Outline the design argument for the existence of God?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Caroline Neal 12M

The teleological argument for the existence of God

a) Outline the design argument for the existence of God? (7 marks)

The design argument is also known as the teleological argument, the word telos meaning ‘end’ or ‘purpose.’ It infers the existence of God from a specific aspect or character of the world, mostly the presence of order, purpose and regularity. These are seen as marks of design, and the argument concludes it must be God who was the source of the latter. Evidence used is often the solar system, with the planets revolving in their set orbits, and also the human eye. This evidence means that it is an a posteriori argument, meaning it is based on observation, which could easily be deceptive, is limited and can be open to several different interpretations. This means there will always be a measure of doubt. The argument has two parts, design qua regularity and design qua purpose, qua meaning ‘as relating to.’ The two most prominent philosophers in advocating the design argument are Aquinas (associated with design qua regularity) and Paley (associated with both parts.) A more recent version of the argument has been developed by Tennant and accepted by Swinburne, and this is known as the Anthropic Principle.

Before looking in detail at the various types of the argument, it is important to establish the basics of the design argument for the existence of God. It states that; the universe has order, purpose and regularity, the complexity of the universe shows evidence of design, such design implies a designer, and the designer of the universe is God. It is clear from this that the argument makes the simple assumption that there is order and design in the universe, and that all things function for a specific reason. This assumption is made from evidence in the world such as the changing seasons, the lifestyles of both animals and birds and the intricate design of the human body and its perfect adaptations.

The first part of the argument – design qua regularity looks at design relating to the order and regularity seen in the universe. Supporters of the argument see this order as evidence in itself of a designer at work. An example used is that of a formal garden showing evidence of a gardener due to the order, lack of weeds and arrangement of flowers in the borders, therefore showing there is order and regularity evident in the universe, such as the rotation of the planets and natural laws. Most philosophers come to the conclusion that this could not have occurred by random chance. St Thomas Aquinas specifically argued from design qua regularity. He used a form of the teleological argument in the fifth of his Five Ways – ‘from the governance of things.’ He stated how non-intelligent ‘natural bodies’ produce beneficial order, and therefore require an intelligent being to bring this order about,

‘…some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to

their end; and this being we call God.’

The second part of the argument – design qua purpose looks at the evidence of design in a slightly different way. It looks at the way in which parts of the universe seem to fit together for some sort of purpose. The universe is compared to a man-made machine, in which a designer fits the parts together in a certain way for a specific purpose. An example given is of a television, where the parts are fitted together in order to produce sound and receive pictures. The television would not function in the appropriate way if the parts had just been fitted together in a random manner. Similarly, it seems there are incredibly complex designs in nature that must have been fitted together by a designer for a specific purpose, such as the tides, the seasons and the order of the planets.

William Paley put forward a very famous version of the argument in his book, ‘Natural Theology’ and used both parts of the argument – design qua regularity and qua purpose. His first part of the argument was design qua purpose and was put forward in the simple analogy of a watch. He said that if we were crossing a heath and came across a watch we would conclude that all the parts fitted together for a purpose (to produce motion in order to tell the time) and had not come into existence by chance, and compared it to finding ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘…when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive – what we could not discover

in a stone – that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…’

An intelligent person would then conclude that the watch had a designer. The watch demands a watchmaker, and similarly the universe demands a designer because of the way the way in which things fit together for a purpose. Paley also used the intricate mechanisms of the body to illustrate the same point, focusing particularly on the eye and the way it is adapted for sight. All the different parts of the eye co-operate to produce sight. He believed the eye was designed for seeing and the complex design indicates an intelligent designer over random chance. A final example he used was the adaptations of animals in order for them to survive, such as a bird’s wings to fly or a fish’s fins to swim. William Paley concluded that, this evidence could only be the result of a ‘designing creator’ who he believed was God.

The second part of Paley’s argument – design qua regularity uses evidence from astronomy along with Newton’s laws of motion and gravity to prove that there is design in the universe. Paley particularly focussed on the rotation of the planets in the solar system, how they all obey the same universal laws, and how they hold their orbits because of gravity. This could have not occurred by chance, and from this Paley concluded that an external agent must have imposed order on the universe as a whole, and that this agent must be God.

The Anthropic Principle is a modern version of the argument, developed by F. R. Tennant in 1930, and claims that the cosmos has been constructed for the development of intelligent life. Any chain of coincidences that led to the evolution of human life are denied, and supporters of the argument claim the best explanation is the existence of a designer, that designer being God. Tennant believed there were three types of natural evidence in the world in favour of a divine designer, these being, the fact the world can be analysed in a rational manner, the way in which the inorganic world has provided the basic necessities required to sustain life and the progress of evolution towards the emergence of human intelligent life. Tennant concluded that human life is the climax of God’s plan, or at least the current stage in God’s plan. Tennant also developed the aesthetic argument, arguing that humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings – being able to enjoy art music and literature. However, this appreciation is not necessary for either survival or the development of live, so therefore is evidence of a divine creator and not the result of natural selection.

Richard Swinburne accepted the Anthropic Principle and that the universe has rules, also recognised that it could just as easily have been chaotic. The absence of chaos favours a designer over chance, and Swinburne concluded it all came down to probability. The complexity of the universe makes it unlikely it just came about by random chance, so it is more probable that it had a designer, and the simplest explanation is that this designer is God.

The design argument uses the evidence from the world to conclude that there must have been a designer and that this designer is God,

‘With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you

doubt they are the work of choice or design.’ (Socrates)

The argument has been advocated by several philosophers, particularly Aquinas in his fifth way and Paley through his analogy of a watch, using design qua purpose and also design qua regularity, where he uses evidence from astronomy and Newton’s laws. A more recent development of the argument is that of F. R. Tennant who devised the Anthropic Principle, stating the universe was designed for intelligent human life, and backed up by Richard Swinburne who concluded it came down to probability. The argument appears to be strong, but in fact does have some weaknesses that some people may say causes it to fail.

Words - 1411

b) “The design argument fails because of its weaknesses.” Examine and comment on this claim. (13 marks)

The design argument has received criticism from many philosophers but an initial difficulty is that it is not clear in the analogy whether the machine is being compared to the whole of the universe or parts of the universe. If it is compared to the whole universe it is unrealistic to say that the whole universe is working to an end or purpose. To conclude this requires knowledge only obtainable from being outside the universe. If the machine is being compared to parts of the universe then it is possible to prove that these parts work towards an end or purpose, but it is false reasoning to argue from that that the universe as a whole works to a specific end or purpose. Hume emerged as a major opponent of the argument, highlighting many weaknesses and other philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin and Immanuel Kant and the Epicurean Hypothesis also presented their own individual challenges towards the argument. The latter believed the weaknesses were enough to allow the argument to fail, but others would argue against this, saying the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

David Hume’s criticisms covered several points and he worked on them for twenty-five years. The first point talks of an unsound analogy, as it is wrong to compare our world with a machine as it is composed of vegetables and animals. It is certainly more organic than it is mechanical. This point is re-enforced by the analogy of a house. If we see a house, we can be certain that it had an architect or builder as we have seen it being constructed. The universe is dissimilar to this in that it does not infer a similar cause, for example intelligence, or thought. Also, it takes many people to build a house, so if this analogy is used, then there is a team of gods who designed the world. It is also not very philosophical to argue that intelligence is the governing principle behind the world. Hume points to alternative governing principles including generation, vegetation and gravity. There is nothing to stop one of these three dominating over intelligence, or further still having different principles ruling over their natural domains, for example, vegetation in plants, generation in animals, and gravity in the movement of the planets. One specific area can’t be projected to another part, or the whole of nature.

Hume’s second point in his criticisms states that similar effects do not necessarily imply similar causes. Following on from his first point concentrating on the lack of similarities between a machine and the world, Hume takes this further by asking if it really is a solid notion to say that similar effects necessarily result from similar causes. For us to know that an orderly universe has arisen from intelligence and thought, we would have had to experience the origin of the world. The question is whether similar effects could have actually been the result of different causes.

The third point in Hume’s criticisms is other possible analogies. This has already been discussed in his first point when Hume argued that ‘the world plainly resembles more an animal or vegetable than it does a watch or knitting loom.’ One specific example he used was that of a carrot. The carrot is relevant in that if the analogy is made with the carrot then the mark of design in the world could be caused by something similar to generation or vegetation. The natural world could possess some inner self-regulation and growth. If David Hume had lived long enough he would have most likely quoted Darwinism as an example, which sees beneficial adaptations explained in non-personal terms by natural selection. Hume argued that intelligence is actually caused by the process of generation, and surely the process of causes continues, as intelligence requires a cause. If this is so, then you end up with an infinite regression of causes.

David Hume’s fourth point is that the analogy makes God seem almost human, and not divine. He argued that the more you look into the analogy of a man-made machine such as a watch, the more human you have to make God. For example, infinity could not be attributed to any of the attributes of God. The cause ought to be proportional to the effect and as the effect (the universe) is not infinite, there is no reason to designate infinity to God. Similarly, perfection can’t be ascribed, as it is impossible for us to tell whether the universe as a system contains any faults, (although some would argue evil, suffering and natural disasters point to many faults.) Anyway, even if it was perfect, it would still be uncertain as to whether all these perfections can be ascribed to the designer, as there is the possibility of there being several unsuccessful worlds before this one was made. The fifth point Hume commented on fits in with the fourth point, as it assesses the faults found in the universe. Hume commented that the analogy leads to a non-moral God and listed natural disasters such as earthquakes, war and disease, and questioned how a just and good God could have planned and designed a world like this. Hume concluded that if God existed he must have no moral character, with his alternative view being of two forces, one good and one evil. This was emphasised by John Stuart Mill, another philosopher who challenged the idea that evidence in the world proves the existence of a God of Classical Theism. He saw the evil and suffering in the world and concluded that the designer couldn’t have been omnipotent, all knowing and omnibenevolent, as if the designer was all loving then human suffering would not have been included in the design. The fact that it is, shows one of these three attributes is missing.

Hume’s final point suggests that there may be other explanations for the apparent order in the universe, and that we should not be so sure that the universe was not the product of some blind, cosmic accident. Hume thought it obvious that the universe had evidence of design, as there would be no universe if all the parts in it were not mutually adapted to a certain extent.

The Epicurean Hypothesis, opposes the design argument in that it talks of the universe coming into existence through random chance. It argues that at the time of creation, the universe consisted of particles in random motion. To begin with, the state was chaotic, but gradually the natural forces evolved into an ordered system. The universe is eternal, so it seems inevitable that an ordered state would eventually develop. Therefore, the stability and order is not the result of a divine designer as the design argument suggests, but of random particles coming together and forming the stable universe of today.

Darwinism, with its appeal for natural selection exposes a huge weakness in the design argument. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who formulated the theory of natural selection in his book, published in 1859. The book, which revolutionised thinking about the way in which species, particularly human beings developed, challenges the design argument. Darwin provided an alternative explanation with absolutely no reference to God. Instead he offered a mechanical explanation for the development of life on Earth, in which natural selection took place. Part of the process was explained by Herbert Spencer, who used his phrase ‘the survival of the fittest.’ Darwin argued that random variations, which gave the best advantage to a plant or animal in the struggle for survival, resulted in the survival of the fittest member of that particular species,

‘…the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving

and so be preserved or selected…’

Darwin led many people to believe that God was not necessary in explaining the way the world worked, and more recently Richard Dawkins has written several books supporting Darwin in his rejection of God. He argues natural selection gives the appearance of design, mistakenly leading people to believe there is a designer. Dawkins however, rejects the idea of design and argues that any variations in the world were caused by random mistakes in the DNA molecules of any life form.

Immanuel Kant, who emphasised that the design argument depends purely on the assumption that there is design, regularity, order and purpose in the universe, put a final criticism forward. Kant made the very interesting point that the universe may actually be in chaos, but because of the way our minds organise experiences, it appears in order to us. It is not possible to be certain of the reality of the situation, as we impose the design on the world ourselves.

Having explored the weaknesses of the design argument, I feel that it most definitely fails in proving the existence of God, but does certainly point to the universe having a design. Whether this is the work of a designer is a tough question, as I agree with the Epicurean Hypothesis – the fact that the universe is a product of random particles coming together. The weaknesses brought forward by Hume have looked in specific detail Paley’s analogies, and he has managed to find many faults with comparing something as huge as the universe to something man-made such as a watch. It is clear from this that to use an analogy like that is just too simple. Hume may lead us to a probable conclusion that the world was designed but there is nothing to prove that designer was God. A huge disadvantage is also the fact it is an a posteriori argument, as it is merely based on experience and only leads to a probable conclusion so is open to several interpretations. Finally, some of the weaknesses in the argument are due to recent scientific discovery or evidence, that some people, myself included trust further than to believe something just based on assumption and probable conclusions.