Teleological argument

A teleological argument (or an argument from design) is an argument for the existence of God. Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this, where X usually stands either for either a given animal species or for a particular organ (e.g. the eye) or capability (e.g. language) of a given species:

1. X is very complicated and/or purposeful.
2. The existence of very complex and/or purposeful things is highly improbable, and thus their existence demands an explanation.
3. The only reasonable explanation for the existence of X is that it was designed and created by an intelligent, sentient artifer/designer.
4. X was not designed or created by humans, or any other Earthly being.
5. Therefore, X must have been designed and created by a non-human but intelligent and sentient artificer.
6. In particular, X must have been designed and created by God.
7. Therefore God must exist.

This argument is very popular today in the United States, probably because it seems to be the most "scientific" argument for the existence of God. It is at the core of scientific creationism and Intelligent Design Theory.

Nonetheless, most professional biologists support the standard theory of biological evolution. They reject the third premise, arguing that evolution isn't only a possible alternative explanation for the existence of X but a better explanation. Thus, whether or not God exists, scientists tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument in favor of His or Her existence.

The third premise has been accused of being an argument by lack of imagination.

Although the third premise appears to be the most embattled portion of the argument, refutations have also been tried along other grounds. Here is a popular proof by contradiction: Suppose that there is an intelligent artificer, by the teleological argument. Well that artificer is surely more complex and purposeful than whatever artifacts inspired the teleological argument, so the first premise is at least as true of the artificer than of the artifact in question. Thus we must conclude that the designer was itself designed. But by what or whom? A yet superior artificer? Obviously this logic leads us on forever. But this is absurd. Therefore our initial supposition, that there is an intelligent artificer, must be incorrect.

Additionally, some argue that, even if the argument correctly proves the existence of a non-human artificer (i.e. if the argument is correct through step 5), that artificer might not be God, as God is commonly understood. Why couldn't it have been an alien from another world? Why do we assume there was only one artificer instead of two, or a whole artificer community?

One of the most recent reincarnations of the teleological argument is the so-called "argument from the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants".

History

The most famous proponent of the teleological argument is William Paley (1743-1805), who framed the argument in terms of a watch.

Before that, 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 an example of a watch; thus Hume arguably makes Paley's key point before Paley himself. Philo isn't satisfied with the teleological argument, however, and attempts a number of interesting refutations, including one that arguably forshadows Darwin's theory. In the end, however, Hume has Philo agree 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.

Much earlier, Cicero made a similar argument about design, also by means of a timepiece:

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)

References and further reading

• Daniel Dennett (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
• Derek Gjersen (1989). Science and Philosophy: Past and Present. London: Penguin.

See also

• Design

Common misspelling and questions (FAQ)

eleological-argument  tleological-argument  teeological-argument  telological-argument  telelogical-argument  teleoogical-argument  teleolgical-argument  teleoloical-argument  teleologcal-argument  teleologial-argument  teleologicl-argument  teleologica-argument  teleologicalargument  teleological-rgument  teleological-agument  teleological-arument  teleological-argment  teleological-arguent  teleological-argumnt  teleological-argumet  teleological-argumen  etleological-argument  tleeological-argument  teelological-argument  teloelogical-argument  teleloogical-argument  teleoolgical-argument  teleolgoical-argument  teleoloigcal-argument  teleologcial-argument  teleologiacl-argument  teleologicla-argument  teleologica-largument  teleologicala-rgument  teleological-ragument  teleological-agrument  teleological-arugment  teleological-argmuent  teleological-arguemnt  teleological-argumnet  teleological-argumetn  teleological-argumen  tteleological-argument  teeleological-argument  telleological-argument  teleeological-argument  teleoological-argument  teleollogical-argument  teleoloogical-argument  teleologgical-argument  teleologiical-argument  teleologiccal-argument  teleologicaal-argument  teleologicall-argument  teleological--argument  teleological-aargument  teleological-arrgument  teleological-arggument  teleological-arguument  teleological-argumment  teleological-argumeent  teleological-argumennt  teleological-argumentt  5eleological-argument  releological-argument  feleological-argument  6eleological-argument  geleological-argument  6eleological-argument  yeleological-argument  geleological-argument  t3leological-argument  twleological-argument  tsleological-argument  t4leological-argument  tdleological-argument  t4leological-argument  trleological-argument  tdleological-argument  teoeological-argument  tekeological-argument  te,eological-argument  tepeological-argument  te.eological-argument  tepeological-argument  te;eological-argument  te.eological-argument  tel3ological-argument  telwological-argument  telsological-argument  tel4ological-argument  teldological-argument  tel4ological-argument  telrological-argument  teldological-argument  tele9logical-argument  teleilogical-argument  teleklogical-argument  tele0logical-argument  telellogical-argument  tele0logical-argument  teleplogical-argument  telellogical-argument  teleooogical-argument  teleokogical-argument  teleo,ogical-argument  teleopogical-argument  teleo.ogical-argument  teleopogical-argument  teleo;ogical-argument  teleo.ogical-argument  teleol9gical-argument  teleoligical-argument  teleolkgical-argument  teleol0gical-argument  teleollgical-argument  teleol0gical-argument  teleolpgical-argument  teleollgical-argument  teleolotical-argument  teleolofical-argument  teleolovical-argument  teleoloyical-argument  teleolobical-argument  teleoloyical-argument  teleolohical-argument  teleolobical-argument  teleolog8cal-argument  teleologucal-argument  teleologjcal-argument  teleolog9cal-argument  teleologkcal-argument  teleolog9cal-argument  teleologocal-argument  teleologkcal-argument  teleologidal-argument  teleologixal-argument  teleologifal-argument  teleologifal-argument  teleologival-argument  teleologicql-argument  teleologicwl-argument  teleologiczl-argument  teleologicwl-argument  teleologicsl-argument  teleologiczl-argument  teleologicao-argument  teleologicak-argument  teleologica,-argument  teleologicap-argument  teleologica.-argument  teleologicap-argument  teleologica;-argument  teleologica.-argument  teleological0argument  teleologicalpargument  teleological[argument  teleological-qrgument  teleological-wrgument  teleological-zrgument  teleological-wrgument  teleological-srgument  teleological-zrgument  teleological-a4gument  teleological-aegument  teleological-adgument  teleological-a5gument  teleological-afgument  teleological-a5gument  teleological-atgument  teleological-afgument  teleological-artument  teleological-arfument  teleological-arvument  teleological-aryument  teleological-arbument  teleological-aryument  teleological-arhument  teleological-arbument  teleological-arg7ment  teleological-argyment  teleological-arghment  teleological-arg8ment  teleological-argjment  teleological-arg8ment  teleological-argiment  teleological-argjment  teleological-argujent  teleological-argunent  teleological-argukent  teleological-argukent  teleological-argu,ent  teleological-argum3nt  teleological-argumwnt  teleological-argumsnt  teleological-argum4nt  teleological-argumdnt  teleological-argum4nt  teleological-argumrnt  teleological-argumdnt  teleological-argumeht  teleological-argumebt  teleological-argumejt  teleological-argumejt  teleological-argumemt  teleological-argumen5  teleological-argumenr  teleological-argumenf  teleological-argumen6  teleological-argumeng  teleological-argumen6  teleological-argumeny  teleological-argumeng  teleologycal-argument  yeleological-argument  tyeleological-argument  teleological-arguments 


wishing me good-night. In two or three days I received a note from my charmer, bidding me I was to ask for dinner. I carried out her orders to the letter. to go into the country and could not be home till one o'clock, he the morning. Such is the fate of a miserable husband! His wife was the condition that she would not allow me to disturb her work. The girl went away at noon, and soon after we went to enjoy the fresh ourselves unseen, we could see all the carriages that approached the health." "Because at that time my husband suspected that you turned yourself towards me. Your discretion has destroyed his suspicions; and also his fancy to such an extent, that I believe he would willingly agree?" "Ah! if the exchange could be effected." Having only an hour before me, and foreseeing that it would be the full of affection, and put no obstacles in the way of my desires, to consent to injure her health. I did all I could to replace the great measure in shewing me her superiority to the horrible widow. When we saw the husband's carriage coming, we rose and took care that excuses for not having returned sooner. We had an excellent dinner, and at table he talked almost entirely of .