The theologian Richard Swinburne added to the Design Argument. Although he thought that there were two arguments, the Argument from Providence and the Teleological Argument, he was only really interested in the latter. He felt that the great strength of the Design Argument lay in the ‘temporal order’ of the universe. A universal order, he thought, was too big for science to explain: all science can do is to assume the existence of natural laws and work within them. However, he wanted to make it clear that he was not suggesting a ‘God of the gaps’:
I am postulating a God to explain what science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains.
Swinburne said that there could be chaos – but in fact the universe is very orderly. It is more probable than not that the natural laws were designed – hence, God’s existence is more probable than not.
The evidence provided by those who argue the case for the Design Argument strongly supports the Christian view of a ‘de re’ necessary God and creator.
1 (b) ‘The design argument fails because of its weaknesses.’ Examine and comment on this claim
As with any theological argument for the existence of God, there are bound to be criticisms of it. Criticisms that find weaknesses in the argument and use them to pick holes in it.
David Hume, whose great work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in the 18th century), was very much an atheist who used dialogues between three classical characters to outline various religious arguments, and then to tear them apart using Philo, a character who’s own beliefs are strongly related to Hume’s own. Although Cleantes and Demea (the other two characters) put forward very convincing, theologically correct arguments, it is ultimately Philo who runs circles around them and ends up with the final word. Hume is vehemently against the Design Argument, and puts forward a number of very strong weaknesses to induce its failure.
To begin with, Hume sees the analogy of the world as a machine (the pocket watch story originated in Hume’s Dialogues, but it was Paley who made it popular) is unsound, as the world and universe in which we exist, for whatever reason, is clearly not a machine, but an organic vegetable. It is therefore wrong to use such an analogy, as any conclusions drawn from a machine will not cohere with that of a vegetative universe. The weaker the similarity of the analogy, the weaker the argument. In addition to this, Hume argued that similar effects do not necessarily imply similar causes. No one has seen the cause of a universe. Is it not wholly possible for similar effects to be the result of different causes? Also, we know that a machine has been built, as we are able to see it, and there fore know it has a designer. However, we have no knowledge or evidence of creation of other universes, and therefore do not know that there is a designer behind the universe.
Hume also argued that it was wrong to see the necessary driving force of the universe to be that of an intelligent designer, when it could just as easily be generation, gravity, etc instead. Indeed, why not have a different governing motion for each part of the world?
Similar to his first argument, Hume asked why should not other analogies be possible? Hume argued that ‘the world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it does a watch or a knitting loom’ does it not follow, therefore, that there is greater reason to compare it to a vegetable or fruit? These grow as a result of generation, and contain within them the necessary ‘intelligence’ to result in their correct form. Hume took this further, arguing that generation is the cause of intelligence, which leads to an ‘infinite regression of causes’ (Cole).
Hume also disliked the God that the Design Argument pointed to. This designer appears to be an anthropomorphic God, who is more human than divine. If you use the analogy of a designer, there are good designers and there are bad designers. Similarly, why have just one designer, when a team often work much better together? Also, regarding the problem of evil, Hume wrote:
This world is very faulty and imperfect, 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 inferior deity and is the object of derision to his superiors; it is the production of old age … and ever since his death has run on from the first impulse and active force which he gave it …
As a result of things which one cannot consider to be good (such as earthquakes, flooding, volcanoes etc.), it brings into question the ‘personality’ of this creator. Presumably he cannot be wholly good to allow such evil (which is considered untrue by Christians), or he therefore cannot be all powerful if he cannot stop bad things from happening (which Christians also refute).
Finally, and Hume also uses the theory of the Ancient Greek Epicurius here, the universe could merely be accidental – Epicurius maintained that the universe was only made up of atoms and space: nothing else. The atoms are eternal, but they move and change. These atoms collided or formed together, and so the universe was formed out of chaos, and by accident.
A more recent weakness of the Design Argument arose when Charles Darwin (an eighteenth century naturalist) unveiled his Theory of Evolution. If this theory is correct (and today this is widely accepted) then there never was a designer, instead life evolved over many billions of years. This means that there is no need for a designer, and consequently means that the Design Argument fails to provide an explanation for the existence of God.
Of course, such criticism demands retort, and there are many strengths of the argument too.
Firstly, as with many of the religious arguments for the existence of God, the Design Argument is a posteriori – and we have the proof that it is based on in front of us: the universe and life itself. Its existence cannot be denied, and so consequently it begins from strong foundations.
The Anthropic Principal is a recent development of the Design Argument. Its premise is that the universe was created to allow for the development of intelligent life (in particular, mankind). It was put forward by F. R. Tennant in his book Philosophical Theology (1930). This is a strength because the development of intelligent life cannot be denied, and it also works alongside the Theory of Evolution, as one might argue that God designed the world to evolve. By including Darwin’s theory, this means that the argument has added scientific impetus.
Richard Swinburne accepted the Anthropic Principal, but thought that the universe could just as easily be chaos (as mentioned above). As it is not, it is more probable that there is a Designer. In mathematics (another science) higher probability has the stronger argument, and by also using Ockman’s Razor, whereby the simplest explanation is the most likely, the existence of a God is much strengthened.
Thirdly, Tennant also put forward the Aesthetic argument. It is based upon the human ability to appreciate beauty, art, music and literature. Beauty is in abundance in this world, and it clearly has no necessary function. Beauty is pleasing to intelligent life, but is not always the most practical or easy way for something to be. Beauty in this world suggests that this world has been designed, and therefore points to a designer who is outside of time as we know it, who Christians would identify with as the Creator in the Book of Genesis.
There are many more arguments for and against design, however, such an argument can go on and on ad infinitum. In my opinion, I think that the Design Argument is a very strong argument, however, I think that once the critics have had their part to say, the argument is too full of holes to stand up, and consequently neither succeeds or fails, but can be used in weak support of other arguments, such as the Cosmological.
