Paley’s analogical design argument

Paley’s design qua Purpose is Paley’s argument that the combination of complexity and purpose, which we observe in natural objects/beings, is best explained by a designer.

Paley illustrates this with the example of a watch. If you were walking on a heath and came across a rock, you could easily think that it had always been lying there. At least, there is nothing about the rock which clearly suggests otherwise.

However, the situation is quite different if instead we came across a watch. There is something about a watch which suggests it had not always been lying there.

It is composed of parts which are intricately formed so as to produce a motion which is so meticulously regulated as to point out the hour and minute of the day. It has complexity which is arranged so as to perform a purpose.

If the parts were themselves any differently shaped, composed of other materials, or were placed in any other arrangement, the purpose of telling the time would not have resulted.

The watch could not have come about by chance nor been there forever because it has Complexity & Purpose. This must mean it had a designer – a watch maker.

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.

“Every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.” – Paley.

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.

The status as a proof of the design argument

A posteriori. The design argument is an a posteriori argument, which means it is based on experience. The design argument is based on the observation of particular aspects of the universe which, it claims, have the appearance of design. This observation forms the premises of the design argument. On the basis of that premise, an inference is then made to the nature of the origin of the universe.

Inductive. The type of inference involved in the design argument from the premises to the conclusion is inductive. Inductive arguments are those for which the premises count as evidence for, in support of, a conclusion. The truth of the premises does not logically entail the conclusion. So, inductive arguments are those for which their premises could be true and yet their conclusion false. They give us reasons for accepting a conclusion, though cannot prove that the conclusion is certain. The best an inductive argument can achieve is to show that a conclusion is what we currently have most reason to believe based on our best attempt to understand the available evidence.

Inductive arguments as proofs. Evidence is not proof. The reason for this is that arguing on the basis of evidence cannot guarantee truth, because for all we can currently know there is additional evidence we could discover that would disprove the conclusion our current evidence suggests. The technical term for this is that knowledge based on experience is ‘defeasible’, meaning there could be further evidence that is currently unknown which would show it to be false.

Strengths, Weaknesses (from Hume) & Evaluation

Whether God is the simplest explanation

Strength: God is the simplest explanation of the design in the world – Ockham’s razor suggests that we should go with the simplest explanation that works.

Hume’s weakness counters this strength: Hume’s epicurean hypothesis is also consistent with modern science but explains order and design without reference to a God – showing that the God explanation is unnecessary.

Evaluation of Hume’s counter: However, time is not infinite – it began at the big bang, so Hume’s epicurean hypothesis seems wrong.

Optional further evaluation: defence of Hume: However, a modern variation of the epicurean hypothesis is the multiverse theory which suggests there could be infinite space. If there are infinite universes then every type of universe exists, so a universe like ours with complexity and purpose no longer needs some other special explanation. So even though the design argument is technically consistent with science, science can explain our universe’ existence and order/complexity without reference to a God. So it is an unnecessary explanation.

Whether the universe genuinely appears designed

Strength: the design argument is a posteriori, so it is based on experience of the world which science has shown to be a strong method for gaining knowledge about the world.

Hume’s weakness counters this strength: However – experience also shows us evil in the world which Hume argues is evidence against God.

Hume aims to show that a posteriori observation of the world cannot provide a basis to conclude that a perfect God exists because the world contains imperfections like evil. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no designer, just that a posteriori evidence cannot be used to show that the designer must be the God of classical theism (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent).

‘I … allow, that the bad appearances, notwithstanding all my reasonings, may be compatible with such attributes as you suppose: But surely they can never prove these attributes’ – Hume.

Hume, as an empiricist, insists that we are only justified in believing what the evidence suggests. The evidence of an imperfect world, while logically compatible with a perfect God, can never justify belief in a perfect God.

Evaluation of Hume’s counter: However, Paley can be defended that evil may be unavoidable in order for God to bring about good. E.g. soul-making requires evil – free will requires evil.

The validity of the use of analogy in design arguments

Strength: Paley’s argument is strong because it is based on analogy between things we can see and understand (inductive argument).

Hume’s weakness counters this strength: Hume’s critique of 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 a man-made thing like a house (Hume’s example) or a watch 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. Two effects which are alike (analogous) might in fact have very different causes.

Hume highlights this by pointing to our utter ignorance of the state of nature during the beginning of the universe:

“Can you claim to show any such similarity between the structure of a house and the generation of a universe? Have you ever seen nature in a situation that resembles the first arrangement of the elements ·at the beginning of the universe·?” – Hume.

Even if we could claim an analogy between natural things and man-made things, for all we know there may be no analogy between their origin.

Hume argues further that we can’t even claim analogy between artefacts and natural objects. Artifacts are mechanical, but the universe appears more organic.

Evaluation of Hume’s counter: However – Paley’s argument is actually not based on analog. Modern philosophers tend to read Paley’s argument as not being based on an analogy between artefacts and the universe. His argument is that there is a property which requires a designer; the property of complexity and purpose – parts fitted together in a complex way to perform a purpose. When a complex of individually complex parts are fitted together in a meticulous way so as to achieve an overall function/purpose, it seems almost impossible for that to have come about by pure chance. A better explanation is a designing mind. Man-made things have this property but so too do natural things like the eye. Therefore, nature requires a designer because it has this property, not because of any analogy to man-made things. The watch is merely an illustration. We know the universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose.

The scope of natural theology

Strength: Natural theology doesn’t try to claim more than is justified. Paley accepts it at most shows that there is some designer, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular. Paley’s natural theology is of the same style as that of Aquinas, aiming only to show the reasonableness of Christianity in order to support faith.

Weakness from Hume: God is not the only explanation. Hume argues that 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. The universe could have been created by a junior God, apprentice God – or even a God who died. There could even be multiple creators/designers – ‘a committee of Gods’, so even monotheism isn’t justified.

If arguments for God’s existence can only establish that some generic God(s) exist, that limits their value for faith.

Evaluation: Swinburne claims that Hume’s points here are correct and that the design argument cannot prove that the designer has the attributes of the God of classical theism. Other arguments will be needed for that.

Nonetheless, Swinburne thinks that Ockham’s razor can be used against some of Hume’s claims. 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 suggestive of a single designer.

Ultimately, however, Hume’s critique doesn’t work against inductive a posteriori arguments based in Aquinas’ style of natural theology (that Paley and Swinburne also adopt). These argument seek only to show that it is reasonable to believe in a creator/designer. Hume’s insistence that they cannot prove a particular type of creator/designer is irrelevant since proponents of these arguments accept that. Christian belief is better supported with these arguments than without them, even though they do nothing to prove the Christian God in particular. That is the only aim of the style of natural theology employed by Aquinas, Paley and Swinburne.

The value for faith of the design argument

Natural vs Revealed theology. Most theologians agree that faith should be the foundation of belief in God. This view is called revealed theology, the idea that knowledge of God can be gained from God’s revelation to us e.g in Jesus and the Bible.

Some theologians, typically Catholic, claim that reason is also a means of gaining knowledge about God, a view called natural theology. The arguments for God created by Paley, Aquinas and Anselm are examples of natural theology. They all argue that reason can have the role of supporting faith.

Paley’s design argument & natural theology. Paley has a similar approach to Aquinas when it comes to arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas also made a design argument for God called his 5^th way. Like Aquinas, Paley thinks human reason is able to understand that the natural world shows evidence for a designer design argument which shows the reasonableness of belief in God’s existence. This can be supportive to faith.

The scope of natural theology

Natural theology doesn’t try to claim more than is justified. Paley accepts it at most shows that there is some designer, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular. Paley’s natural theology is of the same style as that of Aquinas, aiming only to show the reasonableness of Christianity in order to support faith.

Counter-argument: Hume argues that God is not the only explanation. Hume argues that 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. The universe could have been created by a junior God, apprentice God – or even a God who died. There could even be multiple creators/designers – ‘a committee of Gods’, so even monotheism isn’t justified.

If arguments for God’s existence can only establish that some generic God(s) exist, that limits their value for faith.

Evaluation: Swinburne accepts that Hume is correct that natural theology cannot prove that the creator/designer is the Christian God. Other arguments will be needed for that.

Karl Barth’s original sin critique of natural theology

Karl Barth was influenced by Augustine, who claimed that after the Fall our ability to reason become corrupted by original sin. Barth’s argument is that is dangerous to rely on corrupted human reason to know anything of God. He said, “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”, meaning our finite minds cannot grasp God’s infinite being. Barth even thought that natural theology led to idolatry, since whatever our reason grasps, thinking it is God, actually cannot be God. This is a problem for natural theology which wants to make use of reason to know God’s existence. Reason is corrupted by original sin and therefore natural theology is dangerous for relying on it.

Aquinas defends natural theology. Aquinas claimed that original sin only destroyed ‘original justice’ which was our perfect rational control over our desires. However, it did not destroy our ability to reason itself.

This is because only rational beings can sin; it makes no sense to say that animals sin. The doctrine of original sin claims that post-lapsarian humans are sinners, so, we can sin. It follows that we must still be rational beings.

Aquinas thinks that reason gives us the ability to know Gods existence and orientates us towards God’s goodness. Sometimes, with God’s grace, our reason can discover knowledge of Gods existence and God’s natural moral law. So, natural theology is valid.

Arguably Aquinas has a balanced and realistic view, that our nature contains both good and bad and it is up to us to choose rightly.

Evaluation: However, Barth still seems correct that being corrupted by original sin makes our reasoning about God’s existence dangerously unreliable. The bad in our nature unfortunately means we cannot rely on the good.

Humanity’s belief that it has the ability to know anything of God is the same arrogance that led Adam and Eve to disobey God. This arrogance of natural theology is evidence of the original sin itself; a human inability to be humble enough to solely rely on faith.

Karl Barth’s critique of natural theology that it undermines faith by making revelation pointless

If natural theology was valid then humans would be able to know God’s existence or God’s morality through their own efforts. Barth argues that would make revelation unnecessary. Yet, God clearly thought revelation was necessary as he sent Jesus. It follows that natural theology cannot be valid.

However, Aquinas insists that his natural theology does not undermine faith but instead supports it. Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence are only intended to show the reasonableness of belief in God. They at most show that there is evidence for some kind of God. This is nowhere near strong enough to actually replace faith. This is partly of why Aquinas rejected the Ontological argument, since as an a priori deductive argument it sought to prove God’s existence which Aquinas worried would cause it to replace faith.

Regarding arguments for God, a posteriori reasoning only provides evidence that a designer or necessary being exists. Aquinas still accepts that we need faith to know the Christian God in particular exists.

Evaluation: the knowledge we can gain from natural theology is not the same as revealed theology and therefore cannot not replace or undermine it. If reason only has this goal of supporting faith, then it cannot make revealed theology unnecessary.

H.H. Price: ‘belief-that’ vs ‘belief-in’

Christian faith typically involves ‘belief-in’ God. Price argues this involves much more than merely ‘belief-that’ God exists.

“’Belief in’ is an attitude to a person, whether human or divine, while belief ‘that’ is just an attitude to a proposition” – Price.

‘belief-in’ God is like believing in a person. It involves a psychological attitude of trust, respect, faith and loyalty. That aspect of belief-in God cannot be reduced to merely belief-that God exists.

“Belief in God … cannot be reduced to the mere acceptance of an existential proposition” – Price.

Sometimes belief-in reduces to belief-that, such as belief-in the loch ness monster, because that does not involve a personal relationship. Christian faith is not like that, it involves much more than merely knowing that God exists. It involves an attitude, a relationship, to a person. Price calls this type of belief-in ‘evaluative’

“[evaluative belief-in] is not a merely cognitive attitude … the proposed reduction leaves out the ‘warmth’ which is a characteristic feature of evaluative belief-in … There is something more here than assenting or being disposed to assent to a proposition … ‘the heart’ enters into evaluative belief-in. Trusting is an affective attitude.” – Price.

Religious belief involves a personal relationship with God such that faith in God is not only a matter of “belief-that” God exists. It also involves evaluative “belief-in”. So, belief-in God involves trust and faith in a person (God) which cannot be reduced to a mere intellectual view of what exists in reality.

Philosophical argument, like that found in natural theology, cannot completely account for Christian faith. It can at most account for the aspect of faith that involves belief-that God exists.

Evaluation: this might make Price appear to be on the side of Barth, or perhaps a middle-ground between Barth and the natural theologians.

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 aspect of belief-in God.

Philosophical argument therefore can be relevant to part of Christian faith – the part reducible to belief-that God exists.

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. Nonetheless, regarding the aspect of belief-in God that requires belief-that God exists, philosophical argument can be relevant in providing reasoned arguments which support the conclusion that God exists. Barth could not accept that, so natural theology seems justified by Price’s arguments. Arguments for God therefore do have value for faith.

10 mark questions for the design argument

Examine Paley’s analogical design argument.
Examine Hume’s criticisms of the design argument.
Examine Paley’s design argument and Hume’s criticisms.
Examine how the design argument is based in observation.
Examine the status of the design argument as a ‘proof’.
Examine the value of the design argument for religious faith.
Examine the relationship between faith and reason suggested by the design argument.
Examine the strengths of the design argument.
Examine the weaknesses of the design argument.
Examine the meaning of the design argument
Examine the significance of the design argument
Examine the influence of the design argument on Christians
Examine the cause and significance of similarities and differences between the design argument and other arguments for God.
Examine the approach of philosophy to the design argument

Examples of standard design argument 15 mark questions

“Paley’s design argument is unconvincing” – Evaluate this claim
“Hume’s criticisms of the design argument cannot be defended against” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument’s basis in observation is a weakness” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument fails to prove God’s existence” – Evaluate this claim
“The strengths of the design argument outweigh its weaknesses” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument has no serious weaknesses” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument proves that God exists” – Evaluate this claim

Value for faith design argument 15 mark questions

“The design argument has no value for religious faith.” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument has no meaning for Christians” – Evaluate this claim
“The design argument has no significance for Christians” – Evaluate this claim