This is the most popular argument for the existence of a god/s in the world today. Its the one Creationists use, and its the one most Christians bring up. Put in its most basic form, its the idea that if you look around you at the natural world, you see the evidence of a Creator. This is a critique of this view.
The argument was first aired in print by Socrates (quoted by Xenophon)
“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?”
However, the argument was written in detail by the Archdeacon of Carlisle, William Paley (1743-1805) in his book “Natural Theology”. He compared a stone and a watch - saying that he would be able to note that a watch had been designed, unlike a stone, even if he did not know what one was, nor how it had been constructed. In other words, the world has been designed, even though we do not know how it has been done, but the processes involved in making an eye see are so complex that it must have been designed to work rather than spontaneously created.
“The eye bears...marks of design: the fact that is can be used for seeing suggests that it was devised by an intelligence with that purpose in mind” [1]
Nature seems like a very complex machine, like the watch, and therefore has a maker.
This argument was also one of Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways”. He took his argument from Aristotle, in that everything moves to a goal and changes, for example, a tadpole changes to a frog. In this way, it seems that nature foresees the future. Aquinas used the analogy of an archer and an arrow. The archer guides the arrow to its conclusion, in the same way God guides nature to its conclusion, eg a frog.
“Some intelligent being must exist by whom all natural things are directed to their ends”
David Hume wrote one of the main objections to this hypothesis. He states that the comparison between the world and a machine is an imperfect one - if we look at the circulation of blood in frogs, we could assume circulation in humans, but only imperfectly. It would not constitute proof of circulation in humans. Therefore, by looking at the design of a watch, we can only imperfectly assume design in the world. We can look at a house and know it was designed, however the universe is not like a house so we cannot assume it was designed.
“Unless the cases be exactly similar, they repose no perfect confidence in applying their past observation to any particular phenomenon” [2]
Hume argued that we are rooted in the world and cannot comprehend (from a philosophical point of view, not a scientific) creation. We cannot say we know how the world was made from reason, because we simply have too narrow a viewpoint to make that sort of conclusion:
“From observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?” [3]
We cannot say what sort of universe is or is not possible, as we can only make that sort of comment if we have had experience of more than one universe.
“We are presuming that we already know from experience what sort of thing a universe due to intelligent design would be...but we have no experience of ‘world-building’” [4]
However, R.G.Swinburne has commented that, while it is true that we do not have any experience of other worlds, but still make comments about what is and is not possible, yet anthropologists and cosmologists do just that and we accept this. However, these scientists do not postulate about other universes, but rather possible changes in our universe, and furthermore that they work on the basis of probability (as the reformed design argument does.)
We are guilty of anthropomorphism, making God behave as we do, when we think of this argument. We have finite minds, and we are not able to comprehend infinity. When we think of God using this argument, we think of him as possessing a humanlike mind. It therefore follows that this God must not be infinite, he must be finite even as we are, merely a superhuman. We are prejudiced toward our own reason when applying it to God, but it is not necessarily true. Hume uses the analogy of a peasant who uses his domestic practises as the model for the governance of a kingdom.
There is not even enough evidence from this argument to possibly show that the world was created by a conscious being. It is possible that the world could have been created by an unconscious action, in the same way as a tree bestows order on its branches, without thinking consciously about it and making a decision to do so.
The design argument suggests that everything in the world is regulated by laws, however, there has been no evidence to suggest that man does not have free choice in his actions.
One of the most obvious objections to the argument from design is that it shows no evidence of a Christian God, or indeed just one god at all, present in creation.
“Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?” [5]
Humans unite to help one another, why should not gods do the same? If we accept this argument at all, it does not necessarily point to one religion over another, there could be several gods, so how does this prove the existence of a Judaeo-Christian God? Swinburne has commented that we should:
“Always suppose only one murderer, unless the evidence forces you to consider a second” [6]
In the same way, we should suppose only one God to be present in creation, unless there is definitive evidence to show otherwise. However, this still does not definitely tell us that there is one God, the Judaeo-Christian God, present in creation, only that we should assume one God.
The other major objection, voiced by Hume and later ratified by science, is that the universe is not really like a machine at all, it is more organic.
“Now, if we survey the universe...it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organised body” [7]
Experience rather infers that the universe could be an animal, of which God is the soul. We do not know of any evidence of a mind without a body, therefore it seems that God must be embodied, hence the world could be an animal, and God the soul. However, R.G. Swinburne thinks that although there seems to be disorder in the world this may be explained through science, as when Darwin discovered evolution. As far as I know, science has so far not provided the evidence for Swinburne's support for the flawed design argument.
Another problem for the theist is that the universe contains a great deal of evil, both moral (human evil, such as genocide) and natural evil (such as earthquakes and other natural disasters). If the universe was designed, than God must have deliberately put evil into his design. This could mean that God is evil, which is incompatible with the idea of a Judaeo-Christian God. This world is obviously not perfect, which means that God may not be perfect. There is no evidence to show that the Creator of an imperfect world is a perfect being.
“Since the known effect is not perfect, we are not entitled to infer that its Author is perfect” [8]
It is evident from Hume’s writing that the argument from design has serious flaws. It does not prove a God in existence that conforms to the traditional depiction of the Judaeo-Christian God. The God of the design argument is not perfect, finite, not necessarily a conscious being, there may be more than one God; the God of the argument is really just a super-human. Although R.G. Swinburne does not think so, Hume refuted the argument from design in such a way that even its supporters do not think that the traditional form is a correct one, and now the argument works rather on a probability basis. In its traditional form, as stated by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas, it does not prove the traditional God, as E. Rabbitte writes:
“The assertion of the absolute order and goodness of nature, which is required to justify the inference to infinite wisdom and goodness on its Author, goes far beyond the limits of the empirically verifiable” [9]
However, it retains an enduring appeal to many people, and many religious groups still use it as a proof for the existence of a god, even if it cannot prove the existence of a religion-specific God. The argument for the existence of God by design in the world has been successfully refuted by David Hume, its only strength now lies in its emotional appeal, not its rational appeal.
1 Le POIDEUIN, Robin “Arguing for Atheism” (Routledge, 1996) p45
2 HUME, David in “Hume on Religion” ed. Richard Wollheim (Collins 1963) p120
3 HUME, David ibid. p121
4 RABBITTE, E. in “Hume’s Critique of the Argument from Design” in “David Hume: Critical Assessments” Ed. Stanley Tweyman (Routledge. 1995) p191
5 HUME, David ibid. p141
6 SWINBURNE, R.G. in “The Argument from Design” in “David Hume: Critical Assessments” Ed. Stanley Tweyman (Routledge, 1995) p207
7 HUME, David in “Hume on Religion” ed. Richard Wollheim (Collins 1963) p152
8 RABBITTE, E. in “Hume’s Critique of the Argument from Design” in “David Hume: Critical Assessments” Ed. Stanley Tweyman (Routledge, 1995) p185
9 RABBITTE, E. ibid. p193