The main idea of the Teleological argument, otherwise known as Argument from Design, is that the universe is somewhat similar to a machine. In William Paley’s ‘The Argument from Design’, he used the example of a watch to provide an analogy for the relationship between God and the universe. Paley provided an in-depth description of how the delicate parts of a watch work together to achieve a single purpose, that is, to ensure that it displays the time correctly. All of us know that the watch have its creator, a skilled craftsman who has a perfect understanding on how it works. Now, if we try to compare the watch with the universe, there is a similarity in the complexity of their components. All interacts with one another to perform task they are not capable of doing themselves. Therefore, it can be easily concluded that the universe, for all of its complexity, must have a creator too, a supreme being we call God.
The Teleological argument though, had undergone numerous criticisms over the past couple of decades, especially with respect to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The theory states that the species living on are planet exist due to natural selection, not because of the design and preference of a creator that the Teleological argument assumed. This, coupled with modern discoveries that invalidate the law of physics discovered in the 18th century make our universe less predictable. The new knowledge that we possess, in turn, questions the validity of the resemblance birth between operation of a machine and the universe. These resulted to numerous questions on the validity of the ‘Argument from Design’ idea which was very popular when it was first proposed.
However, in my opinion, much knowledge is yet to be acquired to be able to come up with a conclusion that the universe does not resemble a machine. The new theory that replaces Newton’s Law of Physics might as well be a part of the plans which the creator of the universe implemented in the first place. Nevertheless, there are so many things in the world that are still left unexplained, and most of the time when we actually find out the answers, we would be left struck in awe, both due to complexity but also the abstract nature of our discoveries. Even a man of science such as Albert Einstein once said that he did not believe the God that the various religions around the world worship. However, he believed in the God of harmony, of peace, as the universe might not be the way it is, not as beautiful as it is without a higher being shaping it.
Onto the second part of the assignment, I choose to compare the Teleological argument with the Ontological argument. One of the most noticeable differences between these two arguments is that the Ontological argument is a priori-type of an argument, meaning that it solely relies on the knowledge that we human are already processed, without the need to conduct any experiments to determine its truth value reflecting the “from causes to effect” principle. The ‘Argument from Design’, on the other hand, is a posteriori argument, an argument which is based on the experience rather than from what our mind theorizes.
In my opinion, the Teleological argument presents a stronger case compared to the Ontological argument, simply because of the fact that we can easily show the evidences that support it. This does not mean that the Ontological argument is a weak argument though. Since I have taken logic class before, I am completely aware of the proof technique called reduction ad absurdum (proof by contradiction). Following all the steps presented in the lecture slides, it is safe to conclude that the argument is deductively valid. However, the premises which are used in the Ontological argument, particularly the third premise, are questionable in nature, at least from my point of view. This is because I feel that no concrete reasoning has been provided to support the statement, unlike the Teleological argument which we can easily relate from our observations.
Nevertheless, my prejudice towards the Teleological argument does not imply that it is the best argument explaining the existence of a higher being. I simply view it to be a better argument compared to the Ontological and even the Cosmological argument. Further refinements on the Teleological argument are still needed, which may come from a new scientific discovery or a change in the premises in order to make the argument more concrete and convincing to the general public and even the skeptics.
Works Cited:
ThisWeekInScience. “Michio Kaku on God”. Youtube. This Week In Science. 30 April 2009. Web. 23 April 2013.
