Argument From Design Booklet Jan 25 PDF

The Argument from Design What the syllabus says: The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume). William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose. Richard Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal...

The Argument from Design What the syllabus says: The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume). William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose. Richard Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity. Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including: Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley) the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume) whether God is the best or only explanation. 1 The Design Argument Read through the observations below and answer the questions that follow – 1. The evidence published by William Ryan and Walter Pitman in 1998 that there had been a “Great Flood” from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea around 5600BCE – with water pouring across the landscape at 200 times the rate of the Niagra Falls 2. The massacres of thousands of men, women and children in churches in Rwanda between April and July 1994 3. The overwhelming sensation of sublime beauty that 18th Century travellers experienced travelling through the Alps between France and Italy 4. The observation by Charles Darwin that the brains of humans and apes resemble one another in their fundamental character 5. The measurement of “redshift” in the light from distant galaxies by Edwin Hubble in 1929, which supported the conclusion that the universe was expanding from an original Big Bang 6. The testimony of Professor Michael Behe under oath to a court of law in the United States that certain features of the world, such as the eye, are irreducibly complex and could notbe the product of evolution 7. The lifelong charity work of Mother Theresa throughout the last century, which helped thousands of the poorest people stay alive in relative peace 8. The fact that the universe exists at all Question: a) Does the observation support the claim that God exists? Why/why not? 2 Types of Argument from Design The argument from design is an a posteriori argument, which means it argues from experience to convince us of the existence of God. It argues from the nature of the world as we experience to infer that it must have been created by an all powerful God, as opposed to ontological arguments which are a priori. In its most recognisable form it takes the form of an abductive argument, meaning it attempts to show that God exists by using premises which make it probable that the world was designed by an all-powerful God, again as opposed to ontological arguments which are deductive and attempt to show for certain that God must exist, if we properly understand what he is. The syllabus distinguishes between three kinds of design argument – firstly, those which work by analogy, especially the version presented by Hume in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” which he uses to set up a series of famous criticisms of this way of justifying belief in God; secondly, those which appeal to the notion of spatial order and regularity (the way physical things like the human eye seem to be very complex and work elegantly) and purpose in the universe (the idea that it is directed to some meaningful goal, such as the eye seeing, hence “teleological” arguments from the Greek “telos” for “end” or “goal”); and thirdly, those which appeal to the temporal regularity, or ordering across time, of certain features of the universe which suggest that it must have therefore been designed. We start with the first. Which of the following are abductive? 1. The waitress must have noticed I wasn’t enjoying my meal, that’s probably why she offered to get me something else to eat instead. 2. Cats are mammals, Tommy is a cat so Tommy is a mammal. 3. It’s stormed every January I’ve been in Thames Ditton so it’ll storm this January. 4. These are my favourite jeans and I can’t fit into them anymore. I must have gained weight. 5. Charity shops only sell used clothes. My shirt is from a charity shop, so my shirt has been used before. 6. I heard scratching sounds coming from the ceiling and noticed there were droppings on the floor. I’m pretty sure we have a mice infestation at our house. 7. Anyone born in early May is a taurus. Bob was born in early May, so Bob is a taurus. 8. I went on a first date last night, but my date kept checking her phone and didn’t ask me a single question. I guess she wasn’t interested. 3 The Argument from Analogy – Hume In his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Hume expresses the argument like this: “The intricate fitting of means to ends throughout all nature is just like (though more wonderful than) the fitting of means to ends in things that have been produced by us – products of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer by all the rules of analogy that the causes are also alike, and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though he has much larger faculties to go with the grandeur of the work he has carried out.” By ‘the fitting of means to ends’, Hume is talking about the intricate coordination of parts to achieve some purpose like the parts of the eye fitting together so we can see. As Hume says, we can draw an analogy with human design, in other words it is like when we design a chair ad think about the most functional and comfortable thing to sit on and make it to suit that purpose. So Hume’s version of the argument is an argument from analogy. Formally stated it looks like this: P1 In ‘the fitting of means to ends’, nature resembles the products of human design. P2. Similar effects have similar causes. P3. The cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design. C. Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design. How does an argument from analogy work? Arguments from analogy work by using an example (e.g. a watch or some other human designed object) which is supposed to have similarities which help us understand something else (e.g. the universe). The design argument from analogy does this by applying what is true of human artefacts like watches to the universe to demonstrate both have been designed. Arguments from analogy have the form: 1. A is like B 2. X is true of A C: So X is true of B Good analogies will have lots of relevant and significant similarities in terms of what is being compared as opposed to weak analogies which will have more significant differences in terms of what is being compared. For e.g. from looking at alligators we can draw some useful conclusions about crocodiles as they are similar, but comparing alligators to trains would not be helpful as trains are nothing like alligators. 4 Read through the following arguments from analogy and jot down reasons why you think these are strong analogies or weak analogies and why. a) Just as prison has uniforms and rules, so does school. So school is like prison. b) I have a mind, and a variety of mental states that cause me to behave in certain ways like crying, laughing and screaming in pain, so Bob who also cries and laughs and screams probably has a mind too. c) If you woke up one day and found yourself being used, against your will, as a life support device for a famous violinist who needed your support for nine months you would not be obligated to see this through. Similarly, you are not obligated to carry to term a pregnancy which came about against your will. d) If we encounter a child drowning in a pond, and we are in a position to save the child, we should save that child even if it comes at the cost of ruining our expensive new shoes. Similarly, we should save the lives of poor children around the world by giving up luxury items and donating to charity. e) A machine consists of finely adjusted parts that have been designed to work together in order to function. The world consists of a series of complex parts that work together in order to function, which suggests that the world was designed in the same way that the machine was. Which of the above do you think are strong analogies and which are weak? Discuss them and jot down reasons for each below: 5 The Argument from Spatial order/Purpose – Paley In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Task: Read the extract and answer the questions: 1. What are the differences between the stone and the watch? Stone Watch 2. For what reason(s) does Paley conclude that the watch has been designed? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 6 What are the features that show something is designed? William Paley (1743-1805) was Archdeacon of Carlisle and puts forward a famous version of the argument from design in his “Natural Theology”. He imagines himself walking across a heath and coming across a stone, which he strikes with his foot, then finding a watch on the ground. He asks the same question of both objects – “How did this come to be here?” For the stone, it could quite easily have been there forever according to Paley, whereas the watch is different. At first, Paley says the differences are that the watch: 1. Has several parts 2. The parts are framed and work together for a purpose 3. The parts have been made with a specific material, appropriate for their action 4. Together the parts produce a regulated motion 5. If the parts had been different in any way such motion would not be produced According to Paley – “Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.” How can Paley’s Argument be put into premises and conclusion? 1. A watch has certain complex features, including parts functioning together for a purpose 2. Anything which exhibits these features must have been designed 3. So the watch has been designed by a designer 4. The universe is like the watch as it possesses these features but on a far more wonderous scale 5. Therefore the universe has been designed, but by a more perfect designer, namely God 7 Issues/Criticisms Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy 1) The analogy is weak and remote as the similarities are cherry picked Arguments from analogy work best where there are numerous similarities between the two things compared. However, Hume (through the character of Philo in the dialogues) points out that there are many differences between the universe and designed artefacts or machines. He argues that it is a weak analogy in the first place as we are inferring only from what we can observe, to the nature of the universe as a whole, which is huge jump. Further, the similarities between the universe and designed artefacts, such as the apparent order, regulated motion, complexity and beauty in fact ignore important facts about how machines are often designed, for example that the designers may be flawed, sometimes foolish or morally weak characters, or that the machines are often the result of trial and error, so this universe might be one of many “botched and bungled” (Philo) attempts. It could very well be that our universe is “only the first rude effort of some infant Diety, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance.” 2) There are counter-analogies A counter-analogy uses an argument from analogy to draw a very different conclusion from the original argument. Hume uses a counter-analogy to show that rather than the universe resembling a machine in how it developed, it could very well be said to resemble a natural organism, more like a plant than a watch, with parts working together to a goal because of “generation or vegetation” rather than “reason or design”. Following this counter-analogy through, Hume suggests that the universe may be the product of natural processes rather than a designer. This would fit in with Darwin’s later explanation of life as evolving through natural selection and random mutation, rather than as an intelligently designed artefact. Explain two reasons that the analogy with the universe and designed artefacts like watches does not work below. Can you think of any possible replies? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 8  the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley) Paley considers the objection that the watch may be flawed in some way, and therefore that we might not be able to say it was designed, or at least designed very well. It may have stopped for example, or have broken parts. By analogy the universe may have flaws or appear to be imperfect, suggesting there is no perfect designer. Hume develops this objection by pointing to several features of the universe that seem not to have a clear order or purpose. For instance, large areas of the universe appear to be empty, lacking any clear purpose or design, so perhaps the apparently ordered part which we can observe is a fluke, and not some the product of divine intelligence. Also, animals of all kinds have bodies that can suffer, feel pain and which fail to survive as well as they might. This links into the case put forward by Hume, and later John Stuart Mill of the problem of evil as a criticism of the argument from design. After all, if the designer created the universe purposefully, why did they also create a world with senseless suffering caused by earthquakes and tsunamis as well as the kind of evil associated with evil acts like murders, rapes and genocides? As Hume puts it: “The whole earth is cursed and polluted. A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures. Necessity, hunger, want stimulate the strong and courageous; fear, anxiety and terror agitate the weak and infirm” – Dialogues on Natural Religion If we accept that there are significant imperfections in the world then we are left with two options: either God did not create the universe, or He did but He is not supremely good or omnipotent. Either option seems unsatisfactory for theists. What kinds of disorder work against the Design argument here? How do you think Paley would respond? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 9  the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume) Firstly, Hume is an empiricist and so looks to experience to confirm the arguments offered for religious belief. He looks at the kind of argument offered by Paley (who was writing 30 years after Hume, but represented a similar position to Hume’s character Cleanthes) that we can infer the universe has a designer because we know other complex things, such as watches, have designers. However, Hume argues we have experience of watches being designed, and if we had no such experience of watchmakers we could not say for sure that they had been created in this way. He goes on to point out that we have no experience of world-making so we cannot reasonably suppose that they must have been designed. Hume’s account of causation could help here – according to Hume we can only make a judgement of what caused a certain effect after we have seen many instances of the effect being caused. Once we have seen one billiard ball collide with another repeatedly, we can infer that the first one hitting the second is the cause of it moving away. But we have not had any experience of the universe being caused, let alone multiple experiences of universes being caused, so it is not justified to draw any inference about this. Paley could respond by saying that it does not have to be the case that we need experience of the whole process of design to be able to infer a designer, but that certain specific features of objects which suggest design can be identified. For instance, the way that the complex parts of the watch work together for the purpose of telling the time is comparable to the way the complex parts of the eye work together for sight. This would mean that though we don’t have experience of world- making we can still suppose that the universe is designed because of some of its features. Hume could perhaps press his point here though, and point out that we are unjustifiably comparing a unique entity – the universe, with its component parts (watches, eyes) when there is no reason to suppose that the same generalisations apply. The only experiences we have are of the parts of the universe and the parts cannot in themselves tell us anything about the origin of the whole. As Philo puts it “from observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the growth of a man?” What kind of fallacy that we have previously looked at is being committed according to the last sentence here? Explain your answer in reference to the argument from design. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 10  Whether God is the best or only explanation - Appearance of Design through Random Process A further issue from Hume is that it is possible that the universe originated by chance. We can accept that the world is ordered, but this could have arisen from design or chance. From what we now know from Einstein the stock of matter and energy in the universe is constant, though they continually change form, the overall amount remains the same. If this is the case then an infinite number of combinations will come to pass and out of this infinite number it is entirely reasonable that our universe with all the features that appear to show design, has arisen as simply one instance of these combinations. Darwin’s theory can be used to support this view by pointing out that if a species in nature did not adapt then it would not survive. The reason that things like the eye favour sight are because they have been selected over other features that in previous species have not functioned as well to preserve the organism. This therefore explains the appearance of design by a natural process without the need for an intelligent designer. (Swinburne will offer an argument against this criticism below.) Whether God is the best or only explanation - Design does not show God exists Hume attacks the assumption made by design arguments that because complex and purposeful artefacts have an intelligent designer then a complex and apparently purposeful world must also have an intelligent designer. Firstly, complex machines are often the result of a team effort, not an individual designer, so there could just as easily be a team of Gods rather than just a single one. Following from this, we could say that designers should be more like humans than the traditional conception of God if the analogy is to hold – they could well be foolish and morally weak, like people often are. Furthermore they could be of both sexes and reproduce, just as we do. Finally, designers make mistakes, and surely looking at the universe as we know it we could argue that the amount of needless suffering and evil could be a mistake by a God that lacked the power or skill to avoid this. Philo argues the most reasonable conclusion of the design argument is that the creator is “entirely indifferent… and has no more regard to good above ill than to heat above cold or drought above moisture.” In response to these objections, Brian Davies points out that to put forward a team of perfect human designers would suppose that the creator of the universe was embodied and therefore subject to the same laws whose origin we are trying to account for, which would not make sense. Secondly, to suppose that a team of Gods were responsible, when we could just as easily say that one perfect God was would violate Ockham’s razor – that we should not put forward unnecessary entities, so it is simpler to say that one God was the designer. Finally, the problem of imperfections will depend on one’s view of whether evil in the world suggests a flaw in the designer. 11 Now prioritise the criticisms so far, explaining which you think is the most important and why, and which the least important/damaging and why: Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley) the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume) whether God is the best or only explanation Most important/damaging and why: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Least important/damaging and why: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 12 Swinburne’s Argument – “Regularities of Succession” The contemporary philosopher Richard Swinburne uses a modified version of the argument from design to advance a case for the existence of God. Swinburne takes the criticisms of the traditional argument seriously and concedes, for examples, that the argument is one from analogy and that this cannot definitively prove the existence of the God of traditional theism. He also concedes that Darwin’s theory of evolution has dealt a devastating blow to Paley’s version of the argument. However, by modifying the argument Swinburne wants to show that it goes some way to proving that the universe has a creator. Terminology: “Regularities of co-presence” vs “Regularities of succession” Swinburne draws an important distinction in his argument which is crucial if his case is to avoid the pitfalls of the traditional argument from design. To do this he distinguishes between what he calls “regularities of co-presence”, by which he means things ordered in space, such as the different parts of the eye or the watch in Paley’s argument; on the other hand, there are “regularities of succession”, which refers to things ordered in time, such as when a pool ball moves when hit by another, or your friend coming over because you asked them to. This is a key distinction for Swinburne because he believes most design arguments work on the basis of regularities of co-presence, and these were fatally undermined when the theory of evolution came along and pointed out that the different parts of the eye, for example, are all ordered together in that way because of natural selection. Which is regularity of co-presence and which regularity of succession? 1. The order of books in a library 2. The fact that the 8.30 train is usually late 3. The arrangement of train stations on the map 4. The stone falling to the ground 5. The fact that period 6 is after period 2 6. Your eyes are over your mouth 7. Solutions follow problems 8. Tails follow bodies So how do “regularities of succession” help show God exists? 1. Regularities of succession occur due to natural laws and to personal choice. 2. Natural laws cannot themselves be explained by other natural laws. 3. This is because science assumes nature is ordered to make theories about it. 4. But by analogy we can explain natural laws as the result of the personal choice of an intelligent being. 5. Therefore, we can assume the existence of an intelligent designer. 13  How might Swinburne’s argument help reply to some of the earlier criticisms of the argument? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Criticisms of Swinburne Swinburne’s argument concludes that because the universe is orderly there must be an intelligent designer. Some argue that it is in fact not at all surprising that the universe is there and exhibits temporal regularity as if it did not we would not be here to observe it. The sheer fact that the universe displays order is one equally probable chance among an infinite number of possible outcomes. Swinburne argues this would be like shuffling ten decks of cards and then drawing ten cards, and for those ten cards all to be the ace of hearts, such is the apparent order and regularity of our universe. However, thinkers like Dawkins (who wrote a book called the “Blind Watchmaker” arguing along these lines) would argue that this is equally likely to any other set of events that could have taken place and if the universe was not this way we would not be here to discuss such a possibility. The universe on this atheist account, simply “is” and it is senseless to look for an intentional account for its existence. Conclusions on the argument from design So, where does this leave the argument from design? You might draw any of the following conclusions: I. The argument fails as it depends on analogy and there are more dissimilarities than similarities between artefacts such as watches and the world II. While arguments from spatial order fail, Swinburne’s argument from temporal regularity avoids the key criticisms raised by Hume and others, and succeeds III. The argument fails as it cannot legitimately infer God from the evidence, where other equally plausible alternative explanations are possible (eg many gods, infant gods, indifferent gods, non-divine creators, etc). IV. God designed the world is not offered as a hypothesis that should be testable in specifiable ways (verified or falsified by particular observations) V. God designed the world is one schema or way of understanding fundamental questions about the nature of the universe, amongst many, of making sense of experience for those with a religious commitment 14 What you need to know for the design argument The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume). William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose. Richard Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity. Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including: Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley) the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume) whether God is the best or only explanation. Possible exam style questions on the design argument: 1. Define “regularities of succession” (3 marks) 2. Outline Paley’s argument from design (5 marks) 3. Outline Swinburne’s version of the argument from design (5 marks) 4. Explain Hume’s analogical version of the argument from design and the issue that God is not the best or only explanation (12 marks) 5. How successful are arguments from design in demonstrating God exists? (25 marks) 15