What is the Design Argument?
The teleological or design argument is A posteriori, it uses our experience of ‘design’ in the world to argue for the existence of a designer – God.
Examples of this could be the sky, the human brain, even emotions – the concept would say that if things exist they must have a designer.
The Design Argument by St Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas asserted that there were five ways to prove Gods existence, one of which is the teleological argument. He thought that the regularity in the universe shows design, which he referred to as ‘Design qua regularity’.
- Beneficial order – things that exist work towards an end
- Beneficial order – cant happen by chance
- Many of the objects that work towards an end wouldn’t have the intelligence to do so by themselves
- Therefore such objects must have been directed to do so – by God.
The Design Argument according to William Paley
Paley argues for ‘Design qua regularity’ and ‘Design qua purpose’. An example of Paley’s design qua purpose argument is the Watch Analogy. The watch analogy simply states that if you were to look at a watch and examine its inner workings so perfectly put together, in synchronicity you would never claim it just created itself – he therefore asks how on this premise could you assert the same about a human being or the world as a whole.
Modern versions of the Design argument
Brown, in his 1943 book ‘Footprints of God’, examined the ozone layer and how it is the exact thickness for its purpose. He states that his shows evidence of a plan and therefore design.
Tennant puts forward the Anthropic Principle, which states that it is highly unlikely that science or evolution alone is responsible for intelligent life.
No Designer = Chaotic world
He believes that Intelligent Order, Sustained Life and Intelligent Progression provide evidence to support the design argument.
Tennant also puts forward the Aesthetic argument. The ability to appreciate aesthetics has no evolutionary value, such that the only explanation as to why we can appreciate creation must be that God gave us the ability as a gift.
Swinburne also sees the complexity in the universe and cannot put it down to mere chance – stating that the most likely explanation would be that God is the creator.
Okham’s Razor: Holds that the simplest explanation is the most likely.
There are many arguments for and against the design argument. If you are for or against the principle please comment, let us know what you think of the teleological argument.