AQA A Level Philosophy - Design Argument

Define teleology (3)

'Teleology' comes

from the Greek

word telos, meaning

'end' or 'purpose'.

What is spatial order/purpose? (3)

Regularities of co-presence (arrangements of objects in space e.g. parts of a watch; parts of the human eye)It refers to physical objects or organisms (spatial). These objects/ organisms have parts that exist at the same time in an ordered way. These orderly parts serve a purpose.

What are design arguments? (3)

Arguments for God's existence that claim there is complexity in the world which is evidence of design, and design requires a designer, which is God. The evidence of design that is appealed to is usually the organisation of parts for a purpose or temporal regularities expressed by the laws of nature. It is also known as teleological arguments.

'telos' is the Greek word for 'end' or 'purpose'

Outline the design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume). (5)

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) By 'the fitting of means to ends', Hume is talking about the intricate coordination of parts to achieve some purpose that we commented on above. As Hume says, we can draw an analogy with human design. So Hume's version of the argument is an argument from

analogy.

4) 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.

5) C1. Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design.

Outline the design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume). (12)

'Look around the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain.

All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them.

The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought wisdom, and intelligence.

Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.

By this argument a posteriori and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.'

Hume:

P1. Nature resembles an intricately organised machine of human design.

For example the eye is a means for achieving the end of seeing. An object of human design also has a purpose as it is also a means to an end.

P2. Similar effects have similar causes.

EG, if one piece of wood was burnt (effect) due to fire (cause), we can assume that another piece of burnt wood was caused by the similar cause of fire also.

P3. The cause of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design.

Order + purpose = design

C1. Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design.

Going by the principle of 'similar effects mean similar causes', if machines are caused by a mind then the universe, as it is similar to a machine, is also made by a mind.

Outline William Paley's design argument: argument from spatial order /purpose (5)

p1: anything with parts organised to serve a purpose is designed.

p2: nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose.

c1: therefore, nature contains things which are designed.

p3: design can only be explained in terms of a designer.

p4: a designer must have a mind and be distinct from what is designed.

c2: therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature.

c3: therefore, such a mind (God) exists.

Outline William Paley's design argument: argument from spatial order /purpose (12)

P1. Anything with parts organised to serve a purpose is designed. When we come to inspect a watch, we perceive - what we could not discover in a stone - that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose. It has been made for the purpose of telling the time.

P2. Nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose. Paley considered eyes to provide a strong example of purpose in nature "there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it".

C1. Therefore, nature contains things which are designed. What watch and world have in common are orderly complexity and purposeful arrangement, only on a very different scale in each case.

P3. Design can only be explained in terms of a designer. Correspondingly, what watch and world - maker have in common is that both are intelligent designers, and again, the difference between them is one of scale. The only real difference. Other than that, the analogy is close.

P4. A designer must have a mind and be distinct from what is designed.

First, the designer must be a 'person'. To design requires a mind - consciousness and thought - because design requires that one perceives the purpose and how to organise parts to serve this purpose. So, the designer is a mind.

C2. Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature. Second, the designer must be distinct from the universe, because everything in the universe bears the marks of design. To explain the design of things in the universe, we must appeal to something distinct from the universe. The universe cannot design itself.

C3. Therefore, such a mind (God) exists. The conclusion seems obvious: if we must argue from watch to watchmaker, we must argue from world to world - maker.

Outline Richard Swinburne's design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity (5)

P1. There are some temporal regularities, e.g. related to human actions, that are explained in terms of persons.

P2. There are other temporal regularities, e.g. related to the operation of the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons.

C1. So we can, by analogy, explain the regularities relating to the operation of the laws of nature in terms of persons.

P3. There is no scientific explanation of the operation of the laws of nature.

P4. (As far as we know, there are only two types of explanation - scientific and personal.)

C2. Therefore, there is no better explanation of the regularities relating to the operation of the laws of nature than the explanation in terms of persons.

C3. Therefore, the regularities relating to the operation of the laws of nature are produced by a person.

C4. Therefore, such a person, who can act on the entire universe, exists.

What is temporal order? (3)

Regularities of succession (the pattern of the way objects behave in time e.g. a stone falling to the ground; a person coming into the room because their philosophy lesson is about to start). An orderliness in the way one thing follows another in time. The laws of nature (laws which govern the universe) show this temporal order.

Outline Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy (5)

1) Hume presents a series of objections attacking the analogy and its use. He begins by arguing that the analogy is not very strong. First, the products of human design, such as a house or a watch, are not much like nature or the universe as a whole.

2) Second, the 'great disproportion' between a part of the universe and the whole universe also undermines the inference that something similar to human intelligence caused the universe. We cannot, therefore, reasonably infer that the cause of nature is anything like a human mind.

3) The universe gives us no reason to say that there is a designer which is omnipotent and all-loving. Illnesses and natural disasters could be evidence of mistakes in design. If so, we should say that the designer isn't fully skilled, but made mistakes, or perhaps God doesn't care to fix these mistakes. This is the issue of an infantile designer or a disinterested designer.

4) Additionally, we cannot infer that 'the designer' is just one person. More generally, we can't infer that the powers to design and create a universe are all united in one being, rather than being shared out between lots of different beings. But God is said to be one. Whereas, many designers are involved in the creation of complex machines.

5) We have no reason to believe in one God rather than lots of designers that are not divine.

Outline the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley) (5)

1) Hume (as his character, Philo) says that for all we know this universe is full of faults and imperfections, compared to other more superior universes, and we have to admit the reality of the amount of 'evil and disorder' there is in the world.

2) "The whole earth is cursed and polluted. A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures. Necessity, hunger, want simulate the strong and courageous; fear, anxiety, terror agitate the weak and infirm." Hume

3) If there is purpose and intention in the natural world then what is the purpose and intention behind the misery of animals and humans struggling to survive and reproduce?

4) Hume suggests the negative experiences outweigh the positives and argues that perhaps the faults exist because the universe was created by a God who lacked the power, skill or love to create something better. Hume wonders if it was created by an infant or senile god.

5) Paley's response claims that the inference from the organisation of parts for a purpose to a designer is correct even if the watch sometimes went wrong or if some of the parts don't contribute to its purpose. Likewise, evidence of some imperfections and irregularities in nature does not undermine the inference that it, too, is

designed.

Outline the issue that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume) (5)

p1: We have many experiences of machines being made by a designer.

p2: The next time we come across one of these objects we can infer that it too was designed because of our previous experiences of similar machines.

p3: This strong inductive inference makes sense

p4: However, what is true of machines is not true of the universe.

p5: Hume argues that we don't have any experience of universes being made.

We only have one experience of the effect of universes being made - this universe.

p6: Worse still, we only have experience of one tiny fraction of the universe, 'this narrow corner' as Hume puts it.

c1: Therefore, we have no experience of universe-like causes so cannot infer anything about the possible cause of this universe.

c2: Therefore, the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case

Outline the issue of whether God is the best or only explanation (5)

1) A worldly architect (Kant): Kant argues that the design argument draws a conclusion which is not justified. When we look closely at the world of human artefacts (such as ships and watches) we are entitled to conclude that those artefacts have properties which indicate that they were designed by shipbuilders and watchmakers.

2) However, the architects and builders did not create these ships and watches from nothing - they used materials that already existed.

3) So, Kant's point is that in the first part of the design argument ('evidence of design in the watch implies a watchmaker') we only conclude that the maker designed and put together the form or structure of the watch. We don't conclude that they also created the material that the product was made from. So, we are only entitled to conclude that there is a worldly architect.

4) So, because there is order and harmony in the universe does not lead to the conclusion that there is a creator of the universe. It can lead only to the 'existence of a cause proportioned to' this evidence.

5) Kant makes a second criticism of the Design argument and its 'lofty purpose' of proving two things:

1. that there is a being who created the universe

2. that the being contains all perfections.

6) The argument doesn't show anything about the architect's qualities. 'To advance to absolute totality by the empirical road is utterly impossible.' Kant. The 'absolute totality' refers to qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience, infinite, etc. that theists want to claim God has.

Outline the view that Evolution is an alternative and better explanation for the orderliness and complexity in the universe (5)

1) The theory of evolution claims the origin of life on earth and the reasons for its orderliness and complexity. It is due to two principles: random variation and natural selection.

2) Random Variation: sometimes and organism changes slightly, purely by chance. For example, a tortoise is born with a slightly longer neck than other tortoises. Darwin did not know about genetics but today we would say 'random variation' was genetic mutation.

3) Natural selection: sometimes a random variation benefits an organism so that it flourishes in the struggle for survival against its competitors for food and a mate and is able to pass on its characteristics to the next generation. For example, the long necked tortoise can eat both high and low level vegetation and will be stronger than its rivals and more likely to find a mate.

4) There is no purpose behind the random variation, it was just chance. There was no purpose behind the natural selection either; if the variation is beneficial it helps the organism survive and pass on its genes so that it's offspring will also have this benefit.

5) Evolution does not deny order in nature, but it does deny purpose. Theists can only claim there is a designer if there is purpose in this order and complexity.