What are the key features of the design argument for the existence of God? Identify the strengths of this argument - To what extent are these strengths more convincing that its weakness?

Authors Avatar

  1. What are the key features of the design argument for the existence of God? (10)
  2. Identify the strengths of this argument. To what extent are these strengths more convincing that its weakness?(10)

“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?” When Socrates said this over 2000 years ago he was referring to the possible argument for a designer of the universe. This is the teleological argument (Teleological comes from the Greek Teleos meaning end or purpose), and this approach to the existence of God has been divided into two sections: the first concerns design qua regularity, this assumes the universe has an order. The second is design qua purpose, this argues the probabilities of aspects in the universe and nature has been created to fulfil a purpose. The teleological is an a posteriori argument, meaning conclusions, which are not necessary logical, are drawn from premises of past experience. In summary, the teleological argument assumes nature has been designed by an intelligent being, “otherwise it would not look so nice” So what are its key features and how strong is the argument?

         Thomas Aquinas’ supported the design argument and in his book Summa Theologiae he stated that there are five ways to proving God. The “fifth way” was the teleological argument, as Kant puts it. He declared that in nature there is order and regularity that directs a natural body to a “goal”, and therefore this cannot be the result of random chance but of a designer. As Thomas Aquinas states “Nothing lacking awareness can tend to a goal except it be directed by someone with awareness and understanding; the arrow, for example, requires an archer. Everything in nature, therefore, is directed to its goal by someone with understanding and this we call “God”.

        Thomas Aquinas’ approach was approved by Sir Isaac Newton who said: “…can it be accident that all birds, beasts and men have their right side and left side alike shaped? (Except in their bowels)…whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author.” Newton also uses examples in the universe and physical laws as evidence that regularity cannot occur by chance but as the result of a creator.

        Another philosopher who used examples in nature was William Paley. He approached the argument through the aspect of design qua purpose. William Paley was a church deacon during the late enlightenment, when the teleological flourished. In the first part of his argument he used the simple analogy of a watch. He stated that if a person found a watch in a field they would conclude that its parts had been created for a purpose. So, just as he believes that a watch had been created for a purpose, the universe is a product of a divine designer. Paley suggested that the universe has a purpose and has been created to fulfil it, just as an eye is used to see and its parts allow it to fulfil this purpose. Other evidence includes Newton’s laws of nature to explain regularity in the universe and he argues that this regularity could not occur without a designer imposing it. Paley’s teleological approach comprises of two arguments, the first being design qua purpose and the second design qua regularity. However, Paley’s argument relies, perhaps too heavily, on the initial watch analogy and that examples of nature are compared to human artefacts. Human artefacts have been created for a purpose without imperfections, yet nature is full of imperfections. So the purpose in nature is different to a purpose of a man made object; and this comparison is a key feature of Paley’s argument.

        Arthur Brown argued the teleological argument from design qua purpose; one example includes his argument on the o-zone layer. He argues that the o-zone layer has a purpose, which is to filter out the sun’s ultraviolet radiation; this in consequence protects life on earth from certain death. Brown argues that this could not be due to an evolutionary process but of a plan made by a creator. It is interesting that Brown refers to an evolutionary process; Brown wrote this argument in 1943, which came after the theory of evolution. However, in 1943 the Second World War was in its most violent year, the mass genocides of the Jews were continuing, so how can Brown argue the case for the design argument when this evil was occurring.

Join now!

        It is impossible to write about the teleological argument without mentioning the theory of evolution. This theory had an enormous impact on the normal conventions of the teleological argument. The argument needed reorganizing, and in 1930 Tennant set about achieving this. Tennant developed two principles the anthropic and the aesthetic. The anthropic principle suggests that the cosmos was created for the development of intelligent life. The anthropic principle does not deny the process of evolution indeed this process is how intelligent develops.  The argument also suggests that the universe appears to be chaotic but progresses to create an environment suitable ...

This is a preview of the whole essay