Teleological argument :
Aquinas an the analogy of the arrow - the telelogical argument is part of aquinas 5 ways and
the 5th way is the argument from design so and this is the observation of order and
regularity in nature so it observes how things in nature change and have a purpose -
aquinas uses the analogy of the arrow to show this idea in the same way that natural objects
lack purpose or intelligence of their own and must be guided by an external force - the arrow
is not a rational being the archer is the arrow only moves because of the rational agent - in
the case of nature the rational agent would be God - aquinas gets inspiration from aristotles
prime mover and this is good because it stops infinite regress even if natural things cause
other natural things to change there must be an unmoved mover who caused all this change
in the first place which aquinas would say is God - this is a strong argument because it
shows the necessity of an intelligent designer - moreover the purposeful order in nature
shows how there must be a guiding intelligence - aswell as this natural objects move with
purpose towardsan end goal showing how its not random chance - criticism - critics argue
that not everything necessarily has an end purpose for example natural disasters or disease
dont seem to have a purpose like an earthquake isnt for something it just happens naturally
Aquinas and observation and order of nature - aquinas begins his 5th way by pointing out
the regularity and purpose exhibited by the universe - he says thatthings in the natural world
seem to have a purpose for example the movement of plants or plants growing - the
movement of planets is so precise that its harf to say there is no God it would be hard to
explain through chance - thus the regularity and predictability of the natural world shows how
its improbably that its just from natural forces - aquinas alos draws on aristotles 4 causes
here he argues that everything in the universe seems to be working towards a final cause for
example flowers grow towards the sun to be able to photosynthesise this shows how there
must be a guiding force guiding all things towards there final purpose or their telos - a
modern interpretation also backs this up philosopher richard swinburne argues that the
regularity and fine tuning of the universe makes the existence of God highly probably and
this is a strong argument from both philosophers because it is observing the world and
coming to this conclusion rather than using pure reason- criticism - however some critics
may argue that if we only see regularity in the uivserse this means it could be because of
natural causes like evolution or the big bang theory rather than an intelligent designer
Paley and based on observation - paleys teleological argument is strong because he bases
it off of empirical evidence and observation for example he uses the watchmaker analogy to
showcase this - he says that if someone stumbled across a watchin a dessert because of
how complex and intricate the watch is with all the parts working together for a specific
purpose which is telling the time they would think that someone made it the watchmaker -
paley argues that the world shows even more complexity such as the eye the retina optic
nerve and lens all work together for the purpose of being able to see in the same way lots of
other things are showing how there must be an intelligent designer - because of this paley
concludes that there must be an intelligent designer because the world is way more complex
then a watch thus the maker must be extremel intelligent which paley identifies as God a
strength of this argument is that it appeals to common sense reaonsing because when a
person sees something intricately made they obviously believe that uts made by someone -
however just people something appears designed doesnt necessarily mean that it is it relies
heavily on analogy rather than proof of God and intricate thingsmay be just because of
evokoution Furthermore, the argument also does not explain the origin of the designer. If
Paley claims that complex order requires a designer, critics might question why God would
not also require a designer, since God would presumably be even more complex than the
universe. This can lead to an infinite regress of designers, which weakens the argument’s
attempt to provide a clear explanation for why the universe is ordered.
, Paleys argument order and regularity of the universe - another strength is that it highlights
natural order and regularity for example the world is governed by stable laws and patterns
which help humans live on the earth - for example the planets are done in a ordered way
rather than random chaos the planets orbit the sun in a way that helps humans to live on
earth - in the way way ecosystems show coordination with different parts of nature highlights
how its not all just random chaos but everything is done in a very orderly manner - paley
argues that this precision of order and regularity requires an intelligent cause to be able to
cause all of these contingent things to work together in this way because theyre non rational
things they cannot do it on their own and paley arges that this intelligence must come from
God just as organised systems in human experience obviously comes from planning and
intelligence - this is a strong argument because nature can be observed and has muc
scientific backing - criticism - a key weakness is that observing order in the universe doesnt
tell us how this happens it just tells us that it happens the fact that planets move in an
ordered way just shows that it appeals to natural lws of the universe not that it was designed
by God to act in that way
Humes criticism of the teleological argument - the problem based on observation - so the
teleological argument is a posteriori argument which means that it takes the evidence by
observing the universe and the order and regulairity in it - hume argues that this observation
is limited because although we observe the world were only observing it after it has been
created rather than when it was being created by God - so we have empirical evidence of it
after its been created but no concrete proof that God is even the one who created the
universe - this creates lots of different problemsbecause first of all that means lets say even
if it was a being who created the universe that doesnt nessecerily mean that it was the theist
understanding of God who did it couldve been many Gods or a whole differentype of being
all together - and also it blows away the watchmaker and other analogies because those
things we have experience of like a watch being made we know that has a creator because
weve watched people make a watch weharas no one knows how the universe was created -
this leads to the fallacy of composition which is when someone assumes that what is true for
one part of the universe is rue for everything like the teleogical argument sees design in
some things and then just assumed that design is universal like a watch and the whole
universe cannot even be compared - some things dont even have a design purpose like
earthquakes and stuff like that so that weakens the teleological argument - criticism -
observation is still very important and usually the basis of alot of philosophical arguments - it
doesnt claim to be the ultimate explanation it acts as a starting point to which other
knowledge can be build upon that- humans recognise patterns of complexity thus taking one
part of theworld we can create an inference
Humes criticism - the problem using analogies - teleological arguments particularly that of
aquinas and paleys watchmaker analogy rely too heavily on analogies and not enough on
actual evidence - for example the argument assumes that just because God and the analogy
are similar in some ways they are the same in caus e- for example a watchmaker and God
are similar in the way that they create things but thats about it its a very abstract conclusion
utting two things together that dont make alot of sense thats like saying an apple and a
tomato are the same because theyre both red - hume claims that good ontological reasoning
would provide evidence through close observation and experimentation which cannot be
done with God thus the whole theory seems speculative - eg we have observations of
watches and houses being made but none of the universe being created - this also leads to
anthromorphism where God is described as thinking and planning like a human does for
example in aquinas arrow analogy the arrow shooter is a person and that makes God seem
like a human , hume says ths projects human qualities onto God - analogy cannot prove
Gods existence and if it worked that it wouldnt prove a tradional theistic God it would merely
prove that there is some type of intelligent design in the universe - it cannot justify believing
in an omnipotent omnibenevolent God it can be many different Gods or a different type of
Aquinas an the analogy of the arrow - the telelogical argument is part of aquinas 5 ways and
the 5th way is the argument from design so and this is the observation of order and
regularity in nature so it observes how things in nature change and have a purpose -
aquinas uses the analogy of the arrow to show this idea in the same way that natural objects
lack purpose or intelligence of their own and must be guided by an external force - the arrow
is not a rational being the archer is the arrow only moves because of the rational agent - in
the case of nature the rational agent would be God - aquinas gets inspiration from aristotles
prime mover and this is good because it stops infinite regress even if natural things cause
other natural things to change there must be an unmoved mover who caused all this change
in the first place which aquinas would say is God - this is a strong argument because it
shows the necessity of an intelligent designer - moreover the purposeful order in nature
shows how there must be a guiding intelligence - aswell as this natural objects move with
purpose towardsan end goal showing how its not random chance - criticism - critics argue
that not everything necessarily has an end purpose for example natural disasters or disease
dont seem to have a purpose like an earthquake isnt for something it just happens naturally
Aquinas and observation and order of nature - aquinas begins his 5th way by pointing out
the regularity and purpose exhibited by the universe - he says thatthings in the natural world
seem to have a purpose for example the movement of plants or plants growing - the
movement of planets is so precise that its harf to say there is no God it would be hard to
explain through chance - thus the regularity and predictability of the natural world shows how
its improbably that its just from natural forces - aquinas alos draws on aristotles 4 causes
here he argues that everything in the universe seems to be working towards a final cause for
example flowers grow towards the sun to be able to photosynthesise this shows how there
must be a guiding force guiding all things towards there final purpose or their telos - a
modern interpretation also backs this up philosopher richard swinburne argues that the
regularity and fine tuning of the universe makes the existence of God highly probably and
this is a strong argument from both philosophers because it is observing the world and
coming to this conclusion rather than using pure reason- criticism - however some critics
may argue that if we only see regularity in the uivserse this means it could be because of
natural causes like evolution or the big bang theory rather than an intelligent designer
Paley and based on observation - paleys teleological argument is strong because he bases
it off of empirical evidence and observation for example he uses the watchmaker analogy to
showcase this - he says that if someone stumbled across a watchin a dessert because of
how complex and intricate the watch is with all the parts working together for a specific
purpose which is telling the time they would think that someone made it the watchmaker -
paley argues that the world shows even more complexity such as the eye the retina optic
nerve and lens all work together for the purpose of being able to see in the same way lots of
other things are showing how there must be an intelligent designer - because of this paley
concludes that there must be an intelligent designer because the world is way more complex
then a watch thus the maker must be extremel intelligent which paley identifies as God a
strength of this argument is that it appeals to common sense reaonsing because when a
person sees something intricately made they obviously believe that uts made by someone -
however just people something appears designed doesnt necessarily mean that it is it relies
heavily on analogy rather than proof of God and intricate thingsmay be just because of
evokoution Furthermore, the argument also does not explain the origin of the designer. If
Paley claims that complex order requires a designer, critics might question why God would
not also require a designer, since God would presumably be even more complex than the
universe. This can lead to an infinite regress of designers, which weakens the argument’s
attempt to provide a clear explanation for why the universe is ordered.
, Paleys argument order and regularity of the universe - another strength is that it highlights
natural order and regularity for example the world is governed by stable laws and patterns
which help humans live on the earth - for example the planets are done in a ordered way
rather than random chaos the planets orbit the sun in a way that helps humans to live on
earth - in the way way ecosystems show coordination with different parts of nature highlights
how its not all just random chaos but everything is done in a very orderly manner - paley
argues that this precision of order and regularity requires an intelligent cause to be able to
cause all of these contingent things to work together in this way because theyre non rational
things they cannot do it on their own and paley arges that this intelligence must come from
God just as organised systems in human experience obviously comes from planning and
intelligence - this is a strong argument because nature can be observed and has muc
scientific backing - criticism - a key weakness is that observing order in the universe doesnt
tell us how this happens it just tells us that it happens the fact that planets move in an
ordered way just shows that it appeals to natural lws of the universe not that it was designed
by God to act in that way
Humes criticism of the teleological argument - the problem based on observation - so the
teleological argument is a posteriori argument which means that it takes the evidence by
observing the universe and the order and regulairity in it - hume argues that this observation
is limited because although we observe the world were only observing it after it has been
created rather than when it was being created by God - so we have empirical evidence of it
after its been created but no concrete proof that God is even the one who created the
universe - this creates lots of different problemsbecause first of all that means lets say even
if it was a being who created the universe that doesnt nessecerily mean that it was the theist
understanding of God who did it couldve been many Gods or a whole differentype of being
all together - and also it blows away the watchmaker and other analogies because those
things we have experience of like a watch being made we know that has a creator because
weve watched people make a watch weharas no one knows how the universe was created -
this leads to the fallacy of composition which is when someone assumes that what is true for
one part of the universe is rue for everything like the teleogical argument sees design in
some things and then just assumed that design is universal like a watch and the whole
universe cannot even be compared - some things dont even have a design purpose like
earthquakes and stuff like that so that weakens the teleological argument - criticism -
observation is still very important and usually the basis of alot of philosophical arguments - it
doesnt claim to be the ultimate explanation it acts as a starting point to which other
knowledge can be build upon that- humans recognise patterns of complexity thus taking one
part of theworld we can create an inference
Humes criticism - the problem using analogies - teleological arguments particularly that of
aquinas and paleys watchmaker analogy rely too heavily on analogies and not enough on
actual evidence - for example the argument assumes that just because God and the analogy
are similar in some ways they are the same in caus e- for example a watchmaker and God
are similar in the way that they create things but thats about it its a very abstract conclusion
utting two things together that dont make alot of sense thats like saying an apple and a
tomato are the same because theyre both red - hume claims that good ontological reasoning
would provide evidence through close observation and experimentation which cannot be
done with God thus the whole theory seems speculative - eg we have observations of
watches and houses being made but none of the universe being created - this also leads to
anthromorphism where God is described as thinking and planning like a human does for
example in aquinas arrow analogy the arrow shooter is a person and that makes God seem
like a human , hume says ths projects human qualities onto God - analogy cannot prove
Gods existence and if it worked that it wouldnt prove a tradional theistic God it would merely
prove that there is some type of intelligent design in the universe - it cannot justify believing
in an omnipotent omnibenevolent God it can be many different Gods or a different type of
