3

Teleological arguments for the existence of God have a long history and straddle Greek Antiquity (Platos Divine Artificer), Islam (Averroes) and Christianity (Aquinas) and currently and most famously the intelligent design movement in the states.

They appear to have been comprehensively critiqued mainly it seems by the success of the two sciences - Physics which crafts a universe of unbending law and biology through it support of evolution.

Yet, it seems to me that these critiques are not impervious to attack. That is it appears simply the intellectual environment has changed such that these arguments no longer have any purchase. That is the basis for believing in these arguments were coherent with a number of positions, and when they fell - they all fell together.

Are there any philosophers have mounted effective challenges to these critiques of the teleological argument?

Mozibur Ullah
  • 1
  • 14
  • 88
  • 234
  • Thomas Nagel's most recent book, _Mind and Cosmos_ defends some sort of teleology. I have to admit I haven't read it, so I can't say much more. It has, however, been pretty heavily criticized. See this [blog-posting](http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/12/thomas-nagel-and-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-or-on-unprincipled-natural-teleology.html) for some discussion. – Dennis May 29 '13 at 00:06

2 Answers2

4

The teleological argument is effectively dead. The last gasp at it was by William Dembski and Michael Behe with "irreducible complexity" (the intellectual core of the intelligent design movement), and they simply failed to understand the actual problem and/or came up with handwaving to state that certain things were impossible, when in fact they were not only possible but there were examples of them.

That evolution provides the mechanism to produce all the complexity of life seen today is no longer in serious doubt; and that simple physical laws suffice to produce all the complexity of the universe is also no longer in serious doubt. The only area not completely nailed down is fine-tuning of universal constants, and that makes for an incredibly weak teleological argument since all we know about reality with different constants is that our familiar physics doesn't work. We cannot predict whether there'd be some other complex physical reality admitting evolution, so we can't tell if the numbers are actually finely tuned and thus whether we should be surprised by them.

I would go so far as to say that at this point there cannot be any effective challenges to these critiques without a radical re-evaluation of our scientific knowledge. That is to say, such challenges will not come soon, nor will they come through philosophy initially. If there are unexpectedly large flaws in the science, then there may be some wiggle room in which to attempt another teleological argument, but finding such flaws is a scientific endeavor.

Rex Kerr
  • 15,806
  • 1
  • 22
  • 45
  • Well there is one carefully worked out theory where *c* the speed of light changes. Its used to account for inflation without inflation in the early universe. – Mozibur Ullah May 29 '13 at 05:15
  • @MoziburUllah - There is, but what is the relevance for the teleological argument? (I'd call this "expectedly small".) – Rex Kerr May 29 '13 at 05:43
  • 1
    There isn't. It was just a comment. It does seem to me that in fact the argument from design always applies. For why are the laws as they are, that is why are they designed that way. Here I'm not talking about the constants, but also the model (ie the laws themselves). If we build a better theory which that model was the unique solution (as some solutions of fine-tuning propose) then we still need to tackle the same question a 'level' up. That is we get an infinite regress. I don't see how you can escape that regress. I can see that as leaving 'wriggle' room for teleology. – Mozibur Ullah May 29 '13 at 05:52
  • @MoziburUllah - That we can explain regularities with a mathematical model does not imply that any problems are solved or ameliorated by adding a hypothetical entity that builds models. You still have the regress too (why is the model-builder designed that way). – Rex Kerr May 29 '13 at 06:26
  • lets put that aside for the moment - I'm not suggesting that its an easy problem to assign teleology. What I am pointing out is that there is an infinite regress - mathematically model-wise. Do you agree with that? – Mozibur Ullah May 29 '13 at 11:13
  • That is the explanatory power of being self-sufficient is an illusion. – Mozibur Ullah May 29 '13 at 14:34
  • 1
    @MoziburUllah - You can always induce an infinite regress by asking why at the next level of abstraction. It doesn't matter if God appears in some of the answers. (Some Christian apologists state that God is a self-proving entity in an attempt to block the regress, but you can always ask: why? how do we know? Is that even possible? Is God the only self-proving entity? Isn't that a circular argument? If you just mean "everything is what it is" isn't that a vacuous statement and one which you could make about the universe minus God?) It works better to save knowledge with e.g. coherentism. – Rex Kerr May 29 '13 at 16:40
0

Teleological argument as form of fine tuning isn't refuted.

In fact in an academic paper, Man Ho Chan has argued from mathematical analysis and systematic comparison of different hypothesis, and shows that as per current understanding, data strongly prefer theistic explanation.

From paper:

Among the available hypotheses, the chance-alone hypothesis, super-law explanation, and observation selection effect are not able to give a satisfactory explanation of the fine-tuning phenomena. Therefore, most of our discussions focus on the God hypothesis and the two multiverse hypotheses. By using the confirmation principle, we conclude that the God hypothesis has the largest value of P(T|E). On the other hand, by using another principle, inference to the best explanation, we still get the same conclusion. Therefore, we can conclude that the theistic worldview can offer the best explanation of the fine-tuning phenomena.

Source: https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1447&context=etd_oa

Author has also suggested that fine tuning is required as primary fine tuning, secondary fine tuning, global fine tuning which makes case more stronger and less susceptible to future discovery which can disappears fine tuning of some constants.

Additionally author has answered traditional objections like coarse tuning objection, zooming argument, argument from stenger etc, and shows that theistic explanation is best as per inference to best explanation.

Hare Krishna
  • 411
  • 3
  • 13
  • There are, at least, two distinctly different usages of teleology. Purpose [large P] and purpose [small p]. Large P is no longer required to explained complexity, God or anything else. In fact just the opposite. Spinoza explains that if God built purpose into the universe it would indicate that there was something missing or needed as a mechanism. The universe requires no mechanisms, it includes 'everything possible within an infinite understanding'. The other purpose [teleology] reflects the self-sustaining functions within systems; like in the body's organs or a solar system. CMS –  Dec 24 '19 at 14:16
  • The fine tuning argument does not require debunking: it's just a God of the gaps fallacy in savant disguise. – armand Dec 25 '19 at 04:46
  • Hello, when we says God of gaps, we are sure that God must not answer, but how do we know it? Same way one could say to anything. One can say something is evolution of gaps because we don't know real reason. It is not that we have arbitrary fill gaps, but evidence itself suggest it. If we says theistic explanation must not answer, we suppose that fine tuning is due to either absurd universe, multiverse, super-law, universe can be only exist if consciousness exist, or life principle. But author has specifically shows that some of it doesn't satisfactory explain, and multiverse isn't best. – Hare Krishna Dec 25 '19 at 05:49
  • I'm sorry but that paper is nonsense. In the abstract it says modern science reveals the universe is fine-tuned for life, but biology says that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment not the reverse. This is important because in the intro this author talks about things like how the solubility of oxygen is important to life when early autotrophs don't care about such things. And worse of all this paper quotes the infamously wrong quote on the probability of evolution arising due random chance. – Cell Dec 26 '19 at 14:20
  • Also this paper has no mathematics at all. Just some trivial comparisons between some constants like the "number of possible universes" versus the probability of life arising due to random chance etc. There is no novel derivation of anything just comparing work other people have done. And the biggest offence is that references to "scientific" work are from creationists papers in religious journals. – Cell Dec 26 '19 at 14:27
  • 1
    Hello, I think there is some misunderstanding. If we see chapter 2, it provides mathematical foundation based on which further analysis will carried out. And author doesn't deny evolution. In fact, in chapter 5 author talk about evolution, specially section 5.1.2 but author draw attention to fine tuning needed for it, based on initial conditions and from simulation models, some results in which fine tuning required. Author has given 145 references, and it doesn't matter who writes paper but what is written is right or not, or we can mistakes it as ad homium because we have to judge by work. – Hare Krishna Dec 28 '19 at 05:17
  • Author has given references for what he writes about evolution, like: Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True (New York: Penguin Group, 2009). 207 Kenneth Kardong, An Introduction to Biological Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), p.277, Marten Scheffer, Critical Transitions in Nature and Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009), p.177, Michael Seeds, Foundations of Astronomy (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005) – Hare Krishna Dec 28 '19 at 05:30
  • 1
    +1 Nice answer. As you say, fine-tuning is the contemporary version of the teleological argument, which is [very much alive and discussed](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#CosFinTun), especially Bayesian-inference forms of the argument. Even if one disagrees with the author, the paper you linked to does give a very nice overview (and given that the author has a PhD in physics as well as philosophy, I think a charitable reading is in order). – Adam Sharpe Jan 03 '20 at 18:27
  • @AdamSharpe Are you talking about the paper "Would God create our Universe through multiverse?" Man Ho Chan, 2015? I don't see how anyone can read that article and not see the quackery. This author claims a fact about the "excellent" buffering capacity of carbon dioxide in the body and cites bio-complexity.org; a creationism journal. You'd think a physics PhD would be more rigorous than that and cite a reputable biochemistry journal. Besides what makes the carbonic acid/bicarbonate buffer so "excellent"? Because if I hyperventilate I can have respiratory alkalosis and get severely sick? Great. – Cell Jan 07 '20 at 18:50
  • @Cell Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the specifics of your buffer objection. And I myself don't find 'guided evolution' Behe-style fine-tuning convincing, though I'm at the mercy of the experts. Two types of fine tuning that I *do* find convincing (I'm a theist) are 1. the fine tuning of the constants of physics, and 2. the fine-tuning of the laws (and any "meta-laws") themselves. Regarding 1, the impression I get is that physicists agree that there is *apparent* fine-tuning, but that either a multiverse, or a better theory-of-everything will make it disappear. – Adam Sharpe Jan 07 '20 at 21:25
  • @AdamSharpe My point is precisely that physicists and biologists don't believe in fine-tuning otherwise authors like Man Ho Chan wouldn't cite creationism journals for basic biology and physics claims. And of course the notion wouldn't be popularized only in journals with a religious motive (like bio-complexity or "Theology and Science"; the journal Man Ho Chan published in). The principle of adaptation should be enough to debunk fine-tuning. Or that our planet is the only one with observable life forms or that the vast majority of empty space is inhospitable to life. – Cell Jan 07 '20 at 22:14
  • @Cell As I understand it, if certain constants of physics didn't fall within a very narrow range of values, the universe would expand too fast, or collapse in on itself, or there would be no chemistry as we understand it, and so on. No life could possibly adapt to such environments. – Adam Sharpe Jan 07 '20 at 22:27
  • @AdamSharpe That's not my point. To say the universe is "fine-tuned" for life has two implications: 1. If certain properties of the universe were slightly different life as we know it could not emerge. You already established that. But there's the flip side what I'm trying to tell you: 2. That the constants as they are now allow life to emerge. But as I said the vast empty space is inhospitable for life, and of the part that is hospitable, the environment is not friendly and it appears that there is life only on a tiny blue/green speck in what could be an infinite universe. – Cell Jan 07 '20 at 22:47
  • @AdamSharpe That means as far as the collective human knowledge goes the criteria for life is based on a literal outlier data point. – Cell Jan 07 '20 at 22:52
  • @Cell But fine-tuning isn't to do with the universe being "friendly" to life (in the sense that there would be life in every corner of it), rather it's about the very possibility of life at all. So the argument goes, given atheism the probability of a universe where life exists is very low. Given theism (of no specific variety), the probability of a universe where life exists wouldn't be comparably low (I admit, I can only argue for this on intuitive grounds, since theisms are not generally precise and quantitative), and so the life-permitting universe is better explained by theism. – Adam Sharpe Jan 07 '20 at 23:24
  • (Slight correction to my last comment. In Bayesian inference, technically you also need to consider the prior probability of a hypothesis (theism) too, before one can say it "better explains" something. If the prior probability is too low, it can perfectly explain some phenomenon, and still be the less likely theory.) – Adam Sharpe Jan 07 '20 at 23:33
  • @AdamSharpe So believing in the fine-tuning argument means believing that no life cannot exist in alternate universes (with different constants) which we can only imagine with our minds based in our universe and can't actually test anything. And that the constants in our universe allow life based on the only observation that our puny earth contains life in a possibly infinite universe. That's not so surprising I suppose. Religious people believe in much bolder claims with much less evidence. But this not the consensus among scientists. – Cell Jan 07 '20 at 23:35