III. The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design, Argument from Analogy) for the existence of God: the order of the universe as a whole and the intricacy of things in the universe in particular are intelligible only if we assume the involvement of some ordering force or mind aiming to achieve some purpose.  A purely causal, non-teleological account (that is, one that does not provide a rationale for why something is the way it is) makes the events in the world accidental (lacking goals, intentions, purposes).  Since the world exhibits such order and intricacy, there must be a creative mind responsible for it, and that is God.  In terms of the analogy:
 
   watch             =     universe
   watch-maker  =     universe-maker

• Darwin's Criticism of the Teleological Argument: To detect order in something does not necessarily mean that that order is the result of some purposive activity.  As difficult as it is to accept sometimes, the intricacy of relations among things can be explained naturalistically (without having to appeal to supernatural causes).  Things are as they are because that is the way they have turned out, not they have turned out that way because of what they are.  The world may exhibit order (as a result, for example, of random variations that prove to be adaptive to environments), but that does not mean that it exhibits purpose or design.

• Hume's Criticisms of the Telelogical Argument:

• More radical than Darwin's critique: not only does Hume deny that one can prove that there is design, he also doubts whether one can show that that there is order.  Order is imposed by human beings on the chaos of nature; we tend to see order where there is none; in short, not only is there no persuasive empirical evidence for purpose in the world, there is no such evidence even for order.
• Even if we agree there is order in the world, we cannot use the watch analogy--we know the fourth term of an analogy only by being empirically familiar with the things that are related independently of the analogy.  Because we have no experience of the universe as such or of instances of universes having been created by other universe creators, we cannot use the analogy.
• And even if we accept such analogies, they allow us to conclude only so much goodness and intelligence as we see. If we think that the world develops like a plant develops (e.g., an oak from a seed), then the cause of the world might be nothing more than a plant.  And if the world exhibits imperfection (as empirically is evident a posteriori), then we must conclude that its creator is imperfect.  Evil and suffering must be due to a malicious or impotent creator, or a committee of finite (though powerful, though certainly not infinitely powerful) gods, or a child god who tosses off universes (for all we know) like discarded sand castles, or a god who dies in the process of creating the world.  Certainly, by using the analogy and beginning with experience, one cannot conclude that the creator of the universe is all-perfect, knowing, because the universe itself is not.

• God's omniscience is incompatible with human freedom.  Reply: when God creates, He creates some determinate thing; so He knows what he creates and what we (on our own) will freely (without interference from anything other than ourselves) choose to do.  We do our actions, not God.

• Problem of evil.  Replies: (A) Things are considered evil only from our perspective as individuals. [Counter-reply: then we cannot say that the world is good either, since it would be only from our perspective.  Besides, no one really thinks that evil is not real.]  (B) Evil is necessary to balance the good. [Counter-reply: this again denies that evil is real by making it something that is ultimately good.]  (C) Evil is necessary to highlight the good. [Counter-reply: why so much evil?  And why could God not have simply given us such knowledge?  We may learn better and become persons through struggle, but what does an infant who dies learn?]

• Omnipotence is incoherent, impossible: God cannot do everything (if that includes the impossible). Reply: To say that God cannot do the impossible is no limitation on God; even God cannot and would not do what makes no sense.

• God's goodness is incompatible with his creation of the devil and eternal punishment.  Reply: the devil is simply the embodiment of the ever-present possibility for evil; and hell is the eternal affirmation of one's choice not to have a significance or meaning.  Any suffering in this life is more than made up by eternal happiness. [Counter-replies: (Dostoevsky): no theodicy or reconciliation of evil and the existence of God is possible.  Suffering is unavengeable: not even in an afterlife can all be made right, for those who have suffered never erase the suffering.  Belief in God ensures that the reality of evil is never lost.  (Hume): why should I believe in an afterlife in the first place--simply to balance the perceived evil in the world?  Why not acknowledge that evil as evidence against an afterlife and a God?]

• Feuerbach: traits of God are really projections of human characteristics that have become alienated and intimidating grounds for self-effacement.  Religion keeps human beings from retrieving these characteristics (their subjective essence) from the foreign, artificial God.  Human alienation (the frustration of human aspirations) is really due to religion.

• Marx: Marx asks why Feuerbach's religious alienation would have occurred in the first place.  The critique of religion does not correct the social conditions that cause alienation.  Religion (the opium of the people) is the way that human beings try to compensate for social alienation by means of idealizing social (family) relations and thus minimizing the reality of human misery caused by social structures.  The illusions of religion (peace, happiness) kill the pain and do away with the need to correct the real social problems (left unsolved as well by science).  Once social alienation is overcome, the need for religion will disappear.

• Freud: religious beliefs are born of infantile feelings of helplessness and fear.  Infants recognize that they are not all-powerful, and this produces fear and resentment and the need for a protector from pain and unhappiness.  The father provides this protection, and the infant grows up wishing that such a belief is true, unconsciously adopting a delusion shared by others (and thus reinforced).  Religion makes us think that the real value of life lies beyond life (e.g., in an afterlife), and this depresses the value of life and diminishes intelligence by emphasizing how we are unable to take care of ourselves or understand why we exist.  depresses the value of life and diminishes intelligence by emphasizing how we are unable to take care of ourselves or understand why we exist.  We then resort to believing in something that transcends this life, namely, God.  By holding people at the level of their infancy and providing a social support system, religion helps people avoid anxiety and neurosis through this self-delusion.  Religion can be escaped only by those with the courage to face the scientific harshness of life or by those who channel their anxiety-based delusions into socially acceptable forms of expression (e.g., art).