The basis of Paley’s argument is that there is evidence of design in the universe around us. Everything appears to have been designed to fulfil some function. This argument is Design qua purpose. Paley argued that the way that each aspect of the natural world appears to fulfil its purpose is further evidence of design. Paley therefore argues for a Designing creator – God.
Paley goes on to argue that there is further evidence for a creator God in the regularity of the universe. Astronomical discoveries and Issac Newton’s laws of motion, demonstrate a controlled, rather than random, principle at work in the universe. In particular, Paley considered the motion of the planets in the solar system. He argued that the relationships between them and the effect of gravity on them could not have come about without a designing principle at work. This principle is God. This argument is design qua regularity.
The inductiveness of the conclusion drawn with this argument would lead to a designer not the god of classic theism. There is evidence of design in the world such as an eye or the solar system, so is a designer all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good (loving).
Supporters and Critics
Brown, in the 20th century, supported the argument. He pointed to the ozone layer, its purpose is to filter out ultraviolet rays in order to protect life and this could not have happened by chance.
Tennant was a supporter of the teleological argument and proposed his own version. He argued that it’s possible to imagine a chaotic universe, where there are no rules. The universe is evidently not chaotic. In fact it appears to be design to support life. Further, It appears to be beautiful at all levels. He also pointed out that evolution itself works to the advancement of species, supported by a world that provides all that is necessary to promote life. He argued that there is more to life than mere existence. Humans appreciate aesthetic activity, such as art, music and literature. This is not necessary for mere survival, so cannot have come through natural selection. Therefore life as we know it is the product of a designing creator. This last part of Tennant’s argument is sometimes called the aesthetic argument. Tennant also formulated the anthropic principle, which I will consider later.
Swinburne is another supporter of the teleological argument. He argued that order and sheer size of the universe makes it unlikely that it could just ‘happen’. He also that the high degree of order that the universe demonstrates is evidence of a personal, conscious choice of God. From this order we can discern beauty.
David Hume was a critic of the argument. He set out 2 versions of the design argument. The first of which, relied on an analogy. To which he argued implied a superhuman, anthropomorphic concept of God, which is very limited and inconsistent. The world is imperfect and flawed, and as such it could suggest an imperfect and flawed creator.
Hume’s second argument outlined the possibility that the world did come about through chance. He questioned the idea of there just being one God. Why could there not be more than one creator/God? Hume went on to support the idea of natural selection- he claimed that it is entirely plausible that the adaptations made by animals to survive might be the result of random adaptations, rather than the agency of an intelligent designer.
Hume also argued that we can only attribute to a cause whatever qualities are needed to produce the effect. So the design argument, if it works only proves the existence of a design producing being. We cannot also say that this being has any of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God (classical theism).
Furthermore, Hume argued that we cannot conclude from the fact that example of order in the universe have human causes that order in the universe as a whole has a cause, because the universe is unique. Therefore the analogy doesn’t work because we have no way of knowing whether order and its explanations within the universe are in any way like order and its explanations in the universe as a whole.
Moreover, Hume criticised the analogy in that it was an inaccurate comparison. He argued that are more accurate analogy would be to compare the world with a carrot – the mark of design perceived in the world could be due to ‘generation’, ‘self-regulation’ and ‘growth’ rather than design. Darwin supported this criticism.
Darwin proposed a theory of the survival of the fittest. He called this principle natural selection. The fittest members of the species survive and their characteristics become part of the character of the species. He therefore argued that the apparent design is in fact the result of a natural and random process. Dawkins supports Darwinian evolution and rejects God.
Mill, another critic of the argument, argues that nature is ‘guilty’ of serious crimes for which she goes unpunished. The various ‘atrocities’ through which both humans & animals have suffered would not go unpunished if they were the result of Human agency. Mill therefore concluded that the world cannot be ordered, and he rejects the idea that it is the result of intelligent design.
Kant noted that the design argument is based on the premise that there is design in the universe. He argued that the universe might be in a state of chaos and confusion. And that our minds assimilate and organise sense experiences into a perceived order.
Freud supported the view that the universe isn’t actually ordered and argued that we impose a perceived order on a chaotic universe. Our minds are pre-disposed to see order, so we project order on to the universe.
Post-modernist philosophy has argued that we impose order on the universe by talking it all into place. Our words create order out of chaos. However, modern science has argued for an order of sorts: The anthropic principle. This principle, 1st suggested by tenant, argues that life on earth exists because the laws that govern the universe have particular features that contribute to make life possible. E.g. the fact that gravitational force is constant and that the expansion rate of the universe is stable. The principle has strong and weak forms. The strong argues that the conditions required for life are intrinsic to the nature of the universe and that life was inevitable. The weak form states that the conditions required for life in the universe happen to have occurred.
Others argue that the weak form is merely an observation, and the strong form is based on flawed logic.
Voltaire said that he ‘cannot accept how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker’. Davies put forward the view on cumulatively whereby when put forward with other arguments such as the cosmological there is a stronger case for the existence of God than not.
