The Philosopher F.R. Tennant developed the Anthropic principle. Tennant believed that there were three types of natural evidence in the world in favour of a divine designer. These are:
- The fact that the world can be analysed in a rational manner
- The way in which the inorganic world has provided the necessities required to sustain life
- The process of evolution towards the emergence of intelligent human life
Tennant said that an intelligently designed universe cannot be proved, but it is more probable than a universe ruled by blind forces or chance. He said it was not possible for the design of the world to be put down to sheer chance. E.g. the ozone layer been created and it is just coincidence that it is of the right proportions of the right gases for humans to be able to live.
Tennant believed that it was possible to imagine a chaotic universe in which no rules applied. However, the universe is not chaotic and was designed in such a way that the evolutionary process would create an environment in which intelligent life could exist. Tennant said: “The forcibleness of nature’s suggestion that she is the outcome of intelligent design lies not in particular cases of adaptedness in the world, nor even in the multiplicity of them. It consists rather in the conspiration of innumerable causes to produce, by either united or reciprocal action, and to maintain, a general order of nature.”
Tennant also wrote about the Aesthetic argument to prove god’s existence. Tennant said that humans have the acidity to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings, e.g. books, music, art. But this appreciation is not necessary to for survival, or for the evolution of human life, this must therefore be natural creation, as it cannot be the result of natural selection.
Richard Swinburne also agreed that there must be a creator of the world. He also accepted the anthropic principle and that the universe is law-governed. He said that the universe could just as easily have been chaotic. Because of this he said this was proof of design and not chance. Swinburne said that a purposeful designer cannot be proved to exist, but is a more plausible and satisfactory explanation of the evidence we have than any other.
Another argument for the design argument is that design is evident everywhere we look. One example is the human eyeball. The human eyeball is a complex structure made of lots of different cells, nerves, and other things, all which connect together so people can see. It is very unlikely that the eyeball could have been created by coincidence, therefore at some point there must have been a designer.
Even Kant who is a critic of the teleological argument said, “design is evident even to a fool”
Asses the claim that ‘the only reasonable explanation for this is that there is a designer’
Thomas Aquinas believed that "some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." He stated that anything that lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end but must be directed towards that end by God. Aquinas is arguing from the design qua regularity point of view.
Despite these many flaws in the argument, it still has many strengths. The Teleological Argument was described by Immanuel Kent as the oldest, clearest, and most reasonable argument for the existence of God even though he himself admitted to finding it personally unconvincing. Part of the argument's strength lies in its simplicity. It is easy to relate to the argument, as humans are themselves designers by nature. It is natural for humans to think of things as having a purpose.
In the 20th centaury Arthur Brown has supported the argument for design based on astronomy. Brown talked about the ozone layer been proof of design. He argued that the purpose of the ozone layer is to filter out the UV rays from the sun, in order to protect life. Brown argued that the ozone layer could not have been created by chance.
It has been argued that evolution on its own cannot explain everything in the universe; therefore Evolution could be god’s method of design. Tennant agreed that God had a part to play in evolution, he designed beauty.
It has also been argued that only god could of designed the world, because the complexity of the world far exceeds human ingenuity. Therefore there must be something greater behind the creation of the world.
An argument against the teleological argument is that there are still problems in the world, and if god designed the world, then surely her would of created it without evil and suffering.
William Paley assumed the presence of order in the universe. This first needs to be proved and unless we can say what an undersigned universe is like how can people presume that the universe is the result of design. Another criticism of Paley’s watch analogy is that is the watch analogous to parts of the universe of to the whole universe.
Another criticism of the argument is that the presence of order could be explained by chance or by some impersonal force.
Another criticism is more than one person makes most products of human design, so is it possible that the world was created by more than one god?
Hume claims that god started the process of creation and then left it “the rude effects by some distant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it”, although this is a way that can explain evil in the world.
Hume concluded that the nature of the ‘evidence’ makes a conclusion difficult. A believer but not sceptics accept the ‘evidence’.
C) Comment on the conclusion that ‘the designer is god’
J S Mill said that if it was claimed that the world was created simply by a higher being instead of god then more people might accept it. Paley said that god must have created the world, but Paley was a Christian.
Hume criticised Paley’s watch analogy. If a mind created the world, who created the mind? Why do we all stop at god and not think that he needs a creator.
Although Hume criticised the teleological argument he also acknowledged that ‘ a purpose, an intention, a design, strikes the most careless, the most stupid thinker’
In conclusion, the success of the Design Argument rests upon probability and individual judgment. The Design Argument, as illustrated by the various criticisms of it, is by no means conclusive, if it was then everyone would know that God exists. If you believe that the universe is a product of blind chance then the design argument will not be strong enough to change your beliefs. I.e. it won't convince an atheist. However, the idea of the universe just being here, a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more is a personally unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of the universe and so whist the Design Argument may not conclusively prove the existence of God it suggests that the existence of a Designer, who we know as God, is a more probable likelihood than not.