The Teleological/Design Argument for the Existence of God

© Dr Guy Williams, Wellington College

“A purpose, an intention, a design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker, and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it. ” David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (William Blackwood, 1907) 165.

Key Introductory Points

The teleological/design argument suggests that the world in which man lives is so complex and ordered (among other characteristics) that it could not have come about by chance. In order for it to be as we currently see the world, it must have been designed, ultimately by a designer whom some call ‘God’.

It is an old argument, even predating Christianity. Kant commented that:

“This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most accordant with the common reason of mankind.” Kant (1781), Critique of Pure Reason

‘Teleological’ comes from Greek – telos – meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’. It is an a posteriori argument (many forget to say this in answers). An umbrella term for different types of argument/thinkers.

It can loosely be summed up by the following logical structure or syllogism:

1. The world has order, purpose, benefit, regularity and suitability for life.
2. This shows evidence of design
3. Such design implies a designer
4. The designer of the world is God

Classical Forms of the Argument

Aquinas’ Fifth Way (13th Century) (remember the first three of the five are used in the cosmological argument)

St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argues for five ways to prove God’s existence

“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…and this being we call God.” Thomas Aquinas, Fifth Way

Essentially, Aquinas is suggesting that not only must there be a purpose for all things, but that especially since apparently non-rational beings can work towards such a goal, something must be directing them to do so i.e. God.

Paley and the Watchmaker (1802)

Richard Dawkins summarises Paley’s argument here.

“Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature…For this reason that when we come to inspect the watch we perceive that its several parts are framed an put together for a purpose.” Natural Theology 1802

The Analogy between the World & the Watch

“Ever since the creation of the world, his [God’s] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through all the things he has made.”
Romans 1.20

The Features of the Watch:

ORDER: The watch functions owing to the successful order to which it was created.
COMPLEXITY: Because there are several parts, the watch is deemed complex.
INTERACTION: Parts interact with each other and have responsibilities towards each other.
PURPOSE: Given these responsibilities, the watch can be said to have a total purpose – to tell the time.

These things could not have come about of their own accord. There must be a designer of this watch, (as there would be for any watch).

The features of the World:

ORDER – we can see that there are distinct patterns and rhythms to nature, as well as ecosystems.
COMPLEXITY – there are billions of species of animal and plant in the world.
INTERACTION: Things in the world interact with one another.
PURPOSE: Things do seem to act for individuated purpose – each animal, for example, does its own thing.

In the same manner by which we viewed the watch, it seems sensible and even logical to say that there is a designer of the world.

Note: Paley in fact continues his argument mentioning the intricacy of animals and humans leading to the conclusion that God must have been their maker. (Uses example of the eye especially to show intricacy)

Paley’s use of Analogy

For Paley, by analogy, it is likely that the world has a total purpose. The watch does, and it is similar in all other respects to the world. So by analogy we can say that the world has a total purpose. If there is a watch designer, how much more likely is it that there is a world designer given the order, complexity and purpose in the world, compared to that in the watch? By analogy, we can say that there must be a world designer.

Because the world is so much more complex, ordered etc…than the world, its maker must be so much greater than the watch-maker in many ways. In fact, the world-maker could conceivably be so powerful that it is reasonable to attach the term ‘God’ to him.

Key Features of Paley’s Argument

It is a posteriori – drawing on observations about the world/the watch.

It has a basis in a mechanistic analogy – Paley makes observations about the watch and the world and claims that they have essential similarity. He uses a knowledge of a mechanical instrument, the watch, to draw conclusions about the world.

Use of observation. Paley looks at the watch and draws conclusions about it based on observation. He then looks at the world and decides, on the basis of his observation, that it shares the same essential characteristics as the watch – such as order, complexity etc.

It must be ‘God’: The watch is pretty impressive. This means that the watch-maker must also be. We can learn things about a designer from what he/she designs. The world is that much more complex etc: All the common features (order, complexity, interaction) are so much greater in the world, so how much greater than the watchmaker must the worldmaker be? He’s so great that we can reasonably call him God, and this is, in fact, backed up by revealed theology.

The Strengths of the Argument/Analogy

1. A coherent, valid philosophical argument – It follows philosophical logic and is soundly based on empirical data. If one follows the analogy through and accepts it, it is philosophically acceptable to accept the idea of a designer. [Be aware of the inductive leap to God, however.] Swinburne was in support of the use of analogy: “The analogy of animals to complex machines seems to me correct, and its conclusion justified.”
2. The more we observe about the world, the stronger the argument – given that the argument is based on conclusions drawn about order/complexity etc from empirical observation, the more that we observe, the more complexity we will see in the world. With every new species that is found, the world appears ever more complex and impressive. This will mean that Paley’s conclusion that there is a designer God will seem all the more reasonable, as there will be a greater weight of evidence in support of his claim. 
3. Answers the human assumption that all things are explicable – it satisfies the human need for an explanation of the world around us, and our sense that this is possible.
4. Confirms the purpose of the world – World has specific purpose, though we don’t know it. Revealed theology allows us to see that it is God who gives order and purpose to things – order out of chaos. This gives us on earth a confidence that our lives are not pointless, and that there is a guiding hand at work in the creative process.
5. Supported by revealed theology – The conclusion that the designer of the world is the Christian God is supported by revealed theology. This argument therefore coheres with a traditional theistic view of the world.
6. Strengthens/Supports a religious interpretation of the world – It demonstrates God’s nature and allows us to better understand why the very premises that we have used in the argument exist.

 Paley’s pre-emptive arguments against criticism

1. We may be in ignorance about how the watch was made
2. The watch may sometimes go wrong
3. Some parts of the watch may appear to have no purpose
4. The watch may have come together by chance

Paley does not actually say much about the character of this supposed designer. He does however claim that even if the watch does go wrong or shows evidence of bad design we can still deduce that it has been designed.

Paley answers the problem of evil by saying that just because something goes wrong, it doesn’t mean that there is no designer, or that God is imperfect. The world could be made perfectly but could still go wrong, just as a watch does.

The conclusion is not invalidated if we don’t understand all the parts of watch. It merely shows that we are less competent than the designer. There still is a designer, but we are just ignorant of all his machinations. (Ant trying to understand a computer).

Weaknesses of the Analogy

• Paley appears to be assuming the presence of order in the universe simply because there is order in the watch.
• Is the watch analogous to the world or to the whole universe?
• Are the watch and world far too different to withstand comparison?
• The world is full of imperfections (such as the coronavirus). God appears to be ‘an infant deity’ (David Hume).

David Hume (1779) and his Criticisms

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) we find Hume’s criticisms of the analogous teleological argument. NB People often liken the character of Philo to Hume himself.

We have no experience of world making

We only understand that certain things are designed as man himself has designed them (e.g. we have seen it happen) This is not true of the world: To know something we have to have experience of its being brought about. You cannot claim to know the whole by simply looking at a part:

Philo comments: ‘..from observing the growth of a hair can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?’

Arguments from Analogy are Weak

Hume is concerned as to whether a machine has enough relevant similarities with the world to support the conclusion that they were both designed. We must surely question the use of analogy as it argues from that which we know, to that of which we are ignorant.

Hume says that the world is more organic than mechanical: i.e. more like a carrot than a watch. It may seem absurd to say that the universe is like a carrot, but this is his point. It is no more ridiculous than to compare the world to a mechanical machine.

 [The world is more likely] “due to generation or vegetation than reason or design” (David Hume)

The Argument does not Demonstrate the Existence of God

Why not a committee? – Machines are not usually just the product of one designer – could there be more than one for the world?

Anthropomorphism – One is guilty of making the designer to be more or less a human figure (like the Gods of Ancient Greece or Rome)

Trial and Error – It is very rare for a designer to get it absolutely right first time every time, so is this just a form of draft world due to its imperfections?

Faults – At the very least, the problem of evil must make us suspect that the world was created by a God who lacked power, skill or even love to create something better

“This world, for all he know, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it.” (David Hume)

Remember…Hume and Paley

Hume was writing BEFORE Paley so you cannot say ‘Hume criticises Paley!’

‘It is a lamentable instance of the lack of communication between the philosophical and theological worlds that Paley was apparently unaware that his arguments had been devastatingly criticised by Hume twenty three years earlier’. John Hick

Other Forms of Teleological Argument

The PAPA Points

Four points suggesting the world is designed

P – PROBABILITY. It is the most likely scenario that God, being loving, would create a universe such as this which we inhabit, as it is now.
Swinburne: “God being perfectly good, is generous. He wants to share”
Augustine suggested that God did not need to create but does so out of love for man.
These two examples imply that it is probable that God would want to, and thus did, create the universe
X Criticism: Far too convenient: of course we would say this about the universe. It is the only world we know! Also Swinburne and Augustine are assuming the existence of God!

A – AESTHETIC. Not only is the world created by God, but it is also beautiful. This beauty is unnecessary on one level, but on another can help lead to belief.

David Ford ‘Beauty is the lost thought of theology’.
Alexander (Hymn) ‘All things bright and beautiful…the lord God made them all.’
Criticism: Beauty is in eye of the beholder – some may not deem the world beautiful.

Is it possible that somewhere as beautiful as the English Lake District, captured here at dawn on a summer morning and soon to become a world heritage site, could have come about by chance?

P – PROVIDENTIAL. Everything that is necessary for survival appears to be contained in the universe which functions without us doing anything. This is not coincidence but owing to God’s design.

Swinburne: This is all owing to a “deeper cause than order”.
Exodus 3:21: “I will bring this people into such favour, you will not go empty handed.”
Criticism: It is certainly debatable that all people/things are always provided for.

A – ANTHROPIC – see later for Anthropic Principle. All has come about to support and provide for human life (anthropos = man).
Genesis 22.17 “I will bless you and make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven.”
Tennant – see separate explanation
Criticism: Evolution is the most common criticism for this. Also how dare we have the arrogance to say this is all for us (man)?
But note that evolution does not have to be an objection to all this:

“The doctrine of evolution leaves the argument for an intelligent Creator and Governor of the earth stronger than it was before.” Archbishop Temple (1884)

 The Anthropic Principle – Tennant (1930)

“Anthropic” means to do with humans. The Anthropic Principle is the idea that the universe seems particularly suited to bring about and support human life. This is a modern version of the Design Argument, building on Richard Swinburne’s concept of regularity. It accepts things that many fundamentalists object to (like evolution and the universe being billions of years old) but it’s a Design Argument because it finds something “suspicious” in the fact that the universe has “human friendly” laws and the evolution, through chance, produced humans at all.

‘Science provides strong grounds for believing there is an even deeper cause for that orderly nature in the natural world’. Richard Swinburne

‘Nature is meaningless and valueless without God behind it and Man in front.’  (Philosophical Theology by FR Tennant 1930)

The fact that human life exists at all within the current physical conditions, and simply the unlikelihood of it being a coincidence, is enough for Tennant. The world must have come about for man’s benefit thanks to a designer that is God.

Three important points to remember re Tennant – RUM

R – RATIONALITY
Life and the world is all about being rational: it seems rationally true to Tennant that God is the designer and creator as the world is comprehensible as such. For him it is the logical and sensible conclusion.
Criticism: This is very debatable. Others have claimed that they have also used logic and that rationally their conclusion that there is NOT a God/Designer is correct.

U – UNLIKELY
It just seems too unlikely that the world has come about by chance. Apparently it is 1 x 100,000,000,000124 that the Big Bang could have occurred – and even more so that we could come out as we have following the Big Bang!
Explanation: it all came about by design, by God – much more convincing than chance.
Criticism: However convenient it may be to say that the world is ‘too good’ to be a coincidence, chance is still a possibility as an explanation.

M – MAN
According to Tennant: The brute laws of nature would not alone have shaped man into what he is today. The nature of humanity is a centrepiece of the universe. Our heightened consciousness + self awareness + ethics, morality + the fact that we act in ways contrary to our basic nature; we also have religiosity and higher emotions – love, self-sacrifice, compassion, generosity, our aesthetic sense and the ability of human beings to react to the natural world with a sense of awe and wonder.
This infers more than just a scientific survival of the most ruthless and fittest model and implies divine assistance and guide at hand.
Criticism: It is perhaps rather arrogant to claim that all creation is only for man and his benefit. There may well be a greater cause (?), the which we are yet to discover or understand.

For further discussion of Tennant’s arguments, click on the following link:

https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/anthropic-principle.html

 Other Criticisms of the Teleological Argument

Anthropomorphism:
Hume’s point that an analogy between universe and human works is dangerous and leads us to anthropomorphism. God’s qualities are identified with, and lined up against, human beings.

What sort of God/Designer?:
What about the God of classical theism? Is it too far to suggest and imply that the apparent designer is morally perfect and all-powerful? The very most that we can conclude is that there may be a designer. It is a non sequitur to suggest that this is ‘God’.

Scientific Discovery:
More and more as time goes on we appear to discover how and why it is that the world has become how it is today. Lately there has been much research into how the world began. It has been mooted that these may contradict belief in a benevolent designer.

“The old argument from design in nature as given by Paley…fails now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”  Charles Darwin

Counter-Criticism: Swinburne: “I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains”

Evil and Suffering:
It seems too far to talk of great and glorious creation and design when there appears to be so much suffering in the world. The designer of the universe might be benevolent, but must be seriously limited in power to allow such suffering.
Quotation: Mill “…they go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they crush on their road.”

‘Nature has no vision, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.’ Richard Dawkins

Chance
However unlikely it may seem, it is not impossible that all this could come about. This is far from sound logic to simply shrug the shoulders and say: It can’t be an accident.
Counter criticism: If we admit the possibility of design, then we must surely admit the idea of an intentional act lying behind the design, thus undermining the point of view of the atheist

Concluding Thoughts

It would not be without reason that world famous scholars such as Kant appear to show great reverence for the Teleological argument (see quotation below).

“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…and this being we call God.”Appeals to recent scientific ideas have not quite jettisoned the possibility of God or a Designer as some may have hoped; some even believe that they have strengthened that belief.

Philosophically we can identify problems such as assumptions, weak analogies and too much reliance on faith and revealed theology. Nevertheless it is difficult to totally eliminate either side totally in this case.

Ultimately, the argument fails to prove God’s existence, but was that what it (whatever ‘it’ is) intended to do in the first place? In places it appears to demonstrate well the possibility of a designer who may well be ‘God’. But as ever, one’s opinion comes down to a personal evaluation of the ‘evidence’ and faith.