The Design Argument: Evidence for God's Existence through Intelligent Design, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Design

Download The Design Argument: Evidence for God's Existence through Intelligent Design and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Design in PDF only on Docsity! The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. A representative, and historically important, example is Paley’s discussion of the eye. Here, as in many other places throughout the book, Paley is comparing an aspect of the natural world - in this case, the construction of the eye - and an artefact -- in this case, a telescope. The resemblance between the two is that both the parts of the eye and the parts of the telescope are set up perfectly for a certain purpose: in this case, the production of an accurate image of physical objects on the basis of the light reflected off of those objects. Further, Paley emphasizes, in either case very small changes to the parts of the instrument, or the way that they are combined, would make the instrument wholly unable to serve its purpose. This thought leads Paley to a famous thought-experiment. Would we, in this case, believe that the watch must have been designed by some intelligent watchmaker or other, or would we think that, for example, the watch simply came to be by chance? The resemblance between the two is that both the parts of the eye and the parts of the telescope are set up perfectly for a certain purpose: in this case, the production of an accurate image of physical objects on the basis of the light reflected off of those objects. Further, Paley emphasizes, in either case very small changes to the parts of the instrument, or the way that they are combined, would make the instrument wholly unable to serve its purpose. Suppose that one found some object which is like an eye or telescope in this way, like a watch, and we didn’t know where this watch could have come from. Would we, in this case, believe that the watch must have been designed by some intelligent watchmaker or other, or would we think that, for example, the watch simply came to be by chance? The answer, Paley thinks, is clear: we would conclude that it must have been designed by an intelligent watchmaker. The opposite view seems ridiculous. But, Paley thinks, this is exactly the view into which an atheist is forced. After all, we see in the world around us many examples of things, like the eyes of animals, which show the marks of design. This is relevantly just like finding a bunch of watches without knowing where they came from: we have found a whole world of well-designed creatures rather than just a single watch; so if it was reasonable to conclude that a watch must have been designed by an intelligent watchmaker, it is that much more reasonable to conclude that the natural world we find around us must have been designed by an intelligent creator. Consider, for example, Darwin’s discussion of the eye: 1. Many things in nature, like eyes, show the marks of design. 2. These things must either have been created by an intelligent designer or produced by random natural processes. 3. Random natural processes never, or almost never, produce things with the marks of design. ____________________________________________________________________________________ C. Things in nature that show the marks of design are very likely to have been created by an intelligent designer. (1,2,3) Paley’s design argument Darwin’s theory shows how random natural processes could, over time, produce things with the marks of design. This theory seems to destroy Paley’s argument, as Darwin himself noted in his autobiography: Often very bold claims are made on behalf of the theory of evolution; sometimes it is even claimed that the theory shows that God does not exist. It is hard to see why this should be so. But it does seem that the theory undermines one historically important argument for the existence of God. The theory of evolution does not, however, destroy every version of the design argument, since not all versions of the design argument are based on the explanation of the features of living things. 1. Many things in nature, like eyes, show the marks of design. 2. These things must either have been created by an intelligent designer or produced by random natural processes. 3. Random natural processes never, or almost never, produce things with the marks of design. ____________________________________________________________________________________ C. Things in nature that show the marks of design are very likely to have been created by an intelligent designer. (1,2,3) Paley’s design argument “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” One might think of Darwin’s reply to Paley as posing a challenge to the defender of the design argument: which aspects of the universe are not explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection, and yet are such that they are better explained by God than by chance? One might think of Darwin’s reply to Paley as posing a challenge to the defender of the design argument: which aspects of the universe are not explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection, and yet are such that they are better explained by God than by chance? Contemporary physics suggests an answer to this question, which is illustrated by today’s short excerpt from the book Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees, a well- known astrophysicist and cosmologist. Rees describes six constants which figure in the fundamental laws of nature, and to a large extent shape the nature of the universe. Here is one of them: And here’s what Rees says about the six numbers: This principle suggests the following further claim: if E is extremely likely to be true if T1 is true, and extremely likely to be false if T2 is true, then if E is true, this is very strong evidence that T1 rather than T2 is true. Now consider the following piece of evidence which we seem to possess: LIFE: The universe is such as to permit life to exist. And now consider the following two theories about the universe: CREATION: The universe was designed by a creator who wanted life to exist. CHANCE: The basic physical constants of the universe are due to chance, rather than intelligent design. The probability of E given T1 -- the chance of E being true if T1 is true -- is extremely high. This is not really debatable. One of the apparent consequences of the work of Rees and others is that the probability of E given T2 -- the chance of E being true if T2 is true -- is extremely low. If this is correct, then it follows from what we have said so far that E -- the fact that the universe is life- supporting -- is extremely strong evidence that T1, rather than T2, is true. The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. Now consider the following piece of evidence which we seem to possess: LIFE: The universe is such as to permit life to exist. And now consider the following two theories about the universe: CREATION: The universe was designed by a creator who wanted life to exist. CHANCE: The basic physical constants of the universe are due to chance, rather than intelligent design. If this is correct, then it follows from what we have said so far that LIFE is extremely strong evidence that CREATION, rather than CHANCE, is the correct theory. The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. This is often called the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. It may be put as follows: The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. Above I mentioned that Rees does himself find this use of his ideas convincing; let’s see why by expanding the quotation discussed above. The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. One might think that LIFE provides us with extremely strong evidence for the existence of the multiverse. After all, isn’t the probability that a universe is life-permitting given the existence of the multiverse higher than if not? If so, the principle of confirmation itself seems to count strongly in favor of the multiverse. I am sitting in my office, and I pick up 12 dice and decide to roll them. I roll all sixes. Amazed, I think to myself: there must be lots of people rolling dice in Malloy Hall right now. After all, what are the odds that someone rolls 12 sixes in Malloy in the case where there is just one person rolling dice? The explanation of what’s going on here shows that we have to be careful in thinking about what, exactly, our evidence is. In particular, we need to keep the following two pieces of evidence separate: Evidence 1: I rolled 12 sixes. Evidence 2: Someone in Malloy Hall rolled 12 sixes. If my evidence is #2, then it looks like I have some evidence for the existence of many rollers. But in the above case my evidence is #1; and the existence of many rollers would not make it more likely that I would roll 12 sixes. Now think about the fine-tuning argument and the multiverse. Just as in the dice case, we have to be careful to distinguish the following two pieces of evidence: Evidence 1: This particular universe is life supporting. Evidence 2: Some universe or other is life-supporting. Which piece of evidence do we have? What does this show about the argument that LIFE is evidence for the existence of the multiverse? The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. One might think that LIFE provides us with extremely strong evidence for the existence of the multiverse. After all, isn’t the probability that a universe is life-permitting given the existence of the multiverse higher than if not? If so, the principle of confirmation itself seems to count strongly in favor of the multiverse. Evidence 1: This particular universe is life supporting. Evidence 2: Some universe or other is life-supporting. Which piece of evidence do we have? What does this show about the argument that LIFE is evidence for the existence of the multiverse? One might defend the above argument for the multiverse as follows: Yes, it is true that we have piece of evidence #1 - we know that our universe is life- supporting. But we also have piece of evidence #2 - after all, if our universe is life supporting, it follows that some universe is. So if evidence #2 supports the multiverse, it looks like we have good evidence for the multiverse after all. However, there is something odd about setting aside evidence that some particular thing is F and reasoning from the weaker claim that something or other is F. Consider the following use of this sort of reasoning, which is due to Roger White: I wake up in the morning feeling hung over. Since I know that I am hung over, I know that someone in my house is hung over. If my house-mate drank too much last night, then this raises the probability that someone in my house will be hung over this morning; hence my being hung over provides evidence that my house-mate drank too much last night. The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. To sum up our discussion of the multiverse so far: it does seem that if we have good reason to believe in the multiverse, then this is a problem for the fine-tuning argument. But so far we have not seen how we might argue for the existence of the multiverse; the idea that we can argue for this on the basis of LIFE runs into a number of problems. Can you think of any other evidence that one might give for the multiverse? There is one other line of objection to the fine-tuning argument worth considering. The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ The principle of confirmation E is evidence for T1 over T2 if the probability of E given T1 > the probability of E given T2. Dawkins’ main point seems to be expressed toward the end of this passage. What he calls the “anthropic alternative” to explaining the universe involves the claim that our existence presupposes that the universe is life-supporting, so that, were the universe not life-supporting, we would not be around to discuss it. He says, further, that our existence therefore determines the nature of the fundamental constants of physics. Dawkins is not making the (ridiculous) claim that we someone set the fundamental physical constants of the universe. Rather, he is saying: If we exist, then the fundamental physical constants had to have been such as to permit life. This claim is, of course, true. (If it were not correct, then the fine-tuning argument would make no sense.) But it is not easy to see how it could be relevant to the fine-tuning argument. This claim is, of course, true. (If it were not correct, then the fine-tuning argument would make no sense.) But it is not easy to see how it could be relevant to the fine-tuning argument. Dawkins is not proposing a third alternative to CREATION and CHANCE; and he does not seem to be giving an objection to any of the premises of the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument 1. The probability of LIFE given CREATION is extremely high. 2. The probability of LIFE given CHANCE is extremely low. 3. The principle of confirmation. C. LIFE is evidence for CREATION over CHANCE. ______________________________________________________ Let’s suppose that both the multiverse and the anthropic objection to the fine-tuning argument fail. It is worth emphasizing that we would still not have a proof of the existence of God. We would have an argument that facts about the fundamental physical constants provides evidence for the theory that God exists as against the theory that God does not exist. Because of the kind of argument it is, the argument does not, strictly speaking, show that the existence of God is even probable. What it shows, if successful, is that whatever probability you assigned to the existence of God before encountering these facts about the fine-tuning of the universe, you should raise your probability assignment significantly. But despite these limitations, if the objections we discussed to this argument can be overcome, it seems plausible that the fine-tuning argument might accomplish one aim that one might have for arguments for the existence of God: it might make it rational for someone who did not previously believe that God exists to form that belief. What this kind of case shows is that an observation might count in favor of a certain theory, but that, because the theory was antecedently so improbable, the theory remains quite improbable, even given the observation. Some atheists might take this attitude to the fine-tuning argument: that it significantly raises the probability that God exists, but that theism is still quite improbable, all things considered. They might think this because they think that there are good arguments against the existence of God. An analogy here might help. Suppose you observe that I begin class every day at 2:01. Now consider the theory that an alien controls my brain and that this alien desires very strongly that this particular class should begin every day at 2:01. How likely is it that class would begin every day at 2:01 if this theory is true? Does this mean that you should think that this theory is likely to be true?