Thomas Aquinas had five ways of proving God. His fifth proof was to point to things such as the regular and perfect rotation of the planets. Aquinas said that this regularity can only have come about through the desire or will of an intelligent being otherwise the fact that things obey uniform laws would merely be the result of chance. His initial argument was founded on an ignorance of science and the notion that the path and motion of the planets must be ‘God’s will’ each and every single time rather than the result of natural laws. However it must be admitted then that there still remains a more profound question as to why these laws exist at all. The regularity we observe in the universe around us (and, indeed, within us) can still be taken as evidence for God if we wish to look at it that way.
There is so much beauty in the universe! Can this not be taken as evidence of God’s handiwork? Beauty, in itself, has no survival value and where does the theory of evolution fit in with that? The fact that we can perceive beauty in all sorts of things in the universe, from human art to natural form, could suggest a designer God. This is one way in which a conclusion could be reached in which we see the universe as a fundamentally good creation of God, with a clear purpose and God’s fingerprints everywhere and in everything.
Yes we do perceive, or are programmed to perceive, beauty, but is the universe, as a whole, really like this when you look at it with all honesty? One way to critique the Design Argument would be to find ways to contradict it. If you’re basing an argument on evidence, you can’t then simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit into your argument. It would be natural to bring up the fact that there are a multitude of evil acts taking place in the world and there certainly is tremendous suffering. Of course the evil and the suffering in the world are referred to as unhappy byproducts of God’s gift to humankind of “free will”. In order to have free will God had to open the gateway to potential evil and the theist can still consider that God maintains the necessary qualities of benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience. Now although the “problem of evil” is a whole other topic, it is natural to rear its head in a discussion of the argument from design. My issues in brief would be as follows. God, by normative definition, can do anything. He can create any space, any form and any set of conditions or circumstances that animate and motivate these forms. God can do what is inconceivable to us. So if we want God to be benevolent, shouldn’t we be asking whether the Supreme Being couldn’t have managed to supply us with free will without the attendant suffering? Of course he could have, answers the theist, but he didn’t and it is not our place to question why God did it a certain way rather than another. And that is when the theist conveniently discards the need for evidence. The believer who until a certain point attempts to prove their point through logic and evidence suddenly tosses it all and becomes a – well, a mere believer, without even any pretension remaining to base anything on “science” or what Aish.com refers to as evidence in a court.
It is always interesting to watch the shuffle occur when the rationalistic approach doesn’t plug the hole anymore. It is that way just because it is that way and that is the theistic argument when it shipwrecks. The lifeboats come out and the lifejackets go on and God just continues to work in mysterious ways. Logic be damned. (Hey by the way. Remember in a previous post I said I was not an atheist? Well I still refuse to be labeled that way because everything depends on what your definition of God is. I don’t agree with the normative definition and I rarely use the word God seriously but I am no agent of Richard Dawkins. Oh well, you will label me anyway won’t you?)
Of course not all suffering comes at the hands of selfish men and women. Much of it comes from nature itself. hurricanes, earthquakes, famine caused by drought and other natural factors, and other natural disasters which cause tremendous suffering to humans and animals. Can we apply the same answer given by the theists to the “problem of evil”. Did the earth need to have the capacity to wreak such havoc in order to have its own free will? I don’t see the sense in that.
Yes there is tremendous beauty in the universe and in this very world. The Grand Canyon is an example of stunning beauty and wonder. Yet I ask you a question, gentle reader: would you be willing to give up the Grand Canyon if that action could save one single child from suffering caused by neglect, extreme poverty and hunger, war, etc. I know that I would. Would you? Would God? Maybe the world is a mixed place. Not all bad and not all good but is it really the work of a Great and Perfect Designer? If we are to base our understanding of the design argument for the existence of God by first observing the designs made by man then that should open aish.com’s courtroom to the notion that a Perfect Being would not make an imperfect design. And since we are basing this whole argument on man-made design standards then we can make a strong case that, from a human point of view, this ain’t no perfect world. And remember, the whole design argument came from a human point of view.
Evidence versus evidence. More later.
Introducing Design Argument Girl with her pet reptile. She proves, without words, the existence of herself and of your ability to see. What beautiful eyes you have!
