The second part of the argument for the existence of God is design qua regularity – Paley used evidence from astronomy and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity to prove that there is design in the universe. The universal laws, such as gravity and the rotation of the planets, were for Paley, evidence that the universe had not been an accident; as they provide the universe with order and regulation. Paley argues that this order and regulation is so complex that the universe can’t have come about by chance; and that it implies a universe-maker in the same way that the watch had a watch-maker. This universe-maker can be called God.
Consider this diagram.
I will now rehearse the design argument as expressed by David Hume, through Cleanthes, using analogy. Hume follows Plato’s method and writes in the form of a debate between two main characters: Cleanthes and Philo. Cleanthes is used to put forward the argument; and Philo is then used to put forward the critique and demonstrate that Cleanthes is wrong.
Hume’s argument is simply based from analogy and relies heavily on a posteriori deductions – assumptions that we are able to make using our knowledge of the universe and the way things work now. However, because Hume’s argument has no initial evidence to prove or disprove his theories and beliefs; it is obviously very easy to pick flaws within it. These flaws are identified by the character Philo (as mentioned above) and will be described further in part (b) of the essay.
Hume, or rather, Cleanthes, basically argued that we can observe material things in our world – for example, houses, paintings and machines – created by humans; and that these things have the common features of order and being produced by intelligent design. It is natural to conclude that orderly things are produced by intelligence. We know from scientific evidence that the universe is complex; and we know through our own experience that the universe exhibits the same kind of complex order that houses, paintings and machines do. Therefore; we can presume that the universe was produced by intelligent design (intelligence) also – which encourages us to believe in a creator – and this creator is asserted to be God.
The teleological argument has recently been developed and from this recent development we are now aware of the theory of the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle is basically an argument which states that the chances of the universe existing – and existing in the way that it does (i.e. with human life) – are so remote, that there must have been a design built into the universe in order for this production to take place; in other words: ‘The Universe seems like a put up job.’ The Anthropic Principle claims that if there had been a minute change in the values of the strong nuclear force, or perhaps the charge of an electron – any life form would have been unlikely to develop. In its simplest form; the Anthropic Principle opposes the idea that there is any chain of coincidences that led to the evolution of human life; and again, because of the complexity of our life, and the infinitesimal chances of the universe and our planet evolving as it has done, believers in the Anthropic Principle would conclude that this serves as evidence that a creator has been at work – and that this creator is/was God.
As aforementioned, the Anthropic Principle was developed by F. R. Tennant. Tennant believed that there were three types of evidence supporting the idea of a designer (God) (which he deduced from his knowledge of the world now as opposed to factual evidence of events which occurred then). These are:
- The fact that the world can be analysed in a rational manner
- The way in which the inorganic world has provided the basic necessities required to sustain life
-
The progress of evolution towards the emergence of intelligent human life
Basically, Tennant argues that because life is as it is – because we can see it for what it is and because we can survive in our universe as it is – there must have been a creator of this life and of the universe.
‘The fact is, we are here, and here by the grace of some pretty felicitous arrangements. Our existence cannot of itself explain these arrangements. One could shrug the matter aside with the comment that we are certainly very lucky that the universe just happens to possess the necessary conditions for life is flourish, but that this is a meaningless quirk of fate. Again, it is a question of personal judgement.’
Tennant also used the idea of aesthetic appreciation to further consolidate his argument. He stated that humans have the ability to appreciate the beauty of our world – and things such as art, music and literature – and this aesthetic appreciation is not a necessity. Tennant argues that it is not vital to regard things as beautiful and certainly not necessary for evolutionary survival, and yet, humans do – so there must have been a ‘divine creator’ of the universe, who determined that humans would have specific attributes in addiction to those required for basic survival.
Although Tennant regarded his argument as valid, it was not particularly appreciated by people at that time. It was the developments in cosmology, theoretical physics and pure mathematics, which urged philosophers – such as Richard Swinburne – to re-examine it.
Swinburne argues, using probability, that it is much more likely for the universe to have been created through design as opposed to having been created by random chance. Swinburne again reiterated that the complexity and the order of the universe support the theory that there must have been some form of design: and he concludes that this design’s simplest explanation is that of God.
In conclusion, I have discovered the design argument is built up of many points and has been varied several times, however, each of the variations seem very similar – and all come down to the same one point: that the universe is so very complex that there must have been a creator – however, as the argument is basically based around probability, it seems easy to argue against it and/or disprove such a theory. These critiques, along with any strengths of the argument, will form part (b) of my essay.
*
(b) What are the strengths of the design argument?
Comment on some of the criticisms raised against the design argument.
After describing the Design Argument, and the Anthropic Principle, I now intend to focus on the strengths of the argument, and then I will comment on the criticisms of the argument, as put forward by various philosophers. I will consider various points of view and not hesitate to incorporate some of my own ideas.
I will begin by considering the strengths of the argument. We know that the design argument is an a posteriori argument (using evidence of the world now to create theories of past activity) and therefore the evidence provided is obvious to humankind – as we can witness it and understand it and deduce things from it. This is a strong point, I think, as we know that the world does exist and we know that our world is complex. The argument is strong in the way that it uses analogy to consolidate the basic idea – we can witness the complexity of our own beings, or of different material things – and can easily connect this back to the idea of our universe – observing the possible likenesses between the two. The argument itself does follow an order, and initially the argument seems valid – and the argument involving the analogy of a watch is thorough and easy to comprehend. In fact, Immanuel Kant has described the argument as the oldest, clearest and most reasonable argument for the existence of God, even though he himself found it unconvincing. Even science cannot be used to disprove the design argument – in fact; it can be used to support it. There is nothing to say that the process of evolution is not the way in which God decided to create his design.
However, there are many arguments against the design argument as well as arguments against the anthropic principle. I will begin by examining and commenting on the flaws and criticisms of the design argument. To begin with, the whole idea of the design argument and its basis mainly on probability weakens the argument. It is probable that there was a God – this is because of the order and complexity of the universe. However, probability does not serve as substantial evidence for a God. The universe could in fact be the result of a committee of Gods, if you will: the comparison of the world to a building supports this idea – many buildings are designed by one person, and yet, constructed by many others.
Paley used analogy to make comparisons between a watch and the universe. However, this analogy may not appear valid – how can two things of perhaps different laws and time be compared in such a way? And even though the analogy stands, we can still not presume that the same laws or laws of our space and time can be applied to it: just because the watch had a creator, it does not necessarily follow that the universe had a creator. We cannot make assumptions using our knowledge, as we have no knowledge of anything before our existence.
David Hume specifically emerged as a major opponent of the design argument, and found several flaws with Paley’s version. Hume argued that:
- We do not have sufficient knowledge of the creation of the universe to conclude that there was only one creator; and humans only have the experience of what it is for humans to create, not what it is for a creator to create or what it is to create the universe
- If the human experience of design was valid, the design argument would be valid, but prove that the universe had a designer, not that the designer was the God of Classical Theism. It cannot be believed that the Theistic God created the universe because there is the problem of evil
- The very existence of evil in the universe would therefore suggest a designer who is not the omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnipresent God
- With regards to the analogy put forward by Paley: if we are going to use the analogy of a manufactured object (the watch) then this would suggest many creators (many Gods) as opposed to one creator (one God) as it is more usual for a machine to be designed and created by many hands
- The analogy of the watch is weak and, the universe would be better compared to a vegetable – something that grows of its own accord as opposed to something made by hand that does not evolve erratically (leads back to problem of evil)
So, if the design argument is to be considered as valid, then, Hume states, God cannot have the attributes he is given, he cannot be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, because of the problem of evil. Surely an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God would be able to prevent evil and suffering in the world – and though this maybe argued against with the idea that evil is in the world because we have free will, surely natural disasters such as earthquakes and volcanoes would be prevented by a God who is all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, if there was a God, Hume argues that he could not be the God of Theism or else there would not be evil in the universe.
I will now comment on the criticisms of the Anthropic Principle. The basic criticism of the Anthropic Principle is concerning the basis of the argument – probability. I don’t think that the probability of something happening is evidence enough for a designer: although it is probable that when I roll a dice, I will get a number less than 6, this is not a certainty – and I could well get a 6, although the chances are smaller than me getting a 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1. This may be argued against by the fact that the chances of the universe forming as it has done were infinitesimal; however, do we actually have the knowledge to predict that if the slightest thing had changed, the whole universe would be entirely different? Or that perhaps human life wouldn’t have evolved at all?
If there was a God who created the world for us to appreciate things such as aesthetics, what were his motives? What did he want of humans? What is the meaning of life? The truth is, the Anthropic Principle causes us to ask more questions: what sort of God created humankind? And there is no logical explanation as to why there was a single, personal, transcendent God with qualities such as being omnipotent, omniscient etc. To make that much of a presumption without justification cannot be valid – where is any evidence for such a being?
In conclusion, I think both the Design Argument and the Anthropic Principle – although based upon probability rather than reality or evidence – can be understood and accepted by most philosophers and humans: the universe really is complex, and how is it so that our universe may have just fallen into place in such a precise way? It seems unlikely; and the universe now – in its current form – certainly points to the idea of a designer. However, whether this designer was/is God is another argument and personally I find the way in which Paley, for example, manages to jump from the idea of a designer to the idea of God rather illogical. How can there be a Theistic God when it is evident that we have suffering in the world? ...
‘This world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity
who afterwards abandoned it.”
*
Bibliography
Mr Hickman
-
Philosophy of Religion for A Level
Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer, Edwin Tate
- An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis (third edition) -
John Hospers
-
A Critique of the Design Argument – Trevor Stone
-
Argument for the Existence of God -
http://saif_w.tripod.com/explore/i4wm/02k.htm
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/The_Design_Argument.asp
The Greek word teleos can be translated as ‘end’ or ‘purpose’.
Meaning ‘at the end’ – something that is known to be true through our own experience of it.
The Christian theologian and philosopher (1225-1274) who put forward his ‘Five Ways’ to prove the existence of God.
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
(1743-1805) A British philosopher-theologian. Paley was an apologist – meaning that he tried to demonstrate from human reason that Christianity (and the existence of God) was true.
Arguing by analogy is to argue that since things are alike in some ways, they will probably be alike in others also.
William Paley, Natural Theology
(supposing that our arrows mean creator of)
(1711-1776) regarded as Britain’s greatest philosopher
Meaning to be linked to the science and study of mankind.
First developed by F. R. Tennant (1866-1957) and followed by philosophers (i.e. Swinburne) and cosmologists (i.e. Davies). ‘Anthropos’ is a Greek word, translating as ‘man’ in the generic sense.
Sir Fred Hoyle, cosmologist
Bullet points taken from Philosophy of Religion: Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer, Edwin Tate, p 77
The Mind of God, Paul Davies, Penguin, 1993, p 204
Having an appreciation of beauty
the extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case
deconstructed the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)
not meaning to give God a gender (not meaning he as male)
(in response to Paley’s Design Argument). David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779