The Design Argument for the The Design Argument for the Existence of God Existence of God

Key Terms:Key Terms:

Telos:Telos: from the Greek meaning end, aim, from the Greek meaning end, aim, purpose.purpose.Analogy:Analogy: a comparison of similars. a comparison of similars.Natural Theology:Natural Theology: based on based on reasonreason rather than rather than special revelation (revealed truths from God).special revelation (revealed truths from God).Anthropic Principle:Anthropic Principle: the reason and purpose of the reason and purpose of the universe is to support human life.the universe is to support human life.Anthropomorphism:Anthropomorphism: speaking of non-human in speaking of non-human in human terms or as having human attributes.human terms or as having human attributes.

Is there evidence of Design in the Is there evidence of Design in the world? world?

Yes Yes Wow FactorsWow Factors Grand CanyonGrand Canyon SunsetsSunsets WaterfallsWaterfalls Great Barrier ReefGreat Barrier Reef NatureNature Life itselfLife itself

NoNo Malfunctioning of the Malfunctioning of the

natural world.natural world. TsunamisTsunamis Earthquakes Earthquakes WarWar MurderMurder Disease and famineDisease and famine

Teleological argument Teleological argument

‘‘Telos’ form the Greek meaning ‘End’, ‘Aim’, Telos’ form the Greek meaning ‘End’, ‘Aim’, ‘Purpose’.‘Purpose’.

The Teleological (or design argument) The Teleological (or design argument) claims that certain phenomena in the claims that certain phenomena in the universe appear to display features of universe appear to display features of design, in so far as they are perfectly design, in so far as they are perfectly adapted to fulfil their function. adapted to fulfil their function.

Such design could not have occurred by Such design could not have occurred by chance and can only be explained with chance and can only be explained with reference to an intelligent, personal reference to an intelligent, personal designer. designer.

Classical approaches to the Classical approaches to the argument:argument:

Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas included a form of the teleological argument included a form of the teleological argument as the fifth of his five ways, which he termed ‘From the as the fifth of his five ways, which he termed ‘From the Governance of the World’Governance of the World’

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence …and this being endowed with knowledge and intelligence …and this being we call God. (Cited in Hick (ed.), 1964)being we call God. (Cited in Hick (ed.), 1964)

Aquinas was arguing from design Aquinas was arguing from design qua regularityqua regularity (design in (design in relation to the order and regularity in the universe). He relation to the order and regularity in the universe). He regarded the overall order evident in the world as proof of a regarded the overall order evident in the world as proof of a designer, ‘this being we call God’.designer, ‘this being we call God’.

Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem to Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem to have an innate sense of purpose (design?). We know that have an innate sense of purpose (design?). We know that nothing that has purpose does so without the aid of a nothing that has purpose does so without the aid of a 'guiding hand' (E.g. an archer shooting an arrow at a 'guiding hand' (E.g. an archer shooting an arrow at a target) thus everything in nature is directed to its goal by target) thus everything in nature is directed to its goal by God. [Aquinas' Design Argument here is slightly different God. [Aquinas' Design Argument here is slightly different from the traditional view as presented, for example, by from the traditional view as presented, for example, by William Paley (see Paley's Watch). Aquinas agrees that William Paley (see Paley's Watch). Aquinas agrees that there is order and purpose in the world but adds to this there is order and purpose in the world but adds to this that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have ordered themselves, lacking the intelligence to do so, and ordered themselves, lacking the intelligence to do so, and so have been ordered by a Being with intelligence who so have been ordered by a Being with intelligence who could (which would be God).] could (which would be God).] 

Aquinas' key idea is that things such as planets are not Aquinas' key idea is that things such as planets are not ''endowed with knowledge and intelligenceendowed with knowledge and intelligence', and so cannot ', and so cannot determine their own place in the universe.determine their own place in the universe. However, they However, they also, as far as he is concerned, could not have become also, as far as he is concerned, could not have become fixed in 'perfect' orbits by chance (for example, one where fixed in 'perfect' orbits by chance (for example, one where they do not crash into each other). So how did they get they do not crash into each other). So how did they get where they are today? Aquinas' answer is that they are where they are today? Aquinas' answer is that they are where they are because they were set there by an where they are because they were set there by an intelligent Being; 'intelligent Being; 'and this being we call Godand this being we call God'.'.

William Paley and the William Paley and the watch:watch:

William Paley (CE William Paley (CE 1743 – 1805)), Put 1743 – 1805)), Put forward a very popular forward a very popular teleological argument teleological argument in his book in his book Natural Natural Theology Theology (1802). (1802).

Key Term: Analogy = a Key Term: Analogy = a comparison of similars. comparison of similars.

             

Paley’s AnalogyPaley’s Analogy

William Paley was Archdeacon of Carlisle:Paley: Imagine crossing a heath. If you come across

a stone, you might consider it to be an accident but if you come across a watch then this provides clear evidence of contrivance or design even if the purpose of the watch is not obvious.

Just as the design of the watch implies a designer, so the design in the world implies a great designer – which is God.

SummarySummary

• A watch has certain complex features (e.g. it consists of parts, each of which has a function, and they work together for a specific purpose).

• Anything, which exhibits these features, must have been designed.

• Therefore the watch must have been designed. • The universe is like the watch in that it possesses the

same features, except on a far more wondrous scale. • Therefore the universe, like the watch, has been designed,

except by a wondrous universe maker i.e. God • Paley goes on in his argument to show the intricacy of

animals and humans, leading to the conclusion that God must be their maker. He famously used the example of the eye that appears to have design and clearly has a purpose.

Richard Swinburne Richard Swinburne Richard Swinburne refers to his argument as a Richard Swinburne refers to his argument as a

‘teleological argument from the temporal order ‘teleological argument from the temporal order of the world’. That there is temporal order in of the world’. That there is temporal order in the world is, says Swinburne, very evident. the world is, says Swinburne, very evident.

““The orderliness of nature of which I draw The orderliness of nature of which I draw attention here is its conformity to attention here is its conformity to formula, to simple formulable, scientific formula, to simple formulable, scientific laws. The orderliness of the universe in laws. The orderliness of the universe in this respect is a very striking fact about this respect is a very striking fact about it. The universe might so naturally have it. The universe might so naturally have been chaotic, but it is not – it is very been chaotic, but it is not – it is very orderly”.orderly”.

From all of this Swinburne concludes that From all of this Swinburne concludes that some explanation is called for. And his some explanation is called for. And his suggestion is that the temporal order of suggestion is that the temporal order of the universe is explicable in terms of the universe is explicable in terms of something analogous to human something analogous to human intelligence. In Swinburnes view there are intelligence. In Swinburnes view there are only 2 types of explanation: only 2 types of explanation: SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIFIC explanation (in terms of scientific laws) explanation (in terms of scientific laws) and and PERSONAL PERSONAL explanation (in terms of explanation (in terms of the free conscious choice of the person). the free conscious choice of the person). According to Swinburne, there can be no According to Swinburne, there can be no scientific explanation of the universe’s scientific explanation of the universe’s temporal order since:temporal order since:

““In scientific explanation we explain In scientific explanation we explain particular phenomena as brought particular phenomena as brought about by prior phenomena in accord about by prior phenomena in accord with scientific laws; or we explain with scientific laws; or we explain the operation of scientific laws. the operation of scientific laws. From the very nature of science it From the very nature of science it cannot explain the highest level cannot explain the highest level laws of all; for they are that by laws of all; for they are that by which it explains all other which it explains all other phenomena”.phenomena”.

As Swinburne sees it, therefore, if we are As Swinburne sees it, therefore, if we are to account for the fact there are such laws to account for the fact there are such laws then we have to appeal to a personal then we have to appeal to a personal explanation. Someone (i.e. God) has explanation. Someone (i.e. God) has brought it about that the universe exhibits brought it about that the universe exhibits a high degree of temporal order. And, so a high degree of temporal order. And, so Swinburne adds, the likelihood of this Swinburne adds, the likelihood of this supposition is increased by the fact that supposition is increased by the fact that God has reason to produce an orderly God has reason to produce an orderly world. For example, says Swinburne, order world. For example, says Swinburne, order is a necessary condition of beauty, and it is a necessary condition of beauty, and it is good that the world is beautiful rather is good that the world is beautiful rather than ugly. than ugly.

The 10 Card Shuffling Machine. The 10 Card Shuffling Machine. Imagine 10 card shuffling Imagine 10 card shuffling

machines. A madman kidnaps machines. A madman kidnaps someone and ties them to a someone and ties them to a chair. He sets the card shuffling chair. He sets the card shuffling machines going and says that a machines going and says that a box of explosives will blow up box of explosives will blow up unless every pack shows an ace unless every pack shows an ace of hearts.of hearts.When the victim survives, he When the victim survives, he will be convinced that the ‘dice will be convinced that the ‘dice must have been loaded’ but the must have been loaded’ but the madman will reply that he could madman will reply that he could not see anything else – as he not see anything else – as he would otherwise be dead.would otherwise be dead. Similarly the odds of human Similarly the odds of human beings coming to be are so huge beings coming to be are so huge that the probability is that there that the probability is that there is an intelligence behind the is an intelligence behind the universe.universe.

Swinburne’s conclusionsSwinburne’s conclusionsIt is very unlikely that the Universe has just It is very unlikely that the Universe has just

happened to exist.happened to exist. Given the character of God postulated by the Given the character of God postulated by the

main monotheistic religions, this is just the main monotheistic religions, this is just the sort of world God would have reason to createsort of world God would have reason to create

Whereas the Design argument does not Whereas the Design argument does not prove the existence of God, prove the existence of God, it does make it it does make it more probable than not that God existsmore probable than not that God exists..

HOWEVER assessing probability is very HOWEVER assessing probability is very difficult and much depends on individual difficult and much depends on individual opinion so it is important to assess opinion so it is important to assess Swinburne’s possible bias… Peter Vardy also Swinburne’s possible bias… Peter Vardy also argues that he fails to take real account of argues that he fails to take real account of the problem of evil and negative factors in the problem of evil and negative factors in the Universe.the Universe.

How successful is the Design How successful is the Design Argument?Argument?

In ‘In ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ (1779), Hume emerged (1779), Hume emerged as a major opponent of the design argument. His main reasons for as a major opponent of the design argument. His main reasons for opposing the argument include the following:opposing the argument include the following:

Humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the Humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the creation of the world to conclude that there is only one designer. creation of the world to conclude that there is only one designer. Humans have only the experience of the things that they design Humans have only the experience of the things that they design and create. This limited experience is not enough to come to and create. This limited experience is not enough to come to similar conclusions about the creation and design of the world. similar conclusions about the creation and design of the world.

If the human experience of design was valid, the design argument If the human experience of design was valid, the design argument would prove that the universe has a designer, but not that the would prove that the universe has a designer, but not that the designer was the God of Classical Theism. The design could have designer was the God of Classical Theism. The design could have been the work of several lesser Gods or, alternatively, of an been the work of several lesser Gods or, alternatively, of an apprentice god who has moved on to create bigger and better apprentice god who has moved on to create bigger and better worlds: worlds:

““This world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect This world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it.”essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it.”

(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural religion, 1779)(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural religion, 1779)

There is no evidence to support the benevolent God of There is no evidence to support the benevolent God of Classical Theism. The very existence of evil in the world Classical Theism. The very existence of evil in the world would suggest a designer who is not benevolent or all-would suggest a designer who is not benevolent or all-powerful God of Classical Theism. powerful God of Classical Theism.

Hume argued that to try to discuss the design of the Hume argued that to try to discuss the design of the universe in human terms was not an acceptable analogy, universe in human terms was not an acceptable analogy, because God transcends human understanding. If we are because God transcends human understanding. If we are going to use an analogy of manufactured objects, then it is going to use an analogy of manufactured objects, then it is more usual for a machine to be designed and made by more usual for a machine to be designed and made by many hands. This analogy would suggest many gods rather many hands. This analogy would suggest many gods rather than one God. than one God.

Hume does not think that it is a good analogy to liken the Hume does not think that it is a good analogy to liken the universe to a vast machine. The universe is more like a universe to a vast machine. The universe is more like a vegetable or inert animal – something that grows of its own vegetable or inert animal – something that grows of its own accord, rather than something made by hand. accord, rather than something made by hand.

The Epicurean Hypothesis: The Epicurean Hypothesis:

The Epicurean Hypothesis argued that, at The Epicurean Hypothesis argued that, at the time of creation, the universe the time of creation, the universe consisted of particles in random motion. consisted of particles in random motion. This initial state was chaotic, but gradually This initial state was chaotic, but gradually the natural forces evolved into an ordered the natural forces evolved into an ordered system. The universe is eternal and, in system. The universe is eternal and, in this unlimited time, it was inevitable that a this unlimited time, it was inevitable that a constantly ordered state would develop. constantly ordered state would develop. The stability and the order is not a result The stability and the order is not a result of a divine designer but of random of a divine designer but of random particles coming together through time to particles coming together through time to form the current stable universe.form the current stable universe.

Immanuel Kant:Immanuel Kant: Kant emphasised that the design argument Kant emphasised that the design argument

depended on the assumption that there is depended on the assumption that there is design in the universe. The design must be design in the universe. The design must be the independent work of a designer who the independent work of a designer who imposed order on the universe. The imposed order on the universe. The argument is based on the assumption that argument is based on the assumption that there is regularity, order and purpose in the there is regularity, order and purpose in the universe. Kant argued that the universe universe. Kant argued that the universe may be in chaos but because of the ways in may be in chaos but because of the ways in which our minds organise our experiences, which our minds organise our experiences, the world around us appears to be ordered. the world around us appears to be ordered. We impose the design on the world We impose the design on the world ourselves and cannot be certain of the ourselves and cannot be certain of the reality of the situation. reality of the situation.

Conclusion:Conclusion:

Whether or not there is design in the Whether or not there is design in the universe comes down to universe comes down to probabilities. Hume accepted that it probabilities. Hume accepted that it was more probable that the universe was more probable that the universe was designed and that there was a was designed and that there was a designer, but there was no proof that designer, but there was no proof that the designer was God. the designer was God.

Exam Watch:Exam Watch:

It is essential that you have knowledge It is essential that you have knowledge and understanding of key terms. There and understanding of key terms. There are numerous contributors to the design are numerous contributors to the design argument, however, remember you are argument, however, remember you are under exam conditions so you could stick under exam conditions so you could stick to Paley, Aquinas, Swinburne and Hume. to Paley, Aquinas, Swinburne and Hume. You can gain credit from demonstrating a You can gain credit from demonstrating a clear and analytic understanding of the clear and analytic understanding of the traditional presentations of the traditional presentations of the argument. argument.