The fifth Cosmological argument in support of the existence of God, advanced by Aquinas is, in effect, the teleological principle, based on the idea of ‘governance’. It argued that natural objects, bereft of knowledge, acted in a way, not whimsically, but in terms of an underlying objective. In other words, ‘the design’, to achieve the best end, there existed some primordial being, as the repository of all the superior knowledge and perception. This primordial force has been referred to as God, who directed natural things, down the physical order, to move towards their respective ends.
This argument may be best conceived of as an “inference to the best explanation”, rather than as deductive reasoning, (although, Aquinas thought it otherwise) shorn of any empirical veracity. The argument, idealistically appeals to the existence of a super-order and implants an overarching purpose in the universe, and contends that the best explanation of the functioning of the order could be adduced in terms of the ‘natural design’, ordained by the omnipotent being. (Aquinas, 101).
This argument has the distinct advantage that it appeals to reason, makes a deep idealistic impression on the mind, and lends the advocate to use it freely in preference to all other reasoning. The major points of the physico-theological proof, as categorized by Kant himself, may be visualized as a four-mode aspect. The first aspect deals with the existence of symptoms of the operation of an order, in accordance with a clearly defined purpose and innate wisdom, in a universe, which is extremely diverse and vast. The second aspect indicates that there is a governing principle, commensurate with the underlying ideas, which chose and designed the apparently disparate bodies of the world to interact with them, to the eventual realization of a ‘determinate’ final weal. The third aspect deals with the existence of a profound and an-all immanent cause, which, necessarily, maybe inferred as the free, intelligent, propelling force of the world. The fourth and last aspect is a perceived unity of the cause, deduced from the unity of the ‘reciprocal relations’ existing between various parts of the world.
One of the principal critical contentions made by Kant, in refutation of the teleological argument is that it had taken a resort to the transcendental and unconditioned idea of a ‘necessary and all-sufficient’ entity, beyond the pale of objective empiricism. He argued and, in a way, quite convincingly too, that the concept of the Supreme Being was taken out of the causal series of earthly beings. This was governed in terms of the cyclical chain of causation and effect, beyond the realm of sensual experience and cognition, and the disjunct was, seemingly, bridged through the employment of pure speculative proof. This is because of its all-powerful wisdom and intelligence, unmatched by the lower members of the natural hierarchy of the universe.
The construct of this immanent being, the ‘unconstrained author or the architect’ has been divorced from the objectively perceivable principle of causality. This was in the mode of characterizing the functioning of lower beings down the order. Yet it has been hailed as something ‘original’ and ‘self-sustaining’ through attribution of the highest degrees of perfection to it. This has been done (though taking recourse to commonsense reason, free from self-contradiction) based on ‘abstruse speculation’, not grounded on experience. Further, Kant questions the automatic extension of ends and causes, binding the interaction of natural entities of the universe with those of objects, created out of human innovation and entrepreneurship, like, say, ships, watches, and houses. Following the usual logic of an all-powerful supreme will, he rhetorically asks if the functioning of these ‘artificial objects’ made out of ‘human art’ was also guided by the same omnipotent design. Illustratively, he casts very strong doubt on the rationality of the teleological principle to place both these categories of objects within the same ordinate of a comparative index, as far as they are regulated, as argued by the physico-theologians, by the immanent laws of the universe. On what strength of argument, does it make sense to compare the universe to a clock or a house? Is the world necessarily ‘a work presupposing a workman?’ He inferred with a certain amount of logical definiteness, that the employment of such transcendental abstraction to explain away the functioning of these different sets of entities, on the same principle of universal laws of the ‘omnipotent’, would not be able to stand the scrutiny of objective queries.
He also argues that the world could just as well be the reality in eternity rather than be considered a machine. He also questions “finality” and asks if it is inherent in the things themselves. Kant further strengthened his argument by contending that the purposiveness and seamless adaptation of the functioning of natural objects with that of the universe was in the domain of ‘form’ only and not with regard to ‘substance’. He argued that proof the latter would have necessitated clear and irrefutable evidence of the premise that the natural things in the world are also, in their ultimate material substance, products of the same supreme wisdom, to make them amenable of being regulated by the universal laws. In absence of such proof, the logic of automatic equivalence between the governing laws of natural things and that of the absolute necessity, viz., God, breaks down irreversibly. (Yong, 245-246).
The concept of the supreme wisdom as the repository of perfection being described by such superlative epithets as “very great”, “astounding” etc also suffers from indeterminacy. Since the magnitude of such perfection could not be comprehensively determined, barring such idealistic concepts of “allness” [“omnitudo”], the concept has been rendered tenuous and hollow, and unable to lend itself any cogency and firmness, for a more deterministic inquiry of the same. A striking feature of Kant’s contention is that he also reserves a kind of cynical appreciation for the teleological proof of the supremacy of the ultimate when he asserts that the former points to a feature “which strengthens the belief in the highest author so that it becomes an irresistible conviction”. While describing “the splendid, order, beauty and providence which is displayed throughout nature as alone producing faith, in a wise and great world author”, he, basically, empathizes with the doctrine, in referring to it as a natural human tendency and considers it as a piece of popular thought but not as rigorous or philosophical proof.
Kant maintains that the argument of the supremacy, innate wisdom of the ‘author’ of the world, while short-circuiting the process of empirical validation, actually relies on the cosmological proof (referred to as a concealed ‘ontological proof’). It starts from the contingency principle, to infer the existence of an ‘absolutely necessary being’ (third cosmological principle). Then, from the concept of the absolute necessity of the first efficient cause (2nd principle), straightway catapults itself to the final, ‘determinate’ paradigm of the ‘all-embracing’ reality, as he derisively refers to, ‘on the wings of ideas’. In this context, he somehow made light of the physico-theologians’ disposition as ‘clear-sighted students of nature” looking down on abstract, transcendental theologians as “dark, brooding weavers’ of the web. However, their attempt to strengthen the facets of theology with the objective results of the study of nature is never followed up as it hurriedly enters the arena of mere theoretical possibilities, in order to establish the existence of the God of philosophy.
Thus, it may be reasonably inferred that the argument, as outlined above, happens to be Kant’s one of the most potent and persuasive wedges of objection to the physico-theological belief of God’s existence. While he strongly contends that all efforts made by the more profound of the ontological proof must be futile, he strongly adheres to the view that in the quest for obtaining knowledge about the ultimate transcendental entity. No argument deserves to be carefully considered and accepted within the usual parameters of analytical rigor, unless it addresses itself to the realm of experience and seeks to achieve its aim through the intellectual means, via, the time-tested vehicle of empirical validation. (Kant, 518-524).
Works Cited
Kant, E; Physico-Theological Proof Impossible; Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason; 518-524.
Aquinas, T; The Teleological Argument (The Fifth Way); The Metaphysical Quest; 101.
Yong, Amos; God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science; Religious Studies Review; Volume 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages: 245-246.