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained or unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture, such as
irreducible complexity. Supporters of intelligent design assume that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as
stars and
light bulbs. Proponents must therefore demonstrate that ''only'' intelligent design can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.
A designed organism would, on the face of it, be in contradiction to
evolutionary theory. As most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of
natural selection, they reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place, forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over
very long periods of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form
DNA. This has in fact been demonstrated artificially via the
Avida program, which can construct complex programs without being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Thus biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.
Advocates of design have responded to this objection by pointing out that information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and is therefore not analogous structurally to a snowflake or crystal as the written pages of a book would not be. They also claim that no natural process has ever created a code, and that explanations put forward of the origins of DNA or gradual change are often couched in vague terms such as, for example simply "arising" or "forming" without offering any explanation as to how the thing arose or formed, and that this is unscientific. This argument, however, takes liberties with the definition of "code" and as such, is often considered to be an example of the logical error of
equivocation. It may also be the error of reification; i.e., of treating a linguistic metaphor or analogy such as "code" as a real object or state. And it is a fallacy of
petitio principii (begging the question), since it assumes the very thing that it concludes: that DNA is not a consequence of a natural process (if it is, then of course it is false that "no natural process has ever created a code"). And it is
argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), as it concludes from the lack of a natural explanation for the origin of DNA that there is none, misplacing the burden of proof, which rests with the party who makes the argument (for supernatural origin, in this case).
Does not prove the existence of God
Voltaire said that, at best, the teleological argument could only indicate the existence of a powerful, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing, intelligence.
Another argument states that even if the argument from design proved the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove that the designer is God.
Voltaire observed:
[F]rom this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense [i.e. that he is God].[2]
It has also been pointed out that the argument relies on a cultural context of monotheism when it claims to prove the existence of a single, supreme creator Being. In the context of a polytheistic culture, however, the argument could just as easily be used to argue for the existence of gods (in the plural) — a group of intelligent supernatural designers. In
David Hume's
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo argued, amidst other counterarguments to the teleological argument, that there "could have been a committee of deities."
Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress
Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, the implied designer (''Y'') might be an unknown force or mere
demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which ''Y'' came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or
infinite regression.
Critics such as
Richard Dawkins often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the
absurdity of an
infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to
Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. This argument, however, is incomplete as it does not indicate why the designer can be undesigned but the universe cannot.
One version of the argument postulates that the designer does not have any properties that would define Him and is singularly simple (yet willful). Creation then happens ex nihilo — not as a cause and effect from the designer (meaning, a change in the creation does not necessitate a change in the Creator, but the Creator certainly is the source of the changes happening in the creation and of the whole creation's existence every second). This doesn't explain, however, why such a designer is better than simply "nothing" out of which everything was born ex nihilo.
The proponents of the argument note that such a designer is not "better" than nothing as far as the above explanation goes. The above version of the argument simply states that the counter-argument of infinite designs is fallacious in the case when the designer itself does not have complex properties or design which would need to be imparted on Him by a previous cause. The choice between creatio ex nihilo from literally nothing and from singular yet willful Creator is outside of this argument. If one believes that the Creator must exist (e.g., from teleological, cosmological, ontological or traditional arguments), however, he is not to be stumped by the "infinite designer series" counter-argument in case the said Creator is simple and undifferentiated.
The proponents of the design further argue that it is better because although the designer has no properties which would define or limit Him, He has a singular Will that is able to bring creation about -- this makes the creation a willful and therefore a non-random process infused with purpose. This is expressed by a statement of "He and His Will [or Wisdom] are One". In other words, the designer does not have characteristics that would be separate from Him and create a divisiveness within Him. As a result, the designer has no need to have an earlier source that would design Him (and impart upon Him some properties including the property of existence); yet, He is capable of designing and producing the Universe, in which His intelligent design would be visible (or capable of being inferred) because in His Essence, ability to create does not exist as a definite force but merely as a possibility which is then instantiated. If such a creation happens constantly (in other words, the world does not exist by itself but constantly depends on the Will of the Creator to exist), each moment of existence becomes divinely important. (This version of the argument is expressed in many philosophical works of Judaism and is especially accentuated in
Kabbalah and stemming from it
Chassidism, in particular,
Chabad Chassidism.)
Inconsistencies in the 'Design' of the Universe
Whilst the Universe may at first seem be purposeful and ordered, upon closer inspection its true function becomes questionable. Scientists such as
Richard Dawkins attack the claim that the Universe serves any actual function, claiming that the Universe merely 'mimics' purpose. For example, predators seem perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey, whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them. Likewise, noticeable inconsistencies in the design of organisms have been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument, such as the wasteful method of urea disposal utilized by humans, as well as the structure of the human spine, which cause problems for many humans to this day. Scholars use such arguments to point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as opposed to God.
Incoherence
George H. Smith, in his book ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design
Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics ''not'' found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design ''within'' the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)
Other issues
Recently, the teleological argument has become the subject of controversy because of its close relationship to the
Intelligent Design movement, which uses a variant of the teleological argument while claiming
scientific credibility. The controversy is closely related to the perennial debate between proponents of
theistic and "
deistic" conceptions of God.
For example, it is argued that
supernatural events cannot be
falsified. There is no empirical (and therefore scientific) way to test for
creation per se. To illustrate this,
Robert Todd Carroll said "the universe would look the same to us whether it was designed or not." (Going further, scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger have argued at book length that the universe looks as we should expect it to if there is no God.) This type of argument can be taken as a counterargument to the Intelligent Design version of the teleological argument. Further in this context, natural
scientists would say with virtual unanimity that to invoke supernatural explanations does not add to our understanding of the world. Since "supernatural" events are by definition above nature (super-natural), they cannot be considered a scientific alternative to any theory of natural science. (see also:
God of the Gaps,
Faith and rationality.)
A common question arises that intends on making our theories on the origin of life a matter of subjectivity: "Which is more believable?" or "Which one requires more
faith?" Both sides would probably admit that whatever is more believable is not necessarily true. However, if faith is taken to mean a belief that transcends evidence against that belief, belief in evolution is not a matter of faith due to the considerable evidence in its favour. "Which is more believable?" might be considered an irrelevant question as belief is subjective — what is believable for one is unbelievable to another. The question might be rephrased: "if one objectively studies the arguments in favour of intelligent design, and one does the same for the scientific theory of evolution, which one of these theories is more useful and logical an explanation, and better supported by evidence, and therefore 'most believable'?" (see also:
Pascal's wager)
Although intelligent design is often contrasted with evolution, from some religious perspectives there is no inherent contradiction between the two. Certain religious perspectives find nothing illogical about believing in a creator-deity who purposed evolution to propagate the emergence of life on earth. This position is becoming increasingly accepted today — indeed, to illustrate, Pope John Paul II put forward a position of exactly this kind. ''See also:
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.'' Some of the official positions in other religious faiths have agreed with this basic view.
See also
★
Argument from beauty
External links
★
Teleological Arguments for God's Existence from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
★
''Dictionary of the history of Ideas'': Design argument
★
A "Preface" to Aquinas' Teleological Argument
★
William Paley:
''Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity'' , London: 12th edition, 1809. Online in full.
★
Design arguments for the existence of God from the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy.
★
William Lane Craig:
''The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle
★
The Skeptic's Dictionary on argument from design
References and further reading
★
Daniel Dennett (1995). ''
Darwin's Dangerous Idea''.
★
Richard Dawkins (1986) ''
The Blind Watchmaker'' (takes a view against the teleological argument).
★ Derek Gjersen (1989). ''Science and Philosophy: Past and Present''. London: Penguin.
★ Eric Sotnak, "
Analysis of the Teleological Argument"
★ Will Crouch, "
Hume and Philo on the Teleological Argument"
★
JP Moreland (1987). ''Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity'', Chapter 2
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
