Divine design is impossible to detect
By now, I’m sure most people are familiar with the infamous watchmaker argument by William Paley. The argument where a person walks into a field, finds a watch, and then concludes that there must have been an outside agent responsible for the watch being there, because the watch’s contrasting nature with that of its surroundings implies that it could not have been there on its own. This analogy is then extended into the argument that the natural world is in itself evidence of God, because the complexity of nature implies that there had to have been an intelligent designer behind it all. This argument makes an important assumption, that design can be in fact be recognised, without ever clearly stating exactly what design is.
What is design? How do we know when to recognise design?
First, for purposes of clarity, it is important to make the distinction between ‘divine’ design and ‘intelligent’ design’. Since products of human intelligence can be said to be intelligently designed, it would be be better to clarify theistic claims of a divine designer as being ‘divine’ design. Now that the distinction has been made, we can move on to how one can recognise design.
When we look at an airplane, at a microwave oven, instinctively we know that these objects are the product of intelligent design. But what makes us realise that they are in fact designed? The answer lies in how we perceive the world. We recognise objects such as the one mentioned because we recognise intuitively that they are not a part of nature. The human concept of recognising design comes through comparison with the non-human-designed world. When we find something that is out of sync with the natural world, something which does not fit in, we presume an outside agent is responsible for this anomaly. That is to say, the concept of comparison is intrinsically tied in with detecting design. One can only detect design, through comparison. Design itself does not have any measurable qualities, which will allow for someone to look at an object and measure its level of design.
Some might notice that this argument relies upon a base premise, that there is no external agent involved in the ‘designing’ of the natural world. Some might accuse me of begging the question, but this is really a simple matter of logic. As with any other logical argument, one always starts from a point where there are as few entities as possible involved in the argument, and build on it from there, including entities as need dictates. This is no different. We start off from a naturalistic point of view, which holds as few assumptions as possible, and then work from this naturalistic point to see if there is any need to consider the presence of a divine entity at all. To assume that absolutely everything was designed, without any proof whatsoever, is essentially the same as saying that nothing was designed.
What about divine design? How do we go about recognising it?
Now, I’m sure that atheists, when asking for proof of God, would have seen the following statement, in its various forms: “Look around you! The world is so perfectly designed! It is so glaringly obvious that there had to be a Creator behind everything!”.
What this statement is essentially saying is that complexity and harmoniousness are in themselves proof of design. Let’s analyse this for a second. Can complexity be considered proof of design? This idea can be easily disproved by a simple example: the paper clip. By no means is this simple object complex in nature, but it is obvious that this object is the product of intelligent design. Why? Because there is nothing like it in nature. Iron does not twist itself into a paper clip on a natural basis. Our constant interactions with nature should be enough to tell us that. Once the idea that complexity = design is ruled out, what can the theist then resort to as proof of design?
As for harmony, why should it even be considered part of design? To take an example in physics, systems tend to settle at an equilibrium point, without any outside interference. In a sense, a system which is settled at equilibrium could be considered harmonious. In ecology, studying certain populations of animals gives rise to a realisation that populations towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. This idea is best illustrated by Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”.
So what does this all mean?
To cut a long story short, it is impossible to recognise divine design. As stated previously, recognising design functions on comparison with the natural world. Ergo, it is impossible to point at something which is part of the natural world, and claim that it is designed, since the very nature of recognising design requires that it be compared to something apart from itself. And trying to determine whether something from the natural world is designed, is in essence trying to compare the natural world to the natural world, which is a contradiction in terms, and renders a conclusion impossible.
Also, in saying that one can recognise divine design, the theist is caught in a paradox of his own without even realising it. As mentioned earlier, considering how we as humans only recognise design by comparing an entity to the natural world, it is key that the natural world first be assumed to be undesigned (as said earlier). How then, can the theist say that the natural world is designed, since the key to recognising divine design requires that natural world be undesigned?
By Benison Pang, from our friends at Atheist Toolbox.
Speaking of the paper clip, here is an interesting article on them.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpaperclip.htm
I generally recognize “created” things because they defy the laws of thermodynamics, not because I compare them to nature.
“Look around you! The world is so perfectly designed! It is so glaringly obvious that there had to be a Creator behind everything!”.
What this statement says to me is “How can you disagree with me? Is there something wrong with you?” when in fact everything is just fine with me. Humans have such a strong obsession to understand what is not understandable that they are willing to trivialize the beauty around us by giving it a creator. Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather not be stuck in the comfort box for the rest of my life.
debunked by a paperclip
This is a great article! Thanks for the read!
Well written.
For a while now I’ve argued that there’s nothing ‘intelligent’ about the universe’s design, and you’ve articulated a solid argument that there’s no design at all.
And I, too, am amused by the example of the paperclip. Very elegant!
dbeau said, “I generally recognize ‘created’ things because they defy the laws of thermodynamics….”
How can anything, created or not, defy the laws of thermodynamics? In what way, for example, might a cannonball defy the laws of thermodynamics? Can ‘created’ things also defy other natural laws, such as gravity?
dbeau,
All human-created designs do obey the laws of thermodynamics.
You are in error, nothing in thermodynamics precludes an open system to get perfectly ordered. The Second Law allows a decrease in entropy in s system coupled to a larger increase in the surrounding bath. Crystals like diamond or table salt are pretty ordered.
The process to make a car from a pile of iron ore and crude oil involves a great organization; however, no one of the steps in the factory implies a net decrease in entropy. Released heat and waste stuff are the key.
Dbeau, I’m afraid that you are mistaken. All things are in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Well said, Enrique.
Thanks for reading and commenting, guys. Much appreciated.
[...] that the universe MUST have had a designer? Are you really that sure? Let’s take a closer look…http://www.thejesusmyth.com/philosophy/you-wouldnt-know-divinity-if-you-saw-itEvolution battle to flare up in Utah – Salt Lake TribuneMore Sites. Community News · E-edition [...]
“To assume that absolutely everything was designed, without any proof whatsoever, is essentially the same as saying that nothing was designed.”
To assume that absolutely everything needs no designer, without any proof whatsoever, is essentially the same as assuming everything is designed.
You claim to start from a naturalistic point of view that has the least number of assumptions, but assuming that the universe needs no creator via naturalistic creation is no different then assuming that the universe needs a creator. I can’t prove that the universe needs a creator, and you can’t prove that the universe doesn’t need a creator. You are not making less assumptions when you assume God is not necessary. Naturalistic view assumes God is not necessary, while the divine assumes God is necessary. The assumption based on the necessity of this entity (god) still exists whether you assume the necessity or assume god isn’t necessary.
I don’t believe complexity proves design, until it can be reasonably shown that naturalistic processes cannot account for the entity. If naturalistic processes are exhausted, and cannot account for the existence of an object, evoking a designer is an acceptable rationale. You can’t prove the designer but you can’t prove that the paper clip or the watch came from a naturalistic process either. In which case either assumption is legitimate until proven otherwise. And stubbornly holding out for a naturalistic process to explain the watch is no different then stubbornly holding out for proof of designer.
Chris
Assumption 1: There are 10 designers of the universe
Assumption 2: There is 1 designer of the universe
Assumption 3: There is no designer of the universe because we see no evidence of design
Do you see how assumption 2 assumes less than assumption 1?
Do you see how assumption 3 assumes less than assumption 2?
Then can you see why the claim that both sides are assuming equivalent amounts is not true.
Even if you had a designer, do you have a way to get from there to Jesus rather than Thor or Horus?
No I don’t see why one is ‘less of an assumption’. How can you have ‘less of an an assumption’? Either an assumption is made or its not made, but I see no validity in claiming that one is less of an assumption then the other. In fact, it would seem that such an argument would be based on something rather close to a fallacy of numbers. Whether you assume 100 designers or none, its still an assumption. Why does the number of designers matter? At the end of the day, its an assumption, so what difference does it make if you say 0, 1, or 100?
As I said, I can’t prove that the universe needs a creator, and you can’t prove that the universe doesn’t need a creator. When all is said and done, we both make 1 assumption.
** Entropy is a concept to be learned — it does not support design. **
Sorry, apparent “violations” of entropy result from not understanding the concept. Entropy presupposes a total and closed system — in such a system *total* entropy can only increase.
There are “local” exceptions of decreasing entropy — tons of them. Like the organization of matter/energy that’s you. Or, of a star being formed. Or, your humble ice maker making ice. Ordered states come about naturally. They are not designed. Ice does not required an Icy God to design it.
But, looking for gods in nature (natural theology) hasn’t had much supporta since 1800. The big-4 monotheisms (zoroastrianism, post-exilic judaism, xianity, and islam in historical order) simply fail for more obvious reasons. (There are lots of monotheism killers out there on this site.)
Of course, devotees of the big-4 simply will never accept the possibility that their views can be *falsified* in any manner: not by empirical evidence, not by self-contradiction embedded in the concept of God, not by cross-religion comparisons of god claims, not by aesthetics (what cosmic order?), not by ethics (God is through and through immoral).
What is the truth status of any of their claims? Their claims are neither true nor false. They are not statements at all. They are propaganda. In the case of xianity, arrogant, inverted elitism, anti-intellectual, and disgusting fideism.
bipolar2
“There is no natural religion.” Blake
• Well, It’s not Miss Personality is It?
Just for fun, let’s assume that the bad old argument from (supposed) design could establish the truth of the proposition ‘there is some god X.’
Notice that the design argument never managed to affirm the existence of a single unique god; instead of a monopoly there could be a duopoly or a committee. Or, my favorite, a cosmic dung beetle. (Ancient Egyptians surmised one created the Earth.)
However, let’s humor the advocate for design some more — assume there is one and only one designer, the god X. Now, just how do you establish that ‘god X = your god Y’? Where I assume Y is one of the divinities served up to us by a big-4 near eastern monotheism.
How do you get ‘some god X = the god X = monotheist god Y = xian God’? First, the god X is an *It*, not a He or (God forbid!) a She. Just where does Its male persona come from? Historically conditioned? Say it ain’t so.
Why does It happen to care one iota about Its universe, and you in particular? How do you establish a caring personhood for a male gendered absolute spirit who created a universe and who happens also to be an unrepentant misogynist?
It just ain’t obvious. You can’t cite scripture because that would be question begging. Why place any credence in your unaesthetic, immoral, homicidal, “God” rather than the gods of Epicurus?
• How can I possibly talk about someone who has never been?
Now, just because you can appear to talk about gods, does not mean that any entity, being, ground of being, spirit . . . from a superordinate moralized metaphysical realm does exist, or could exist.
No doubt, I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’
All I can know about these characters is what I read in allegedly *sacred* primary sources directly devoted to them. I can no more find God by doing cosmological research than I can disinter Hamlet’s bones in a chapel at Elsinore.
bipolar2 ©2008
The idea that a watch is somehow at odds with nature is completely flawed – everything on the earth is completely in tune with nature, is itself part of nature, and can never be anything but completely natural.
The proof is the watch itself. It is a naturally occurring item – irrefutably, because it is there.
You seem to base your observations on an assumption that the human race is not a part of nature, hence our creations are somehow not a part of nature. As usual, the truth is much, much simpler, and can be observed directly. The human race is and will always be a part of nature – hence our creations are naturally occurring (though they may not always be aesthetically pleasing).