Teleological argument

From Freepedia

A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of design in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose.

Teleology is concerned only with natural phenomena and is thus distinct from similar arguments such as the formerly common argument that extraterrestrials built the Egyptian Pyramids.

Contents

The argument

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

  1. X is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
  2. Therefore, X must have been created by an intelligent being.
  3. Y is that intelligent being.
  4. Therefore, Y exists.

X usually stands for the universe; the evolution process; humankind; a given animal species; or a particular organ like the eye or capability like language in humans. X may also stand for the fundamental constants of the universe like physical constants and physical law. Sometimes this argument is also based on the anthropic principle that these constants seem tuned specifically to allow intelligent life to evolve.

Y is often a God or Gods, though natural phenomena are sometimes attributed to extraterrestrials. The being may or may not be both omniscient and omnipotent.

In the 19th century, this argument as presented by William Paley formed an important part of the doctrine of the Church of England. Since in the late 20th century, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of Intelligent Design and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith. Opponents claim that such arguments are not compatible with modern science because they are neither falsifiable nor natural.

Objections and counter-argument

First and Second premise

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This belief forms the basis of the terrestrial intelligence, which attempts to determine whether electromagnetic radiation is the result of a natural process or the intelligent output of an alien race.

Simplistic forms of the teleological argument assume that because life is complex, it must have been designed. Some characterise this approach as an argument from ignorance. Stronger forms rely on concepts such as irreducible complexity, which was proposed by Michael Behe.

Most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection. They reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Thus they tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god.

Third premise

Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, the implied designer might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defence that the outside force through which X came into being must then be explained. (See also the cosmological argument).

Other counter-arguments

Although questioning the first and third premises appear to be the most common attacks on the argument, other refutations have been proposed. One approach is reductio ad absurdum:

  • Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
  • Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
  • Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
  • Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
  • Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
  • Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
  • Conclusion: one of the three premises is false.

History

Cicero made one of the earliest teleological arguments:

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? (Gjertsen 1989, p. 199, quoted by Dennett 1995, p. 29)

The teleological argument was the fifth of Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. 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; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." [1]

David Hume presented arguments both for and against the teleological argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The character Philo, summarizing the teleological argument, uses the example of a watch. Philo is not satisfied with the teleological argument, however. He attempts a number of interesting refutations, including one that arguably foreshadows Darwin's theory. In the end, however, Philo agrees that the teleological argument is valid. (Dennett 1995, p. 29) Daniel Dennett (ibid.) claims that, although Hume was ultimately dissatisfied with the teleological argument, his cultural context prevented him from taking any of the alternatives seriously. (As it happens, during the Voyage of the Beagle Darwin was given the nickname of Philos when he took over the duties of ship's naturalist after the ship's surgeon left the ship.)

The most famous proponent of the teleological argument was theologian William Paley (1743-1805), who also framed the argument with reference to a watch in his Natural Theology.

The watch argument

In 1802, Paley wrote that if a pocket watch is found on a field, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by a watchmaker and not by natural forces. Paley went on to argue that complex structures of living things must be the work of God. One theology student who found these arguments compelling was Charles Darwin, who later developed his theory of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection to put forward an alternative explanation for complexity in nature.

Many have attempted to refute Paley's argument, mainly by showing that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps. Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker is one of the best known works following this idea.

The debate over this is closely related to irreducible complexity, the idea that certain structures in biology can function only if all their substructures are present. It is argued that each substructure confers no benefit on its own, and therefore would not have been selected by an evolutionary mechanism. The probability of all the substructures being created in a single mutation is too low to be considered possible.

The eye argument

Many creationists cite the eye as a prime example of this principle; "What use is a partly-developed eye?" they ask. Evolutionists provide an explanation for this and may state that creationists are arguing from ignorance, for scientists have devised working hypotheses on how certain body parts and organs could have evolved.

For example, many biological cells not associated with the senses respond to the presence of light. Most notable of this group are photosynthetic cells of algae and plants. Other very primitive organisms have very rudimentary photoreceptive cells that can only tell the difference between light and dark. These organisms use this primitive sense to orient themselves correctly toward light. In other words, much less than a complete eye is actually quite useful. Yet other organisms have clusters of these photoreceptive cells that can distinguish crude shapes. Increasing the complexity, number, and arrangement of these cells will then yield rudimentary eyes that can recognize certain objects by shape and so on until an eye capable of seeing in color and three dimensions is produced (according to evolutionists, this has happened at least twice with the advent of the cephalopod eye and is currently under way with many other animal groups). Each of these states in the development of a fully functioning eye has modern analogues in the animal kingdom, and each step need only develop through nothing more than mutations and natural selection: those animals with a better ability to sense their environment with photoreceptive cells will survive to produce more young than those that don't have this ability, and so on. Evolutionists thus claim there is no need to invoke divine intervention or intelligent design.

Richard Dawkins in particular has vigorously challenged Intelligent Design arguments similar to Paley's. Furthermore, he points out that a hypothetical evolutionary path such as that given above for the eye need not even be correct; in order to refute the argument from design it need only be plausible, thus demonstrating that there are other ways in which such an organ could have come about. The title of Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker is a reference to Paley's example of the pocket watch. Dawkins's book River out of Eden (1995) gives an example of a computer simulation where multiple independent organisms all showed a steady progression from a light-sensitive spot to a complex eye with a lens focus.

Another counterargument to the eye example is that the human eye, if designed, appears not to be particularly well designed. To a human engineer, the light-sensitive cells in the eye are placed the wrong way around, with the nerve cells placed between the light source and the light-sensitive cells. The optic nerve therefore has to go through the retina, creating the blind spot. An analogy would be a singer that holds a microphone with the lead to his mouth and the actual pickup device pointing away from him. A putatively better design would have the cells with the nerves at the back, allowing light to hit the cells directly and eliminating the blind spot. The large percentage of people who need vision correction also suggests that the eye is not well designed.

The explanation by evolution gives major evolutionary steps of:

  1. No light sensitivity at all.
  2. Cells that can sense the presence of light and send a signal to the brain.
  3. Development of multiple, co-ordinated cells.
  4. Development of a lens to focus the light.
  5. Development of the brain enabling processing of this information, into instructions to muscles which operate the organ to detect light in other places.

Creationists would counter that each step in this process is in reality, a huge leap. However, evolutionists would argue that each step is not completed in one change; rather, these are only the major milestones of development, which itself is going on all the time.

The anthropic principle

A variation of the teleological argument is built upon the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is derived from the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. A statistical analysis of the conditions in which life could not exist, compared the fact that life does exist, is interpreted as a fine-tuned universe, designed for human life.

A counter-argument to the anthropic principle is that one could manipulate statistics to define any number of natural situations that could not possibly happen in terms of probability, but that have happened nevertheless. The key variable is that the improbable conditions were identified after the event.

Controversy

One major problem in the controversy seems to be the human imagination. Neither divine miracles nor speciation (macroevolution) occur very often (convincingly), so it is difficult to prove or disprove either one. Thus, both sides often try to argue the greater potential of one over the other. It should be noted though that the former of these options is a metaphysical supernaturalistic viewpoint which is consistent with any conceivable state of affairs, i.e.: it cannot be falsified, even in principle. The downside to this is that there is no empirical (and therefore scientific) way to test for creationism. To illustrate this, Robert Todd Carroll said "the universe would look the same to us whether it was designed or not."

Macroevolution on the other hand, does have evidence in its favour. It is also testable and falsifiable; hallmarks of a scientific theory not shared by creationism.

Even if there are only the two possibilities mentioned above, this does not make both of equal likelihood. Natural scientists would say that to invoke divine miracles is an appeal to magic, and does not add to our understanding of the world. Since miracles are by definition a contravention of the laws of nature and supernatural in origin, they cannot be considered a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. If the issue is simply a matter of which explanation is more scientific and useful for explaining other facts, few would insist that creationism is better than evolution.

A common question arises which intends on making our theories on the origin of life a matter of subjectivity: "Which is more believable?" or "Which one requires more faith?" Both sides would probably admit that whatever is more believable is not necessarily true, however, if faith is taken to mean a belief that transcends evidence for that belief, belief in evolution is not a matter of faith due to the considerable evidence in its favour.

"Which is more believable?" might also be considered an irrelevant question as not everyone to whom the question is asked will have sufficient knowledge of the alternative theories to offer a reasonably objective answer; vis-a-vis: what is believable for one is unbelievable to another. The question should be: "if one objectively studies the arguments in favour of intelligent design, and one does the same for the scientific theory of evolution, which one of these theories is better; is more useful and logical an explanation; and better supported by evidence, and therefore "most believable"?

Finally, it should also be noted that although from some religious perspectives intelligent design is often constrasted with evolution, there may be no necessary contradiction between the two. Certain religious perspectives may find nothing illogical about believing in a creator-deity who purposed evolution to propagate the emergence of life on earth.

External links

References and further reading

Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Teleological_argument.html"


Views
Personal tools
In other languages
Similar Links