the design argument for the existence of god

8/3/2019 The Design Argument for the Existence of God

1/25

The Design Argument for the

Existence of God

As level


2/25

Key Terms:

Telos: from the Greek meaning end, aim,purpose.Analogy: a comparison of similars.

Natural Theology: based on reason rather thanspecial revelation (revealed truths from God).Anthropic Principle: the reason and purpose ofthe universe is to support human life.

Anthropomorphism: speaking of non-human inhuman terms or as having human attributes.


3/25

Is there evidence of Design in the

world?

Yes

Wow Factors

Grand Canyon

Sunsets

Waterfalls

Great Barrier Reef

Nature

Life itself

No

Malfunctioning of thenatural world.

Tsunamis

Earthquakes

War

Murder

Disease and famine


4/25
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://7art-screensavers.com/flowers/2004-08-19-flowers-photos/concave-flower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://7art-screensavers.com/flowers/2004-08-19-flowers-photos/&h=768&w=1024&sz=88&hl=en&start=8&tbnid=MSuLJhUlWtr28M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images?q=flowers&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=strict&sa=Nhttp://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/baby/_more2005/_more12/newborn-baby-four-4-days-old-in-pram-with-guard-cat-5-DHD.jpg


5/25


6/25

Teleological argument

Telos form the Greek meaning End, Aim,

Purpose.

The Teleological (or design argument)claims that certain phenomena in theuniverse appear to display features ofdesign, in so far as they are perfectlyadapted to fulfil their function.


7/25

Such design could not have occurred bychance and can only be explained withreference to an intelligent, personaldesigner.


8/25

Classical approaches to theargument:

Thomas Aquinasincluded a form of the teleologicalargument as the fifth of his five ways, which he termedFrom the Governance of the World

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural

bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their actingalways, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtainthe best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their endnot fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacksknowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it bedirected by some being endowed with knowledge and

intelligence and this being we call God. (Cited in Hick(ed.), 1964)

Aquinas was arguing from design qua regularity(design inrelation to the order and regularity in the universe). Heregarded the overall order evident in the world as proof of a

designer, this being we call God.


9/25

Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem tohave an innate sense of purpose (design?). We know thatnothing that has purpose does so without the aid of a'guiding hand' (E.g. an archer shooting an arrow at a

target) thus everything in nature is directed to its goal byGod. [Aquinas' Design Argument here is slightly differentfrom the traditional view as presented, for example, byWilliam Paley (see Paley's Watch). Aquinas agrees thatthere is order and purpose in the world but adds to thisthat inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not haveordered themselves, lacking the intelligence to do so, andso have been ordered by a Being with intelligence whocould (which would be God).]

Aquinas' key idea is that things such as planets are not'endowed with knowledge and intelligence', and so cannot

determine their own place in the universe. However, theyalso, as far as he is concerned, could not have becomefixed in 'perfect' orbits by chance (for example, one wherethey do not crash into each other). So how did they getwhere they are today? Aquinas' answer is that they are

where they are because they were set there by anintelligent Being; 'and this being we call God'.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/designargument.htmhttp://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/paleyswatch.htmhttp://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/paleyswatch.htmhttp://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/designargument.htmhttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.html&h=484&w=350&sz=36&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=g8nb7LSombN2PM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=93&prev=/images?q=william+Paley&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=strict&sa=X


10/25

William Paley and thewatch:

William Paley (CE1743 1805)), Put

forward a very popularteleological argumentin his book NaturalTheology(1802).

Key Term: Analogy = acomparison of similars.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.html&h=484&w=350&sz=36&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=g8nb7LSombN2PM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=93&prev=/images?q=william+Paley&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=strict&sa=Xhttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utilitarianism.com/william-paley.html&h=484&w=350&sz=36&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=g8nb7LSombN2PM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=93&prev=/images?q=william+Paley&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=strict&sa=X


11/25

Paleys Analogy

William Paley was Archdeacon of Carlisle:

Paley: Imagine crossing a heath. If you come acrossa stone, you might consider it to be an accident

but if you come across a watch then this providesclear evidence of contrivance or design even ifthe purpose of the watch is not obvious.

Just as the design of the watch implies a designer,so the design in the world implies a great

designer which is God.


12/25

Summary

A watch has certain complex features (e.g. it consists ofparts, each of which has a function, and they worktogether for a specific purpose).

Anything, which exhibits these features, must have beendesigned.

Therefore the watch must have been designed. The universe is like the watch in that it possesses the

same features, except on a far more wondrous scale. Therefore the universe, like the watch, has been

designed, except by a wondrous universe maker i.e. God Paley goes on in his argument to show the intricacy ofanimals and humans, leading to the conclusion that Godmust be their maker. He famously used the example ofthe eye that appears to have design and clearly has apurpose.


13/25

Richard Swinburne

Richard Swinburne refers to his argumentas a teleological argument from thetemporal order of the world. That there istemporal order in the world is, says

Swinburne, very evident. The orderliness of nature of which I

draw attention here is its conformity toformula, to simple formulable,

scientific laws. The orderliness of theuniverse in this respect is a verystriking fact about it. The universe

might so naturally have been chaotic,but it is notit is ver orderl .


14/25

From all of this Swinburne concludes that

some explanation is called for. And hissuggestion is that the temporal order ofthe universe is explicable in terms ofsomething analogous to human

intelligence. In Swinburnes view there areonly 2 types of explanation: SCIENTIFICexplanation (in terms of scientific laws)and PERSONAL explanation (in terms ofthe free conscious choice of the person).According to Swinburne, there can be noscientific explanation of the universes

temporal order since:


15/25

In scientific explanation we

explain particular phenomena asbrought about by prior

phenomena in accord with

scientific laws; or we explain theoperation of scientific laws.From the very nature of science

it cannot explain the highestlevel laws of all; for they are thatby which it explains all other

phenomena.


16/25

As Swinburne sees it, therefore, if we are

to account for the fact there are such lawsthen we have to appeal to a personalexplanation. Someone (i.e. God) hasbrought it about that the universe exhibits

a high degree of temporal order. And, soSwinburne adds, the likelihood of thissupposition is increased by the fact thatGod has reason to produce an orderly

world. For example, says Swinburne,order is a necessary condition of beauty,and it is good that the world is beautifulrather than ugly.


17/25

The 10 Card Shuffling Machine.Imagine 10 card shuffling

machines. A madman kidnapssomeone and ties them to achair. He sets the card shufflingmachines going and says that abox of explosives will blow upunless every pack shows an aceof hearts.When the victim survives, he willbe convinced that the dice musthave been loaded but themadman will reply that he could

not see anything else as hewould otherwise be dead.Similarly the odds of humanbeings coming to be are so hugethat the probability is that there

is an intelligence behind theuniverse.


18/25

Swinburnes conclusionsIt is very unlikely that the Universe has just

happened to exist.Given the character of God postulated by the

main monotheistic religions, this is just thesort of world God would have reason to create

Whereas the Design argument does notprove the existence of God, it does make itmore probable than not that God exists.

HOWEVER assessing probability is verydifficult and much depends on individual

opinion so it is important to assessSwinburnes possible bias Peter Vardy alsoargues that he fails to take real account of theproblem of evil and negative factors in theUniverse.


19/25

How successful is the Design

Argument? In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion(1779), Hume emerged as a

major opponent of the design argument. His main reasons for opposingthe argument include the following:

Humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the creation ofthe world to conclude that there is only one designer. Humans have onlythe experience of the things that they design and create. This limitedexperience is not enough to come to similar conclusions about the creationand design of the world.

If the human experience of design was valid, the design argument wouldprove that the universe has a designer, but not that the designer was theGod of Classical theism. The design could have been the work of severallesser Gods or, alternatively, of an apprentice god who has moved on tocreate bigger and better worlds:

This world, for all he knows, is very faulty and imperfect compared to asuperior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deitywho afterwards abandoned it.

(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural religion, 1779)


20/25

There is no evidence to support the benevolent God of Classicaltheism. The very existence of evil in the world would suggest adesigner who is not benevolent or all-powerful God of ClassicalTheism.

Hume argued that to try to discuss the design of the universe inhuman terms was not an acceptable analogy, because God

transcends human understanding. If we are going to use an analogyof manufactured objects, then it is more usual for a machine to bedesigned and made by many hands. This analogy would suggestmany gods rather than one God.

Hume does not think that it is a good analogy to liken the universeto a vast machine. The universe is more like a vegetable or inert

animal something that grows of its own accord, rather thansomething made by hand.


21/25

The Epicurean Hypothesis:

The Epicurean Hypothesis argued that, at thetime of creation, the universe consisted ofparticles in random motion. This initial statewas chaotic, but gradually the natural forcesevolved into an ordered system. The universe iseternal and, in this unlimited time, it wasinevitable that a constantly ordered state woulddevelop. The stability and the order is not a

result of a divine designer but of randomparticles coming together through time to formthe current stable universe.


22/25

Immanuel Kant:

Kant emphasised that the design argumentdepended on the assumption that there isdesign in the universe. The design must be theindependent work of a designer who imposed

order on the universe. The argument is basedon the assumption that there is regularity, orderand purpose in the universe. Kant argued thatthe universe may be in chaos but because of theways in which our minds organise our

experiences, the world around us appears to beordered. We impose the design on the worldourselves and cannot be certain of the reality ofthe situation.


23/25

Conclusion:

Whether or not there is design in theuniverse comes down to probabilities.Hume accepted that it was more probable

that the universe was designed and thatthere was a designer, but there was noproof that the designer was God.


24/25

Exam Watch:

It is essential that you have knowledgeand understanding of key terms. Thereare numerous contributors to the design

argument, however, remember you areunder exam conditions so stick to Paley,

Aquinas, Swinburne and Hume. You can

gain credit from demonstrating a clear andanalytic understanding of the traditionalpresentations of the argument.


25/25

Past Paper Questions Read the passage and answer questions (a) and (b) which follow. Suppose you are going for a walk and come across a watch. Paley

argued that even if you hadnt seen a watch before, you wouldknow that this watch did not come about by chance, but must bethe result of the work of an intelligent mind

Explain how Paley uses the watch analogy in his design argumentfor the existence of God. (10 Marks)

Outline three criticisms of Paleys design argument for theexistence of God. (10 Marks)

(a) Explain how the apparent order and purpose in the world is usedto support the design argument for the existence of God. (15Marks)

(b) Explain how science challenges the design argument, and assess

how far these challenges are successful. (25 Marks) Outline the key characteristics of the design argument. (15 Marks) Explain the challenges to the design argument and assess how

successful they are. (25 Marks)

the design argument for the existence of god

Documents