Transcript document

The Teleological Proof (I)
• A Posteriori Argument: A argument in
which a key premise can only be known
through experience of the actual world.
• Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For
every positive fact, whatsoever, there is a
sufficient reason, known or unknown,
explaining why it is.
• Teleological System: A collection of parts
that, under the proper conditions, work
together to achieve some telos (goal or
purpose).
The Teleological Proof
1) There are teleological systems in
nature, e.g. the human eye, the
human circulatory system, the human
nervous system. (Premise)
2) The teleological systems in nature are
either the product of purely natural,
non-intelligent forces or the product of
some form of supernatural, creative
intelligence. (Premise)
3) Purely natural, non-intelligent forces
are not a sufficient explanation for the
teleological systems in nature.
(Premise)
4) Therefore, a supernatural, creative
intelligence exists. (from 2 & 3 and
PSR)
Discussion of the Teleological Proof
• The Argument is valid. The question
is whether it is sound, i.e. whether all
its premises are actually true.
• All parties to the discussion concede
(1.) & (2.). The dispute is over (3.).
• Criticisms of (3.)
– David Hume’s alleged weak analogy.
• David Hume claimed that (3.) is
based upon a weak analogy
between natural and non-natural
teleological systems, e.g. a watch.
• Since they are non-natural, there is
no other possible explanation for
non-natural teleological systems
than a creative intelligence.
• Since they are natural, however,
one must allow for at least the
possibility that natural teleological
systems might have been naturally
produced.
– St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated
Hume’s objection and responded to it
• “We see that things which lack
intelligence, 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 . . . . Now
whatever lacks intelligence cannot
move towards an end, unless it be
directed by some being endowed
with knowledge and intelligence; as
the arrow is shot to its mark by the
archer. Therefore, some intelligent
being exists by whom all natural
things are directed to their end . . .
.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theological, I, 2, iii
• Aquinas’ point is that anything that
lacks intelligence in itself cannot
pursue a goal unless it is directed
toward that goal by something that
has intelligence, e.g. the arrow is
directed by the archer.
• Whether they are natural or nonnatural, all teleological systems
lack intelligence in themselves.
• Thus, they must be directed toward
their goals by something that has
intelligence.
– A challenge to Aquinas – Darwinian
evolution.
• Contrary to what Aquinas claims,
Darwinian evolution seems to account
sufficiently for natural teleological
systems, without appealing to a
supernatural, creative intelligence.
• Teleological systems evolved slowly
over millions of years as a result of
random genetic mutations that were
“naturally selected for” because, given
the environment, they provided greater
survivability.
• In the last twenty years or so,
Darwinian evolution has come
under attack by scientists.
• In November of 2001 a full page
ad, appearing in several national
publications and signed by over
100 scientists of various sorts,
stated:
– “[We are] skeptical of the claims
for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life.”
• One of the scientists who signed the
ad, Michael Behe (Professor of
Biochemistry at Lehigh University),
published Darwin’s Black Box in
1996.
• In this book, Behe argues that
natural teleological systems, e.g. the
human eye, are irreducibly complex.
• This means that, if all the parts of a
teleological system are not present,
it won’t work 50% as well, or 25% as
well, or even 10% as well.
• If all the parts of a teleological
system are not in place, the system
won’t work AT ALL.
• Consequentially, it is incredibly
improbable for natural teleological
systems to have evolved, bit by bit,
naturally over time.
• Behe concludes that, given its
incredible improbability, it is
irrational to believe that natural
teleological systems have evolved,
bit by bit, naturally over time.
• Instead, one should believe that
natural teleological systems are the
products of supernatural
intelligence.
• William Dembski, in his book The
Design Inference, argues one can
establish with mathematical
precision a level of improbability an
event’s happening beyond with it is
irrational to believe the event did
happen by change.
• Dembski calls this level of
improbability the Intelligence
Threshold.
– “Given the goal of constructing a
mousetrap, one can specify a
goal-directed selection process
that in turn selects a platform, a
hammer, a spring, a catch, and a
holding bar, and at the end puts
all these components together to
form a functional mousetrap.
– “[T]he selection operating in
biology is Darwinian natural
selection, and, by definition, this
form of selection operates
without goals, has neither plan
nor purpose, and is wholly
undirected . . . . [B]y making
selection an undirected process,
Darwin drastically reduced the
type of complexity biological
systems could manifest.
– “For an irreducibly complex
system, function is attained only
when all components of the
system are in place
simultaneously. It follows that
natural selection, if it is going to
produce an irreducibly complex
system, has to produce it all at
once or not at all. This would not
be a problem if the systems in
question were simple. But,
they’re not.
– “The irreducibly complex
biochemical systems Behe
considers are protein machines
consisting of numerous distinct
proteins, each indispensable for
function; together they are
beyond what natural selection
can muster in a single
generation.”
William Dembski, “Science and
Design”
– A Critical Question about the work of
Behe, Dembski, et al.: Is it science?
• Their work is right at the intersection
of science and philosophy.
• Modern science (and natural
philosophy before it) operates under
the assumption of methodological
naturalism, i.e. scientists should limit
their explanations to purely natural
causes.
• Supernatural intelligent design is,
by its very nature, a non-natural
cause
• Indeed, supernatural intelligent
design is a kind of miracle.
• However, miracles, by their very
nature, are things beyond
understanding
• To say truly that something has a
miraculous cause is to say, in the
final analysis, it is unexplainable.
• Behe and Dembski may be correct
that Darwinian evolution is inherently
incapable of, ultimately, explaining the
origin of life.
• If they are, however, what they have
told us is that science, ultimately, is
unable to explain the origin of life.
• Perhaps Behe and Dembski have
proven that life requires a
supernatural creator, but, if so, their
proof is philosophical, not scientific.
• Perhaps, in particular, Dembski’s
insistence that his work is science,
not philosophy, is motivated by
three things.
– The greater esteem science has
than philosophy for many in
today’s society.
– The fact that science is taught in
public schools, but philosophy is
not.
– As a reaction against the work
of doctrinaire atheist-scientists,
such as Richard Dawkins.
– Dawkins turns science’s
methodological naturalism into
metaphysical naturalism, i.e.
there is nothing beyond the
natural world studied by science.
– Dawkins then claims that
science has proven God does
not exist.
– The proper response to
Dawkins, however, is not to
make the opposite mistake and
say science has proven God
does exist.
– The proper response is to point
out Dawkins’ metaphysical
naturalism is a philosophical
claim, which no amount of
scientific evidence can prove.
– Indeed, Behe and Dembski’s
work, taken as philosophy, are
telling arguments against
Dawkins’ metaphysical
naturalism.
– A document issued by the
International Theological
Commission of the Holy See
(then headed by Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict
XVI) puts things well:
– “[N]eo-Darwinians who adduce
random genetic variation and
natural selection as evidence
that the process of evolution is
absolutely unguided are straying
beyond what can be
demonstrated by science . . . . [In
the Catholic perspective] any
evolutionary mechanism that is
contingent can only be
contingent because God made it
so.
– “An unguided evolutionary
process – one that falls outside
the bounds of divine providence
– simply cannot exist because
‘the causality of God, Who is the
first agent, extends to all being . .
. [For,] all things, inasmuch as
they participate in existence,
must likewise be subject to
divine providence’ (Summa
Theologiae I, 22, 2).”
International Theological Commission,
“Communion and Stewardship,” 2004
• In the end, what does this Teleological
Argument Prove?
– Assuming it is sound, at most, it
proves the existence of a being like
unto the God of Classical Theism.
– Clearly, the being behind natural
teleological systems would have to be
• Very Powerful, but not necessarily
all powerful.
• Very knowledgeable, but not
necessarily all knowing.
• Very benevolent (since this being
doesn’t seem to benefit in any way
from creation), but not necessarily
omnibenevolent.
– What’s more, this Teleological
Argument is consistent with Classical
Deism as well as Classical Theism.
• Deism – The belief in a God who
created the universe and then
abandoned it, assuming no control
over life, exerting no influence on
natural phenomena, and giving no
supernatural revelation.
• Because of this sort of teleological
argument a famous atheistphilosopher, Antony Flew,
abandoned atheism for Deism.
• The Problem of Evil keeps Flew
from accepting Theism.
– In the end, we can say this
Teleological Argument offers rational
support for Theism and/or Deism and
counts against atheism.