Alma's Teleological Argument

     A well worn argument for God's existence goes by the title, "the teleological argument." Numerous philosophers from Aristotle to William Paley have employed the teleological argument to demonstrate God's existence. These philosophers' arguments rely on theologically neutral premises (i.e. premises that can command the assent of any rational non-believer) about the purpose, order, or design of the universe for the conclusion that God exists. This is why some refer to the teleological argument as the argument from design.

     As an amateur philosopher, I am skeptical of the teleological argument. Specifically, such arguments rest on selective data. They point to purpose, order, or design in the universe (so called teleological data) to the exclusion of disorder and other needless evils (disteleological data). For this reason, David Hume remarked that the state of the universe doesn't prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, but instead suggests that whoever created the universe was an inexperienced infant deity. In his words:

"The world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance: It is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity, and is the object of derision to his superiors: It is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him. . . ."

     As a Latter-day Saint, I am skeptical of the teleological argument because in its more sophisticated iterations, it leads to the existence of an abstract deity, not the embodied personal deity of Joseph Smith. So, as both amateur philosopher and Latter-day Saint, I was initially perplexed by the apparent presentation of a teleological argument for God's existence in Alma 30:44.

     In that chapter, Korihor, described as an "Anti-Christ," argues against the existence of God. The Book of Mormon summarizes Korihor's teachings as follows:

"O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so."

(Alma 30:13 - 16). In modern philosophical parlance, the Book of Mormon characterizes Korihor as an empiricist, a humanist, and an atheist.*

     Eventually, the Nephite priests bring Korihor before Alma, the Chief Judge and governor over all the land. In response to Korihor's atheism, Alma presents what appears to be a teleological argument for God's existence:

"But Alma said unto him: Thou has had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; ye, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

(Alma 30:44). This teleological argument, on first blush, appears to suffer from the same flawed reasoning that David Hume showed above. Alma cites harmonious order but ignores the violence, destruction, and disorder that naturally occurs in the cosmos. In addition, even if Alma's argument succeeds, it's not clear whether it demonstrates the existence of an embodied deity.

     In my judgment, reading Alma's argument in this manner--i.e. as a traditional teleological argument--misreads the text. To properly understand Alma's argument, we must look at the clauses that proceed his apparent teleological argument, and to the conclusion of the entire Alma 30 narrative.

     Alma prefaces his teleological argument by noting that Korihor has the testimony of all his brethren and the holy prophets[.] Furthermore, Alma tells Korihor that the scriptures are laid before thee. In so doing, Alma situates his "teleological argument" in the context of prior belief in the scriptures. He does not provide a teleological argument that aims to provide deductive certainty as to God's existence. Nor does he aim to show inductively the likelihood of God's existence. On the contrary, Alma says to Korihor, "[t]he scriptures are laid before thee[.]" He does not rely on empirical, teleological data, free of theological assumptions, to prove God's existence. He relies on the veracity of sacred texts, which show the existence of God. After referencing the scriptures, Alma points to the ordered heavens as evidence for God's existence.

     This theologically saturated preface suggests that Alma views the scriptural witness as an interpretive key to the universe. In other words, the scriptures operate as an interpretive lens that enables a person to see what he could not see without them: harmonious order that bears the imprint of a divine artificer. Alma doesn't attempt to prove God's existence through empirical, teleological data. He suggests that when a person comes to know the God of heaven and earth through the scriptures, he will begin to see that God in the world around him. As a believer in God and a follower of Christ, this interpretive lens is no mere interpretation, it is a perspective on the true nature of reality; a perspective that cannot be gained in any other way. In short, the scriptures bring us to a knowledge of God and permit us to see the world as it really is. If I read Alma correctly, this line of thought is a far cry from Aristotle's or William Paley's teleological arguments, which rely on religiously neutral premises to hopefully demonstrate God's existence to the rational non-believer.

     Why would Alma, however, employ sacred writings to make this argument? After all, Korihor, an atheist, would reject these writings as the "foolish traditions of [Alma's] fathers." It seems Alma, as a prophetic figure, relied on these texts because he knew that Korihor did not, in fact, reject the testimony of the prophets. In the narrative's closing scene, Korihor gives an insightful concluding statement:

". . . I always knew that there was a God. But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth[.]"

(Alma 30:52 - 53). Alma perceived that Korihor knew that God existed. Alma, therefore, relies on this knowledge to remind Korihor that the universe testifies of God's existence. For those who already believe that God exists, the whole visible world takes on new meaning. Far from playing the part of philosopher or theologian, Alma plays the part of a prophetic midwife, helping Korihor to birth the forgotten truth that he knew all along; a forgotten truth that would allow Korihor to see the world as it really is: a testament to God's living existence.

__________________________________________________
* See, e.g., Chauncey Riddle, Korihor: The Arguments of Apostasy, Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU. I would caution relying on these terms too heavily, however. These terms arose in particular European cultural situations. They invoke a family of views that gain their content from a complex cultural situation. Given more information about Korihor and his cultural context, it is likely that these terms would fail to adequately explain his thought.