Comment On The View That The Design Argument Provides A Coherent Explanation Of The Universe
Comment on the view that the design argument provides a coherent explanation of the universe (9)
The design argument is an inductive argument which means the conclusions do not necessarily follow. Therefore the argument is open to interpretation so it could all be down to chance. The world could have been by chance not designed. Kant suggests that “all order is mind induced”. So the argument does not even get off the ground.
Humes believed that if there is no order then there is no need for an orderer. Analogies depend on who decided on them, therefore he believed they do not work. Order is a necessary part of the universe but this self-sustaining order could very well be the product of chance. “We have no evidence of world making”. To show this he uses different analogies. His ship analogy suggests that to design and build a ship you need many workers, so the universe may well have been created by a whole team of gods. I agree with this analogy as it would be too much for just one God. Ockham’s razor believes God is all perfect so you only need one. Designers can be foolish and weak so in the analogy God could be foolish and weak. Also there is faulty design which implies a faulty designer, “The first rude attempt of some infant deity”. Another analogy is that Humes says the world is more like a vegetable which do not need designing because they just grow naturally. So the world is a result of germinations rather than design.
Darwin and his theory of Natural Selection provides all the reason you need for order in the world. Just because the conditions necessary for life have occurred does not mean they cannot have occurred by chance. There is too much suffering in the natural world for it to have been made by a kind and loving God, so God is an ‘optional extra’. Dawkins argues that the impressive system of natural selection creates an ‘illusion’ of design which theists have misinterpreted as actual evidence of design. He argues that we can feel awe and wonder
The design argument is an inductive argument which means the conclusions do not necessarily follow. Therefore the argument is open to interpretation so it could all be down to chance. The world could have been by chance not designed. Kant suggests that “all order is mind induced”. So the argument does not even get off the ground.
Humes believed that if there is no order then there is no need for an orderer. Analogies depend on who decided on them, therefore he believed they do not work. Order is a necessary part of the universe but this self-sustaining order could very well be the product of chance. “We have no evidence of world making”. To show this he uses different analogies. His ship analogy suggests that to design and build a ship you need many workers, so the universe may well have been created by a whole team of gods. I agree with this analogy as it would be too much for just one God. Ockham’s razor believes God is all perfect so you only need one. Designers can be foolish and weak so in the analogy God could be foolish and weak. Also there is faulty design which implies a faulty designer, “The first rude attempt of some infant deity”. Another analogy is that Humes says the world is more like a vegetable which do not need designing because they just grow naturally. So the world is a result of germinations rather than design.
Darwin and his theory of Natural Selection provides all the reason you need for order in the world. Just because the conditions necessary for life have occurred does not mean they cannot have occurred by chance. There is too much suffering in the natural world for it to have been made by a kind and loving God, so God is an ‘optional extra’. Dawkins argues that the impressive system of natural selection creates an ‘illusion’ of design which theists have misinterpreted as actual evidence of design. He argues that we can feel awe and wonder