Design Argument

• The design argument is a posteriori
•  The type of inference involved in the design argument from the premises to the conclusion is inductive
• Paley then points out there are also things in the universe that are complex and have a purpose. He points out in particular the complexity of the Human eye which is arranged to fulfil the purpose of enabling us to see. He also points to the wings of a bird and fins of a fish which are examples of complexity fitted together to perform a purpose of flying and swimming.
• Since complexity and purpose in a watch tells us there must have been a watch maker, similarly, the complexity and purpose in the universe tells us that there must have been a universe designer. This designer must have a mind, because design requires a designer who has a purpose in mind and know how a certain arrangement of particular parts will bring about that purpose.
• Analogy provides a best explanation style argument. When we cannot directly observe the cause of something, it is empirically valid to turn to analogy
• Hume argues that it doesn’t follow from the similarity of two effects that they must have had similar causes. For example, the smoke produced by fire and dry ice is very similar, but their causes not similar. So, just because the effect of the universe and the effect of a man-made thing like a house (Hume’s example) or a watch (Paley) are like each other in that they both have complexity and purpose, it doesn’t follow that the cause of the universe must be like the cause of a house/watch i.e., a designer
• We don’t know what the origin of the universe was like, so we can’t know what it is analogous to
• Hume’s criticism is unsuccessful because Paley’s argument is arguably not based on an analogy.
• The property of complexity and purpose in design, where parts are fitted together in a complex way to perform a purpose, argues for a designer.
• The complexity and purpose in design of a system, when compared to the complexity and purpose in man-made things, suggests that the system could not have come about by chance.
• A designing mind is a better explanation for the complexity and purpose in design than pure chance.
• Complexity and purpose in design are properties found in both man-made and natural things, indicating that nature requires a designer.
• The watch is merely an illustration of design in nature.
• The universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose.
• A strength of design arguments is that they are inductive and a posteriori. Philosophers like Hume & Russell and scientists like Dawkins doubt God’s existence for empirical reasons. They argue there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in God. Design arguments directly targets that position by attempting an inductive proof of God. They use a posteriori evidence as premises to inductively support the conclusion that God exists.
• “I cannot see … evidence of design … There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the [parasitic digger wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.” – Darwin
• Paley responds that even a broken watch must have a watch maker, and so too must it be with the universe
• A strength of the design argument is its basis in Aquinas’ Natural theology. The advantage is that Aquinas carefully positioned his arguments to not claim too much. Paley adopts the same approach. They both accept that the design argument at most shows there is some designer of great power, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular.
• the design argument doesn’t even justify monotheism.
• Swinburne thinks that Ockham’s razor can be used against some of Hume’s claims here. One God being responsible for the design of the universe is a simpler explanation than multiple. Swinburne also points to the uniformity of the laws of physics as suggesting a single designer.
• Christian faith typically involves ‘belief-in’ God. H. H. Price argues this involves much more than merely ‘belief-that’ God exists.
• However, although belief-in God involves much more than belief-that god exists, nonetheless belief-in God still requires belief-that God exists. Belief-that God exists is therefore an important part of belief-in God.
• Therefore, Price’s arguments actually support the project of natural theology. Aquinas, Paley and Anselm only claim that their natural theology supports faith in God. They each acknowledge that belief in God is ultimately founded on faith, not reason or philosophical argument. So, they would each agree that religious faith cannot be reduced to reason.