St Thomas Aquinas argued for the existence of God using design qua regularity. He identified that natural bodies act in a regular fashion to accomplish their end, so this proves the existence of a designer, or divine being. He says that things do what they do by design, not luck. HE used the analogy of the archer and the arrow, to explain that anything lacking knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless directed by an intelligent and knowledgeable being, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Aquinas regarded the order evident in the world as proof of design. The designer he explained as: “This being we call God”
Paley had other ideas concerning the existence of God. In his “Natural Theology” book, 1802, after his theory of the analogy of the watch, he came to a similar conclusion relative to the intricate mechanisms of the human body. He looked at the eye and the way it is so efficiently adapted to sight. All of its complex parts co-operate together to create a working part, which is evidence of it being designed. He talks about the lacteal system, where particular animals have a number of teats relevant to their number of offspring. This cannot be coincidence, and is therefore more evidence for design.
His next idea was design qua regularity. Paley took evidence from astronomy and Newton’s law of motion and gravity to prove design exists within the universe as we know it. The way planets rotate, gravity, orbits, could not all be so by pure coincidence. This is evidence for a divine designer.
“If the attracting forces had varied according to any direct law of the distance, let it have been what it would, great destruction and confusion would have taken place.”
(Paley, Natural Theology, 1802) Here he is explaining that if gravity was even slightly stronger, or opposing forces weaker, then there would be chaos as everything collides. This strongly suggests an element of design in the world.
Arthur Brown was a more recent supporter of the design argument. In his 1943 book, “Footprints of God” he states that the o-zone layer is clear evidence for design. It’s purpose, efficiency, and suitability to its job is clearly designed.
“A wall which prevents death to every living thin, just the right thickness and exactly the correct defence gives every evidence of a plan”
This is fairly self explanatory, and such a complex, yet effective thing such as the o-zone layer surely must be created by design.
Another development of the teleological development, is the Anthropic Principle. This claims that the cosmos in its entirety was created for human existence and development, and if there had been even minute changes in things such as particle size, then life would most likely not have developed. The anthropic principle completely contradicts the theory that a chain of coincidental events led to evolution of human life. Supporters say that the world and everything in it, is in itself is proof for the existence of a designer, and this designer being God.
The anthropic principle was largely developed by F.R.Tennant in 1930, with his book “Philosophical Theology” He put forward 3 main points to prove the existence of a divine designer.
- The world can be analysed in a rational manner.
- The inorganic world has provided basic necessities for survival.
- The progress of evolution towards the emergence of human life.
Tennant believed that it would be 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. Human life is the culmination of God’s plan, or at least the current stage in God’s plan (F.R.Tennant, Philosophical Theology, 1930)
However, this was not Tennant’s only argument. He also was responsible for developing the Aesthetic argument. This is a simple but very valid argument. He argued that humans have the ability to appreciate nature, music, food, and other things that trigger emotions. He said:
“Nature is not just beautiful in places – It’s saturated with beauty… Our scientific knowledge brings us no nearer to understanding the beauty of music”
This characteristic is not one necessary for survival, so why do we have it? This is therefore evidence for the existence of God. It cannot be a result of natural selection, as everyone has the ability to appreciate or dislike their surroundings equally. Things being beautiful or ugly within our surroundings are not necessary for survival, so there must have been a designer to implant these characteristics into humans.
A believer in the Anthropic Principle was Richard Swinburne. He believed that the law was governed by unwritten laws, and that as the universe is not chaotic, it just as easily could have been. He concluded that as there is such regularity in the universe, that it is unlikely to be coincidence, and that it is most likely to have been designed. And if it was, then it was probably God. His theory came down to probabilities.
Although a highly popular argument for the existence of God, still widely studied in modern day, there are also many critics of the teleological argument. It can be argued that the design argument fails due to its weaknesses. By studying some ideas of some of the critics of the argument, we can come closer to determining the success or failure of it.
Possibly the most formidable critic of the teleological argument is David Hume, and the most famous criticism was put forth by him. Firstly, his opinions completely contradicted those of Paley. It is commonly believed that Hume was directly criticising Paley’s argument, but this is incorrect. His thoughts were written in dialogues throughout his life from 1711-1776, and were not published until he died. They were published by his nephew, as if they had been made public within Hume’s lifetime, his contemporaries would have shunned him, and it would cause outrage. Paley’s book, “Arguments for the Existence of God” was not produced until 1802 so it shows that Hume could not have been criticising him.
Hume made many different points within his criticism of the teleological argument. He made 5 main points.
- The analogy between the world and any artifact is weak.
- The design argument explains the order in nature by tracing its cause to a former order existing in the form of the creator. This does not explain the mentality behind the creator, and who developed him/her.
- Any world will look designed no matter how it came into existence
- The world could be the imperfect first attempt at creation by a minor deity. An imperfect world could surely not have had a perfect designer.
- It maybe difficult to explain how this can make sense, as the objects in question are individual.
His ideas here were that God cannot be proven or explained by comparing the world with the way a mechanical instrument is designed. Just because we create our own objects, this goes no way whatsoever to proving that the world must have had a similar designer.
He argues that while it can be argued that a God created the world, who created that God? Who put the mind into that God to want to create a world? This seriously compromises the main ideas involved within the teleological argument, as the God suddenly needs explaining, rather than simply accepting that it is there.
His next idea is that any world will appear designed. We have seen nothing to compare the world with, so the things that function in an effective or useful way are going to look designed, but just as likely could have been the result of coincidence. It has to be proven that the world came about purely by divine activity.
Next, he states that if there is an infinitely powerful and omnipotent God, then why is there any suffering in the world? It can be argued that there maybe more than one God, or that God failed to create a perfect world. Again, this challenges the design argument to a huge extent, as it poses a question to followers of the teleological which they cannot possibly answer.
His final main point is purely explaining that the world cannot be compared to anything else of a similar form, so to say that it is so fantastic that it must have been created by a divine designer, is nothing but speculation and opinions. It cannot be proven either way.
The reason this argument is so important, is because it came about at a time when the majority of people were happy with the idea that everything was created as depicted in the Bible, and this argument totally contradicted these ideas, and pointed them all out to be probability. These radical opinions caused public outrage. The idea was so new, extreme, and far from the common belief, it had a huge impact on the public view of God. Hume’s points mean that the design argument does fail to prove the existence of God, as these points could not be satisfactorily answered.
Another critic of the teleological argument was John Stuart Mill. While agreeing that the idea may point towards the possibility of the existence of a God, but the God being Christian was not an assumption that was fair to make. In “The Puzzle of God” Mill is quoted to have said:
“If God were all powerful, he could not be all good. If he was all good, he could not be all powerful”
With every criticism of the teleological argument, its credibility became more damaged. As people’s opinions started to change, and more ideas became common, more critics began to write their ideas. One of the most vital, important, and influential critics was Charles Darwin. He was an English naturalist who wrote a book called “On the origin of species by means of natural selection” (1859) Within this he formulated his theory of natural selection. He said that we were not created as humans, with the characteristics we have now, we developed gradually. Darwin provided an alternative explanation for the design of the world, without reference to creation by God. He offered a mechanical explanation for the development of life in Earth. The phrase “Survival of the fittest” comes into use here. This is commonly thought to be a quotation from Darwin, but is actually quoted from Herbert Spencer. The idea behind this was that through natural selection, the best, most efficient characteristics of each species would be passed down through the generations, within the genes. Random variations within the natural world allow some animals and plants to survive more efficiently than weaker ones, so they are more likely to live longer than the weaker ones. This means that the ones with the best characteristics would breed together, and the best genes from each one would be combined to form an even better being.
“…man should be able to improve the fleetness of his greyhounds through careful and methodical selection.” (Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859)
His ideas were even more radical than those of Hume, as they suggested that God did not exist at all, and everything was all part of evolution. This theory is backed up by Richard Dawkins who rejects any idea of design in the world, and puts it all down to random mistakes in the DNA molecules of any life form. Many people agreed with, or supported Darwin, but many were outraged as it compromised the teachings of the Bible, and in a time when the public were predominantly Catholic, this was not the best idea.
The previously mentioned “Anthropic Principle” supports Darwin’s theory. It claims that evolution is a part of God’s plan for the development of intelligent life. Supporters of the principle say that nature could just have easily worked out badly, and that they compare nature to the machine that makes other machines, and ultimately, a designer is required to design that. There is no real way to conclude the arguments. In this way, the design argument is failing again.
Another theist, Emmanuel Kant pointed out in his argument, that the argument for a divine designer depends on the assumption that there is actually design in the universe. The design would have to be the independent work of an independent designer who imposed order on the universe. Kant had a brilliant theory that the universe may well be in total chaos, but because our minds are only used to what we see around us, we may see it as ordered, but it may technically be in chaos. Design in the world is imposed by us, so what we see as design may well not be. This is another way of showing that the design argument fails, as teleologists have no way to say what is ordered and what is not.
This brings me to my conclusion. There are many people in the world who believe that God exists, and their proof is things such as the lacteal system, the human ability to appreciate the things we have, the apparent order in the world, and life itself. These are valid and strong arguments, but are easily contradicted by the arguments against, such as the idea that the world was created by particles reacting together, or that things just evolved gradually. But again, these can be contradicted by saying “Who created the particles?” or “Who gave the world the ability to evolve?” There is no yes or no answer to the existence of God.
Due to the substantial weaknesses of the teleological argument, it would be fair to say that to an extent, it does fail to prove the existence of God. Things such as being able to explain order in other ways than God, and anthropomorphism do hold the design argument back from being successful. Anthropomorphism is the idea that believers in God are creating an image of God having such human characteristics to achieve their analogy, that he it is removing his divine distinctiveness that makes him what he is.
So what of the question of there being design in the universe? Is there really design, or do we just think that what we are seeing is design. There is no proof either way, just theories and probabilities. The teleological argument’s success depends on the opinion of the individual, and comes down to nothing more than probabilities. We are unable to say “God created the earth” but a theist may say “It is probable that God created the earth.” A very famous opinion on this argument was by Paul Davies.
“This is really a question of your threshold of conviction. As the philosopher John Lesley has remarked, if every time we turned a rock over we saw the message ‘Made by God’ stamped on it, then I guess everybody would have to assume that we did live in a universe of his design. It has to be a matter of personal taste whether you regard the accumulated evidence as compelling enough to make that leap. But inevitably it’s outside the scope of science as such.”
This means that whether the cases and arguments for the world having been designed are valid enough to prove the design theory right is down to the individual opinion. However, it is unscientific, but not everything has to be. While there is no clear cut proof to say the universe was designed by a God, there is also no conclusive evidence to prove otherwise. The teleological argument needs to take into account evil and suffering in the world in order to be a success. From the supporting theists’ arguments, they do not appear to address these factors in great detail. So the design argument does fail partially because of its weaknesses, but is, to a certain extent, a success in pointing to the possibility of a divine creator, through evidence provided that cannot be totally contradicted or disproved.