The Argument from Design Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing

The argument from analogy Hume: The curious adapting of means to ends, through all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence…

The argument from analogy …Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.

Hume’s objections The analogy between man-made, designed objects and the universe is weak. We can’t generalise from our small experience. There are other possible explanations. The designer might not be God (poor design, not infinite).

Paley’s variant Paley doesn’t use analogy. He concentrates on correct inference from apparent design to designer - in the case of the watch. The same properties that allow us to infer a designer of a watch are possessed by nature. Not so: natural things are not obviously manufactured.

Richard Swinburne Presumably…the matter-energy at the time of the Big Bang when the universe began…had just the quantity, density, and initial velocity as to lead in the course of time to the evolution of organisms…. Only a certain sort of critical arrangement of matter and certain kinds of laws of nature will give rise to organisms. And recent scientific work on the fine-tuning of the universe has shown that the initial matter and the laws of nature had to have very, very special features indeed if organisms were to evolve. (Think, Vol. 1)

Science is inadequate Science can’t explain the origins of the universe. Science can’t explain scientific laws, because all scientific explanations presuppose laws. And we need to explain the very specific laws that allow for the existence of life. Either there is some other explanation of them, or the whole way the universe is, is complete coincidence.

Personal explanation We can explain the universe if we give a personal explanation in terms of God: God wanted life to exist, so created the physical laws to make this possible. We use explanations in terms of persons - what we want, believe, intend - all the time. These are not explanations that make use of scientific laws.

Is ‘God’ an explanation? ‘What explains God?’ is no better than ‘What explains scientific laws?’ Swinburne: that we can’t explain God is no objection. A good explanation may posit something unexplained. This happens in science all the time, e.g. subatomic particles.

God? Swinburne: If the teleological or cosmological arguments show that some being exists, it is simplest to suppose that being has unlimited power, knowledge, etc. Copleston: God’s existence doesn’t need explanation, as God exists necessarily.

Does the universe need explaining? It’s incredibly unlikely, before the draw, that whoever wins will win. But someone will win. With enough chances, the incredibly unlikely can become inevitable. If there are lots of universes, one of them would have the right conditions for life. But are there lots of universes? What’s the evidence?

Why us? Why this one? No reason: but if it wasn’t this one, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question! It’s all a big coincidence.