In contrast, Hume, in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), uses the characters Philo and Cleanthes to argue that an analogy can only work if the two comparable things are somewhat similar. Furthermore, Hume argues that you cannot compare something earthly, such as a builder designing a house, and the universe as there is no concrete point of comparison. He then argued that it is just as plausible to say that the universe happened by chance as it is to say that it was designed, alluding to some pre-Darwinian ideas that natural selection could be the reason for the survival of animals as they merely adapt to their surroundings, not because they were designed this way. A more alternative view that came from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was the idea that the universe was spun from the stomach of a spider, something unintelligent that creates an intricate web that has both design and purpose. Hume’s ideas contest the activity of an intelligent designer, but I believe these are flawed because he appears to acknowledge that there is design, but gives no explanation for it. Furthermore, Hume gives an ambiguous account of how he believes the universe simply could have existed through chance, which still does not disprove the activity of an intelligent designer being the best explanation of our universe as a whole, as will be shown later.
In addition, the idea of Design qua Regularity, looking at design in the universe and how this correlates to observable uniformity, leads many to conclude that there is an intelligent designer. Paley’s argument from regularity came from his observations of Newton’s laws, namely gravity and the rotation of planets, stating that, “if the..forces had varied according to any direct law..great desctruction and confusion would have taken place.” (Paley, W. 2008) which is alluding to the Fine Tuning argument. This states that every fundamental constant in the universe seems to exist harmoniously such that the development of sentient beings can take place; had there been the slightest change, we would not have been able to evolve at all. This argument is closely linked to the Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe has been specially formulated to allow for the development of intelligent life. It was developed by F.R. Tennant who, in Philosophical Theology (1930), argued that it is within our capabilities to think of a chaotic universe with no laws of nature that allow for our existence, but the reality of our universe is that it displays such beauty and order that there must be a designer behind it. Therefore, when looking at the regularity of our universe, I believe that the activity of an intelligent designer is the best explanation of our universe as a whole. The elements that make up our universe are so perfect for the sustainability of human life that it would be incoherent to assume that chance is the explanation behind it, or these laws could just as easily change through chance once again.
However, Kant, in his book Critique of Pure Reason (2003), argued that it is plausible that our universe is in a state of chaos, we are simply not aware of it because we take order and project it onto the universe. Therefore, we see an ordered world that would provide good reason to believe in an intelligent designer when, in reality, we may just use the laws of nature to order the chaos. It could also be argued that we should not be so surprised that our universe seems perfect for us, it is more that we fit the universe as evolution takes place within the parameters of its environment. Furthermore, we are only aware of one way in which the constants of the universe allow for intelligent life exist, but it is not inconceivable that evolution would have simply taken place differently. However, I still do not believe that these oppositions are strong enough to refute the existence of an intelligent designer as they still do not give an alternative as to how the universe came to be so finely tuned that sentient beings are able to be sustained.
To conclude, the aforementioned points outline how an intelligent designer is the best explanation, not only because it appears a more logical argument, but also due to the pitfalls of other arguments that do not give plausible responses or alternative ideas. Therefore, the activity of an intelligent designer is the best explanation for our universe as a whole.
Bibliography.
Works Cited:
-
Aquinas, T. 1981. The Summa Theologica. London: BiblioLife, LLC.
- Shalkowski, S. 2/112012. Lecture Notes. Leeds.
-
Paley, W. 2008. Natural Theology. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
- Wilkinson, M. 2009. Philosophy of Religion for A2 Level. London: Continuum.
-
Hume, D. 1990. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London: Penguin Classics; Reprint edition.
-
Tennant, F.R. 1928. Philosophical Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Kant, E. 2003. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Dover Publications.