Edexcel special
The Design Argument
This ‘Edexcel special’ looks at one way of tackling a question from the ‘Philosophy of religion’ Foundations paper
Edexcel: 6RS01 Philosophy of religion
Candidates are usually ready for an essay on the key features of an argument from religious experience, but are less confident when faced with a question that seems to imply evaluation in part (a). The sample answer below draws out exactly what the examiner wants to see.
Exam advice is provided to help you apply the answers to your own work.
Question (a)
Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Design Argument for the existence of God.
(21 marks)
Student’s answer
The Design Argument is an a posteriori and inductive argument which seeks to explain the apparent order of the world. Order, regularity, benefit and purpose are all thought to be evident in the world yet cannot have come about by chance, and demand an explanation in the form of an external intelligent mind. This could be seen as a strong argument, as our observation of the world does seem to accurately reflect this observation and it is therefore noncontroversial. However, to assume that this must be explained by an intelligent mind makes an inductive leap. Further justification will have to be made before we can conclude that a designing intelligence (e.g. God) is the best explanation for this order.
The candidate has referred to strengths at the start of answer. There is no timewasting generic material.
In Aquinas’ fifth way, from the governance of the world, he observes that non-intelligent beings act towards a beneficial goal. They cannot do this by chance because it is such a regular and beneficial pattern. Neither can they have determined it for themselves. Therefore, he claims, they must be directed towards that beneficial goal by an intelligent mind that directs them ‘as the arrow is directed by the archer’. Aquinas’ argument is essentially one of probability, in so far as the likelihood of such direction being the product of chance is so remote as to be unworthy of consideration.
A strength of Aquinas’ argument is that we continue to marvel at natural wonders such as the great salmon run in Alaska or the migration of birds for thousands of miles — such is the special appeal of an a posteriori argument which draws on our observation of everything that the world reveals. Everything has the potential to be significant and to contribute to the evidence of order, regularity and purpose, pointing towards an intelligent designer.
However, we can explain these phenomena by reference to evolution and natural selection, which may take away the need for a divine designer to explain them. Modern science reduces the need to explain things by reference to God, as Richard Dawkins observes: ‘Science has completely superseded religion in the way of explanation.’ Dawkins is not advocating chance as an alternative to God, or an intelligent mind, but suggesting instead that it is the disciplines of science which have provided a full explanation of these once mysterious phenomena.
The candidate has not got lost in narrative detail and has remembered to write about weaknesses as well.
In 1802 William Paley offered an analogical form of the Design Argument. He compared the world with a watch, a product of human design, and suggested that the order, complexity and fitness for purpose that the watch displays had to indicate that it was designed by an intelligent designer. In the same way, the world was best explained by a designer who was greater than a human designer, but had the same characteristics of intelligence, purpose and intention.
At the time Paley’s analogy offered a persuasive way of understanding the vast complexity and order of the natural world and it appealed to reason and common sense. However, Dawkins observes that if there is a divine watchmaker behind the world it is a ‘blind watchmaker’ who has no purpose or intention — though Dawkins’ analogy itself may be flawed since there is no obvious reason to suppose that a blind watchmaker is not a skilled watchmaker.
Furthermore, David Hume had already challenged the use of analogy, suggesting that it anthropomorphised God, reducing his attributes to the level of a fallible human designer. It also does not account for bad design, which may be excusable in a human designer but not in a perfect, divine designer.
A modern application of the Design Argument is the anthropic principle, which is based on the observation that the universe appears to be perfectly designed to meet the needs of human life. The right mix of conditions, such as climate, temperature, laws of nature and ozone layer, is balanced on a knife edge, which suggests a high degree of fine tuning. Freeman Dyson observed that the precise conditions of the universe suggest that ‘it knew that we were coming’. A strength of this argument is that it is based on an undeniable first premise, that the universe is suitable for human life. If this were not the case, humans would not exist and would not be able to marvel at how finely tuned it is.
Examiners like to see the anthropic principle being used.
However, some theorists argue that if the world had been created even a second earlier or later it may have been even better equipped for human life. This is a form of a dystelelogical argument which draws attention to those things in the world that could perhaps have been better designed if the designer is the omnipotent God of classical theism.
An attractive form of the Design Argument is the aesthetic argument, which suggests that the beauty evident in the world points to it being a world that is not just designed for mere survival. As F. R. Tenant observes: ‘The world is not just beautiful in parts. It is saturated with beauty on a telescopic and microscopic scale.’ A strength of this argument is that, for example, admiring a beautiful sunset serves no evolutionary purpose or survival advantage so how else can it be explained? It has been the basis of many Christian hymns such as ‘All things bright and beautiful’ such is its simple appeal.
However, a weakness of this argument is that it relies on a subjective value. Not everyone appreciates the beauty of the natural world, and in any case for all we know this world may not be so beautiful in comparison with other possible worlds.
The candidate has not wasted time on a formal conclusion.
Question (b)
Comment on the view that the Design Argument fails to prove anything conclusive.
(9 marks)
Student’s answer
If the Design Argument proved anything conclusive it would offer a decisive proof for the existence of God. However, as it stands it can do no more than suggest the probability of God’s existence. As an inductive argument its premises may lead to more persuasive conclusions.
The candidate clearly understands ‘conclusive’.
The assumptions made by the Design Argument may be less persuasive when placed alongside the findings of modern science about the world. Richard Dawkins suggests we place too much emphasis on purpose because as humans we look at the world through ‘purpose-coloured spectacles’. The most he believes the world reveals is that purpose lies in human hands.
This leads Dawkins, like Hume, to reject not only claims about the design of the world pointing to the existence of God, but also claims about the appearance of design altogether. Dawkins suggests that in asking questions about the world humans assume the answers to those questions lie outside ourselves and our experience, but in fact increased understanding of the world has revealed that they are closer to being discovered than we may assume.
Furthermore, the appearance of the world does not necessarily prove a perfect, loving creator who is incapable of error. There is too much suffering still to be explained for the argument to conclusively prove the existence of the God of classical theism. Although Paley did not attempt to make claims about the nature of the designer of the world, surely as a theist argument its conclusion should be that the designer possesses the attributes of the theist God.
The candidate uses a range of ideas and does not rely on repeating one or two questionable criticisms.
Even Immanuel Kant, who rejected the argument, still observed that it is ‘the most in accordance with human reason’ and David Hume suggested that the appearance of design was evident ‘to even the stupid thinker’. The argument may not conclude decisively in favour of God’s existence, but it is based on principles that are worth observing.
The most the Design Argument may prove is that God may exist and be the best possible explanation for the appearance of the world. For the theist this is the simplest explanation, compatible with the teaching of the Bible, and the way in which believers have interpreted the world for thousands of years.
Despite its weaknesses, however, the Design Argument does point more usefully in the direction of God than the Ontological Argument. While the Ontological Argument makes claims based on the value of a priori knowledge of God, the empirical claims of the Design Argument are far more accessible, and leave me more inclined to follow the direction in which they lead, than accept the premises of the Ontological Argument without the benefit of experience.
The candidate has written plenty for the 9 marks. Don’t underestimate the amount needed for a strong answer.
This article is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW and has been neither provided nor approved by Edexcel.