! design argument !

an inductive argument

aka teleological argument

A posteriori argument

'purpose'

evidence of order, purpose & rationality in nature

conclusion is likely, but not absolutely certain

suggests intentional design

based on observable, empirical, sense data

argument in standard form;

P1)

P2)

i can observe order, design & regularity in the universe

P3)

order, design & regularity cannot come by chance

a designer must have ordered the universe

Conc:

the designer of the universe can only be God, therefore God exists

1) St Thomas Aquinas

observations of nature show that "natural bodies act in a regular fashion"

image

things in nature act for their own benefit without consciously thinking about it

"now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end (purpose) unless it be directed by some being" (arrow & archer analogy)

just as an arrow must be directed to its target by a higher being, so too is all of nature directed to its purpose by God

Aquinas argues "Design Qua Regularity" = design through regular, ordered patterns

in order for non-intelligent matt4er to behave in a way that is beneficial, there needs to be an intelligent power to bring this about - God

this cannot come about through random chance - it must be work of God

2) William Paley

uses an analogy of the watch to argue that just as the watch must have a designer, so too must the world

the world is like this machine: its ordered, purposeful, intricate, complex & functional

'Design qua Purpose'

the world is even more "wonderous" - God must be its designer

Paley also uses e.g. of the human eye

image

everything has been given a purpose by God & this purpose is evident in nature

the watch is complex & order, & put together for a total purpose - so there must be a designer

the world is complex & ordered, each induvial has a purpose, not necessarily a total purpose (we are inside the world so we cant know the purpose - we need an Archimedean perspective) - so likely world has a total purpose, & therefore likely a world designer = God

pre-emptive responses to criticisms

PoE - just cause something goes wring, to doesn't mean that there is no designer, or that God is imperfect, the world could be perfect but still go wring just like a watch

the conc isn't invalidated if we don't understand all the parts of the watch - it just shows we are less competent than the designer just we are ignorant of his mechanisms, just cause we don't understand all the world doesn't mean there is no designer.

put forwards a very popular theological theological argument, in his book Natural Theology

3) F.R Tennant

responding to the challenge of evolution to the DA

like causes, like effects

evolution is part of Gods plan & shows his intelligence, it strengthens the design argument

The Anthropic Argument

Unlikely

Man

Rationality

the world is comprehensible to humans, its not chaotic. A rational mind must have designed it, its also rational to conclude that God is the designer

too unlikely that the world is here by chance, "the world isn't compatible with a single throw of the dice" (θ)God is the best explanation of the Worlds existence & humanity

the brute laws of nature couldn't of led to mans creation as spirituality & morality aware creatures. We can rise above our biological nature (& evolutionary laws), this implies that God has designed us

The Aesthetic Argument

the beauty of the world implies an artistic designer

world is 'saturated in beauty' even at a microscopic level

sunsets, art, poetry have no evolutionary benefit

humans find the ordered world beautiful & chaos ugly

this implies that θ is the creator & designer of the universe, all these things point cumulatively to God as designer

supported by Paul Davis' - the goldilocks enigma'

every law of nature is 'just right' at every level to enable the existence of us & our planet

image

4) Richard Swinburne - regularities of co-presence & succession

criticisms

perhaps the world was created for the benefit of rats?

the universe possesses natural beauty, beyond that which is necessary

co-presence

all parts of our universe are present in the perfectly ordered pattern that works

succession

the laws of nature (biology, chemistry & physics) which operate in the same way every time & work together in harmony

regularity of co-presence could of come about by chance given infinite amount of time but when you add succession thus becomes incredibly unlikely

its these laws that indicate the work of an intelligent designer

this is a cumulative argument - more evidence = more likely the conclusion is correct (inductive argument)

"the universe might so naturally been chaotic. But its not - its very orderly

nature is a "MACHINE MAKING MACHINE"

God has created the laws of nature (e.g. evolution) to enable nature to create itself, its part of his plan

Critics of the DA

1) David Hume - 6 criticisms

1.

humans only have knowledge & experience of what we design & create, this is however in sufficient, its limited, therfore we cannot make conclusions about the creation & design of the world (critiquing inductive leaps)

2.

even if the universe was designed it doesn't prove that the designer was God, could of been 1 or more 'lesser' or 'limited' deities or a 'first attempt'.

it argues from that which we know, to that which is unknown

"the first attempt of some infant deity"

cannot assume the designer is the Judaeo-Christian god

3.

the world around us isn't perfect, but religion claims God is perfect & unlimited therefore we cannot make the link between the designer & what has been designed if a perfect God designed the world, then why isn't it perfect

4.

trying to discuss the design the design of the universe in human terms is a bad analogy, because God is beyond human understanding. Hume is saying that Paley's analogy is flawed cause there no reason to assume there only 1 universe maker as there no reason to assume there only 1 watch maker. The analogy is flawed cause it anthropomorphises God

criticism - Deism - God as the 'cosmic clock maker', who set the world in motion & leaves it to its own devices (imperfection is our own fault)

5.

is also a bad analogy to liken the world to a machine, its natural (more like an animal or vegetable), therefore it makes more sense to say the world grew of its own accord than saying its constructed & manufactured

6.

Aquinas, Paley, Tennant & Swinburne all argue from the premise that the universe seems well designed, but an animal (or human) would not be able to live unless its various organs worked together as they do. so if the world didn't appear to be well designed, it would not be here for us to look as, supported by the epicurean hypothesis

epicurean hypothesis - the universe is infinite, if given an infinite num of galaxies & time, its inevitable that eventually an ordered & working universe would form. It appears designed but its actually the result of random chance

2) Darwin & Dawkins - challenge of evolution

Darwin

natural section accounts for the complexity & beauty in nature. The world seems ordered & organised cause it has gradually developed to support life, not because it was intelligently designed

Dawkins

the only purpose of humanity is to pass on genes, we are a result of random, chance mutations which resulted in variation of species, survival of the fittest. it may appear to be the result of 'good design', but in actuality we are a result of natural; selection - almost arrogant to assume we have a special purpose

3) John Stewart Mill

objected to the design arg cause of the PoE and suffering, if God was the designer his power must be very limited cause he couldn't prevent the suffering caused by the forces of nature

religious people believe in an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God, but this cannot be reconciled with the suffering caused by the forces of nature

criticism - Deism - God as the 'cosmic clock maker', who set the world in motion & leaves it to its own devices (imperfection is our own fault)

4) Kant

as humans we perceive the universe as ordered & therfore designed. However what we consider to be order & design could actually be chaos. We are limited by our human minds & are often mistaken by our surrounding

5) Ayer

DA can only suggest a designer, it cannot prove one, therefore its a meaningless argument. We cannot say what the world would be like without design & order (as it is all we know), so it is meaningless to say its designed as how would we know

strengths of the DA

its based on A posteriori

most people can recognise order, regularity & purpose on the natural world

beauty is universally recognised (aesthetic principle)

we trust empirical sense data in ordinary life - basis of our knowledge

the strength of an inductive arg is in the reasonableness of the conclusion

supported by modern science, e.g. hydrological cycle, food chains, ecosystems etc. (Swinburne - evolution)

has overcome & adapted following criticisms;

Darwin -> Swinburne

Mill -> Tennant

it has the strength of analogous arguments, it uses comparisons, e.g. watch, & order to clarify our understanding of the argument

gives meaning & purpose & demands respect for natural world, encourages study if nature - Kant

it helps to bridge the gap between faith & science - the 2 are complimentary (goldilocks enigma). Polkinghorne - God is the great conductor of nature

Weaknesses of the DA

use of A posteriori evidence is flawed cause it involves assumptions & inductive leaps

inductive args aren't very compelling or convincing cause if the DA was truly a good, strong theory, it would be a deductive arg & therfore definitely true.

what we are experiencing could be manipulated or wrong due to a number of factors

beauty is subjective & differs greatly between people

just cause elements of science & nature are ordered doesn't automatically mean it was God's doing, they can be explained by further science

the analogies used are too different to their subject of the universe as a whole, a watch is not comparable to nature & neither is a watch maker to God - Hume

Swinburne's arg doesn't make sense with genesis, where it says everything was made its final form, this doesn't fit with evolution