Teleological Argument Revision Guide PDF

[]{#anchor}***The Teleological Argument*** Types of reasoning - ***A posteriori*** literally means 'what comes after'. This refers to reasoning or knowledge that is derived from experience/ empirical evidence (observation through the 5 senses). - ***Inductive arguments*** are reasonin...

[]{#anchor}***The Teleological Argument*** Types of reasoning - ***A posteriori*** literally means 'what comes after'. This refers to reasoning or knowledge that is derived from experience/ empirical evidence (observation through the 5 senses). - ***Inductive arguments*** are reasoning where specific observations lead to a general conclusion that is probable but not guaranteed. E.g through observing design in the world (specific observation) we can conclude that the designer of the world must be God (general conclusion which is probable but not guaranteed) - ***Synthetic propositions (proposition means a statement about the world) :*** A proposition the truth of which depends on factors other than the meanings of the terms used; it has to be tested through observation of the world. - ***A priori*** literally means 'what comes before'. It refers to knowledge or reasoning that is independent of experience or observation. It is based on logic or inherent truths that can be known without empirical evidence. For example, mathematical truths like \"2 + 2 = 4\" are considered a priori because they can be known through reasoning alone. - ***deductive arguments*** are reasoning where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, meaning if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. e.g. 1. All humans are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. ALL DESIGN ARGUMENTS ARE A POSTERIORI, INDUCTIVE AND SYNTHETIC! []{#anchor-1}Interpreting experience: - We tend to think of experience as the best authority when it comes to knowledge. If you\'ve experienced something, it MUST be true! But a moment\'s thought tells us that there are problems with basing knowledge on experience. There are **hoaxes**, when people deliberately try to fool us. - There are **illusions**, **hallucinations** and **mistakes** when something seems to be true but isn\'t. - There are **ambiguous experiences**, which can be interpreted in several different ways. These are all naturally-occurring illusions: - *The \"Fata Morgana\" is a mirage that occurs in the sea between Sicilly and Italy. Ships and mountains seem to float in the air above the horizon.* - These illusions tell us that our senses cannot always be trusted. Because of things like this, *a posteriori* argument may not always be sound. However, illusions and hoaxes can eventually be \"exposed\". - Ambiguity is different. \"**Ambiguous**\" means \"having more than one meaning\" or \"open to more than one interpretation\". If an experience is ambiguous, then there\'s more than one way to interpret what it means and you may *never* be able to \"get to the bottom of it\". his was an important idea for the liberal Christian philosopher [***John Hick***](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/john-hick.html) *(Faith & Knowledge*, 1957): - 'THE UNIVERSE IS RELIGIOUSLY AMBIGUOUS. IT EVOKES AND SUSTAINS NON-RELIGIOUS AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS RESPONSES' **- JOHN HICK** - The idea that the universe is \"religiously ambiguous\" means that both believers and non-believers may be drawing valid conclusions from the Design Argument because it all boils down to how you interpret your experiences: some people experience design, others don\'t. In some people, the universe \"evokes\" a religious response - they are struck by the appearance of design and order. It may \"sustain\" a religious response, reassuring them of God\'s existence even when they are faced with evil and suffering. But non-believers perceive* the same events* completely differently. This sort of thinking goes back to the philosopher **Immanuel Kant** who proposed a difference between the Noumenon and Phenomenon: **Noumenal reality** (or the Noumenon) is reality as-it-really-is. Kant thinks that no one ever gets to experience this directly. - **Phenomenal reality** is reality as it comes to us through our senses and as we construct it in our minds. Each individual person\'s phenomenal reality is probably slightly different from everyone else\'s. - The Design Argument - along with all other *a posteriori* argument - tells us about phenomenal reality. God (if he exists) is the noumenal reality. - [*John Hick*](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/john-hick.html) puts it like this: 'THE SAME THING APPEARS IN EITHER SLIGHTLY OR CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT WAYS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE OWING BOTH TO THEIR VARYING SPATIAL LOCATIONS IN RELATION TO IT AND TO DIFFERENCES IN THEIR SENSORY AND MENTAL EQUIPMENT AND INTERPRETIVE HABITS' **- JOHN HICK** []{#anchor-2} []{#anchor-3}William Paley's Design Argument's: - The **Design Argument** (also called the **Teleological Argument**) is one of the classic arguments for the existence of God, based on the observation of order, purpose, and complexity in nature. Here's a more detailed breakdown of the argument: - ***Design Qua Purpose:*** argues that certain objects or organisms in nature are designed to serve a specific purpose, like a tool or machine created by a designer. - []{#anchor-4}**Key Idea**: The idea here is that **everything that serves a specific function in nature**---like wings for flying or the heart for pumping blood---must have been created with that purpose in mind, much like a tool designed for a specific task. This points to intentionality and design. - This Argument is ***A posteriori, Inductive and synthetic.*** []{#anchor-5} []{#anchor-6}1. The Watchmaker Analogy: 1. **The watch:** Paley famously begins by asking us to imagine finding a watch while walking in a field. The watch, with its intricate and interdependent parts working together for a purpose (to tell time), could not have come together by accident. Its complexity implies the existence of a designer---someone who constructed the watch with a specific purpose in mind. For example,the watch uses brass To prevent rust, steel for elasticity and glass for visibility. These materials were chosen for their unique qualities which are fit for purpose. Thus, it reveal intentionality and forethought- a designer is required. []{#anchor-7}**2. Comparison to Nature:** Paley then compares this to natural objects, particularly biological organisms. For instance, he points to the human eye, which has various complex parts (the cornea, lens, retina, etc.) working together perfectly to allow vision. Just like the watch, the eye's complexity and functionality suggest that it was designed for a purpose and didn't come about by chance. []{#anchor-8}**3. Inference of a Designer (God):** From this analogy, Paley concludes that the complexity and apparent design in nature (e.g., living organisms) indicate the presence of a designer, who must be incredibly intelligent and powerful. For Paley, this designer is God. He argues that just as the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, the existence of the universe and life implies a divine creator. []{#anchor-9}**4. Rejection of Chance:** Paley argues that the complexity and purpose found in nature are too great to be the result of random processes or chance. He suggests That the fine-tuning of the universe further supports the idea that the world is the result of intelligent design rather than coincidence. []{#anchor-10} []{#anchor-11}Strengths of William Paley's argument from design qua purpose: 1. **A Coherent, valid philosophical argument:** It follows philosophical logic and is soundly based on empirical data. It does not fall foul of any traps of tautology (A tautology is a statement that cannot be false under any interpretation. Tautologies are often considered redundant because they do not provide new information but merely restate what is already implied.) It has firm grounding in terms of the factual justification that it employs. 1. **Answers the intuitive human assumption that all things a re explicable:** It satisfies the human need for an explanation of the world around us, and our sense that tis is possible. And the explanation gives concerns for all of empirically observable nature. So it explains the whole world. 1. **The more we observe about the world, the stronger the argument:** Given that the argument is based on conclusions drawn about order/ complexity etc. from empirical observation, the more that we observe, the more complexity we will see in the world. With every new species that is found, the world appears ever more complex and impressive. This will mean that Paley's conclusion that there is a designer God will seem all the more reasonable,a s there will be a greater weight of evidence in support of his claim. This is essentially what Richard Swinburne means when he says that 'the argument from design is a cumulative one.' 1. **Emphasises God's position as unique and outside the universe:** Tells us that God is external to the universe in the same way a watchmaker is external to the watch. There is only one unique being outside the universe, so he alone could have created it. 1. Ockham's Razor: 'Ockham\'s Razor' is a philosophical test named after a mediaeval monk William of Ockahm. It's like a razor because it 'shaves away' the rubbish, leaving only the truth behind. It's also called the principle of parsimony which is an idea that goes back to Aristotle. Ockahm's Razor is often stated like this: entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. What it boils down to is, that if you have more than one explanation to choose from, the best explanation is the simplest one. By 'simplest' we mean the one that involves the fewest concepts. - - []{#anchor-12}2. ***Design Qua Regularity:*** []{#anchor-13}This emphasises the order and predictability of natural laws and systems, suggesting that the universe operates according to a design plan. **Design qua Regularity** refers to the observable regularity and order in the natural world, particularly in the laws of nature. This concept focuses on the consistent, predictable patterns in nature that suggest that the universe operates according to certain laws and principles. Paley argues that this regularity is evidence of design because it indicates that the universe is organised and governed by an intelligent designer. - **Example**: The **movement of the planets** in the solar system is an example of regularity. The planets follow consistent orbits around the sun, and the laws of physics ensure that this movement is predictable and orderly. Paley argues that this regularity is not random but rather indicative of a design that governs the natural world. - **Key Idea**: The universe\'s **consistent order**---such as the laws of physics, the cycles of seasons, or the regularity of the day and night---implies that the universe is structured in a purposeful way, governed by a higher intelligence. Here's a more logically ordered version, including Aquinas\' analogy of the archer: []{#anchor-14}Aquinas\' Design Argument: Key Aspects and Concepts - This argument is ***A posteriori, inductive and synthetic*** 1. **Faith and Reason:** \- Aquinas believed that faith and reason coexist and complement each other. His design argument uses rational thought to argue for the existence of God, aligning philosophical reasoning with theological faith. 1. **Teleology (Purpose in Nature):** \- Aquinas' design argument is classified as a teleological argument, meaning it focuses on the purpose (telos) or end goals of things in the universe. \- He observed that even non-conscious objects in nature seem to act toward specific ends or purposes, such as plants growing or animals reproducing. This suggests that these natural beings are directed toward their goals by some guiding force. 1. **Final Cause (Aristotle\'s Four Causes):** \- Aquinas emphasised the idea of final cause, one of Aristotle's four causes, which refers to the purpose or goal of an object or action. \- He argued that everything in nature has a purpose, such as an acorn\'s goal of becoming an oak tree. This purposeful direction implies the existence of an intelligent designer who set those purposes in motion. 1. **God as the Ultimate Designer:** \- Aquinas identified this guiding intelligence behind natural objects\' purposeful actions as God. He argued that since these objects do not possess intelligence to guide themselves, there must be an external, intelligent cause directing them toward their ends. \- For Aquinas, God is the ultimate designer who created the universe with a specific plan and purpose. 1. **Design Qua Regularity:** \- Aquinas focused on the order and regularity in nature, particularly the predictable behaviour of natural laws and systems. \- He noted that the movement of celestial bodies (planets, sun etc) and other natural phenomena operate according to fixed patterns, suggesting that these regularities are part of a divine design plan. 1. **Analogy of the Archer:** \- Aquinas used the analogy of an archer and an arrow to explain his design argument. Just as an arrow, which lacks consciousness, needs an archer to direct it toward a target with precision and purpose, natural objects require a guiding intelligence (God) to direct them toward their specific ends. \- This analogy illustrates that, like an arrow following a deliberate and ordered path toward its goal, objects in nature achieve their telos through intentional guidance from an intelligent being, rather than by random chance. \- This analogy illustrates design qua regularity, which emphasises the order and predictability of natural laws. Like the arrow following a deliberate and ordered path toward its goal, objects in nature achieve their telos (purpose) through the regular, consistent operation of natural laws---directed by an intelligent being---rather than by random chance. The regularity in nature, such as the predictable movement of celestial bodies (stars, planets etc.) , points to a purposeful design 1. **Contrasts with Chance:** \- Aquinas rejected the idea that the complexity and order in nature could arise by chance. He argued that the directedness observed in nature is too intricate to be the result of random occurrences, implying the need for an intelligent designer. []{#anchor-15}Strengths of Aquinas' argument 1. **Recognizing Design without knowing its purpose:** The analogy does not require people to know exactly what the purpose of the world is- we don't need to know exactly where the arrow is going in order to know that there is an archer. 1. **Guidance in an Inanimate World: The Need for an Intelligent Designer:** An inanimate world must indeed have something guiding it, if it is to exhibit order and purpose. 1. **Clarity:** The analogy of effect and the analogy of cause are clear. The appearance of direction in the arrow and nature can suggest that both may have a director 1. **A Coherent, valid philosophical argument:** It follows philosophical logic and is soundly based on empirical data. It does not fall foul of any traps of tautology (A tautology is a statement that cannot be false under any interpretation. Tautologies are often considered redundant because they do not provide new information but merely restate what is already implied.) It has firm grounding in terms of the factual justification that it employs. 1. **Answers the intuitive human assumption that all things a re explicable:** It satisfies the human need for an explanation of the world around us, and our sense that tis is possible. And the explanation gives concerns for all of empirically observable nature. So it explains the whole world. 1. **The more we observe about the world, the stronger the argument:** Given that the argument is based on conclusions drawn about order consistency etc. from empirical observation, the more that we observe, the more complexity we will see in the world, the more complexity and order we discover in the world. As we learn more about natural phenomena, such as the laws of physics or biological systems, the evidence for regularity and purpose grows stronger, making the case for an intelligent designer increasingly plausible. This alignment of observed order with the idea of purposeful design reinforces the argument's credibility. []{#anchor-16}David Hume's argument from analogy - David Hume, in his book ' Dialogues on Natural religion' In natural theology' creates a Design argument through his character Cleanthes. However, he only creates this version of the Design argument to critique it through the character Philo as Hume is very sceptical of the Teleological argument. - Cleanthes, in Hume\'s 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', presents the Design Argument by comparing the universe to a machine. He argues that, just as machines have intricate parts working together for a purpose, so too does the universe display an ordered structure that serves various functions. This resemblance suggests that, like machines created by human intelligence, the universe must have an intelligent designer. - Cleanthes' analogy hinges on the idea that complex systems with interdependent parts, which we see in both machines and the natural world, do not arise by chance. By observing how machines are made intentionally, Cleanthes reasons that the universe, with its far greater complexity, is likely crafted by a supremely intelligent being, whom he equates with God. []{#anchor-17}Scholars who critique the design argument: []{#anchor-18}David Hume - **THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION**: The design argument relies on an analogy between natural objects (like the universe) and human-made objects (like a watch or a house), claiming that just as complex human artefacts have intelligent designers, so too must the universe. Hume questioned the strength of this analogy, arguing that the universe is far too different from human artefacts for the comparison to hold. He believed that human experience with artefacts doesn't provide a valid basis for drawing conclusions about the origins of the universe, which is a unique and vastly different entity and that we certainly cannot make the jump from empirical evidence of design within the world to the general conclusion that God exists. - **The world is more like a vegetable**: Hume though the analogy between the world and a watch was weak. He thought the universe resembles a vegetable more than something mechanical like a watch. This is because David Hume thought the world was more like a vegetable because he believed it grows and develops naturally, rather than being built by someone like a machine. Just like how plants grow on their own without needing someone to put them together, Hume suggested the universe might work in the same way, without needing a designer. This challenges the idea that the world was purposefully designed like a machine.Modern philosophers refer to this as a 'category mistake' -- a mistake in categorising things in existence. - **Polytheism**: An analogy is a comparison between two similar things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Consequently, one would assume that the creator of the world would be similar to the creator of a machine or watch. However, these human inventions can have multiple designers so presumably there is a case for belief in more than one God - polytheism? This causes problems for monotheism, in which the design argument attempts to demonstrate the existence of the Abrahamic God. - **Anthropomorphism**: Watch-makers are mortal, they are born and die. If the human watchmaker is similar to God, does this mean that God is also limited by mortality? Is God able to die and be born? Is God able to make mistakes? This inevitably contradicts the idea of the God of Classical Theism who is defined as eternal, omnipotent and transcendent. - **Epicurean hypothesi**s: The initial state of the universe was one of chaos. After an unlimited amount of time probability suggests that because particles are random they would at some point begin to organise themselves into a stable universe. []{#anchor-19}J.S Mill **Problem of Evil and Suffering**: Mill argued that the existence of suffering, pain, and natural disasters in the world is incompatible with the idea of THE CLASSICAL GOD OF THEISM. If a benevolent God designed the world, Mill questioned why there would be so much suffering, both moral (caused by human actions) and natural (caused by natural forces like earthquakes or diseases). Mill pointed out that nature is often brutal, with animals and humans suffering greatly, suggesting that the world is not designed with benevolence in mind. **Imperfect Design**: Mill critiqued the design argument by pointing out that the world is full of flaws and imperfections. He questioned how a perfectly wise and powerful creator could have created a world that has so much imperfection, both in the natural world (e.g., natural disasters, disease) and in human nature (e.g., moral failings, ignorance). The imperfect nature of the world does not align with the traditional view of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent designer. **Natural Law as a Better Explanation**: Like Hume, Mill thought that natural laws provided a better explanation for the apparent order and complexity of the universe than divine design. Mill argued that what we perceive as design could be the result of natural causes and that there is no necessity to posit a supernatural designer to explain the order of nature. []{#anchor-20}Darwin (scientific) **Natural Selection Over Design**: Darwin argued that the complexity and adaptation of organisms could be explained by natural selection, a blind, undirected process, rather than by an intelligent designer. Traits that aid survival are passed down over generations, leading to the appearance of design without the need for divine intervention. **Imperfections in Nature**: Darwin pointed out that many organisms have flawed or inefficient features, which would be unlikely if they were designed by a perfect creator. These imperfections make more sense in the context of evolution, where traits develop based on survival, not ideal design. **Cruelty in Nature**: Darwin noted the brutality of nature, including predation and suffering, which conflicts with the idea of a benevolent designer. Natural selection, which involves competition and death, offers a more fitting explanation for this cruelty than a purposeful, kind creator. ***Validity*** Darwin\'s criticism of the design argument is valid because his theory of evolution by natural selection provides a natural explanation for the complexity and adaptation of life, removing the need for a divine designer. Evolution shows that complex traits can arise gradually through random variation and survival of the fittest, without intentional design. Additionally, the presence of imperfections and cruelty in nature (like suffering and predation) aligns better with evolution\'s blind process than with the idea of a benevolent, purposeful creator. This scientific explanation undermines the necessity of the design argument. However, it does not undermine the argument from design qua regularity because If evolution happens in a consistent and predictable way, it might seem like this process was planned. If the process of evolution (how life changes over time) is regular and predictable, this regularity can be seen as evidence of a designed system. So, the consistent patterns we see in evolution might suggest that the universe is designed to produce intelligent life. It also cannot be used as a criticism for the strong and weak anthropic principles. []{#anchor-21}Dawkins (scientific) **Evolution as an Explanation**: Dawkins argues that Darwinian evolution by natural selection provides a far better explanation for the complexity and apparent design of life than a divine designer. Evolution explains how simple organisms gradually develop into complex beings through small, cumulative changes, without the need for a supernatural creator. **Dawkins adoption of Ockham's razor**: Dawkins contends that if the universe\'s complexity requires a designer, then the designer itself must be even more complex and, therefore, would also require an explanation. This leads to an infinite regress of designers, which Dawkins sees as logically problematic. He asserts that invoking a designer only shifts the problem without solving it. ***Validity*** - Dawkins' critique of the Design Argument relies on evolution as a sufficient, natural explanation for complexity, challenging the need for a divine designer. He argues that natural selection can explain the appearance of design through gradual, cumulative changes, eliminating the need for supernatural intervention. Applying Ockham's Razor, Dawkins contends that invoking a designer only shifts the problem, creating an infinite regress: if complexity requires a designer, then the designer itself would need to be even more complex, which would also demand an explanation. This logical issue undermines the simplicity of a designer hypothesis, making naturalistic explanations like evolution more appealing as they avoid unnecessary complexity. However, evolution addresses only 'how' life developed, not 'why' it began, which could leave room for deeper philosophical inquiry. []{#anchor-22} []{#anchor-23}Ernst Haeckel - - - - - []{#anchor-24}F.R Tennant's Design Argument (Modern) - []{#anchor-25}The Strong Anthropic Principle - - **Weaknesses of the Strong Anthropic Principle***:* - Many people find the Strong Anthropic Principle too simplistic. Why is the universe so vast and empty if the only part of it that matters is our planet? - The argument strikes many people as anthropocentric - putting human beings at the centre of things. Greek, Roman and Mediaeval scientists thought that the Earth was, quite literally, at the centre of the universe. Scientists like Galileo proved this wrong. The Strong Anthropic Principle seems to be going back to that old mistake. - A deeper criticism is that the Strong Anthropic Principle gets things the wrong way round. It claims that the laws of the universe are the way they are because of us; but surely, we are the way we are because of the laws of the universe! We have evolved to \"fit in\" to the universe, so of course we find it suitable for us to live in.\ []{#anchor-26}The Weak Anthropic Principle: - The **Weak Anthropic Principle **doesn\'t claim that the universe was designed for us specifically, only for creatures *like* us: intelligent, self-aware beings with a sense of morality and a perception of beauty and a religious need to know God. It is surprising that the universe should be biophilic (life-friendly).\ \ In 1999, the Astronomer Royal, **Martin Rees**, published *Just Six Numbers*, in which he demonstrates that 6 scientific \"constants\" make the universe biophilic. If any of them were even slightly different, the universe would be a very different place: no stars, no planets, no life. These numbers are: 1. The number of physical dimensions (3) 2. The ratio of gravity to electromagnetism 3. The ratio of mass that becomes energy when hydrogen becomes helium 4. the amount of dark matter 5. the cosmological constant 6. the scale at which the universe appears smooth *Don\'t worry. It\'s not an astronomy exam. You don\'t have to understand these constants or even remember them - but knowing one of them as an example improves your argument. *[*Click here for more examples of fine-tuning.*](http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning) - This is sometimes called the **Argument from Fine-Tuning**. There\'s another analogy here: the universe is like a giant radio that must be precisely tuned to a particular frequency to \"pick up\" life. Only one frequency will do. - For example, if gravity was any weaker, planets would not form and the universe would be full of lifeless space dust; any stronger, and planets would be sucked into suns that would then burn themselves out too quickly. Either way: no life. - The fine-tuning argument is not anthropocentric like the others. It recognises that the universe could have had any combination of characteristics - but only the particular combination it in fact makes it capable of supporting life and *that *requires some further explanation. - The fine-tuning argument is supported by another analogy, devised by **John Leslie**. Imagine you are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence. But you are not dead. All of the marksmen missed! If the marksmen had not missed you, would not have been able to reflect on the attempted execution; only a failed execution allows you to be here now. You are right to be astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously. - This links to fine-tuning because, if the universe didn\'t have the characteristics that it does, we would none of us be here. Since we are here, we should be surprised that the universe is biophilic. Looking for a reason - like a Designer - is the correct response. []{#anchor-27}The Aesthetic Principle: - Tennant points out that we have the ability to perceive beauty. He claims there is no reason for the universe to be beautiful and no need (as far as evolution is concerned) for human beings to appreciate it - it doesn\'t help us survive. But beauty is there and we perceive it and this suggests a Designer who has arranged the universe to be, not just habitable, but beautiful too.\ \ This point is also made by **Augustine of Hippo** in one of his sermons: - 'WHO MADE THESE BEAUTIFUL CHANGEABLE THINGS, IF NOT ONE WHO IS BEAUTIFUL AND UNCHANGEABLE?'** - AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO** **Weaknesses of the Aesthetic Argument:** - As with the Strong Aesthetic Principle, this confuses cause with effect. We would probably find the universe beautiful *whatever* it looked like: even if grass was purple and water was bright red and everything tasted of chalk, if it was what we had evolved around we would find it pleasant.\ \ [**Richard Dawkins**](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/richard-dawkins.html) finds the Aesthetic Principle *\"vacuous and wholly unconvincing\"*. He says: - 'BEETHOVEN\'S LATE QUARTETS ARE SUBLIME. SO ARE SHAKESPEARE\'S SONNETS. THEY ARE SUBLIME IF GOD IS THERE AND THEY ARE SUBLIME IF HE ISN\'T. THEY DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD; THEY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF BEETHOVEN AND OF SHAKESPEARE'** - RICHARD DAWKINS** []{#anchor-28}Richard Swinburne []{#anchor-29}Regularities - **Richard Swinburne** is an Oxford professor and famous defender of the Design Argument. He explains the order in the universe in terms of regularity. Swinburne suggests there are two types of regularity in the universe: - **Regularities of co-presence (spatial order):** refers to the tendency for the parts of things to work well together towards a purpose. All the parts being exactly how they need to be. - \^This sort of regularity is very striking in nature. People who point out the fact that a woodpecker's tongue wraps around its brain to stop itself getting a concussion from pecking at trees are pointing out spatial order. However, Swinburne doesn\'t regard regularities of co-presence as particularly convincing examples of design. Spatial order *can* come about by chance. If you throw a stack of books in their air then they *could* all land in a stack in alphabetical order. If you try that an infinite number of times, then eventually they will land this way. This is sometimes referred to as the \"infinite monkey theorem\". It\'s the idea that, if you gave a monkey a typewriter and left to bash away randomly at the keys for an infinite amount of time, eventually it would type the complete works of Shakespeare, not deliberately, but by chance. Some versions of this propose an infinite number of monkeys, all bashing away at typewriters. - **Regularities of succession (temporal order):** This refers to the way in which the law of nature are so absolute that one thing always succeeds (follows) another in a predictable order. - if we mix hydrogen with oxygen we will always get h20 and we can use this to predict the future. - Regularities of co-presence is the same idea as design qua purpose. - Regularities of succession is the same idea as design qua regularity. []{#anchor-30}Argument from probability - Swinburne developed the Kidnapper Card-Shuffling Analogy to illustrate that, while the Design Argument cannot definitively prove that God is the designer, the probability suggests that a designer exists, and that designer is likely to be God. - He employs the use of an analogy to demonstrate this: - Imagine that a man kidnaps somebody and tells them that there are ten decks of cards and that each deck will shuffle simultaneously, and then one card will be drawn from each deck.  The card machine is linked to an explosive device and if each randomly drawn card from each deck is not the ace of hearts then the victim will die.  The cards shuffle and the victim is still alive, the victim thinks that it is extraordinary that he is still alive as the chances of those cards being drawn is highly improbable.  However, the kidnapper thinks it is \'hardly surprising\'.  He adds that \'you would not be here to see anything at all if any other cards had been drawn\'. However, the victim is right. The fact something so extraordinary has happened is in need of explanation. - This analogy reveals that The universe could just have easily been chaotic but it isn\'t, it is perfectly ordered. - Evolution can explain HOW something has happened but it cannot explain WHY there is order rather than chaos. - The card machine example shows that in terms of probability, it is more likely that the universe is designed than random []{#anchor-31}The Design Argument is cumulative - The word 'cumulative' means something that increases or builds up over time. It describes the way things add up one after another to make a bigger total. - For example, if you save money each week, the amount of money you have is cumulative because it keeps adding up as you save more. - In regards to the Design argument, just one example of design within the universe would be a persuasive argument for the existence of an intelligent designer. Therefore when multiple discoveries are found, it creates a cumulative evidence - evidence that \"stacks\" making the conclusion more likely than with just a single piece of evidence. This is what [**Richard Swinburne**](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/richard-swinburne.html) means by a cumulative argument for God\'s existence. - - Swinburne goes further than biology. He argues that order and regularity in physics, chemistry and astronomy all add to the cumulative experience of design. - Swinburne and Williams don\'t just use different forms of the Design Argument to make up cumulative experience; they also include the **Cosmological Argument** and the **Ontological Argument** too. They argue that, when you put *all* these arguments together, the cumulative evidence for God grows very convincing. - - Cumulative experience is intended to show that, even though individual arguments or pieces of evidence taken by themselves don\'t make a completely convincing case for God\'s existence, when taken together, they make a cumulative case for God\'s existence that makes more sense than any alternative hypothesis. This is an important point. Swinburne uses statistical language to explain cumulative probability - we don\'t need to go into that here. His point is that cumulative experience doesn\'t show that God is 100% likely to exist. It just shows that God is more likely than any other explanation. In other words, when you look at all the difference evidence for Design, God\'s probability is greater than 50% - more likely than not. []{#anchor-32}Alternative interpretations: Deism - A different challenge to the Design Argument is to its validity: the argument shows the existence of an intelligent designer, but NOT the God of the Bible, the Torah or the Quran. **Ways the biblical God is different from the Designer that that the Teleological argument points towards:** - The Designer orders (and perhaps also creates) the universe. The Biblical God does this and more: - He loves his creation - He intervenes in his creation by answering prayers and performing miracles - He reveals himself to people through the prophets and (according to Christians) through Jesus Christ - He judges people\'s moral behaviour - He rewards the righteous in Heaven and punishes the wicked in Hell **Why this matters:** You don\'t get any of this from the Design Argument. In fact, the Design Argument is opposed to some of these beliefs: - Given that the universe is mostly empty or hostile to life, it suggests the Designer does not love his creation - If the Designer ordered the universe perfectly, there would be no need to answer prayers or perform miracles; if the Designer has to do this, it suggests he lacks either wisdom or power (or both) - The pain and suffering in the universe suggests the Designer does not share our moral standards **Deism:** Despite these difficulties, some philosophers embraced the Design Argument and developed a belief called **Deism**. Deism is the belief in a non-interventionist God - a God who creates/designs the universe but then has nothing more to do with it; a God who - does not answer prayers - does not send visions or prophecies - does not perform miracles. - Deism is opposed to most of the world\'s organised religions, because these religions all teach that God has intervened in the world to speak to them in particular, through their prophets, priests, scriptures or messiahs. The God of Deism would not do this. Most of the world\'s religions also teach that God performs miracles but Deism rejects the miraculous: having designed the universe how he wants it to be, God would not change it later. - Deism became popular in the 18th century (the Enlightenment) among educated people who were sickened by the violence of the organised religions and their superstitious teachings..