Talk:Teleological argument

GA Reassessment

Teleological argument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Per @Andrew Lancaster's posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.Patrick (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – I have interest in this article, but no promises in getting dug in before it gets delisted. Remsense ‥ 论 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Delist While the lack of citations is certainly an issue, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it's structure is incoherent, making it hard to read. I think it should be re-written a bit. Also the fact of it's instability makes it further from meeting GA criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus to merge ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Natural-law argument into Teleological argument. There's very little content on that page, which is currently a stub, and almost all of it is duplicated here in some form or another. while a longer article on such a topic probably could be created, it makes sense to merge it into this article for now as a redirect with possibilities. Psychastes (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the idea. It seems to me personally that many of these old argument are in effect the same argument. Still we have to follow published sources, and we also have to consider the fact that if that other article is so short that's basically because no one has worked on it. Once worked out with proper sources it will inevitably be more complicated combine into this one. So I'm feeling uncertain. I suspect that the best method might be to work on getting some reasonable sourcing and definitions into that stub first, including evidence that reliable sources agree with you (which is likely, but I'm not 100% sure).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support merge. Psychastes isn't arguing that they are the same, but rather that natural-law argument is a teleological argument, as the text supports, and because it is so short (and overlaps so heavily), that it is better merged for context, short text and overlap; I also support the R with possibility, because I agree that it is independently notable and could expand in the future if someone is in the mood to create a more substantial article. Klbrain (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naive Teleological Argument

Noticed the Naive Teleological Argument is not included. This argument from C. Stephen Evans is an interesting and unique one as it draws on certain epistemological claims/theories. It is one that, I believe, would be of general interest for the public, but my only concern is that it might not be notable enough to include. So wanted to raise this here. Thoughts on this?

Evans:

https://academic.oup.com/book/11666/chapter-abstract/160601339?redirectedFrom=fulltext GreenRedGreen (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems notable enough and is actually just a common design inference available to everyday people. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section on this based on our conversation here. Thanks! GreenRedGreen (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the enormous number of people who've made variants of teleological arguments over thousands of years why should we be given a special place to this one? Is it widely cited?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to be confused with intelligent design?

The prefatory line: "For teleology in general, see Teleology and Telos. Not to be confused with Intelligent design."

The first sentence: "The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'), also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument, is a..."

Is there a distinction being drawn here between "intelligent design" and "intelligent design argument"? The fact, well known to anyone familiar with the literature, is that what is called "intelligent design" (whether approvingly or not) is so completely overlapping with the history of the teleological argument that there is no principled way to draw a distinction. The fact that some people have said that they are not concluding, "Therefore God exists," and that they are simply raising problems for any cosmological view that does not posit some sort of designer, does not somehow create a different type of argument or a different field of study.

In short, as near as I can tell, "intelligent design" is what skeptics call the teleological argument when they want to treat it as a pseudoscientific, failed scientific theory, and "teleological argument" is what they call it when they describe a distinguished ancient tradition of argument. Can you really have it both ways? It seems to me the teleological argument is to be confused with intelligent design.

I'm not sure what to do about this problem, but I don't think we should say false things in this way.

Larry Sanger (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW there has been some debate on this over time and I tend to agree that WP has a history of downplaying the fundamentally interwoven character of the two topics (the teleological argument tradition as a whole, versus recent Discovery Institute etc stuff). The official WP position (the winning argument for now) is that the new-fangled "Intelligent Design" creationism is something quite different from more respectable looking classical, medieval and 19th century versions, even if it is grudgingly accepted that it is a member of the family. I personally don't think the difference is that big at all, although I accept there are important (and deservedly controversial) innovations, which mainly relate to ways of presenting arguments due to specific American legal and cultural things. The sources which get cited to keep these topics apart on WP have been IMHO cherry picked and distorted. In various debates about this a long time ago it was argued to me if effect (I forget exact words) that we can't allow the creationists to be given the kudos of a connection to Socrates et al. To put my cards on the table I find all these arguments historically interesting, and some of them are truly clever, but none are really scientific or convincing. As someone interesteed in the history of ideas I'd prefer everything open and properly explained. I have no problem accepting that recent Discovery Institute etc proponents are arguing in a more confused way than a Socrates or Paley, but it is still very much the same basic idea. Here is a very old idea I wrote out, and gave up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RFC_idea . And here is some detailed background argumentation which probably covers what you are looking for in more detail than you wanted! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_74#Sources_relevant_to_first_paragraph Note that this is all very old and things might have changed. Also, I am not particularly interested in working on that problem again, but perhaps these old notes are useful to people interested in improving WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we can remove the "intelligent design argument" since clearly teleological argument preceded the intelligent design movement and is more generic. Its not owned by a think tank in the US from the 1990s. Even the lead notes ancient Greeks like Aristotle, Hindu, and Confucian developments of the arguments. There is also evolutionary thinking that uses teleology sometime termed teleonomy and even Alfred Russel Wallace, who co-discovered natural selection believed in teleology in nature and evolution, but not necessarily a deity. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: in reality, while the term "intelligent design" can refer to the movement, terms such as "argument from intelligent design" or "intelligent design argument" clearly have to be about a theological argument that is very old, and our best secondary sources use the term this way. Looking at it in terms of WP policy, the question is whether the "intelligent design movement" (think tanks etc, which has its own article) is the only context in which good secondary sources talk about the "intelligent design argument" (which I think should redirect to this article) or "intelligent design" (currently another article about the movement, but perhaps it should be a dab, or renamed "intelligent design theory", which would be less ambiguously about the movement's specific positions). This appears to be what you are assuming. However, I think the answer is in fact no. WP implies this, but actually the movement is not generally seen by good sources as having invented their own fundamentally new theological "argument". (The word "argument" is important here because when used in these combinations it clearly insists we are talking about religion, theology and philosophy, unlike the word "theory". I am not counting the legal and political arguments of the movement, which are clearly not what we are talking about.) I am concerned that Wikipedia is in fact censoring or distorting the link between the old theological argument and the real theological thinking of the movement. Ironically, the losing legal arguments of the movement itself are the only place you will find (misleading) arguments for a difference between the old theological argument, and what they believe in. (Ironically our pro-science editors on WP have therefore actually been making WP take the movement's most controversial position, which is that the "intelligent design theory" is not a version of the old "intelligent design argument" from theology. For legal/political reasons it was the movement who called it a scientific theory and tried to argue it was not connected to the old religious position.) Is the older broader families of theological arguments ever referred to as "intelligent design" in good sources? Yes it certainly is, for example Francisco J. Ayala (http://www.jstor.org/stable/23334140), or in the Kitzmiller ruling, but in any case when the word "argument" is added, then the meaning is unambiguously referring to an undisguised theological argument, and so we need to keep that term connected to this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest keep that hatnote as is. This article makes it somewhat clear that other forms of teleology "Teleological argument" existed before invention of the "Intelligent Design" usage, (e.g. Acquinas is not the same as Paley), and may have no relation at all to religion, even if the content is tending to recentism and conflating things because WEIGHT is more about that. (The teleological argument is used in ethic, nursing, or psychology for example although not being labelled "teleological argument". You'd see more discussion among evolutionary scientists about phrasing that sounds teleological but is just more natural phrasing to say what something is "for".)

In a purely dictionary sense, an argument that was teleological would involve end, purpose or goal - which does not equal design that would be complexity, interaction, and intent. But that's not a distinction to try and make in the hatnote. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't really find a clear argument in there. When something is "for" something then there is intent, and biologists who use the "for" language could avoid it, and if they don't this is clearly coming from the influence of old style teleological ideas whether they come from Paley, or from Darwin himself. When writing about biological topics, I am all for avoiding that language. But to put my opinion in simple terms I think Wikipedia is certainly misleading about what the best sources say about this topic, and therefore not following its own policy. There're been many discussions about the places in WP where it is misleading over the years, so we also know that this is something some editors have deliberately insisted upon, and not just a random mistake. Just looking at this hatnote as one aspect of this, "not to be confused with" (as opposed to simply saying "for the...") is misleading because our sources make it clear that the "intelligent design" of the modern intelligent design movement (what the link points to) is in fact a sub-set of the broader group of intelligent design arguments, otherwise known as teleological arguments (this article). (So the former IS CERTAINLY to be "confused with" the latter.) The argument used here on Wikipedia to defend this, which is non-neutral and non source-based, is that the modern anti-evolutionists must not be allowed to claim the respectability of a connection to people like Aquinas and Xenophon. Personally I think this makes a mockery of WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, *some* hatnote seems indicated, and this may be the best bad choice we can have.

The article does not cover well the literal topic and meaning of a 'teleological argument' per se -- a formal argument using Teleology -- nor the breadth of historical and modern teleological arguments outside of the existence of religious threads. (e.g. Source mentioning that a teleological description may also be seen in psychology as the extent to which intention and purpose drives behavior.) (Maybe example in philosophy as the 'ends justify the means' of Consequentialism?) The term has just become conflated with the most prominent usage in religious forms and biology in particular, somewhat by recentism and sensationalism. Keeping the hatnote seems a better alternative than trying to rewrite the whole article solely about logic and philosophy and moving all usages to subarticles, or even just moving ID out of the top two lines -- recentism and sensationalism would likely lead to reinsertions anyway.

As to discussions in biology over using phrasings that sound teleologic being a common practice and why that is so -- that seems an outcome of the nature of Biology in evolutionary sense and of the quirks of English. (For further info, one example is Explanations: Purposes, Functions, and Goals in Biology) It seems a derivative anyway, only a topic because of the desire to avoid seeming to be religious.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree this article here is not in very good condition, but if I understand correctly you are saying that there is such a thing as a teleological argument which is not religious? I think that is debatable to say the least, in terms of modern understandings in logic and philosophy, not to mention courts, (as opposed perhaps to theology perhaps?). So it is an historical distinction worth reporting but not the mainstream position today. A teleological description in psychology or any description of human behaviour is totally irrelevant to this whole topic because no one denies that humans do things sometimes in order to achieve goals. No one here is proposing "trying to rewrite the whole article solely about logic and philosophy and moving all usages to subarticles"? I find it difficult to follow your post. Why is there a reference to the end justifying the means in it? It gives the impression that your mind is wandering to unrelated topics.

Anyway, instead of removing the hatnote, I was only suggesting that the link to "intelligent design" should be not be a "not to be confused with" one, but just a vanilla "for the" one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Non-religious use does exist now, just duckduck 'where is teleology use today'. Whether the hatnote is the best it could be is another matter.

Modern times does use the terms teleology and teleological argument for their literal meaning: an Argument using Teleology as it's logic basis. I've seen it mentioned re use in psychology, nursing, and philosophy. When folks are forming or describing an argument that is teleological, they just use the term. Biology would have it in ethics similar to other ethics areas like business ethics. (I'd have to read more to see if any literally mentioned 'ends justify the means' hence my putting it as a maybe with question mark.) Biology also has the unusual bit of it is in discussions over phrasing as shown in that Explanations: Purposes, Functions, and Goals in Biology. I suppose one could make a branch article Teleological argument (non-religious) instead of making Teleologic argument and then subarguments for the religious and other uses, but that doesn't seem right either.

As to editing the hatnote, well humorously enough when you think of it, the discussion of what to say and why is likely to be a teleological argument. (non-religious)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I still can't puzzle your thoughts into any kind of complete account, but put simply, teleological explanations of nature are religious by definition. The fact that people have a natural tendency to think anthropomorphically might be a cause, and therefore a cause of religion, but it does not take away from the fact that accepting such explanations implies the existence of human-like intentions connected to nature, which is religious. Teleological explanations of human behaviour are a completely different subject, almost trivially normal, and not relevant here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think Markbassett is referring to teleology in biology such as in evolutionary text books like Evolution "On Purpose": Teleonomy in Living Systems. I also see Understanding Living Systems. These make a distinction between external and internal biological teleology. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

No religion involved, at least not in the definition of the phrase. Teleological explanations simply explain traits or process in terms of their function or utility. It seems useful for some explanations in biology or ethics or psychology. You can DuckDuck and see, or read Teleological behaviorism, Teleological ethics or Teleology in biology. So as to this thread topic of the hatnote - I think the existing one is likely the best bad choice, there's too much to say for the hatnote to do more than just point to there being some distinctions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that nature itself has functions and utilities then that is anthropomorphism and religion-like, to say the least. Functions are defined by goals. Who is setting those goals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)