Fordthought
  • Blog
  • Word of the Week
  • Dig Deeper

Word of the Week: w/c 23/11/16 - Teleological

22/11/2015

 

From the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’. Teleological arguments try to establish the existence of God by suggesting that the universe contains evidence of purpose which only God could be responsible for.
​

Picture
PictureWilliam Paley Image: Wikipedia Commons
Over the centuries that Philosophy has been going on a great number of people have wondered at the apparent design on the world and suggested that this must lead the to conclusion that there is a divine being responsible for it. Aquinas, Derham, Swinburne, Tennent and Behe have all had their part to play, but probably the most famous version (and I don’t really know why!) was by William Paley - a nineteenth century Natural Theologian.

Paley’s famous argument for the existence of God proceeds analogically, taking the idea of a watch, and making an analogy with the universe. Paley concludes that since the watch requires a watchmaker in order to exist, the universe must exist by virtue of some being capable of creating such a magnificent and intricately designed thing; God is the only suitable candidate for this.


Paley’s argument is a species of teleological argument. The word teleological is derived from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose’. Teleological arguments try to establish the existence of God by suggesting that the universe contains evidence of purpose which could only have been put there by God.


​When we see certain effects in nature, it is reasonable to suppose that these effects have been produced by a particular type of cause. When we observe a snooker ball rolling along a table, for instance, it is usually reasonable to suppose that it has been caused to move by another ball or a snooker cue colliding with it, even if the cause itself was never seen (David Hume challenged this kind of thinking before Paley had even put pen to paper, but Paley seems unaware of his predecessor’s writing).


This type of argument is inductive: it proceeds from general premises to a specific conclusion. We know that complex objects having specific purposes are the product of intelligence, and teleological arguments apply this generalised fact to observable instances of complexity in the universe in order to establish that the universe was created by an intelligent being, i.e. God.

PictureImage: Wikipedia.Commons
In Paley’s time, humans were discovering more and more about the natural world. As technology advanced that allowed us to observe objects at ever-smaller scales, and allowed us to cross oceans and continents to make new discoveries, we began to uncover the complex ways in which things in the natural world seem to fit various purposes. In particular, the minute details of living organisms (now visible through microscopes) could be seen to be working together in ways that allowed the creature’s body to perform all sorts of functions. Not only that, but they performed these functions in a mechanistic fashion: predictable movements were made, with predictable results.

This tendency toward predictability bore an uncanny resemblance to the operation of human machines. Paley’s was an age in which engineering was advancing apace: from the large scale steam-ships and suspension bridges to large scale industrial mass-production to the minute world of mechanised automata, machinery and mechanisation seemed the very key to human advancement. These machines were designed by human beings who had specific purposes in mind, and designed the machines in such a way as to satisfy those purposes, making use of mechanisms that would produce predictable results and thus reliable machines. It would therefore seem compelling to suggest that evidence of predictability in nature suggested the existence of a designer who had a purpose in mind when it created the universe.

This was therefore the context of the argument in which Paley declared that if, in crossing a heath, he had struck his foot against a stone, he would not have wondered how it came to be there. After all, stones are not complex. They do not (superficially, at least) bear any marks of having been designed. But had he come upon a watch instead, Paley would have felt sure that the object had been designed by an intelligent being, due to its complex, intricate and purposeful nature.

Paley then went on to argue that if all the hallmarks of design present in the watch, they must also be present in the natural world. Paley gave the example that “the hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the creator had nothing else to finish.” The characteristics that denote carefulness of design in man-made objects are present in the universe.

Not only are the hallmark complexities of design present in nature, but in Paley’s words are more evident in nature than in the watch “to a degree which exceeds all computation”. Paley thus concludes that God possesses not only the characteristics of a human designer, but an infinite degree of care and attention to detail. Not only does Paley’s argument thus claim to establish the existence of any deity, but an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

Paley’s argument builds on Aquinas’ argument before his. For Aquinas, the universe shows evidence of God’s design because of regularity: in Aquinas’ terms, “bodies that lack knowledge … act for an end, and this is evident in their acting always, or nearly always in the same way, so as to obtain a result.” Paley’s argument depends on a similar thesis of regularity, but (in keeping with the time of his writings), he expands this to encompass ideas of complexity as well. An examination of the watch’s workings reveals complexity that explains why it works with regularity when it is in motion.

This means that Paley can anticipate his critics by pointing out that if the watch failed to keep time exactly, that would not nullify the evidence of design found in it. The high degree of complexity and the fact that this aims at a function, even if that function is not fully achieved, still counts as strong evidence of design. Therefore even if things in the world do not always function perfectly, such as potatoes being wiped out by blight, and animals going extinct this does not nullify the evidence of design to be found in the complexities of the potato plant’s biological workings. The greatness of designed complexity to be seen in nature points to God’s existence even if its intended function is not always achieved.

There are of course many who dismiss the Teleological argument as fanciful, overly positive about the purpose of the world and simply wrong. As Darwin proposed and Dawkins & Dennett would later argue, the world is not designed with a purpose in mind, rather it is that we perceive order and purpose when there is none. But if you want to learn about these criticisms you will have to wait for another word of the week...

Word of the Week: w/c: 3/11 - Analogy

2/11/2014

 



A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Picture
Picture
Picture
An analogy is a similarity between things. In an argument from analogy, one argues from known similarities to further similarities. Such arguments often occur in philosophy and during an A-level course students will examine a number of them. One of the most interesting (mainly for its weaknesses) is the Analogy of the Watch by William Paley (published in 1802 in Natural Theology) which students study as part of the Teleological argument. I am not going to rehearse the analogy here but it is interesting to note that it was not the first such analogy and that Hume had already heavily criticised its use!

In 1776 David Hume published his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (you can read the original text here). In it he considers an argument from analogy that purports to show that the universe was created by an intelligent being. The character Cleanthes claims that the world as a whole is similar to things like clocks. A clock has a variety of interrelated parts that function together in ways that serve ends (telos). The world is also a complex of interrelated parts that function in ways that serve ends, such as providing food for human consumption. Clocks are the result of intelligent design, so, Cleanthes concludes, probably the world as a whole is also the product of intelligent design. Hume’s character Philo (who probably mirrors Hume's on thought on the argument) criticises Cleanthes. 


The arguments he puts forward include:

  1. The world is not very well designed; it is imperfect and finite and this hardly suggests the Judeo-Christian God.
  2. There is no evidence that the universe needs a designer - it might have come into existence naturally (by making this suggestion he preempts the work of evolutionists such as Darwin and Dawkins)
  3. The logical outworking of the analogy is to lead to a workshop of Gods (just as watches have many makers) who create this world - again not Monotheism.
  4. The "order" we see in the world could be the result of chance, especially given enough time for things to sort themselves out.

These criticisms share in common that analogies always break down eventually and are by their nature never airtight. It is possible for things to be very similar in some respects, but quite different in others. A world and a watch do share some characteristics but ultimately not enough for the argument to be very successful in this form.

The big question is why did Paley persist in proposing the Watch Analogy in 1802 when Hume had already done a good job of showing the weaknesses of it in 1774? Had he not read Hume? Did he still think the analogy was a good one? If you know the answer - let me know!

Can you think of any successful analogies in Philosophy? Do others, such as the Analogy of the Cave (Plato) or Analogical Language (Aquinas) work?

Picture

    Archives

    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Absolutism
    Agnostic
    Analogy
    Animal
    Apophatic
    A Priori
    Aquinas
    Article
    Assisted Dying
    Banking
    Bertrand Russell
    Book Review
    Buddhism
    Christianity
    Cosmological
    Covenant
    Dawkins
    Debate
    Design
    Diaspora
    Dig Deeper
    Dukkha
    Epiphany
    Equality
    Euthanasia
    Existentialism
    Fallacies
    False Dichotomy
    Family
    Fertility
    Genesis
    Hajj
    Higher Education
    Hindu
    Hinduism
    Holocaust
    Hospice
    Human Rights
    Human-rights
    Hume
    Islam
    ISRSA
    Judaism
    Justice
    JWT
    Lent
    Life After Death
    Love
    Martyr
    Messiah
    MOOC
    Narnia
    NDE
    News
    Nirvana
    Ontological
    Plato
    PPE
    Pro Choice
    Pro-Choice
    Pro Life
    Pro-Life
    Prophet
    Reformation
    Relativism
    Religion
    Rights
    Sabbath
    Science Vs Religion
    Secularisation
    Soul
    Sport
    Stewardship
    Surrogacy
    Teleological
    Temple
    Ten Commandments
    Theology
    Viability
    Via Negativa
    Vision
    Warfare
    Wittgenstein
    Word
    Word Of The Week
    Word-of-the-week

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos from sneakerdog, Steve Slater (Wildlife Encounters), Art4TheGlryOfGod, johndillon77, dustinj, Charlie Davidson, ineffable_pulchritude, LisaW123, jamee.khairul, Abode of Chaos, Dunleavy Family