Explain Paley’s Teleological argument (25)
According to the argument from design, or teleological argument, the design or order found in the universe provides evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (or orderer) usually identified as God. A classic version of this argument appears in William Paley's 1802 Natural Theology, where Paley compares the complexity of living things to the inferior complexity of a watch that we deduce to be designed by an intelligent being. Just as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker, Paley argued, living things could not exist without an intelligent designer.

The teleological or design argument is a derivative of the Greek word Telos which means end, goal or purpose. It is this end or purpose that Paley is looking for that suggests the existence of a divine creator. Aquinas’ fifth way ‘From the governance of things’ or design qua regularity argument (qua meaning through or pertaining to) foregrounding the argument for design, observed the universe and saw that everything in the universe appeared to be working in some sort of order. In particular he noticed that ‘natural bodies’ behaved in a regular way. Here Aquinas addresses flowers or insects - One could use the example of a daffodil that flowers in spring time. He then goes on to evaluate the fact that these natural bodies ‘lack intelligence’ - they are not conscious or sentient beings of their own movement, yet even so they appear to move or act in regular fashion - as daffodil flowers every spring time. Aquinas suggests that these things cannot provide their own movement as they lack the intelligence to do so. We must then conclude that their movement or regularity must come from somewhere other than themselves. He suggests that this movement does not occur ‘fortuitously but designedly’. Insinuating that this regularity or movement has not come about by sheer chance but that something else has caused the flower or ‘natural bodies’ to obey an ordained pattern. Aquinas then goes on to suggest that ‘as an arrow is directed to its mark by the archer’ so too is the movement/regularity of things directed by a being with intelligence. The analogy of the arrow and the archer is used by Aquinas to demonstrate the link between God and creation. For Aquinas this intelligence that provides regularity of movement in the universe is God. This is the conclusion of Aquinas’ argument from design qua regularity. This analogy clearly supports Paley’s own qua purpose argument know as ‘The analogy of the watch’

Paley’s design qua purpose argument has a different feel from Aquinas’ as he first focused on outlining a hypothetical situation and then drawing conclusions about the nature of existence from this hypothesis. The analogy begins with Paley asking us to imagine crossing a heath (wasteland) and ‘pitching your foot against a stone’. If you were to pick up this stone you would not immediately ask the question ‘where does this stone come from?’ as there would be little remarkable about it. However if you continued on the heath and pitched your foot against a watch you would simply not be able to dismiss the watch as you did the stone - this is due of the complexity of the watch. The cogs, wheels and counter weights in the mechanism, on closer inspection, would demonstrate this complexity. Moreover, if the pieces of the watch were placed in any other order, the watch wouldn’t work or it would not fulfil its purpose of telling the time. Yet the pocket watch fulfils the purpose of telling the time. Paley states that on discovery of this watch you would have to stipulate a watch maker or designer because of the complex nature of the mechanism and its obvious purpose for telling the time. Using similar logic Paley continues his analogy by moving onto his observations of the universe or world around us. In particular Paley focuses on the human eye to demonstrate complexity and purpose. Paley observed that the human eye was made up of different complex components, the lens, iris and cornea etc, and that the coming together of these different parts could not have come about by sheer chance alone as the eye is too complex. He suggested that just as in the case of the watch with its clear complexity and purpose, we must conclude a designer of the eye because of its obvious purpose of seeing. If the eye were put together in a different manner either it wouldn’t see at all or would only provide partial sight, either case would see it falling short of its purpose (telos). For Paley complexity and purpose of the eye points to clear evidence of design in the world. This designer or provider of purpose in the universe is, for Paley, the God of Christianity. Yet Paley does not stop there, he continues onto voice the theory of design qua regularity,
Paley’s design qua regularity argument comes on the back of some major changes in the way that the universe was understood. In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity marking the movement into a ‘classical’ view of physics. The view of classical physics suggests that the universe is like a machine, working like clockwork in predictable patterns. It is this that Paley picks up on. Paley’s argument is an updated version of Aquinas’ in some respects, in the notion that objects cannot provide their own order. But there are some subtleties of Paley’s argument that need to be brought out. Paley suggests that the rotation or ellipses of planets are so regular as to provide the opportunity for life on earth. He focuses on gravity and suggests that without the continuity or regularity of gravity then we would have a very different universe. Theoretically it would be possible to have the laws of the universe in any state, but only within narrow boundaries would we find stability of ellipsis such as our planets. He argues that this regularity did not come about by chance but that it has been directed to be the case by some higher power. This being, for Paley, is God.
Hume’s comments about design in the universe destroyed Paley’s argument. Discuss (10)
David Hume criticised Paley’s argument and analogy by means of ‘redectio ad absurdum’ He clearly showed that if one takes the analogy of a machine being like the world then the argument simply fails. If someone comes across a machine they would assume like most machines invented by man, that it has more than one designer – therefore there should thus be more than one God. Also designers live and die, therefore these deities themselves could possibly be no longer existent.
Hume also argued that there are many examples of poor design in the world such as hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis etc. The world in this sense is not orderly so if a designer or designers were to exist they must be incompetent because of its faults. Thus it is not possible to hold onto God’s benevolence and omnipotence when looking at the worlds design, therefore it is more likely to presume that there is no God then that he is imperfect. Indeed Hume compared the world as the ‘first rude essay of an infant diety’. In David Hume's ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, Echelbarger critiques George Nathan's argument that the Dialogues indicate that Hume believed that "God is the ultimate cause of order in the universe" and that Hume's criticisms were only intended to question the nature of God, not his existence. After analyzing the text of the Dialogues and determining what Hume's ostensible God can't be, Echelbarger concludes that Hume's atheism is "tacit, subtle, and ironic," and that it is "more accurate to say that, for Hume, Nature takes the place of God."

Hume states that if the analogy is to be taken seriously and we make conclusions about God by looking at us in our world then this argument does not work, because for one God if he truly existed, he would reside outside or world and time and space, and hence does not necessarily have to conform to our understanding – One cannot argue from a physical universe to a metaphysical one. We have never seen a universe being built; we have no other universe to compare our own to. Our inference lies on the idea that the universe resembles human creations. To Hume, this is what is wrong with the argument. Man made items do not so closely resemble the natural world that we can be sure that the universe is designed by an intelligent being.
We see cameras being designed and made in factories but human eyes are not made in factories. In fact, human eyes are made in a so completely different way that it is important to ask the believer, just where is the analogy? Hume asserted that for all we know there are numerous causes of order and design other than intelligence and thought.
Darwins theory of evolution works alongside Hume’s criticisms of Paley to detract from the teleological argument. In Darwin’s mind occurrences are result of chance mutation – natural selection, which is completely random and out of human jurisdiction or control. Therefore there is simply no need for an all-magic designer. Changes in the universe can easily be explained by science. However Darwin in contrast with this may also be argued to indirectly support Paley’s argument for design as he himself struggled with the complexities of the eye, stating during his lifetime that ‘’To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.’’
However others would argue the universe is not imperfect and the Anthropic principle introduced by the theoretical physicist Brandon Carter in 1973, appears to reinforce this, this is ‘The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the purpose of containing intelligent beings; namely, humans. ...’ A perfect example of this is Gravity. For if gravity had been even slightly weaker or slightly stronger, the universe would not have formed in the big bang a suitable formation to inhabit human life. In this way science can be used to back up Paley’s argument as such minute details seem to be evidence of a designer.