Extremely high-detailed and comprehensive A* philosophy notes including not only the content but also a whole range of relevant scholars, responses and pros and cons of the different arguments. Everything you would need for this topic!
Arguments based on observation
Thomas Aquinas’ fifth way:
Aquinas’ fifth way points out that everything in the world acts towards a goal or purpose (Telos), including things
without intelligence e.g acorns become oak trees, sunflowers turn towards the sunlight. Things which cannot think
for themselves must be directed towards this purpose by something intelligent. He uses the analogy of an arrow
flying towards a target. The arrow must have an archer directing it towards its end goal. This external force is similar
to Aristotle’s Prime Mover although Aquinas concludes the thinking being directing all things in the universe is the
God of classical theism.
Counter:
The leap from an intelligent designer to the God of classical Theism is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence
in support.
The amount of goodness in nature is far outweighed by the amount of suffering. A female digger wasp lays
her eggs in a caterpillar so that her larvae can feed on it and she carefully guides her sting into the prey’s
central nervous system so as to paralyse it but not kill it. There is no reason why an intelligent designer
would direct the digger wasp towards this purpose. If there was such a being, we should not be worshipping
it as God.
J.S Mill rejects the notion of design for this reason, due to the state of nature. He says: ‘Either there is no God or
there exists an incompetent or immoral God’
Charles Darwin:
In his work ‘On the Origin of Species’ Charles Darwin presents the theory of natural selection where only the fittest
and healthiest species survive to pass on their characteristics. (Survival of the fittest). The basic aim and telos of
animals are to survive and reproduce - and his theory suggests that only the species best suited to fulfil this function
survive. This therefore gives the appearance of design in nature, as all the species who fail their purpose have died
out. There is therefore no intelligent designer directing the natural world towards their purpose.
He also presents the idea of evolution where, through natural selection and random genetic mutations, species
adapt to the environment in order to survive. This shows that species have not been designed to survive but must
randomly evolve. This random process shows that whatever purpose we can now observe in the natural world is the
result of chance not a designer. It certainly shuts down the possibility of the classical God of Theism. Humankind
have no special status as they have evolved in the same way as animals, and God did not create a perfect world for
us to live in: instead only the luckiest few have survived through random mutations. A designer would be wasteful
and certainly non-benevolent.
Counter:
Swinburne defends Aquinas, in the light of evolution, using the Anthropic Principle of the Goldilocks Effect.
There are fundamental laws of nature, such as gravity, which do not think themselves and work towards a
purpose, and have not evolved over time. There must therefore be a thinking being to provide such order
and direction. The chances of all these factors needed to support life being just right is so unlikely that it
must have been the result of a plan or design.
Swinburne is accused of committing the lottery fallacy. When someone wins the lottery, it is illogical to demand their
win had some sort of purposive explanation. Someone has to win - they just happened to get lucky. The 21 st Century
Parallel Universe Theory suggests that there may be an infinite number of universes.
Some Christians and Theistic Evolutionists, believe that Evolution and religion can work together. An
omniscient God could have foreseen the future and set out the laws of nature and biology in a way that
mutations and evolution would occur to his desires.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers Theistic Evolution as a superfluous attempt to “smuggle God in by
the back door.”
, William Paley:
The natural world displays incredible intricacy, complexity and regularity which Paley believes is evidence of design.
He uses the analogy of a watch found in a field. It is far too intricate and complex to have arrived there naturally;
there must be a watchmaker just as there must be an intelligent designer who created our world. Design qua
purpose: Paley believes that a clear purpose indicates design: the mechanical watch was created with the purpose of
telling the time. He observed many phenomena in nature that appear mechanical and have a purpose such as the
eye with its purpose of sight or wings with their purpose of movement. This leads to the conclusion of a conscious
mind that designs purpose - God (the one of classical Theism). Design qua regularity: He also infers a designer due to
the consistent order and pattern in the natural world. For example, the rotation of the planets and gravity are
mechanical and predictable like the cogs of a watch - another indication of God’s design.
Counter:
If there is a designer then why is there so much wrong about the world e.g natural disasters.
Paley argues that even with a broken watch, design is evident. The quality of the design is not relevant. (Whose fault
is it for evil in the world then?)
Many things have no purpose e.g the human appendix.
Paley argues that even if we do not understand how or why all the parts of the watch work, it would not detract
from our conclusion of design.
Richard Dawkins attack’s Paley’s analogy in his book the Blind Watchmaker. He states the process of
evolution is ‘blind’ and has no overall plan or telos. The illusion of design is nothing more than a series of
random mutations.
David Hume:
David Hume is an empiricist and opposes Paley’s views, particularly his watch analogy. He stresses that a watch is
incomparable to the universe. Humans have observed ‘a very small part of this great system, during a very short
time’. We know for certain that a watch needs a creator but humans have never observed the creation of the
universe, so we have no idea if it is designed or not. Also, the conclusion changes depending on the example used. If
you found an intricate cabbage in a field, you would not assume a cabbage-maker.
Furthermore, although our experience of the universe is order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe.
The design argument assumes the fallacy of composition; what is observed about parts cannot be assumed to be the
same for the whole.
There is no evidence to suggest the ‘unity of the deity’ as Paley calls it. A ship of great design may be the product of
many hands, not just one. It also may be the result of trial and error - this universe being a ‘first rude attempt of an
infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance’.
David Hume also provides his ‘organic universe’ theory. This is the idea that order has been brought about by
random changes instead of the universe being directed in a purposeful way. This builds on the Epicurean hypothesis
- that a finite number of particles, given eternal time, may eventually fall into order by chance. The universe may
have grown organically; more like a vegetable than a watch. It is equally as likely that the universe designed itself
and has its own capability to exist in order, than having a supernatural designer.
Counters:
Paley responded to the criticism of chance. He could not throw all the parts of the watch in the air and expect them
to fall so that the watch worked and told the time. It is more incredible to argue for chance than design.
Conclusion point:
In physics, the law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) states that there is a tendency towards disorder
rather than order. This suggests there is no designing mind.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller roberte-s. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.69. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
