Design Design ArgumentsArguments

Running OrderRunning Order

1.1. AquinasAquinas

2.2. PaleyPaley

3.3. SwinburneSwinburne

4.4. Criticisms and Counter-criticismsCriticisms and Counter-criticisms

Aquinas’ Design ArgumentAquinas’ Design Argument

St Thomas AquinasSt Thomas Aquinas

1225 - 12741225 - 1274 Dominican Friar and Dominican Friar and

Scholastic Scholastic Philosopher/TheologianPhilosopher/Theologian

Faith and Reason Discover Faith and Reason Discover truth.truth.

Heavily Influenced by Heavily Influenced by AristotleAristotle

A site worth visitingA site worth visiting

Aquinas’ Design ArgumentAquinas’ Design Argument

From the From the Summa Summa TheoligicaTheoligica

The Fifth of the Five The Fifth of the Five Ways.Ways.

Simple design Simple design argument based on argument based on the presuppositions the presuppositions of the other four of the other four ways.ways.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

How does Aquinas Justify his How does Aquinas Justify his Argument(s)?Argument(s)?

Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

Used to back up all Used to back up all five ways.five ways.

Rejects infinite Rejects infinite regress.regress.

God as first cause/ God as first cause/ prime mover.prime mover.

How does Aquinas ‘demonstrate’ God’s How does Aquinas ‘demonstrate’ God’s existence?existence?

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

William Paley - A Second Version of William Paley - A Second Version of the Design Argumentthe Design Argument

The Watchmaker AnalogyThe Watchmaker Analogy

William PaleyWilliam PaleyPaley’s version of the Paley’s version of the

argument is analogical:argument is analogical:• Objects in nature are Objects in nature are

analogous to man-made analogous to man-made machines.machines.

• Manmade machines are the Manmade machines are the result of intelligent design.result of intelligent design.

• Analogous effects will have Analogous effects will have analogous causes.analogous causes.

• Therefore, objects in nature Therefore, objects in nature are the result of something are the result of something analogous to intelligent analogous to intelligent design.design.1743 - 1805

Extracts from Extracts from Natural TheologyNatural Theology

Published in 1802Published in 1802

Re-iterated what Hume wrote Re-iterated what Hume wrote

in in Dialogues concerning Dialogues concerning

Natural Religion (1770) - Natural Religion (1770) -

though ironically Hume then though ironically Hume then

used this pre-Paley analogical used this pre-Paley analogical

proof to show the proof to show the

inadequacies in the inadequacies in the

teleological Argument!teleological Argument!

““This mechanism being observed - it This mechanism being observed - it requires indeed an examination of requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, being once, as we have said, observed and understood - the observed and understood - the inference we think is inevitable, that inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who find it actually to answer, who completely comprehended its completely comprehended its construction and designed its use.”construction and designed its use.”

Extracts from Extracts from Natural Theology Natural Theology IIII

1.1. ““As far as the examination of the instrument goes, there is precisely the As far as the examination of the instrument goes, there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it. They are made upon the same telescope was made for assisting it. They are made upon the same principles, both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission principles, both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission and refraction of rays of light are regulated. I speak not of the origin of and refraction of rays of light are regulated. I speak not of the origin of the laws themselves; but such laws being fixed, the construction in both the laws themselves; but such laws being fixed, the construction in both cases is adapted to them. For instance, these laws require, in order to cases is adapted to them. For instance, these laws require, in order to produce the same effect, that rays of light in passing from water into the produce the same effect, that rays of light in passing from water into the eye should be refracted by a more convex surface than when it passes eye should be refracted by a more convex surface than when it passes out of air into the eye. Accordingly, we find that the eye of a fish, in that out of air into the eye. Accordingly, we find that the eye of a fish, in that part of it called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than the eye of part of it called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than the eye of terrestrial animals. What plainer manifestation of design can there be terrestrial animals. What plainer manifestation of design can there be than this difference? What could a mathematical instrument maker have than this difference? What could a mathematical instrument maker have done more to show his knowledge of his principle, his application of that done more to show his knowledge of his principle, his application of that knowledge, his suiting of his means to his end - I will not say to display knowledge, his suiting of his means to his end - I will not say to display the compass or excellence of his skill and art, for in these all comparison the compass or excellence of his skill and art, for in these all comparison is indecorous, but to testify counsel, choice, consideration, purpose?”is indecorous, but to testify counsel, choice, consideration, purpose?”

Extracts from Extracts from Natural Theology Natural Theology IIIIII

“For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, with the difference on the side of nature of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism;”

““It is this which constitutes It is this which constitutes

the order and beauty of the the order and beauty of the

universe. God, therefore, universe. God, therefore,

has been pleased to has been pleased to

prescribe limits to his own prescribe limits to his own

power and to work his power and to work his

ends within those limits. ends within those limits.

The general laws of matter The general laws of matter

have perhaps prescribed have perhaps prescribed

the nature of these limits.”the nature of these limits.”

Criticising the Design Criticising the Design ArgumentArgument

HumeHume

DawkinsDawkins

Hume’s Criticisms - From the Hume’s Criticisms - From the Dialogues Dialogues Concerning Natural ReligionConcerning Natural Religion

Hume asks why we could not postulate Hume asks why we could not postulate more than one creator?more than one creator?

Swinburne responds by saying: “To Swinburne responds by saying: “To multiply causes without necessity is multiply causes without necessity is contrary to true philosophy.” contrary to true philosophy.” Hume is Hume is aware of Ockham’s razor and responds aware of Ockham’s razor and responds by suggesting that this does not apply by suggesting that this does not apply in this case as to postulate more than in this case as to postulate more than one creator fits in with our knowledge one creator fits in with our knowledge of the world.of the world.

However, Swinburne responds by saying However, Swinburne responds by saying Hume’s hypothesis is absurd as it Hume’s hypothesis is absurd as it would be possible to see the handiwork would be possible to see the handiwork of each creator throughout the universe of each creator throughout the universe and thus differences in how laws are and thus differences in how laws are applied.applied.

1711 - 17761711 - 1776

David Hume

Hume’s First Argument -Hume’s First Argument - Against CleanthesAgainst Cleanthes

Cleanthes argument runs thus:Cleanthes argument runs thus:

– 1. All design implies a designer.

– 2. A great design necessarily implies greatness in the designer.

– 3. There is clearly great design in the world which is like a great machine; thus:

– 4. There must be a great designer in the world.

This is an a posteriori argument to This is an a posteriori argument to God.God.

Hume responds by:

The argument is mere anthropomorphisation

The inadequacy of the design

““The world … is the first work of The world … is the first work of some infant deity, who some infant deity, who afterwards ashamed of his work afterwards ashamed of his work abandoned it … and is the abandoned it … and is the object of derision from his object of derision from his superiors.”superiors.”

Hume’s Second Argument -Hume’s Second Argument - Against CleanthesAgainst Cleanthes

Hume’s second argument Hume’s second argument runs thus:runs thus:

• The world is ordered.The world is ordered.• This order either resulted This order either resulted

from Design or from from Design or from Chance.Chance.

• It is entirely possible that It is entirely possible that the world arose from the world arose from chance.chance.

As Philo/Hume suggests:As Philo/Hume suggests:

Matter and energy may well be Matter and energy may well be everlasting.everlasting.

If matter and energy are everlasting then If matter and energy are everlasting then in an infinite number of in an infinite number of combinations every one will be combinations every one will be realised.realised.

Once order has occurred, it will tend to Once order has occurred, it will tend to perpetuate itself.perpetuate itself.

Animal adapt ion cannot prove an animal Animal adapt ion cannot prove an animal designer as if there were no adapt designer as if there were no adapt ion there would be no survival.ion there would be no survival.

Darwin’s Theory of natural selection bears out extra organs too – the fittest and best equipped survive.

Counter Arguments to HumeCounter Arguments to Hume

SwinburneSwinburne and the and the mad kidnapper:mad kidnapper:

o The card shuffling The card shuffling storystory

o The existence of The existence of order is order is extraordinary.extraordinary.

Fred HoyleFred Hoyle from the from the Intelligent Universe”Intelligent Universe”

““A component has A component has evidently been missing evidently been missing from cosmological from cosmological studies. The origin of the studies. The origin of the universe ... requires an universe ... requires an intelligence ... There are so intelligence ... There are so many odd coincidences many odd coincidences essential to life that some essential to life that some explanation seems explanation seems required to account for required to account for them.”them.”

Swinburne’s ConclusionSwinburne’s Conclusion

Is that although the Teleological Is that although the Teleological argument does not make it argument does not make it probable that God exists, the probable that God exists, the argument serves to increase argument serves to increase the probability of God’s the probability of God’s existence.existence.

1. A priori it is very improbable 1. A priori it is very improbable that a universe could just that a universe could just happen to exist.happen to exist.

2. By virtue of God’s postulated 2. By virtue of God’s postulated character this is the sort of character this is the sort of universe God would have to universe God would have to make.make.

Versions of the Teleological Versions of the Teleological ArgumentsArguments

The Argument from The Argument from Purpose:Purpose:

Paley’s versionPaley’s version Rests on analogy that Rests on analogy that

certain things in nature are certain things in nature are like human artefacts.like human artefacts.

Thus purpose in a watch = Thus purpose in a watch = by analogy, purpose in the by analogy, purpose in the universe and thus, a universe and thus, a designer outside of that designer outside of that universe.universe.

Substantiated by reference Substantiated by reference to body organs.to body organs.

If the argument from design ever had If the argument from design ever had any value, it has not been any value, it has not been substantially affected by substantially affected by scientific investigations from scientific investigations from Descartes through Darwin to the Descartes through Darwin to the present day ... The [teleological] present day ... The [teleological] argument was only that the argument was only that the ultimate explanation of such ultimate explanation of such adapt ion must be found in adapt ion must be found in intelligence; and if the argument intelligence; and if the argument was correct, then any Darwinian was correct, then any Darwinian success ,merely inserts an extra success ,merely inserts an extra step between the phenomena to step between the phenomena to be explained and their ultimate be explained and their ultimate explanation.explanation.

Anthony KennyAnthony Kenny

Versions of the Teleological Versions of the Teleological ArgumentsArguments

The Argument from The Argument from Regularity/Providence:Regularity/Providence:

Based on the premise that the Based on the premise that the universe exhibits a degree of universe exhibits a degree of order - a uniformity in the order - a uniformity in the behaviour of objects.behaviour of objects.

This order should be accounted This order should be accounted for by reference to an intelligent for by reference to an intelligent cause.cause.

It is reasonable to postulate an It is reasonable to postulate an intelligent agency when intelligent agency when confronted by order, i.e. when it confronted by order, i.e. when it is consistent to suppose that is consistent to suppose that the existence of order is not the existence of order is not logically necessary.logically necessary.

A E Taylor:A E Taylor:

1.1. Nature seems to plan for the Nature seems to plan for the needs of living things. There needs of living things. There must be more than physical must be more than physical laws to account for the high laws to account for the high improbability of life.improbability of life.

2.2. Mind or intelligence is needed Mind or intelligence is needed to create such states of affairs.to create such states of affairs.

3.3. Mind cannot be a product of Mind cannot be a product of evolution as evolution needed evolution as evolution needed the mind to impose it.the mind to impose it.

4.4. Humans cannot be explained Humans cannot be explained simply by evolution since we simply by evolution since we transform as well as adapt to transform as well as adapt to the environment.the environment.

Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins

Dawkins is a profound atheist who Dawkins is a profound atheist who believes that processes of natural believes that processes of natural selection account for the survival selection account for the survival and dominance of particular and dominance of particular species. He sees all creation as species. He sees all creation as existing without purpose and existing without purpose and refers to the order of the universe refers to the order of the universe as:as:

‘‘a blind, unconscious, a blind, unconscious, automatic process’automatic process’

Thus design is evident by virtue of Thus design is evident by virtue of our imposition of order on our our imposition of order on our world but the actuality of our world but the actuality of our existence is a product of the existence is a product of the quest by our genes to survive.quest by our genes to survive.

Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins

Author of:Author of:

The Selfish GeneThe Selfish Gene

The Blind WatchmakerThe Blind Watchmaker

Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins /cont.../cont...

““Evolution has no long term Evolution has no long term goal. There is no long goal. There is no long distance target, no final distance target, no final perfection to serve as a perfection to serve as a criteria for selection .. The criteria for selection .. The criteria for selection are criteria for selection are always short term, either always short term, either simply survival or, more simply survival or, more generally, reproductive generally, reproductive success ... The ‘ success ... The ‘ watchmaker’ that is watchmaker’ that is cumulative natural selection cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and is blind to the future and has no long term goal.”has no long term goal.”

Does this rule out God as Does this rule out God as the ‘the ‘ground of all being’ground of all being’ as as Arthur Peacocke Arthur Peacocke suggests?suggests?

Dawkins calls us Dawkins calls us ‘survival ‘survival machines’machines’, but some have , but some have asked whether or not asked whether or not whole organisms and whole organisms and species take priority over species take priority over the ‘the ‘selfish gene’selfish gene’. Is . Is Dawkins overly Dawkins overly reductionist? [Note Matt reductionist? [Note Matt Ridley’s counter-criticism]Ridley’s counter-criticism]

Concluding the TopicConcluding the Topic

Remember:Remember:This argument rests on This argument rests on

probability and individual probability and individual judgements and judgements and conclusions about the conclusions about the universe. Thus, the proof universe. Thus, the proof is not conclusive nor is it is not conclusive nor is it likely to persuade the likely to persuade the ardent atheist. Moreover, ardent atheist. Moreover, the argument itself is not the argument itself is not easy to justify nor is it easy to justify nor is it empiricallyempirically true. true.

Concluding the TopicConcluding the Topic

What sort of God does What sort of God does the argument point the argument point to?to?

What vision of the What vision of the world does the world does the argument have - must argument have - must it recognise scientific it recognise scientific theories as ‘true’, if so theories as ‘true’, if so how does that affect how does that affect the argument?the argument?

““Nevertheless, of one asks Nevertheless, of one asks whether the teleological whether the teleological argument is a proof of argument is a proof of God’s existence, in the God’s existence, in the

sense of being rationally sense of being rationally convincing to all, the convincing to all, the

answer must surely be answer must surely be negative. But perhaps that negative. But perhaps that conclusion merely shows conclusion merely shows

how unrealistic such a how unrealistic such a concept of proof actually concept of proof actually

is.”is.”