F.R. Tennant through inductive reasoning offered an adequate explanation for the existence of God. Tennant accepts the theory of evolution but points out that, nature seems to plan in advance for the needs of the universe and that science cannot fully account for this. Supporting Paley’s key feature of Design Tennant argues that ‘if parts were different in any way, regulated motion would not have happened’. This implies that, if anything was altered in the creation of the universe, life would not have been possible. His Anthropic principle is an argument that states the universe must have been planned; this is because it is far too coincidental that human life is able to survive in such unlikely circumstances. He concludes that God is the likely intelligent designer behind his creation.
Richard Swinburne, a modern philosopher, accepted the Anthropic Principle, and also that the universe is regulated by laws. He supports Tennant’s principle as he believes that the order of the universe suggests that the world is adapted to sustain human life. The complexity of the universe caused Swinburne to believe that design is far more probable. Using Ockham’s razor he argued that, the order of the universe is ‘beyond chance’ and that God provides the simplest explanation to account for the existence of such an orderly universe. This intelligent designer must be God.
In conclusion there are many points, which support the case for the existence of God. The theories of a planned world and the need for intelligence to guide others are crucial. Many theists and philosophers view the universe as having been designed by a supreme intelligence, as its complexity seems far too powerful to have just come about by random chance.
ii)Comment on the view that the weaknesses of the Design argument outweighs the strengths
The weaknesses of the Design argument do outweigh the strengths. Although different philosophers offer necessary proofs that reinforces the God of Classical Theism, their conclusions are limited to empirical knowledge. Critics such as Charles Darwin and David Hume use this inductive and ‘a posteriori’ argument to point out that, it does not give enough logical proof. These weaknesses outweigh the strengths because it makes massive assumptions to prove that the designer is God.
A key weakness is David Hume’s claim that the argument from design cannot lead to the concept of a perfect God. Hume notes that there are imperfections in nature such as cancer, famine and floods. If God is a Divine watchmaker, as Paley claimed, the world would be perfect. In other words, if we are going to infer by analogy the characteristics of the creator from that of creation, it doesn’t seem we can conclude that the creator had to be perfect because the world is anything but perfect. Hence, an imperfect world is only evidence for an imperfect creator. Therefore, the existence of God has not been logically proven.
Although, in the various versions of the design argument (Paley and Aquinas) the analogies used make it easier for people to understand and relate to. Whenever similar things are compared, it offers a stronger analogy. Hume however rejects this claim explaining that the argument is an unsound analogy. The analogies may only be useful if we are comparing similar things but the universe is unique and incomparable to most other things. The argument doesn’t actually prove anything; it just gives comparisons between two features that aren’t entirely similar which makes it illogical. According to him, in comparison to how machines are manufactured, we do not have enough knowledge and experience to conclude that God is the intelligent designer behind the universe. This contributes to the weaknesses of the argument.
On the other hand, Darwin states that cause and effect only appears as a theory because the world has evolved and created this impression. Instead, he claims that the only logical argument for the universe is that it came from chance. Darwin argued that matter and living things on earth organise themselves without the need of an intelligent being and the apparent appearance of order and design could be due to evolution. The more complex the development and distinct order of the universe, the more it appears that no supreme being could be behind this. Therefore it is surely convincing that you can have order without design, like Darwin demonstrates. This further weakens the argument.
In addition, Hume also points out that saying that there is a Designer of the world does not mean that the Designer is God. He argues that, the harmonious order of the world could be determined by another principle, rather than intelligence. It could be God, but it could also be a team of Gods, or a Goddess from any religion in the world. A basic assumption cannot be made. The argument itself is also inductive- meaning that, we do not have to accept the conclusion as it is not a philosophical proof. Furthermore, the design argument, the makes the word 'design' seem like it has the same meaning as 'order' and 'purpose' , when in the real sense both words have different meanings. Swinburne may counter this judgement using Ockham’s razor to assert that God is the simplest explanation to account for the existence of such an orderly universe. However, his proof that the universe is ‘beyond chance’ is still rooted from probabilities. At the end of the day, it is just a hypothesis. This undermines the premise that the universe shows evidence of being designed, and so makes the conclusion invalid.
To conclude, the arguments from design may be persuasive but they are nothing more than hypothesis compared to actual proofs. However, it is impossible to prove or disprove the arguments for and against design as well as the argument for and against a supreme God behind everything. Every individual has their own opinion on the issue.
by
daisydollll (student)
