Regularity Design according to Davies would be, “A succession of regular marks on paper, a musical score, an arrangement of flowers in a garden at Versailles, or the repeated and predictable operations of an artefact of some kind (e.g. a clock which chimes every hour).” Purpose Design would be an object that has been created for a particular purpose or action; this is evident in the work of William Paley (1743-1805). He wrote in his book ‘Natural Theology: Or Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature’ (1802) a comparison of the world to a watch, suggesting that it’s intricate design and order presupposes a designer – a watchmaker. This approach is known as ‘Natural Theology’ in as much as it argues for the existence of God from the nature and natural facts.
“Paley’s analogy of the watch conveys the essence of the argument. Suppose that while walking in a desert place I see a rock lying on the ground and ask myself how this object came to exist. I can properly attribute its presence to chance, meaning the operation of such natural forces as wind, rain, heat, frost and volcanic action. However, if I see a watch lying on the ground I cannot reasonably account for it in a similar way. A watch consists of a complex arrangement of wheels, cogs, axles, springs, and balances, all operating accurately together to provide a regular measurement of the lapse of time. It would be utterly implausible to attribute the formation and assembling of these metal parts into a functioning machine to the chance operation of such factors as wind and rain. We are obliged to postulate an intelligent mind which is responsible for the phenomenon.” (Hick, 1990)
The structure of his argument is that human artefacts are products of intelligent design (purpose). His second point is that, the universe resembles these human artefacts. Therefore, the universe is (probably) a product of intelligent design (purpose), but the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artefact. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who designed the universe.
(Pojman, 1993)
Davies (1993) refers Paley’s watch to a teleological system, “Suppose we introduce the term ‘teleological system’ and suppose we say that something is a teleological system if it has parts which operate so as to achieve one or more goals. In that case, Paley’s view is that watches imply purpose because they are teleological systems. And this argument is that there are systems of this kind in nature.”
However, not all Philosophers agreed with Paley. David Hume (1711-76) an empiricist and sceptic and alsoone of his predecessors illustrated in his book, ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, a form of the teleological argument. Hume offered eight important criticisms of the argument through Philo with the main thrust springing from his analysis of cause and effect and his conclusion that our knowledge of such things is based solely on habit. For Hume, when we see one thing, cause another, our knowledge of that experience is based simply on that process of observation. So, when we see one ball hit another we can only base our knowledge of what the reaction is on seeing it happen. The important consequence of this is that we cannot know the nature of any cause apart from observation. Therefore, certainty, for Hume, is based on how many times something has happened and how probable it is to reoccur.
His objections were (1) If design needs to be explained, then explain it; but only by appealing to a design-producing being, to say this being is God is to go beyond the evidence presented by design. (2) The universe is unique; therefore we have no basis for inferring that there is anything like a human designer behind it. (3) If there is a designer whose existence may be inferred from the way things are, would not such a designer also call for explanation? Yes, if reason were not alike mute with regard to all questions concerning cause and effect. Positing a designer leads to an infinite regression. (4) Why not become a perfect anthropomorphite? Why not assert the Deity or Deities to be corporeal. In the case of Paley, this designer is exactly like the people responsible for human artefacts. (5) The defender of the argument from design has no reason for denying that there may not be a whole ‘gang of God’s’ working together to produce design in the universe. (6) The universe can easily be regarded as a living organism such as a plant, which case the argument from design fails since the teleological argument depends on the comparison to an artefact. (7) Order in the universe might easily be the result of chance. Finally, (8) It fails because the universe shows plenty signs of disorder. (Davies 1993)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1776) was another critic of the teleological argument.
“According to Kant, we are unable to experience ‘things in themselves.’ We are presented in experience with an un-differentiated manifold, and we order our experiences of things in themselves as our understanding imposes such categories as unity and plurality, cause and effect. Working with this view, some thinkers have suggested that the argument from design fails because, order is ‘mind imposed’ rather than ‘God imposed’.” (Davies, 1993)
“A modern objection to the argument, one that was anticipated by Hume, is based on Darwinian evolution, which has cast doubt upon the notion of teleological explanation altogether.”
(Pojman, 1993)
Charles Darwin (1809-1882), although not the first to propose the theory of evolution, first put forward a comprehensive theoretical explanation for it in his, The Origin of Species (1858). Darwin proposed that similarities between species could be explained through a common heredity - that is, that they both shared a common ancestor.
According to Darwin, this was Adaptation, whereby a certain species would change according to the environmental conditions. Once this happens, the environment also causes the species which is fittest - or best suited to the conditions - to survive. This theory is best known as Natural Selection or survival of the fittest. The consequences this has for the teleological argument is, the separate creation of species, because Darwin argued that all species descended from a common ancestor which contradicts the traditional Biblical view that each species was created independently by God. Secondly, the instant creation of the world, the Biblical account portrays God as creating the world in seven days, after which nothing changes. However, the evolutionary perspective views things changing and evolving over millions of years. Thirdly, the goodness of God, the Bible views the world as created by God as an expression of his goodness. However, natural selection seems to suggest the struggle of opposing forces for dominance. Finally, the nature of man, if man was made in God's likeness it could not also be possible that he evolved from apes. This view makes man no different from the other animals.
In Conclusion, the teleological argument is not a reliable argument for the existence of God. To state that there is, order and purpose in the universe is accurate as there is an abundance of evidence to prove so, For example, the way trees harmonise with humans with the release of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen. However, just because there is evidence in the world of purpose and order does not mean that an intelligent being was the cause of it. It could have happened by what is outlined as the ‘Big Bang’ theory, the scientific evidence is visible; with reference to Kant and Hume we have the observed chemicals and gases whilst learning at school as a child. Another factor that an intelligent being did not create the world is due to, the countless experiences of disorder, such as natural disasters. Why would an intelligent being create a world which has order for there to be so much disorder?
With regard to Paley’s watch analogy, it is intensely precise to compare the world to a watch, as they both run simultaneously with an intrinsic design. However, how can you compare the complexity of the world to a watch? A watch may be complex in design but not to the extent that the world is. Philo stresses this and states that his analogy is “weak” (Davies 1993). Therefore, there is order and purpose in the world, but, there was no intelligent being that created this, it is an argument that perhaps has no conclusive answer and is dependant on the individual to whether which is right or wrong?
Bibliography
- Allen, D. Philosophy for understanding Theology, London: SCM Press, 1985.
- Davies, B. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (second edition), Oxford: OUP, 1993.
- Hick, J.H. Arguments for the existence of God, London: Macmillan, 1970.
- Hick, J.H. Philosophy of Religion (fourth edition), New York: Prentice Hall, 1990.
- Pinchin, C. Issues in Philosophy, Hong Kong, Macmillan, 1993.
- Pojman, L.P. Philosophy of Religion/ An Anthology (second edition), California: Wadsworth, 1994.
- Stump, E. & Murray, M.J. Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
- Swinburne, R. The existence of God (revised edition), Oxford: OUP, 1992.
- Thompson, M. Philosophy of Religion, Hodder Headline, 2003.