Teleological argument

From Free net encyclopedia

Image:Universe.jpg A teleological argument (or a design argument) 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.

1 The argument
2 History of the argument
3 Formal objections
- 3.1 First and second premise
- 3.2 Third premise
4 Other issues
5 See also
6 External links
7 References and further reading

[edit]

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.

Alternatively, for 2, 3, and 4, more than one (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being must have created X; therefore more than one creator, (ie. gods and goddesses) exist. see: Polytheism.

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.

Some versions of the argument may substitute for God a lesser demiurge, multiple Gods or Gods and Goddesses, or perhaps extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument might still imply an ultimate cause. However, most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to monotheism. And, some forms of teleological argument choose to leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "Designer" completely open. A very concise and whimsical teleological argument, for instance, 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."

[edit]

History of the argument

Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) 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 "anake." The anake 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 which he had already presented in The Republic.

Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) 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 BCE) 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 which 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 (354–430 CE) 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.

[edit]

Aquinas and the scholastics

The most notable scholastics (circa 1100-1500 CE) 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 Aristotlean. 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 Aristotlean 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.

This would set the stage for Aquinas in the 13th Century, who was much more thoroughly Aristotlean, a posteriori and emprically 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 Theologiae:

"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]

[edit]

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 Catholic 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" 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 which 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.

[edit]

The watchmaker analogy

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 which 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, then later developed his theory of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection which puts forward an alternative explanation for complexity in nature.

Many have countered the watch argument too, such as by showing that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps. Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker(1986) is one of the best known works following this idea.

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 which 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.

[edit]

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 10⁶⁰ , 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 10¹⁸. 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 less than one in 10¹¹ (a twelve digit number). 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.

In the wake of the "fine-tuned universe" observations and arguments published in the 1980's, 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. Template:Seealso

[edit]

Formal objections

[edit]

First and second premise

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 which 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. Thus biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a god.

Template:Seealso

Advocates of design have responded to this objection by pointing out that information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and argue that no natural process has ever created a code.

[edit]

Third premise

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 defence 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 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.

Template:Seealso

[edit]

Other issues

Recently, the teleological argument has become the subject of controversy because of its close relationship to Intelligent Design, 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 pointed out 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." 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 which 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)

Some have argued that, although from some religious perspectives intelligent design is often contrasted with evolution, there is no inherent contradiction between the two. Certain religious perspectives may 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 forth a position of exactly this kind.

Template:Seealso Template:Seealso

[edit]