1. The Teleological Argument also known as “ the argument from design ”

2. ‘ teleological ’ comes from the Greek word ‘ telos ’ – meaning ‘design’ or ‘purpose’ the cosmological argument is based on the fact of the universe’s existence: (All things that exist must have a cause. Therefore, the ‘first cause’ [the cause of everything including itself] is God.) By contrast, the teleological argument is based on the character of the world and the universe. According to the argument, our world is a place of such extraordinary interlocking complexity that the only rational explanation is the presence of an intelligent designer. A basic form of the argument can be set out as follows:

3. 1. the complexity of life on earth and the harmonious organization of living organisms exhibits evidence of intelligent design 2. a design necessitates the presence of a designer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ∴ that designer is God

4. like most arguments, the teleological argument has a number of variations: 1. William Paley’s argument from design (referred to in your text p.227 as ‘the argument from organisms’) William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Natural Theology, made the argument that the complexity & efficiency of natural objects (eg. the eye, the brain, etc.) are evidence that they must have been purposefully designed. How else could they have come to be as they are – perfectly adapted for the purpose they serve? (see the example in your text about human skin – p.227)

5. Paley uses a watch & its maker to draw an analogy. Just by looking at a watch and all its intricate parts working together in unison, we can tell that it was designed by a watchmaker. So, just by examining the complexity of the eye and how it suits its purpose so well (to see), it must have been designed by some sort of ‘Divine Watchmaker’ (God). Supporters of this form of design argument point to evidence of features of the natural world – micro- organisms to entire galaxies – as confirmation of God’s existence. Because such things are far more intricate & complicated than a watch, the ‘Devine Watchmaker’ must correspondingly be more intelligent than the human watchmaker. This ‘Divine Watchmaker’ is what we refer to as God.

6. Criticisms of Paley’s design argument A number of criticisms of the design argument have been put forward, notably by the famous British philosopher David Hume (1711-1776): 1. the analogy employed by Paley is weak – it assumes without justification that there is a significant resemblance between objects which occur naturally (eg. the eye) and those which have been designed by humans (eg. a watch). Is there a strong similarity between the two sufficient to make the analogy strong? Hume argued that we cannot infer from the fact that examples of order in our universe have human causes (eg. the watch) that the universe as a whole has a cause & has been designed, because the universe is unique. Therefore, because the universe is unique, we cannot rely on analogy to explain it.

7. 2. if the world/universe was designed, who designed the designer? This point takes us to a similar debate we saw with the cosmological argument. We can either accept the existence of God as the cause of the universe, and then accept God’s existence as necessary (ie. always existing); or, we could just stop at the universe and accept it’s existence as necessary (always in existence) without positing God to explain it. 3. the argument of design tells us little about God except God is a design-producing being (albeit an extremely powerful one!). The argument doesn’t allow us to draw any conclusions as to God’s nature or character beyond that. The design argument doesn’t prove the existence of only one God, as there may be multiple designers. (see your text p.228)

8. 4. the scientific theory of evolution (discovered by Charles Darwin - 1809-82) now provides us with an explanation of how complex life develops without the need for a ‘designer’. Darwin showed how, by a process of survival of the fittest, over millions of years, those animal & plant species best suited to their environments live to pass on their characteristics to their offspring, whilst less well suited species perish. This process explains how such marvelous adaptations to environments as are found in the plant & animal kingdom have occurred, without needing to introduce the notion of God.

9. Keep in mind though that the theory of evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God. Many Christians & people of other faiths see evolution as compatible with belief in the existence of God as: i) evolution is merely the mechanism used by God to create & sustain life; &/or ii) the actual mechanism of evolution must have a cause – which is God (see text pp.228-9)

10. 2. The ‘fine-tuning’ argument (referred to in your text as ‘the argument from the interconnectedness of things’ p.225-6; 229-30. ) This is a contemporary version of the design argument. Proponents of the argument point to an increasing body of scientific research which indicates the statistical likelihood of life developing anywhere in the universe is incredibly small. Life on earth has only managed to develop because of the favourable (& statistically incredibly unlikely) alignment of a wide variety of factors. Such factors include: the values of the laws of physics the values of the laws of chemistry the position & angle of the earth relative to the sun the earth’s circular (& not elliptical) orbit around the sun the earth’s meteorological patterns the ability of stars to produce base elements that support life

11. If any of these things operated differently (even by a small degree), life as we know it on earth would not have developed. Therefore, the immense statistical improbability of these factors aligning suggests the presence of an intelligent designer – God must have controlled the physical conditions in our universe, and fine-tuned them to allow human life to evolve.

12. Criticisms of the ‘fine-tuning’ argument  reading: Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” (2006) pp.134-143. HOMEWORK: Explain in detail Dawkin’s objection to the ‘fine-tuning argument’. Prepare your response on a separate sheet of paper with your name on it to be handed in.  also, see your text pp.229-30 for assistance.