Richard Swinburne (1930) ‘The Existence of God’, placed forward an argument to defend the validity of the idea of regularity in the world He used the analogy of a person who had been kidnapped and locked in a room with a card shuffling machine, shuffling ten packs of cards. The kidnapper told his victim that if the machine did not draw all the ace of hearts, one from each pack, he would die. The machine begins to deal out cards and to the relief of the victim out comes ten aces of hearts. The victim tries to explain way this happen and the only possibility he thought was that the machine must have been rigged. The kidnapper casts doubt on this suggestion saying, ‘It is hardly surprising that the machine draws only aces of hearts. You could not possibly see anything else for you would not be here to see anything at all if any other card had been draw.’ Swinburne believes that the victim reasoning is correct. He says, ‘There is something extraordinary about ten hearts being drawn – the fact that this is a necessary condition of anything being seen is not the point.’ Swinburne is trying to stress the point that just because we cannot see God it does not mean that he doesn’t exist.
Fred Hoyle, ‘The Intelligent Universe’ also supports Swinbourne view, ‘A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the rubik cube, requires intelligence.’ Further on into the book he says, ‘properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.’ Hoyle makes the point that the inter-relatedness of organisms and the earth is too much of a ‘perfect coincidence’ to be believed that it wasn’t designed by anyone, these odd coincidences need to be explained.
Swinburne’s conclusion to this argument is that the world’s conformity to natural laws is too great a phenomenon to be explained by science.
Philosophers say that we should consider the world in which life has developed as a mere ‘oasis of design in a vast desert of chance.’ The modern theist F.R. Tennant (1930), says this argument is conceivable but denies its plausibility. He also argues that, ‘the world as we know it shows marked evidence of adaptation to ends.’ He uses the example that there is the adaptation of the parts of organic beings which nature has adapted to make man’s aesthetic needs – ‘Anthropic Principle’. Tennant also points out that the second law of thermodynamics – that the world is continually tending to disorder, makes completely random development unlikely, other wise the world would be completely chaotic.
The ‘Anthropic Principle’ (as mentioned above) says, ‘ the universe has a design that makes human life possible. Any slight variation in any of the mathematical laws of the universe would create chaos.’ Therefore, this means that the fact that the world is designed means there is a designer – God. Today, modern science is also been able to produce evidence in support of the teleological argument. Until a few years ago there were several gaps in science which have now been filled resulting in greater proof of the ‘design argument’. A former professor at the University of Cambridge, John Polkinghorne speaks of the creation of the world as ‘delicate and intricate in order to be able to support human life.’ He goes on to say that if there had been a slight difference in time in the first three minutes when the gross nuclear structure of the world was fixed, the chemical structures vital to produce water (which is vital to life) would not have been formed. Whilst this may not give solid proof, this has made the teleological argument stronger and more plausible.
The third of the idea of the teleological argument is ‘beauty.’ How is it possible that humans are the only race on the planet able to appreciate beauty? Why is it that when we look out of the window we see so many colourful and things such as flowers and colour and have happy feelings? Science has stated that human beings see/perceive colour like no other race. The design of our eyes and the ability to register different wavelengths of light in terms of different colour has given a beauty to the world. The design of eyes of other species is totally different and they cannot see/perceive colour in the same ways as we do e.g. bulls seeing red. Many believe God did this on purpose.
Tennant (1930), ‘Philosophical Theology Vol. 2’ says, The world is saturated with beauty. There is no intrinsic reason why we should be able to appreciate the beauty around us. The fact that there is a presence of beauty and we are able to appreciate it, points to a God who is trying to draw humanity to the Godhead, instead of being content with mere survival.’ Even as we try to contemplate feelings and beauty it gives a feeling of transcendence, as feelings are not physical.
The Franciscan tradition in particular, beginning with St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bonaventure, maintains that God is beautiful and the beauty of the world attracts us to God. A modern Franciscan theologian Paul Rout (1996), ‘Francis and Bonaventure,’ puts it as follows:’ Sometimes we are overwhelmed by beauty, such as when we are faced by the beauty of the natural world. When we see something beautiful we are not involved in an intellectual exercise; it is more that we are drawn beyond ourselves and our rational concepts by what is desirable. The language of such goodness can help us to speak about God whose goodness overwhelms us and captivates the one who seeks with an open and listening heart.’ This argument would not convince the sceptic, but nevertheless many have found the scintillating beauty of the world a sign of an intelligent being behind it.
Although the teleological arguments on the surface sound very convincing and show a great deal of evidence to support God, they can still be criticised. The first argument I introduced was Paley’s analogy of the watch. David Hume (1757) who was possibly the greatest writer concerning the teleological argument criticised the arguments heavily. In his book, ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, Hume introduced three characters; Cleanthes – who believes in Natural Theology and argues a posteriori to God, Demea – who also believes in God and whose arguments are a priori and Philo – who is their critic and puts forward Hume’s own arguments. He rejected Paley’s argument twenty-two years before he put it forward. Hume says that it is impossible to make the analogy of the universe with a human artefact Hume’s arguments are very strong. The idea of Paley’s analogy is weak indeed, the world is like no man made object. Hume’s argument is ‘we only know that the watch was made by a watch maker because we saw it being made, whereas we don’t know how the universe was made because we have never seen one being made.’ I believe that Hume’s argument that ‘we only know if something has been made if we see it being made’ is inconsistent, is he trying to suggest that if we look at a house, it doesn’t suggest a builder simply because we didn’t see it being built? He also argues about things that have other mechanical contrivances like plants, he says, ‘plants and living things come into the world through reproduction and grow organically, Why is it not possible that the world is more like a plant rather than a watch. Therefore the world doesn’t need a maker.’ Again we can say that the world bears no resemblance to a plant or a human being. Even the world of science says that the world began as gases, so this theory has no substance. What it could suggest though is that in order for reproduction to being you need a parent; in this context the parent could be God.
Another argument placed forward by Hume is the ‘like cause and like effect’ argument. Hume also says that like effects should have like causes, therefore God would be like a superhuman figure - very anthropomorphic. He would have to be anthropomorphic because in order to create the human race, you would have to be ‘super human.’ Although he says this, he does not deny that the design argument doesn’t work. What he says that if it does work, then the God it portrays is one who is anthropomorphic, limited and imperfect. He makes his point clearly, ‘The world, for aught the user of the design argument knows is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard and was only the first rude effort of some infant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance.’ Hume’s arguments about ‘like cause and effect’ I think is insubstantial. If you look at any object e.g. a chair, it bears no resemblance to the person who made it. Although it is said in the bible that God made us in ‘his own likeness’ this does not mean that we are carbon copies of him. It is more plausible that we have certain traits of God like kindness, a conscience and love.
Hume put forward another suggestion saying, ‘If it takes many carpenters to make a ship, why is it not possible that more than one God made the world?’ Richard Swinburne argues that this theory should be rejected. Swinburne acknowledges Ockam’s razor: ‘To multiply causes without necessity is contrary to true philosophy.’ Hume rejects Okram’s Razor because if we use the principle of analogy, there is a closer analogy to the idea that there is many God’s rather than one God.
You are now faced with two possibilities, if you believe in analogies then it is more probable that there is more than one God and they are rather like super human beings. Swinburne believes that the idea of a single God is simpler and has greater explanatory powers than the idea of there being many Gods and should be preferred. Swinburne says, ‘If there were many deities we would see to marks of different deities throughout the Universe rather than the uniformity we see today which suggest one God.’ Hume in reply says, ‘This is a weak argument because if many people co-operate in the building of a ship, you would not expect to see many designs.’
Swinburne’s argument is very weak in saying that there is only one God because the argument is simpler to understand. As the probability of there being more than one God goes against everything about the God of classical theism, this is hard to believe but still possible.
Another argument is that ‘the world occurred due to chance and therefore has no purpose.’ This criticises all of the theories placed forward by the teleological argument. The ‘fine tuning’ of the universe necessary for life points to the idea of design. If any of the conditions at the start of the universe were different there would simply be chaos.
Many have argued, Professor Hawking for example, that there were a number of possibilities during the initial expansion of the universe and just because our developed it does not signify design.
Another argument placed is the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ and the ‘Chaos Theory’ (1961). This points to the idea that there is randomness on many levels of the world and the universe that we cannot explain. Our answer to this is ‘How do we know that these things are actually random and have no significance?’
Some people look at the universe and believe that it is just ‘brute fact’. These people can give no explanation of their beliefs, in my opinion this argument is pointless. In the same ways that people look for evidence to prove God, these people shouldn’t just be satisfied to say that it is simple ‘fact’, but they should strive to prove to the world and mainly themselves that it was simple fact.
I believe that the argument that the worlds arouse from chance is very weak. The chances of this happening are too great to comprehend. This argument would support Darwin’s evolution theory that we, the most intelligent beings on the plant, originally came from some form of bacteria. This would go against the word of God that we are all ‘unique.’ Scientists and others believe in the ‘Big Bang’ theory. This argument supports the teleological argument because it would have taken a ‘Being’ far greater than us to start the ‘big bang. What these people cannot account for is if the big band wasn’t started by someone then how did it occur. Some American scientists say, ‘The world occurred due to the falling of another planet. As the planet disintegrated into a black hole, this threw gas particles into the air, which combined and formed the universe.’ Also, in order to survive organisms have to reproduce; this shows that they have a purpose. Their purpose is to carry on the organism in the world. If there were no purpose in living then most organisms would have simply died out by now. This supports the teleological argument.
As there is order in the world, there is a need to seek for an explanation. It is human instinct to search for an answer; otherwise there would be no need for scientists.
Through his character of Philo, Hume says that he ‘accepts the world is orderly – it behaves in an orderly manner. Natural laws operate consistently and we can discover them and work with them. Few would deny that there is order’. He asks ‘does that imply a designer?’ Hume uses the example of animals. Animals have adapted to their environment if they hadn’t, they wouldn’t survive. It isn’t legitimate (Philo says) to use intelligent planning to prove the existence of God. He does admit that it is difficult to explain the extra organs not need for survival such as eyes and ears.
Darwin’s theories support Philo’s argument as natural selection does provide an answer for the reason for two eyes and ears. The animal that does have two eyes and ears has a better field of hearing and vision and therefore they have a better chance of survival. Darwin (1809-1982) ‘The Origin of Species by Natural Selection’, says, ‘mammals, birds, fish and reptiles are all the descendants of one common progenitor and we must admit that the whole vast amount of difference between these forms has primarily arisen simply from variability.’ I believe that the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is inconsistent and haphazard. Darwin has failed to account for the mutations that have occurred in species over the use. Could this not signify a God who designed different species to adapt to the change in habitat to increase survival rates? An argument had been put forward that God would have like to have started in from the very basic organisms and continue to develop them until he achieved his ultimate design – human beings.
Kant (1791) ‘Critique of Pure Knowledge’, says that the order we see in the world is made by us. As we look at something, we impose order and pattern and make assumptions about it, which may not necessarily be true. He says this is the same in trying to explain God. He says ‘The apparent evidence of order and design is the result of our mind working on what we observe. As this is so, we cannot use these same conclusions on things outside this world. To do so, would be going outside the boundaries to which cause and effect apply.’ He states that the patterns that we see in the tangible world cannot be justified in the metaphysical world. I believe that Kant is correct in his argument. Kant believed that cause and effect does apply in the tangible work because we see it everyday. This is not the same in the metaphysical world. For example the ‘self moving principle,’ if an object moved in this world then we would know that in order for it to move it had to be moved by someone/something. In the metaphysical world it would be wrong to
In my opinion one of the greatest boundaries we have to overcome is the presence of evil in the world. John Stuart Mill (1806 –1873) ‘The Essence of God,’ wrote, ‘Next to the greatness of cosmic forces, the quality which most forcibly strikes everyone who does not avert his eyes from it is their perfect and absolute recklessness. They go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they crush on their road.’ I do feel that it is possible to begin to explain why there is so much evil. It could be possible that God didn’t create a world where everyone was suppose to be happy and believe in God, what would be the point? If he had then we would not be living our own living our lives choosing each day as we do, between good and evil because there would only be one choice.
Another possible thought is ‘Heaven.’ The classical theist view of heaven in one word is ‘paradise.’ Could it not be that this life is a way of judging those who are worthy or not of going to heaven. If we live out good lives on earth having faith and trust in God (a metaphysical being) we will go to heaven. Those people who decide to turn their back on God and turn to evil shall be punished. This thought is pleasing to those who live a good life, as the person who kills and takes advantage of people on earth and get away with it, will have to answer before God.
The weakest of the three fundamentals of the teleological argument is ‘order’. Order doesn’t necessarily need to be explained by the fact that there is a God. It is thought that we are intelligent enough beings to create our own order on things. Ultimately it is my opinion that the intelligence that we have to either recognise this or place order on ourselves comes from God.
If you look around the world at the intricacies especially, you cannot help to wonder how everything fits together. The chances of this just being a random fact are too large to be comprehensible. Yet, just as two different people can interpret one piece of evidence differently, for the teleological argument to be creditable it has to satisfy both the theist and the atheist. I don’t believe it does this as Hume and Kant have provided very good counter arguments.
I believe that Kant makes a good point in the ‘Moral Argument’, ‘We have a sense of morality. The world would be impossible without this objection morality given to us by God.’ It is up to us at the end of the day, whether we have the faith to believe in God or not.
