‘Examine the claim of the Teleological Argument that the universe must have a designer’
The teleological argument is an a posteriori style of argument, formed by Thomas Aquinas. The 13th century
philosopher’s theory is based on teleology, where purpose exists in nature. Thus, given this premise, the
existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. William Paley furthered this line of
argument through his analogy of the watchmaker. Whilst there are certainly strengths to the teleological
argument, both Aquinas and Paley create too many assumptions when attempting to prove God’s existence.
Instead, the theory of evolution seems the more convincing argument when compared to this teleological theory
and thus, this essay will demonstrate that whilst the teleological argument may prove that the universe does have
a designer, that designer is not God. Moreover, this line of argument will include the scholars Aquinas, Paley,
Hume, Bertrand Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, as well as John Stuart Mill.
Aquinas’ teleological argument was influenced by the work of Aristotle and his four causes. This was
specifically through his efficient cause, which states that everything must have a designer, as well as the final
cause, which states everything has a purpose. From this, Aquinas formed the teleological argument and this can
be demonstrated through his analogy of the archer. An arrow, an unintelligent object, cannot achieve its end
goal, of hitting the target without something intelligent guiding it. Therefore the archer, the ‘intelligent being’
has to direct the arrow to fulfil its end goal of hitting the target. This can be corroborated by when Aquinas
stated in Summa Theologica “Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to
their end; and this being we call God’. Thus it is clear from this, that the teleological argument suggests that the
designer of the universe is God. However, this analogy used to prove the existence of God inherits criticisms
from scholars such as Bertrand Russell. The scholar directly criticises Aquinas’ argument by questioning
whether the universe as a whole has a telos. Does there have to be a cause, or in this case a designer, why can’t it
just be there? In addition to this, Russell argues that the universe is a brute fact, seen by when he states ‘I should
say that the universe is just there, and that’s all’. Both of these critiques formed against Aquinas’ teleological
argument serve validity as quite clearly, they cause problems within Aquinas’ theory and break down his
fundamental argument of telos. Therefore, it is clear through evaluating the teleological argument that it does
not prove that the universe must have a designer, being God, as seen through the scholar Russell who instead
argues that it’s existence is just a brute fact.
William Paley’s teleological argument differs from Aquinas’ in the fact that Aquinas looks at the regularity of
action, whereas Paley looks at design and how things fit together for a purpose. This can be seen through his
analogy of the watchmaker, which in summary explains that the watch, with all its components, was constructed
by a watchmaker for the purpose of telling the time. Thus, this is applicable to everything within the universe;
since we can observe things that have purpose in the natural world, it suggests that there was a designer behind
it. Since we would assume a designer of the watch, such purposeful design in the world indicates, for Paley, a
divine designer. Like any teleological argument, Paley’s argument gains criticisms, mainly from David Hume.
The scholar outlines one key error in the explanation both Paley and Aquinas give when demonstrating their
theories - the use of analogies. With Paley’s example for instance, one cannot compare a watch to be equivalent
to the universe, as Hume observed, due to the fact they are nothing alike. Analogies therefore should be made
between two distinct things, not between something man made and natural. In addition to this, Hume highlights
that there could be many designers of the world, not just a sole designer. However, this analogy does serve some
strengths for the teleological argument. Counterarguing the fact that analogies weaken a moral theory, instead
one could justify that it instead strengthens the theory because it makes comprehensible sense to us, as it is
something simple and straightforward. Moreover, what is there to say that there wasn’t a group of watchmakers
instead of just one, it makes no sense to say there is one intelligent being, God, when it could have been a group
of God’s who designed the universe. Therefore, whilst Paley’s teleological argument does serve some strengths,
and can counterargue Hume’s opposition, ultimately there are too many problems that arise when using
analogies and thus break down the validity of the teleological argument and it's claim that the universe must
have a designer.
The teleological argument is an a posteriori style of argument, formed by Thomas Aquinas. The 13th century
philosopher’s theory is based on teleology, where purpose exists in nature. Thus, given this premise, the
existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. William Paley furthered this line of
argument through his analogy of the watchmaker. Whilst there are certainly strengths to the teleological
argument, both Aquinas and Paley create too many assumptions when attempting to prove God’s existence.
Instead, the theory of evolution seems the more convincing argument when compared to this teleological theory
and thus, this essay will demonstrate that whilst the teleological argument may prove that the universe does have
a designer, that designer is not God. Moreover, this line of argument will include the scholars Aquinas, Paley,
Hume, Bertrand Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, as well as John Stuart Mill.
Aquinas’ teleological argument was influenced by the work of Aristotle and his four causes. This was
specifically through his efficient cause, which states that everything must have a designer, as well as the final
cause, which states everything has a purpose. From this, Aquinas formed the teleological argument and this can
be demonstrated through his analogy of the archer. An arrow, an unintelligent object, cannot achieve its end
goal, of hitting the target without something intelligent guiding it. Therefore the archer, the ‘intelligent being’
has to direct the arrow to fulfil its end goal of hitting the target. This can be corroborated by when Aquinas
stated in Summa Theologica “Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to
their end; and this being we call God’. Thus it is clear from this, that the teleological argument suggests that the
designer of the universe is God. However, this analogy used to prove the existence of God inherits criticisms
from scholars such as Bertrand Russell. The scholar directly criticises Aquinas’ argument by questioning
whether the universe as a whole has a telos. Does there have to be a cause, or in this case a designer, why can’t it
just be there? In addition to this, Russell argues that the universe is a brute fact, seen by when he states ‘I should
say that the universe is just there, and that’s all’. Both of these critiques formed against Aquinas’ teleological
argument serve validity as quite clearly, they cause problems within Aquinas’ theory and break down his
fundamental argument of telos. Therefore, it is clear through evaluating the teleological argument that it does
not prove that the universe must have a designer, being God, as seen through the scholar Russell who instead
argues that it’s existence is just a brute fact.
William Paley’s teleological argument differs from Aquinas’ in the fact that Aquinas looks at the regularity of
action, whereas Paley looks at design and how things fit together for a purpose. This can be seen through his
analogy of the watchmaker, which in summary explains that the watch, with all its components, was constructed
by a watchmaker for the purpose of telling the time. Thus, this is applicable to everything within the universe;
since we can observe things that have purpose in the natural world, it suggests that there was a designer behind
it. Since we would assume a designer of the watch, such purposeful design in the world indicates, for Paley, a
divine designer. Like any teleological argument, Paley’s argument gains criticisms, mainly from David Hume.
The scholar outlines one key error in the explanation both Paley and Aquinas give when demonstrating their
theories - the use of analogies. With Paley’s example for instance, one cannot compare a watch to be equivalent
to the universe, as Hume observed, due to the fact they are nothing alike. Analogies therefore should be made
between two distinct things, not between something man made and natural. In addition to this, Hume highlights
that there could be many designers of the world, not just a sole designer. However, this analogy does serve some
strengths for the teleological argument. Counterarguing the fact that analogies weaken a moral theory, instead
one could justify that it instead strengthens the theory because it makes comprehensible sense to us, as it is
something simple and straightforward. Moreover, what is there to say that there wasn’t a group of watchmakers
instead of just one, it makes no sense to say there is one intelligent being, God, when it could have been a group
of God’s who designed the universe. Therefore, whilst Paley’s teleological argument does serve some strengths,
and can counterargue Hume’s opposition, ultimately there are too many problems that arise when using
analogies and thus break down the validity of the teleological argument and it's claim that the universe must
have a designer.
