The Teleological Argument Notes
Aquinas 5 ways: first three are the cosmological argument and the fifth is the teleological
argument.
Aquinas Teleological argument focuses on purpose (design qua purpose) as well as
regularity (design qua regularity). This means that Aquinas teaches that it is an observable
fact that things do not behave randomly but act for a telos or purpose. So for instance a
plant seed does not behave randomly buy demonstrates its purpose by growing into a plant
producing flowers or fruit as appropriate to its nature.
William Paley – the term natural theology came to be used to describe some of the methods
theologians used to argue for the existence of God. They used reason and our experience of
how nature works to look for evidence of design and purpose in the world that would point
to the existence of God.
Paley used the Analogy of the watch. Watches were made from a complex arrangement of
cogs, springs, leveers etc. We can intuit or infer from the watch, something we cannot do
with a rock, the existence of apparent order or purpose. Paley then argues that the parts of
the watch are placed in a particular way for a specific purpose – to produce “motion” that
enable sus to tell the time. Paley implies that anything that shows evidence of order and
purpose can only be the result of an intelligent agency, meaning their must be a designer.
He equates this designer to God. Paley is here arguing from analogy saying that the order
and purpose found in the watch are like theb order and purpose found in the world. Paley
pointed out the complexity of nature and how this complexity is greater than any human
being or mechanism could bring about. Paley concludes that there is a great deal of fine
tuning in the world that helps preserve life, including amount of water etc.
Humes criticisms:
1. Hume argued that even if the teleological argument worked philosophically, we
could only prove that a design producing entity existed. It woulkd not prove the
existence of the God of classical theism.
2. Hume argued that the difference in scale between a human mechanism and the
universe make sit highly implausible that the resemblance is true.
3. We already know that a watch has a designer because we are familiar with the
processes involved in watchmaking. We have no experience of the processes of
world-making, however because the universe is unique and therefore the supposed
analogy breaks down.
4. Paley responds to this by saying that it does not matter if we are ignorant of
watchmakers and watchmaking. Our ignorance would only increase our awe at the
designers skill- it does not make us question the existence of a designer. Likewise
just because we don’t have experience of a world-maker , this does not mean we can
question whether one exists.
5. Another of Humes criticisms Is that if a divine mind created the universe, the mind
itself must show purpose and order. In this case we ould need to ask what was the
Aquinas 5 ways: first three are the cosmological argument and the fifth is the teleological
argument.
Aquinas Teleological argument focuses on purpose (design qua purpose) as well as
regularity (design qua regularity). This means that Aquinas teaches that it is an observable
fact that things do not behave randomly but act for a telos or purpose. So for instance a
plant seed does not behave randomly buy demonstrates its purpose by growing into a plant
producing flowers or fruit as appropriate to its nature.
William Paley – the term natural theology came to be used to describe some of the methods
theologians used to argue for the existence of God. They used reason and our experience of
how nature works to look for evidence of design and purpose in the world that would point
to the existence of God.
Paley used the Analogy of the watch. Watches were made from a complex arrangement of
cogs, springs, leveers etc. We can intuit or infer from the watch, something we cannot do
with a rock, the existence of apparent order or purpose. Paley then argues that the parts of
the watch are placed in a particular way for a specific purpose – to produce “motion” that
enable sus to tell the time. Paley implies that anything that shows evidence of order and
purpose can only be the result of an intelligent agency, meaning their must be a designer.
He equates this designer to God. Paley is here arguing from analogy saying that the order
and purpose found in the watch are like theb order and purpose found in the world. Paley
pointed out the complexity of nature and how this complexity is greater than any human
being or mechanism could bring about. Paley concludes that there is a great deal of fine
tuning in the world that helps preserve life, including amount of water etc.
Humes criticisms:
1. Hume argued that even if the teleological argument worked philosophically, we
could only prove that a design producing entity existed. It woulkd not prove the
existence of the God of classical theism.
2. Hume argued that the difference in scale between a human mechanism and the
universe make sit highly implausible that the resemblance is true.
3. We already know that a watch has a designer because we are familiar with the
processes involved in watchmaking. We have no experience of the processes of
world-making, however because the universe is unique and therefore the supposed
analogy breaks down.
4. Paley responds to this by saying that it does not matter if we are ignorant of
watchmakers and watchmaking. Our ignorance would only increase our awe at the
designers skill- it does not make us question the existence of a designer. Likewise
just because we don’t have experience of a world-maker , this does not mean we can
question whether one exists.
5. Another of Humes criticisms Is that if a divine mind created the universe, the mind
itself must show purpose and order. In this case we ould need to ask what was the
