Transcript anthropic principle

Recent versions of the
Design Argument
Outline the Design
Argument.
The Goldilocks Theory
•
Just as Goldilocks found the porridge that was
just right, the Earth seems to be just right for
living creatures. The Earth seems to be the
perfect distance from the sun for lots of
water.
•
Venus is too close to the sun, and too hot for
flowing water on its surface. In fact, it is so
hot that, like a sauna, all the water has been
evaporated into the atmosphere, and Venus has
a thick and heavy atmosphere.
•
Mars is too far from the sun, and too cold for
flowing water on its surface. Mars also has no
continental drift, so particles of the
atmosphere which become trapped within the
ground stay trapped within the ground. Thus
over time the atmosphere of Mars has become
thin, and all the water is frozen into the
ground.
• The temperature of Earth is just right for flowing water on
the surface, and for the rock which allows for continental
drift. With continental drift, particles of the atmosphere
which become trapped within the ground are brought back
to the atmosphere through eruptions of volcanoes.
• These conditions cause refreshment of the planet's
atmosphere. A medium sized atmosphere helps keep
temperatures just right for flowing water (through the
greenhouse effect). These conditions are just right for
abundant life.
Answer the question
below
• How does the Goldilocks theory support the idea
of intelligent design?
• Discuss this in your groups and write a suitable
answer
Recent contributors
• F R Tennant
– The Anthropic Principle
– The Aesthetic Principle
• Richard Swinburne
– The argument from Probability
Anthropic Principle
• Developed by F R Tennant in his book
Philosophical Theology (1930).
• Argument claims that the universe has
been designed for the ultimate purpose
of producing intelligent life.
• This argument takes the view that
“random chance” is not a sufficient or
realistic explanation for the way the
universe is fine tuned to produce human
life.
Anthropic Principle
• The Big Bang
– The strength of the Big Bang was
just enough to create the conditions
for the galaxies to form and life on
earth to develop. Had the strength
of the Big Bang been slightly bigger
or slightly weaker, then the galaxies
would not have been formed and the
earth would not have developed. Had
there been even a slight variance in
the basic elements emerging from
the Big Bang we would not be here
today.
Anthropic Principle
• How do you feel about the
Anthropic Principle at this
point?
• Do you agree or disagree with
the idea that because certain
conditions had to be present
for human life to develop,
that this could only occur if it
had been planned?
Anthropic Principle
• Tennant believed that there were three types of
natural evidence in the world that suggested the
existence of a designer God:
– The fact that the world can be analysed in a rational way
(in other words, intelligent being can detect the
workings of an intelligent mind).
– The way in which the inorganic world has provided the
basic necessities required to sustain life (e.g. trees
producing oxygen).
– The progress of evolution towards the emergence of
intelligent human life (evolution is seen as God’s way of
creating intelligent human life).
Anthropic Principle
Summary
• Tennant argued that it would be impossible to
imagine a chaotic universe where no rules or laws
applied.
• However, the universe is not chaotic.
• The evidence suggests that the universe is a
result of careful design, planned in such a way that
would allow for the evolutionary process to occur
and create an environment in which intelligent life
could exist.
•
According to Tennant, human life is the
culmination of God’s plan.
Who else might be able to
contribute to this discussion?
• Polkinghorne
– Argued that the unlikelihood of human life being
the result of blind chance gives no rise to
“considerations which theism provides a
persuasive answer”.
– What do you think this means?
– He is not saying that the way in which the
universe has produced human life proves that
there is a designer God but he is saying that this
would be a rational and credible conclusion to
draw.
– This is very similar to Swinburne’s argument from
probability which we will deal with shortly.
Aesthetic Argument
•
An argument also develop by F R Tennant to prove the existence
of God.
•
The aesthetic argument was developed in response to the
challenge that evolutionary theory presented to Christian ideas
about creation.
•
Evolutionary theory argued that the creatures in the world were
as they were, not because they had been designed that way, but
because, through natural selection, they had adapted to the
demands of their environment.
Aesthetic Argument
• Tennant’s aesthetic argument claimed that humans possess an
ability t appreciate the beauty of their surroundings – for
example, they can enjoy art, music, literature and culture.
• This appreciation of beauty – the ‘aesthetic sense’ of humans –
is not necessary for the survival or development of human life
and so cannot be a result of natural selection.
• The aesthetic sense of humans therefore
provides evidence of a divine creator.
Aesthetic Argument
How do you feel about the Aesthetic
Argument at this point?
Anthropic Principle and
the Aesthetic Argument
In pairs make a note of any possible
criticisms you can make of Tennant’s
arguments.
Argument from Probability
• Developed by Richard Swinburne in his book The
Existence of God (1979).
• Put forwards a version of the design argument that is
based on probability
• Observed that the order in the universe and the way
that it provides the conditions necessary for
life and concludes that an intelligent designer
is the best, or most probable, explanation
that we have.
Argument from Probability
Key Points of Swinburne’s argument:
• There is universal orderliness in the universe. All
the bodies in the universe conform to the same,
simple scientific laws.
• The existence of this orderliness and uniform
natural laws has provided the conditions
necessary for human life to develop.
– Furthermore, this is a providential world; one which
contains everything necessary for human survival,
and one in which humans can meaningfully
contribute to its development and maintenance,
within the limitations of its naturals laws
Argument from Probability
Key Points of Swinburne’s argument continued…:
• The universe could just as easily have been chaotic.
The fact that it is not suggests that it was designed
for the purpose of human life to develop – it did not
just occur by random chance.
– An intelligently designed universe cannot be proved, but
it is more probable that the natural laws were designed
than that they happened by chance.
• Since there is design, God is the simplest explanation
for the universe.
– Belief in God makes better sense of all the evidence
that we have available than any other alternative.
Whilst a purposeful designer cannot be proved to
exist, it is more plausible and satisfactory
explanation than not.
Argument from Probability
In pairs discuss what, if anything is
wrong with Swinburne’s argument.
Paley (1743-1805) suggested that you
should imagine walking across open
countryside with some friends and
suddenly coming across a watch hidden
amongst the grass. You pick up the watch
and are so impressed by its craftwork that
you ask your friends: “Who do you think
made this?”
Now imagine, said Will, that one of your
friends replies: “Nobody actually made this
watch. It has always existed and has
always been there.”
If a friend were to give you this sort of
reply, said Will, you would naturally be
entitled to think that he/she had not seen
the object clearly or that he/she had but
were not wired up properly. Personally I’d
then slap them with a wet fish!
According to Paley the reason is obvious.
The watch simply shows too much
evidence of DESIGN and PURPOSE for
nobody to have been responsible for its
existence.
Read Paley’s Natural
Theology to find out more!
There is then, said Will, only one possible
sensible answer to the question “Who do
you think made this?” and that is to give
the name of a person who has a skilled
designing mind. We reach this
conclusion because if any object shows
evidence of DESIGN and PURPOSE then
the inference is inevitable – that must be There is then, said Will, only one sensible
answer that can be given to the question
a maker.
“WHO or WHAT made the Universe?” and
Paley continued his argument by saying that is to say that because it shows so
that if it is nonsense to say that a watch much evidence of DESIGN and
came about by chance or has always PURPOSE it must therefore has been
existed then it is equally nonsensical to designed by a designer i.e. GOD.
say that the ‘Universe’ came about by
chance or has always existed. He argued
1) Explain in your own words how
that the ‘Universe’ (like the watch) shows
William Paley uses the DESIGN
evidence of too much complicated
and PURPOSE of a watch to try
DESIGN and PURPOSE for that to be the
to prove the existence of GOD.
case.
2) Do you agree with Paley’s
argument? Give reasons for
your answer. Perhaps you could
discuss:
Consider the complicated body-designs of
animals, birds and fish. Think how each is
so perfectly designed for life on the land,
sea and air. Or consider the DESIGN of
your own eyes, ears and nose and how
once again they are each so perfectly
designed to fulfil the PURPOSE of
seeing, hearing and smelling.
(a) Is Paley right to compare a
watch to the Universe?
(b) Has Paley made it clear
what the PURPOSE of the
Universe is (as he did with the
watch)?
If William Paley has managed to prove that GOD
exists there should be no way of looking at the
evidence and coming to any other conclusion. Many
people, however, say that this is just not the case.
In fact, you can look at Paley’s evidence and come
to the conclusion that GOD doesn’t exist.
You could agree with Will that the Universe
contains ORDER and that this order is necessary
for life to begin and survive.
HOWEVER, you do not have to agree that the
ORDER was designed by a designing mind called
GOD. You could say that this ORDER is simply the
product of chance.
Imagine being given two dice and told to keep
throwing these dice until all the possible
combinations of numbers come up. Sooner or later
(given enough time) you will achieve this task.
What is being said is that NATURE is playing a
similar game. Instead of throwing dice it is
throwing atoms around and because it has
INFINITE-TIME to play then these atom will
sooner or later go through all their possible
combinations. The order that you see then in the
Universe is not designed-order; it is simply he
result of one of Nature’s many throws with the
atoms. The ORDER is simply the result of chance
and not a DESIGNING GOD.
These people then do not agree that
William Paley has ‘proved’ that GOD
exists. They say hat his evidence is
AMBIGUOUS. You can look at it and
sensibly come to the conclusion that
either God exists or that He doesn’t
exist. The question of whether or
not there is a DRIVER guiding the
‘journey of life’ must remain an open
question!
1) Many people believe that the
Universe contains order. They do
not necessarily believe that this
order was designed by GOD.
Explain how they think this order
came about.
2) It is possible that GOD did design
the Universe and also possible that
He didn’t. Which do you believe is
probable? Give reasons.