PHIL 236 Philosophy of Religion

PHIL 236 PHIL 236 Philosophy of Philosophy of

ReligionReligionThe Design ArgumentThe Design Argument

The Argument from The Argument from DesignDesign

Also known as the Also known as the teleological teleological argumentargument

Is Is inductiveinductive Aims to make God’s existence Aims to make God’s existence probableprobable Sometimes it is also “abductive”, i.e. Sometimes it is also “abductive”, i.e.

God’s existence is the best explanation. God’s existence is the best explanation. Is Is a posterioria posteriori

Is based not on pure reasoning (is not Is based not on pure reasoning (is not a a prioripriori) but on observable facts) but on observable facts

Versions of the argumentVersions of the argument

Two common versionsTwo common versions One appeals to One appeals to biologicalbiological facts facts

Paley’s version of design argumentPaley’s version of design argument Intelligent Design MovementsIntelligent Design Movements

The other appeals to The other appeals to cosmological cosmological factsfacts Fine-Tuning ArgumentFine-Tuning Argument

Both see evidence of design in Both see evidence of design in naturenature

William Paley’s ArgumentWilliam Paley’s ArgumentThe Watch and the Human EyeThe Watch and the Human Eye

In a nutshell: In a nutshell: Artificial mechanisms like watches must have Artificial mechanisms like watches must have

designersdesigners By analogy, so must organs like the eyeBy analogy, so must organs like the eye

The Starting PointThe Starting Point

If you found a stone, you might not If you found a stone, you might not infer that it had a makerinfer that it had a maker

If you found a watch, you If you found a watch, you wouldwould infer that it had a makerinfer that it had a maker

Why?Why? Unlike the Unlike the stone, the parts of the watch stone, the parts of the watch

clearly fit together to serve a purpose. clearly fit together to serve a purpose.

Things you Wouldn’t SayThings you Wouldn’t Say

The watch might always have been thereThe watch might always have been there The watch’s parts came together by chanceThe watch’s parts came together by chance The watch merely exhibits “metallic nature”The watch merely exhibits “metallic nature” Matter has to take Matter has to take somesome form; why not a form; why not a

watch?watch? Useless parts prove the lack of a makerUseless parts prove the lack of a maker We don’t know enough to infer a designerWe don’t know enough to infer a designer

The Self-Reproducing The Self-Reproducing WatchWatch

Suppose the watch could reproduce Suppose the watch could reproduce itselfitself

Would we say it had no maker? Paley Would we say it had no maker? Paley says says NO!NO! First, this would make the watch even First, this would make the watch even

more remarkablemore remarkable Second, even if this watch had a “parent” Second, even if this watch had a “parent”

that had a “parent”... The series that had a “parent”... The series “wouldn’t tend to a limit”;“wouldn’t tend to a limit”; Each watch would Each watch would stillstill need to be explained need to be explained

Paley’s AnalogyPaley’s Analogy

The human eye is even more The human eye is even more remarkable than the watchremarkable than the watch

Its parts obviously fit together to Its parts obviously fit together to serve a purposeserve a purpose

Reasoning by analogy: like the Reasoning by analogy: like the watch, the eye must have had a watch, the eye must have had a designer and makerdesigner and maker

A Dated Argument?A Dated Argument?

Biologist (and passionate atheist) Biologist (and passionate atheist) Richard Dawkins says that Richard Dawkins says that in its dayin its day, , the argument from design would the argument from design would have been entirely convincinghave been entirely convincing

Why? Because no good natural Why? Because no good natural explanation for the biological facts explanation for the biological facts was available.was available.

Dawkins believes that this is no Dawkins believes that this is no longer solonger so

Paley vs. DarwinPaley vs. Darwin

William Paley1743-1805

Charles Darwin1809-1882

Evolution and DesignEvolution and Design

Without evolution, design seems to be Without evolution, design seems to be the only available explanation for the the only available explanation for the eye.eye.

Evolution undercuts Paley's argument Evolution undercuts Paley's argument by providing a plausible rival by providing a plausible rival explanation for the same factsexplanation for the same facts

Note: the point is not that evolution is Note: the point is not that evolution is known to be true. The point is that it known to be true. The point is that it undermines the claim that divine undermines the claim that divine design is the only plausible explanationdesign is the only plausible explanation

A Mere Theory?A Mere Theory? People often say: Evolution is “only a People often say: Evolution is “only a

theory”theory” This is a misunderstanding of what This is a misunderstanding of what

scientists mean by “theory.”scientists mean by “theory.” A theory is a set of organizing principles A theory is a set of organizing principles

that provides a way of unifying and that provides a way of unifying and explaining a body of facts.explaining a body of facts.

Calling something a theory says Calling something a theory says nothing nothing at allat all about whether it is probable about whether it is probable

It’s not contradictory to say that a It’s not contradictory to say that a theorytheory can be can be knownknown to be correct to be correct

Resistance to EvolutionResistance to Evolution

In the USA, there is a high degree of In the USA, there is a high degree of resistance to accepting evolution. resistance to accepting evolution. Why?Why?

Plausible answer: people believe Plausible answer: people believe that they need to choose between that they need to choose between evolution and their religious beliefsevolution and their religious beliefs

We should ask: is this a false We should ask: is this a false dilemma?dilemma?

Two ReasonsTwo Reasons Here are two reasons for thinking the Here are two reasons for thinking the

dilemma is false:dilemma is false: 1) The dilemma assumes that religious 1) The dilemma assumes that religious

belief calls for reading all scripture belief calls for reading all scripture literally. But many deeply religious literally. But many deeply religious people (the Pope, for example) disagree.people (the Pope, for example) disagree.

2) The dilemma sees evolution as a view 2) The dilemma sees evolution as a view that denies the possibility of divine that denies the possibility of divine intervention. But intervention. But thatthat claim is beyond claim is beyond the scope of science.the scope of science.

Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design

Intelligent design theory offers an Intelligent design theory offers an update to Paley’s argumentupdate to Paley’s argument

It tries to show that It tries to show that somesome biological biological facts can’t be explained by evolutionfacts can’t be explained by evolution

This may be true. The question is: do This may be true. The question is: do the arguments of ID theorists show the arguments of ID theorists show this?this?

Irreducible ComplexityIrreducible Complexity

Michael Behe says: a system is Michael Behe says: a system is irreducibly irreducibly complexcomplex if removing any part would make it if removing any part would make it non-functionalnon-functional

Behe argues: evolution can’t produce Behe argues: evolution can’t produce irreducibly complex systemsirreducibly complex systems

The reason: unless the system were fully The reason: unless the system were fully assembled, there would be nothing for assembled, there would be nothing for selection to operate onselection to operate on

The ExampleThe Example

Bacterial flagella work like an outboard motorBacterial flagella work like an outboard motor Remove any part, says Behe, and the flagellum Remove any part, says Behe, and the flagellum

doesn’t work.doesn’t work. Therefore, Behe says, evolution couldn’t Therefore, Behe says, evolution couldn’t

produce itproduce it

The Scientist’s ReplyThe Scientist’s Reply

The function a "part" has now need The function a "part" has now need not be the function it had earlier in not be the function it had earlier in evolutionary history.evolutionary history.

Selection can "co-opt" parts and Selection can "co-opt" parts and systems that function one way in one systems that function one way in one context and use them in another for context and use them in another for a different purposea different purpose

Therefore, “irreducible complexity” Therefore, “irreducible complexity” doesn’t rule out evolutiondoesn’t rule out evolution

...Continued...Continued

The point is not that evolutionary The point is not that evolutionary biology biology hashas explained the flagellum explained the flagellum

(though Kenneth Miller argues that (though Kenneth Miller argues that we have many parts of a good we have many parts of a good explanation)explanation)

The point is that a good The point is that a good understanding of how explanations understanding of how explanations work in evolutionary theory doesn’t work in evolutionary theory doesn’t rule outrule out an evolutionary explanation an evolutionary explanation

More Generally...More Generally...

Nature is worthy of wonder, but...Nature is worthy of wonder, but... ID is a "God of the Gaps“ approach, ID is a "God of the Gaps“ approach,

andand Biologists may come up with Biologists may come up with

plausible accounts of ID examples. plausible accounts of ID examples. Many people (including theologians Many people (including theologians

and scientists) believe that evolution and scientists) believe that evolution and theism can co-exist.and theism can co-exist.

Interim SummaryInterim Summary

Paley’s argument has a serious rival in Paley’s argument has a serious rival in evolution, evolution, butbut

Even if evolution is true, this doesn’t Even if evolution is true, this doesn’t show that God played no role in show that God played no role in evolution.evolution.

ID theorists may be correct in ID theorists may be correct in believing that there is a designer, believing that there is a designer, butbut

The kinds of arguments they offer are The kinds of arguments they offer are open to scientific criticismopen to scientific criticism

Fine-tuning Design Fine-tuning Design ArgumentsArguments

So far, we have looked at So far, we have looked at biologicalbiological design argumentsdesign arguments

These arguments focus on apparent These arguments focus on apparent design in organs and organismsdesign in organs and organisms

Another important kind of argument Another important kind of argument concentrates on large-scale facts concentrates on large-scale facts about the universeabout the universe

These arguments are called These arguments are called fine-fine-tuningtuning arguments. arguments.

Robin Collins’s AnalogyRobin Collins’s Analogy

Suppose we discovered a planet Suppose we discovered a planet where there waswhere there was

A domed structureA domed structure With an oxygen-recycling systemWith an oxygen-recycling system Ideal temperature and humidity Ideal temperature and humidity

range for liferange for life Water-recycling systemsWater-recycling systems Food production systemsFood production systems

Collins’s PointCollins’s Point

We would not agree that this system We would not agree that this system was a product of chancewas a product of chance

We would see it as a product of We would see it as a product of intelligence, butintelligence, but

a) Earth itself is such a system, anda) Earth itself is such a system, and b) More generally, various feature of b) More generally, various feature of

the universethe universe are fine-tuned for life are fine-tuned for life

Examples of Fine-Tuning: Examples of Fine-Tuning: GravityGravity

Gravity: if the gravitational constant Gravity: if the gravitational constant were only a little stronger, mammals were only a little stronger, mammals our size would be crushed. Stronger our size would be crushed. Stronger yet and all stars would be red dwarfs yet and all stars would be red dwarfs – not warm enough to support life– not warm enough to support life

If gravity were a little weaker, all If gravity were a little weaker, all stars would be blue giants – they stars would be blue giants – they don’t exist long enough for life to don’t exist long enough for life to developdevelop

Another Example: Strong Another Example: Strong Nuclear ForceNuclear Force

This force keeps atoms together by This force keeps atoms together by resisting electric repulsion.resisting electric repulsion.

A 1% increase would lead to almost all A 1% increase would lead to almost all carbon being burned into oxygen; a carbon being burned into oxygen; a 2% increase would prevent protons – 2% increase would prevent protons – and hence atoms – from formingand hence atoms – from forming

A 5% decrease would mean a universe A 5% decrease would mean a universe with no molecule more complex than with no molecule more complex than hydrogenhydrogen

The Cosmological The Cosmological ConstantConstant

This is the energy density of empty This is the energy density of empty spacespace

This constant is very close to zeroThis constant is very close to zero If it were even slightly larger, the If it were even slightly larger, the

universe would expand far too universe would expand far too rapidly for stars, galaxies, planets rapidly for stars, galaxies, planets and hence life to formand hence life to form

The Point AgainThe Point Again

The constants of the universe seem The constants of the universe seem to make the universe into an to make the universe into an “irreducibly complex system” from “irreducibly complex system” from the point of view of lifethe point of view of life

That is: tamper even a little with That is: tamper even a little with even one of the many fine-tuned even one of the many fine-tuned constants, and there would be no lifeconstants, and there would be no life

ProbabilityProbability

The point can be put in probability The point can be put in probability terms: given the range of values terms: given the range of values open “open “a prioria priori” to the constants, it is ” to the constants, it is fantastically improbable that by fantastically improbable that by chance alone, they would permit lifechance alone, they would permit life

However, if an intelligent designer is However, if an intelligent designer is responsible for their values, the fine-responsible for their values, the fine-tuning is no longer improbable.tuning is no longer improbable.

Objection: Other Life-Objection: Other Life-FormsForms

The fine-tuning argument points to The fine-tuning argument points to various physical conditions various physical conditions necessary for life, butnecessary for life, but

It doesn’t take account of the fact It doesn’t take account of the fact that our form of carbon-based life that our form of carbon-based life may not be the only possible formmay not be the only possible form

Reply:Reply:

For the most part, the fine-tuning For the most part, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t focus on the argument doesn’t focus on the details of life-forms (e.g., carbon vs. details of life-forms (e.g., carbon vs. silicon)silicon)

Instead it focuses on such things as Instead it focuses on such things as the possibility of atoms of the possibility of atoms of anyany sort, sort, or of stars that can provide energy, or of stars that can provide energy, or of the possibility of chemical or of the possibility of chemical processesprocesses

Objection: “Fundamental Objection: “Fundamental Law”Law”

Perhaps there is a fundamental law Perhaps there is a fundamental law thatthat

underlies more specific physical laws, underlies more specific physical laws, andand

Implies that the constants have the Implies that the constants have the values that they havevalues that they have

If so, the fine-tuning would be If so, the fine-tuning would be explained by reference to this explained by reference to this fundamental lawfundamental law

RepliesReplies First, the hypothesis is sheer speculationFirst, the hypothesis is sheer speculation (However, the objector might reply that (However, the objector might reply that

it represents a coherent possibility – just it represents a coherent possibility – just as God does)as God does)

Second, it would just allow a new version Second, it would just allow a new version of the question. We could ask: why of the question. We could ask: why thisthis fundamental law, rather than some fundamental law, rather than some other? other?

Why a fundamental law that calls for Why a fundamental law that calls for thesethese values of the constants? values of the constants?

Further to the second Further to the second replyreply

John Leslie points out that our John Leslie points out that our scientific models allow for other scientific models allow for other sorts of universes with other sorts sorts of universes with other sorts ranges of constants. ranges of constants.

Therefore, there is no good reason Therefore, there is no good reason to believe in such a fundamental law to believe in such a fundamental law

Objection: The universe had Objection: The universe had to be to be somesome way way

The universe had to have The universe had to have somesome set of set of lawslaws

Further, there’s no reason to think Further, there’s no reason to think any one detailed set more any one detailed set more improbable than any other.improbable than any other.

Looked at in this way, there is Looked at in this way, there is nothing to explainnothing to explain

A ComparisonA Comparison

Suppose we consider a bridge hand. Suppose we consider a bridge hand. The chance of someone being dealt The chance of someone being dealt that particular, specific bridge hand that particular, specific bridge hand is very smallis very small

However, we don’t think there’s any However, we don’t think there’s any need to explain why someone got need to explain why someone got thisthis bridge hand as opposed to any bridge hand as opposed to any other equally improbable handother equally improbable hand

ReplyReply

If we carry this reasoning to its limit, then If we carry this reasoning to its limit, then nothing requires explanation.nothing requires explanation.

This is because every situation, if This is because every situation, if considered in enough detail, is improbableconsidered in enough detail, is improbable

For example: the precise arrangement of For example: the precise arrangement of the mess on my desk is improbable, but the mess on my desk is improbable, but calls for no explanation.calls for no explanation.

But if the papers were stacked so that But if the papers were stacked so that they formed a series of arches, that they formed a series of arches, that wouldwould require explanationrequire explanation

ContinuedContinued

Some values for constants would seem Some values for constants would seem merely “random” or uninteresting – merely “random” or uninteresting – not in need of explanationnot in need of explanation

The fine-tuning arguer says: the The fine-tuning arguer says: the constants of constants of ourour universe aren’t like universe aren’t like that. They fit together too remarkably that. They fit together too remarkably when looked at from the point of view when looked at from the point of view of lifeof life

Hence, they need to be explained.Hence, they need to be explained.

Objection: the Anthropic Objection: the Anthropic PrinciplePrinciple

The (weak) anthropic principle says that The (weak) anthropic principle says that the laws of the universe are “restricted” the laws of the universe are “restricted” by the conditions necessary for their by the conditions necessary for their being observedbeing observed

Translation: we couldn’t know that the Translation: we couldn’t know that the constants are what they are constants are what they are unlessunless those those constants were consistent with the constants were consistent with the existence of observersexistence of observers

Supposed conclusion: we shouldn’t be Supposed conclusion: we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the constants surprised to find that the constants permit lifepermit life

ReplyReply Of courseOf course we couldn’t observe constants we couldn’t observe constants

that ruled out our existence, butthat ruled out our existence, but The constants could still be improbableThe constants could still be improbable If we had discovered that a wide range If we had discovered that a wide range

of constants was compatible with life, of constants was compatible with life, the fine-tuning argument couldn’t get the fine-tuning argument couldn’t get off the groundoff the ground

What is surprising is that the constants What is surprising is that the constants came out right came out right even thougheven though “right” is “right” is such a narrow range.such a narrow range.

Compare (John Leslie's Compare (John Leslie's Example)Example)

Suppose that five minutes ago, I was Suppose that five minutes ago, I was blindfolded and fired at by 100 blindfolded and fired at by 100 marksmen with loaded rifles.marksmen with loaded rifles.

I couldn’t observe that I’m still alive I couldn’t observe that I’m still alive unless all the marksmen missedunless all the marksmen missed

However: it’s still However: it’s still surprisingsurprising that I’m that I’m alive, and calls for explanationalive, and calls for explanation

Objection: Many Objection: Many UniversesUniverses

Some physicists have posited Some physicists have posited theories that imply the existence of theories that imply the existence of many “sub-universes” with differing many “sub-universes” with differing laws and constantslaws and constants

If enough such universes exist, with If enough such universes exist, with enough variety, it wouldn’t be enough variety, it wouldn’t be surprising that one or more surprising that one or more permitted lifepermitted life

Compare:Compare:

If you toss a coin 10 times in a row If you toss a coin 10 times in a row and get 10 heads, you will be and get 10 heads, you will be surprised.surprised.

But if 1,000,000 people each toss a But if 1,000,000 people each toss a coin 10 times, then it would be coin 10 times, then it would be surprising if surprising if no oneno one got 10 heads in got 10 heads in a row. (The chances of 10 heads in a a row. (The chances of 10 heads in a row are 1 in 1024 for one tosser.)row are 1 in 1024 for one tosser.)

ReplyReply

IfIf the many-universes hypothesis is the many-universes hypothesis is true, it would provide an alternate true, it would provide an alternate explanation for “fine-tuning”explanation for “fine-tuning”

But there isn’t any empirical But there isn’t any empirical evidence for many universes, and evidence for many universes, and the theoretical arguments are very the theoretical arguments are very controversialcontroversial

Still...Still... If the theoreticians can make the many-If the theoreticians can make the many-

universe view respectable (show that it universe view respectable (show that it fits well with other pats of physics, is fits well with other pats of physics, is elegant, could explain a great deal...) then elegant, could explain a great deal...) then it would be a legitimate it would be a legitimate rivalrival to fine- to fine-tuning theistic explanationstuning theistic explanations

Compare: we said earlier that evolution Compare: we said earlier that evolution does most of its work against Paley by does most of its work against Paley by providing a legitimate rival viewproviding a legitimate rival view

We would then need to decide which view We would then need to decide which view is is overalloverall more likely more likely

And Still Further...And Still Further...

That is something people could That is something people could disagree about.disagree about.

Therefore: if many universes are a Therefore: if many universes are a good theoretical idea, that good theoretical idea, that doesn’tdoesn’t mean that theistic design is a bad mean that theistic design is a bad ideaidea

It means instead that we have more It means instead that we have more than one viable hypothesisthan one viable hypothesis

A Larger Issue: Who A Larger Issue: Who Designed the Designer?Designed the Designer?

David Hume (1711-David Hume (1711-1776) asks: 1776) asks: Isn’t God as Isn’t God as

remarkable as the remarkable as the things God is things God is supposed to explain?supposed to explain?

If so, doesn’t this call If so, doesn’t this call for positing a for positing a designer for God?designer for God?

If so, don’t we set If so, don’t we set forth on an infinite forth on an infinite regress?regress?

Mechanism vs. MagicMechanism vs. Magic Ordinary designers Ordinary designers

assemble parts in assemble parts in familiar waysfamiliar ways

Do we have any idea Do we have any idea how God assembled the how God assembled the world? If not, does the world? If not, does the design argument explain design argument explain anything?anything?

In Short...In Short...

If there is a supernatural designer, this If there is a supernatural designer, this being is as remarkable as the human eye being is as remarkable as the human eye (not to mention the bacterial flagellum!)(not to mention the bacterial flagellum!)

Consequently, it's not clear that positing Consequently, it's not clear that positing a Divine Designer explains much. It may a Divine Designer explains much. It may just postpone the problem.just postpone the problem.

But... But... shouldshould religion be in the business religion be in the business of giving “scientific” explanations?of giving “scientific” explanations?

More Generally...More Generally...

Wars between science and religion are Wars between science and religion are unfortunateunfortunate

They are unfortunate for science if they They are unfortunate for science if they put science in the position of addressing put science in the position of addressing questions outside its purviewquestions outside its purview

They are unfortunate for religion if they They are unfortunate for religion if they turn religion into a quasi-scientific turn religion into a quasi-scientific hypothesis that science can slowly chip hypothesis that science can slowly chip away ataway at