For AO1 you need to know:
- Aquinas’ 5th way
- Paley’s design argument
- Tennant’s anthropic and aesthetic arguments
- Hume’s criticisms
- Alternative scientific explanations e.g. evolution
For AO2 you need to be able to debate:
- Whether inductive arguments for God are persuasive
- The effectiveness of the teleological argument for God’s existence
- Whether teleological arguments for God are persuasive in the 21st century
- The effectiveness of the challenges to the teleological argument
- Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence
AO1: Aquinas’ 5th way
- Thomas Aquinas’ 5th Way is an a posteriori argument based on observation of the natural world.
- Aquinas argues that objects do not behave randomly but move towards goals or purposes (telos).
- He says things act “always, or nearly always” in the same way to achieve the best result.
- We can see this in nature.
- Flowers turn towards the sun, acorns grow into oak trees, and planets move in regular orbits.
- These patterns show order and regularity rather than chance.
- So the world appears to be goal-directed.
- However, these objects are not intelligent.
- They cannot understand or choose their own goals.
- Aquinas argues that something without intelligence cannot direct itself towards a purpose.
- So it must be guided by something that does have intelligence.
- He uses the analogy of an arrow.
- An arrow hits a target, but only because an archer directs it.
- The arrow itself does not know what it is doing.
- In the same way, Aquinas argues that God directs the natural world.
- God creates natural laws that guide objects towards their purposes.
- Just as an archer directs an arrow, God directs the universe.
- So the order in nature suggests there must be an intelligent designer, which Aquinas calls God.
- The argument is inductive and part of natural theology, showing how observation can support belief in God.
AO1: William Paley’s design argument
- William Paley’s design argument claims that complexity and purpose in nature are best explained by a designer.
- It is an a posteriori argument based on observation.
- Paley uses the example of a watch.
- If you found a rock on a heath, you might think it had always been there.
- But if you found a watch, you would assume it was designed.
- This is because its parts are arranged in a complex way to tell the time.
- It has complexity directed towards a purpose.
- If the parts were different in shape or arrangement, it would not work.
- So it could not have come about by chance.
- It must have been made by a designer.
- Paley says the same reasoning applies to the natural world.
- Objects such as the human eye, wings of birds, and fins of fish are complex and perform specific functions like seeing, flying, and swimming.
- These show the same features of complexity and purpose as the watch.
- Therefore, the universe must also have a designer.
- This designer must have a mind, because design involves planning and knowledge.
- The argument is inductive, using what we observe as evidence for a conclusion.
- Paley is part of natural theology, aiming to support belief in a higher power rather than prove the Christian God.
- The watch example is best understood as an illustration of how complexity and purpose point to design.
AO1: F. R. Tennent’s aesthetic argument
- F. R. Tennant argues that human appreciation of beauty supports belief in God.
- He accepts evolution, but thinks aesthetic awareness fits better with theism.
- Humans can appreciate beauty in nature, art, and music.
- This ability seems to go beyond what is needed for survival.
- Natural selection only explains traits that help survival.
- But we do not need to enjoy beauty in order to live or reproduce.
- So it is unclear how aesthetic awareness developed through evolution.
- Tennant suggests this points to design.
- He also argues that beauty is common in the world.
- Humans are able to recognise and respond to it.
- This suggests the universe supports not just life, but also value.
- For Tennant, this shows the world is not just mechanical.
- It appears designed to produce beings who can appreciate beauty.
- So aesthetic experience is evidence for a purposeful universe.
AO1: F. R. Tennent’s anthropic argument
- F. R. Tennant develops the design argument in response to evolution.
- He argues that evolution still requires a very specific type of universe, which suggests design.
- So evolution can support the design argument rather than weaken it.
- Tennant calls this an anthropic argument, because it focuses on conditions that allow human life.
- First, the universe is ordered and understandable.
- Natural laws are stable and allow science to work.
- There is no reason why the universe had to be like this.
- Second, Tennant points to fine-tuning.
- Life depends on precise physical conditions, such as gravity and other forces.
- If these were slightly different, life would not exist.
- This suggests the universe is set up for life.
- Third, evolution shows a movement towards complexity and consciousness.
- There is no guarantee this would happen, so it may point to design.
- Tennant concludes that these points together suggest the universe is designed to produce human life.
AO2: The validity of analogy
- Swinburne argues analogy is a valid way of reasoning.
- If something is similar to something else, we can infer a similar cause.
- Design arguments use this by comparing nature to human creations.
- So it is reasonable to infer a designer.
Counter
- Hume argues similar things can have different causes.
- For example, different processes can produce the same effect.
- He also says the universe is not very similar to a machine.
- So the analogy is weak and unreliable.
Evaluation
- Hume’s criticism is not decisive.
- Paley’s argument can be understood as focusing on complexity and purpose, not just analogy.
- The watch example is mainly an illustration.
- This avoids the problem of weak comparison.
- Aquinas’ arrow example can also be read this way.
- So the argument does not depend on analogy alone.
- This means Hume’s objection does not fully undermine the design argument.
AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
- David Hume argues the design argument cannot prove the Christian God.
- Other explanations are possible, such as many gods or a limited designer.
- So even if the argument works, it cannot justify belief in any particular God.
Counter
- Richard Swinburne argues one God is the simplest explanation.
- Also, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley never aimed to prove the Christian God.
- They only aim to show a designer exists, which supports faith.
Evaluation
- Hume’s criticism is not convincing because it misunderstands the aim of the design argument.
- Aquinas clearly limits his conclusion to “that thing we call God,” showing it is not meant to prove the Christian God fully.
- The argument only aims to support belief in a designer.
- Faith then identifies this as the Christian God.
- So the limited scope is intentional, not a flaw.
- Hume therefore attacks a claim the argument does not actually make, so his critique fails.
AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
- Hume argues that order could arise by chance if the universe were eternal.
- Given enough time, even unlikely arrangements would happen.
- The current evidence for the big bang suggests the universe isn’t eternal.
- But a modern version of Hume’s point would be the multiverse.
- If every type of universe exists in the multiverse, some will be orderly just by chance.
Counter
- Defenders of design argue the multiverse has no strong evidence and may not be testable.
- Swinburne also argues science cannot explain why laws exist at all.
- So the multiverse does not remove the need for God.
Evaluation
- Nonetheless, the multiverse is still a strong challenge to the design argument.
- Even if it is uncertain, it is taken seriously by scientists and cannot be dismissed easily.
- Hume’s key point is that we only need an alternative competing explanation to God.
- We don’t have to prove the epicurean hypothesis or multiverse true.
- If order can be explained in more than one way, then God is no longer the only explanation.
- This weakens the argument because it can no longer show that God is the best explanation.
- So the design argument loses its persuasive force.
AO1: Darwinian evolution vs design
- William Paley and Thomas Aquinas argue that complexity and purpose show design.
- Darwinian evolution offers another explanation.
- There is variation in species, and those better adapted survive and reproduce.
- They pass on useful traits, which become more common over time.
- This makes organisms appear designed for survival.
- Features like instincts and behaviour can be explained by this process.
- So what Aquinas called a telos can be explained by natural selection.
- Richard Dawkins argues that complex organs like the eye developed gradually.
- This creates the appearance of design without a designer.
- So complexity and purpose can be explained naturally, making a designer unnecessary.
AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil
- Charles Darwin argued that nature contains cruelty, such as parasitic wasps.
- David Hume uses this to argue that suffering is evidence against a perfect designer.
- If God designed the world, it should contain less unnecessary suffering.
Counter:
- Theodicies argue evil is necessary for greater goods.
- Augustine of Hippo links it to punishment, Alvin Plantinga to free will, and John Hick to soul-making.
- So God cannot remove evil without losing important goods.
Evaluation:
- These responses are unconvincing.
- Natural evil harms innocent beings, so it cannot be justified by free will, punishment or soul-making.
- So while a perfect God may still be possible, he cannot be inferred from observation.
- This weakens design arguments, which rely on evidence from the world.
- If we consider all the evidence, including suffering, the world does not point to a perfect designer.
- So it cannot be used to support faith in the Christian God, which was Aquinas and Paley’s aim.
AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
- Tennant and Swinburne argue that design is shown in the laws of nature rather than just in living things.
- Evolution may explain how organisms develop, but it does not explain why the universe has precise laws that allow life.
- These conditions seem highly unlikely, so fine-tuning suggests a designer.
Counter
- This argument assumes the laws of nature could have been different.
- However, it is possible that they are necessary and could not have been otherwise.
- Scientists also aim to find deeper explanations of these laws.
- So fine-tuning may not need God as an explanation.
Evaluation
- Design arguments still rely heavily on gaps in scientific knowledge.
- Evolution showed that earlier arguments from complexity were mistaken, and this raises doubts about newer versions too.
- Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean God is the correct explanation.
- Science may eventually explain why the laws of nature are as they are.
- So the argument depends on what we do not yet know, rather than strong positive evidence.
- This makes it weak, as it assumes God explains what science has not yet explained.