P1: Philosophical Arguments
Teleological/ Design Argument:
inductive (leading to probability and not proof) & a posteriori (based on experience in
world)
Argument from design- Aquinas & Paley through analogy
Argument to design- Anthropic Argument by Swinburne & Tennant
Paley’s Design qua Purpose: we must look at the purpose of many intricate things in the
universe as evidence for a designer
eg. he suggests that we look at the intricate purpose of the human eye. He argues that
something so complex, with such a specific purpose (to see), that it is logical to believe that
it must be a result of an intelligent designer, and not chance.
eg. Brown’s example of the ozone layer
Paley’s Design qua Regularity: the regularity of the universe is also evidence of a designer
Regularities such as Newton’s Laws of Physics and Kepler's three laws of planetary
motion as such evidence
He argues that the fact the planets move so regularly and so mechanically perfect, like the
cogs of a watch, is further evidence that there must be an intelligent designer behind it
General Strengths:
1. a posterior and based on experience; difficult to deny the presence of order and
complexity in the universe
2. Paley’s argument is easily understandable and logical, a sound argument
3. Beauty, love and literature cannot be explained without the belief of a designer
+ Tennant: “Beauty seems superfluous and to have little survival value”
Counter-Argument (CA): Dawkins argued that beauty and special skills enable us to appear
attractive to potential mates and so beauty can be explained through evolution
+ beauty is subjective
General Weaknesses:
1. an inductive argument that offers probability and not proof
+ Kant says it can never lead to certainty
2. theory of evolution gives a non-supernatural evolution and supports chance rather than
+ Polkinghorne says God chose to create a universe that is governed by chance
3. does not lead to the God of classical theism
4. The Problem of Induction: just because things in the world have designers that does not
mean that the world itself has a designer
5. anthropomorphising God through analogy
6. God would not design a world in which creation must suffer
7. Hume argues God is not the only explanation
+ even if we had evidence for God in the universe, such as the appearance of design,
that would not support belief in the Christian God
, CA: Swinburne accepts that Hume is correct that natural theology cannot prove that the
creator/designer is the Christian God
+ by Ockham’s Razor 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 suggestive of a
single designer
Scholarly Criticisms of Design Argument:
1. Hume: does not support the existence of God in classical theism
+ anthropomorphises God
+ we have no experience of world-making
2. Mill: refers to the Problem of Evil in reference to the fact at least one of the attributes is
missing for evil and suffering still exist in the world
+ the appearance of design in the world supported either the non-existence of God or
not the God of classical theism
3. Kant: we perceive order but arguably because we impose design on the world but we
cannot be certain it is; the world could be in chaos
4. Darwin: order is a result of blind chance; natural selection leads to the appearance of
design but it is merely due to “the survival of the fittest”
5. Dawkins: supports Darwin in that the world was created by chance and says humans are
no more than DNA carriers that ensure the survival of genes in the next generation
+ evolution is “a blind watchmaker”
Rebuttals:
1. Swinburne’s modern cumulative argument: reformulates Paley’s argument as the
theory of evolution does prove an adequate explanation for complexities in nature without
the need to appeal to the existence of God and instead makes an analogy between nature,
as a machine that produces other machines
+ adds the Regularities of Succession: the universe is orderly but could have been
chaotic through constant laws like gravity however science only explains how these
laws exist but not why therefore there must be an infinite power and knowledge ie.
God)- similar to Paley’s design qua regularity
2. Tennant’s Weak Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning argument are the same thing,
Tennant just also referred to Weak AP as his fine-tuning argument
+ The idea is that it is not anthropic like his other approaches but rather is biophilic
The value for Faith of the Design Argument:
Karl Barth argued “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”
Teleological/ Design Argument:
inductive (leading to probability and not proof) & a posteriori (based on experience in
world)
Argument from design- Aquinas & Paley through analogy
Argument to design- Anthropic Argument by Swinburne & Tennant
Paley’s Design qua Purpose: we must look at the purpose of many intricate things in the
universe as evidence for a designer
eg. he suggests that we look at the intricate purpose of the human eye. He argues that
something so complex, with such a specific purpose (to see), that it is logical to believe that
it must be a result of an intelligent designer, and not chance.
eg. Brown’s example of the ozone layer
Paley’s Design qua Regularity: the regularity of the universe is also evidence of a designer
Regularities such as Newton’s Laws of Physics and Kepler's three laws of planetary
motion as such evidence
He argues that the fact the planets move so regularly and so mechanically perfect, like the
cogs of a watch, is further evidence that there must be an intelligent designer behind it
General Strengths:
1. a posterior and based on experience; difficult to deny the presence of order and
complexity in the universe
2. Paley’s argument is easily understandable and logical, a sound argument
3. Beauty, love and literature cannot be explained without the belief of a designer
+ Tennant: “Beauty seems superfluous and to have little survival value”
Counter-Argument (CA): Dawkins argued that beauty and special skills enable us to appear
attractive to potential mates and so beauty can be explained through evolution
+ beauty is subjective
General Weaknesses:
1. an inductive argument that offers probability and not proof
+ Kant says it can never lead to certainty
2. theory of evolution gives a non-supernatural evolution and supports chance rather than
+ Polkinghorne says God chose to create a universe that is governed by chance
3. does not lead to the God of classical theism
4. The Problem of Induction: just because things in the world have designers that does not
mean that the world itself has a designer
5. anthropomorphising God through analogy
6. God would not design a world in which creation must suffer
7. Hume argues God is not the only explanation
+ even if we had evidence for God in the universe, such as the appearance of design,
that would not support belief in the Christian God
, CA: Swinburne accepts that Hume is correct that natural theology cannot prove that the
creator/designer is the Christian God
+ by Ockham’s Razor 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 suggestive of a
single designer
Scholarly Criticisms of Design Argument:
1. Hume: does not support the existence of God in classical theism
+ anthropomorphises God
+ we have no experience of world-making
2. Mill: refers to the Problem of Evil in reference to the fact at least one of the attributes is
missing for evil and suffering still exist in the world
+ the appearance of design in the world supported either the non-existence of God or
not the God of classical theism
3. Kant: we perceive order but arguably because we impose design on the world but we
cannot be certain it is; the world could be in chaos
4. Darwin: order is a result of blind chance; natural selection leads to the appearance of
design but it is merely due to “the survival of the fittest”
5. Dawkins: supports Darwin in that the world was created by chance and says humans are
no more than DNA carriers that ensure the survival of genes in the next generation
+ evolution is “a blind watchmaker”
Rebuttals:
1. Swinburne’s modern cumulative argument: reformulates Paley’s argument as the
theory of evolution does prove an adequate explanation for complexities in nature without
the need to appeal to the existence of God and instead makes an analogy between nature,
as a machine that produces other machines
+ adds the Regularities of Succession: the universe is orderly but could have been
chaotic through constant laws like gravity however science only explains how these
laws exist but not why therefore there must be an infinite power and knowledge ie.
God)- similar to Paley’s design qua regularity
2. Tennant’s Weak Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning argument are the same thing,
Tennant just also referred to Weak AP as his fine-tuning argument
+ The idea is that it is not anthropic like his other approaches but rather is biophilic
The value for Faith of the Design Argument:
Karl Barth argued “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”
