The Design Argument Pt.1: Arrows & Watches
One beautiful horizon; two entirely different opinions. A theist gazes up at a starlit sky and sees undeniable proof that a powerful intellect created and exists in our world. Others, however, interpret this scene with the opposite conclusion, and believe the celestial night is evidence that God doesn’t exist at all. These two contrasting opinions have been the foundations of debate for centuries, and are still a heated topic of debate today.
At a glance, our Universe is a complex, beautiful wonder running on scientific laws and governed by something beyond human understanding. The design argument is one of the biggest arguments to support the existence of God. It’s roots actually expand from Ancient Greece; the word teleology stemming from the Greek term telos meaning goal.
Teleology is the term given to the doctrine of design in the material world, and an explanation for the purpose and structure continuously observed within it. Features of our extensive Universe that have caused this way of thinking include:
Regularity and order within the world
Individual purpose
Adaptation of a living being’s environment
The fact that life developed in the first place
All the arguments for teleology are a posteriori. This means they are proofs based on our experience of the world around us, as opposed to a priori ontological arguments (the study of the nature of being). Teleological arguments are based on empirical observations about animals, plants, humans and scientific principles regarding the earth. These arguments, however, are inductive. This means that they aren’t conclusive, and do not offer us any proof. Teleology, although a strong and well-affirmed argument for the existence of God, is only a general conclusion, even though it is based on facts. Descartes’s “I think therefore I am” proof of the mind, for example, is deductive. It works - based on it’s own unique presence and validity.
Design arguments are best referred to as teleological ones, not ‘arguments from design’. Antony Flew, a more recent English philosopher, suggested ‘arguments to design’ was more fitting term, for the ‘from’ implies that the conclusion has already been made and the premises are already spoken for. Arguments from design are usually those that are derived from an analogy, which are very common in this type of thinking. Analogical means a comparison in order to explain or clarify a certain point. Teleologists compare features of the Universe to features of designed, man-made objects to support their claims that the Universe itself has been designed, concluding in this designer being God.
Arguments to design, as Flew would have called them, are known as arguments to the best explanation. These take a different path to analogical arguments, but still aim to prove that the Universe has been designed. These proofs highlight certain, unusual aspects of the world, such as order and purpose, and put forward the notion that a supernatural explanation is more accountable for them than a natural one. These aspects aren’t merely a result of chance, they have been designed with clever thought and precision, the same intelligence which created mankind in the beginning. Whether one’s concept of God is a divine intellect present within nature, or a greater force with human resemblance, it’s impossible to deny God is the only explanation for such complex design beyond our capability.
Thomas Aquinas’s (born 1225) well-known archer analogy is a perfect example of an argument from design. In his book, Summa Theologica, he gives us five ways, as they are namesakingly referred to, to prove the existence of God. It is his fifth way which is a teleological argument, centered on the observation of purpose and goal. He compares the natural world’s goal and purpose, which it appears to have, to that of human activity. His analogy reads as follows:
Living organisms that lack intelligence have a purpose
This purpose needs to be directed by someone else with intelligence
An arrow does not direct itself towards a target, but an archer does
The conclusion, by analogy, is therefore that there must be an intelligent being directing all unintelligent natural things towards their goal/ purpose. This being is God.
Aquinas does not give us any illustrations to support his analogy, but we can use those of Aristotle of whom he greatly admired. Aristotle believed the aim within nature was to always do good, as we discuss in a previous post. Aristotle noted that ducks have webbed feet, for example, enabling them to swim better. He didn’t claim that this was the result of a specific designer as Aquinas would, however. He rejects Aristotle’s view that purpose is naturally inferred within a subject, so it is natural to the duck’s form to grow webbed feet. Aquinas believes that an intelligent being, a designer, is responsible. Therefore, unintelligent objects (the arrow), are aimed towards a goal (the target) by an intelligent being (the archer).
“Every craft and every investigation, and likewise every action and decision, seems to aim at some good” - Aristotle
Aquinas later hints, in his work De Veritate, that not only is the archer analogy an example of how all unintelligent things need intelligent guidance, but that an intelligent being lies behind the order and structure of the Universe - God.
“Similarly, Philosophers call every work of nature the work of intelligence” - Thomas Aquinas
However, Aquinas’s analogy is criticised, mainly for the bold point he makes at the start of the premise: ‘all unintelligent beings need an intelligent being to direct them to their purpose’. This is far too assumptive for many adversaries, as the argument is basically telling us straight away that God created the Universe, but all far too vaguely. Aquinas gives us no reason to believe this. An atheist, for example, will understand an arrow needs an archer in order to move, but certainly won’t be quite as fast to apply that to the creation of the world, it’s scientific laws, and everything else in it. Aquinas may have good reason to assume all living organisms have a function and purpose, but he hasn’t detailed any of this..
Flew points out another criticism, the actual suggestion that living organisms are designed by something greater opposes all evidence in comparison to the archer. With the case of the arrow, we can physically see the guiding hand causing the arrow to move. However, ducklings grow, for example, without any physical interference at all. Therefore, Aquinas’s belief that the natural world is shaped by an unseen hand has little evidence to support it on his grounds.
Scientific breakthroughs of Newton’s gravity, and Galileo’s work which disproved the Aristotelian view of the earth at the centre of several heavenly bodies, are seen by many as a threat to the concept of a divine entity, thus a threat to Christianity. However, some see these new discoveries of a complex, machine-like Universe running on scientific laws as further evidence to suggest it was intricately designed. It can be difficult to think of such perfection existing by sheer chance. All machines need a designer.
William Paley (1743-1805), is the Archdeacon responsible for the very popular watch theory, taken from his book Natural Theology. This is another analogy argument, comparing a man-made object to the workings of the world. Paley imagines himself walking across a heath. He encounters a stone, and then he encounters a watch laying on the ground. Paley asks himself the same question about both objects: “how did they come to be here?”. The stone seems to require less explanation for it’s position, whereas the watch needs further justification; it’s presence is unusual. Why? This is because the watch has:
More parts
These parts work together for a purpose
Their material is appropriate for their action
The parts produce a regulated motion
If the parts were put together differently, this motion would not work
All these features above indicate the watch has been designed. This can be thought of as a criteria for Paley’s definition of design, and the objects that meet this are evidence for a designer. Therefore, the watch must have a maker.
“Everything indication of contrivance (skill), every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature” - William Paley
Paley then turns his attention to the stone, and subsequently to the natural world. All of the criteria observed within the watch; it’s complex mechanisms and regularity, can also be observed in nature. These works, however, are on a much grander scale, and are beyond any human capabilities. Hence, the Universe must have an intelligent designer. This can be broken down into the following:
A watch consists of complex features (parts with a function working to a purpose)
Anything else with similar features must have been designed also
The Universe possesses these features on a grander scale
The Universe has therefore also been designed, and that designer, is God.
Paley does consider the possibility of criticism in his works. He anticipates arguments such as the watch may sometimes malfunction, some parts of the watch actually have little or no purpose e.g. attraction elements, and that the watch may have initially come together by chance. All of these criticisms not only have implications for the watch itself, but cause problems for the greater idea of a worldly designer too.
Paley does respond to some of these criticisms. The critique stating parts of the watch seemingly have no purpose can be compared to that of the stone. What is the stone’s purpose as it lays motionless on the heath? Implying that the designer has added pointless parts to the world or to the watch suggests that their design is flawed, weakened and imperfect, therefore losing it’s value. Paley opposes this criticism, saying that the purpose of some parts may not yet be discovered. The stone’s purpose may always remain unknown, beyond human comprehension, or may be part of an even larger puzzle. Mysteries forever remain in our Universe, and may take many decades before they are solved, if at all.
Also, if a part of a watch has no purpose, what part could that be? Currently I am unable to think of one without a function. Even decorative details have a purpose in a way, perhaps not a precise goal with an initial outcome, but they are pleasing to the eye and make the owner feel proud wearing it. Although the strap, for example, isn’t necessary for the watch’s ultimate purpose of telling the time, it still holds it’s own purpose within it’s part, but it’s purpose isn’t on such a large scale as the watch as a whole. Similar could be said of the stone, the stone came from a much larger rock, the earth itself. The stone initially had a purpose, but does that mean in time it has lost it’s way? I’d love to know how Paley would answer. Maybe he needed to clearly define his meaning of the term ‘purpose’ and clarify a criteria of sorts.
In part two, I will be exploring David Hume’s criticisms of the design theory further and looking at the argument in more depth.
留言