Philosophy · Year 12 · Metaphysics of God · Summer Term

Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God

Investigate a priori arguments for God's existence, focusing on Anselm's and Descartes' formulations which define God as a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

TL;DR:Begin by showing a complex natural object, like a peacock feather or a diagram of the human eye, and ask students to brainstorm words that describe it, guiding them towards ideas of complexity, purpose, and design.

• National Curriculum Attainment Targets
• AQA A-Level Philosophy: Section 4.1 - Metaphysics of God - Arguments for the existence of God: Ontological arguments

About This Topic

This topic explores the teleological argument, often known as the design argument, for the existence of God. As a core component of the A-Level Philosophy of Religion curriculum, it provides a classic example of an a posteriori argument, which reasons from empirical evidence about the world to a conclusion about God. The topic begins with classical formulations, such as Aquinas’s Fifth Way, which focuses on things in nature acting for an end or purpose, and William Paley’s influential analogical argument, which compares the complexity of a watch to the complexity of the universe, inferring a divine watchmaker.

A crucial part of this study involves a rigorous evaluation of these arguments. Students will engage with David Hume’s powerful pre-emptive criticisms of arguments from analogy, questioning the validity of comparing the universe to a human-made machine. The topic then moves to the most significant modern challenge: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which offers a scientific explanation for biological complexity without recourse to a designer. Finally, students will examine modern reformulations of the design argument, such as the fine-tuning or anthropic principle, which shift the focus from biological complexity to the precise physical laws and constants of the cosmos that allow for life to exist. This allows for a nuanced debate on whether design arguments retain any philosophical force in a post-Darwinian, scientific age.

Key Questions

1. Explain Anselm's first formulation of the ontological argument.
2. Analyse Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection and Kant's critique that 'existence is not a predicate'.
3. Evaluate the overall strength of ontological arguments as proofs for God's existence.

Learning Objectives

• Explain the key features of analogical design arguments from Aquinas and Paley.
• Analyse the major criticisms of analogical design arguments, particularly from Hume and Darwin.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of modern design arguments that use the anthropic principle.
• Construct a reasoned argument on whether teleological arguments are persuasive in the 21st century.
• Distinguish clearly between a posteriori and a priori reasoning in the context of arguments for God's existence.

Key Vocabulary

Teleological Argument	An argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of purpose, design, or order in the universe.
A Posteriori	A statement or argument that is based on and derived from sense experience.
Analogy	A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Anthropic Principle	The idea that our observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.
Inference	A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
Fine-Tuning	The observation that the physical constants and laws of the universe are balanced in a precise range that allows for the emergence of complex life.

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

Common Misconception

The design argument is just Paley's watch analogy.

What to Teach Instead

Paley's watch is a famous version, but the design argument is a family of arguments. It includes Aquinas's argument from 'telos' (purpose) and modern 'fine-tuning' arguments based on the physical constants of the universe.

Common Misconception

Darwin's theory of evolution completely disproves all design arguments.

What to Teach Instead

Evolution by natural selection provides a powerful scientific alternative to explain biological complexity, effectively refuting Paley's argument. However, it does not address modern design arguments based on the fine-tuning of the universe's physical laws, which are compatible with evolution.

Common Misconception

The anthropic principle proves that God designed the universe for us.

What to Teach Instead

The anthropic principle is an observation that the universe's conditions must be compatible with our existence. The 'strong' version interprets this as evidence for design, but the 'weak' version argues it's a tautology: we could not observe the universe if it were otherwise, so it's not surprising we find ourselves in a life-sustaining one.

Active Learning Ideas

Socratic Seminar

Hume's Courtroom

Assign students roles: Paley's legal team, Hume's prosecution team, and a jury. The teams present their arguments and cross-examine each other regarding the watch analogy, after which the jury deliberates and delivers a verdict on the argument's success.

45 min·Small Groups

Socratic Seminar

Design a Universe

In pairs, students are given a set of 'cosmic parameter' cards (e.g., strength of gravity, rate of expansion). They must decide if the specific combination they have would support life and argue whether their universe appears 'designed' or is one of many random chances.

30 min·Pairs

Jigsaw

Criticism Jigsaw

Divide students into 'expert' groups, each focusing on one criticism (Hume's, Darwin's, the problem of evil). They then re-form into new groups with one expert from each area to teach their peers, creating a comprehensive overview of the challenges.

40 min·Small Groups

Real-World Connections

• Debates in modern cosmology about the 'fine-tuning' of the universe's physical constants and the multiverse hypothesis.
• The ongoing public and legal debates surrounding 'Intelligent Design' as an alternative to evolutionary theory in science education.
• Ethical discussions in genetic engineering, which raise questions about humans taking on the role of 'designer'.
• Environmentalist arguments that presuppose a purpose or inherent value in the natural world that ought to be preserved.

Assessment Ideas

Quick Check

Students write two paragraphs comparing the strengths of Paley's analogy with the weaknesses identified by Hume.

Peer Assessment

A timed essay answering a past A-Level question, such as 'To what extent does the theory of evolution fatally undermine the design argument?'

Quick Check

Students use a 'confidence tracker' to rate their understanding of each key thinker (Aquinas, Paley, Hume, Darwin) and the main concepts (analogy, fine-tuning).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the key difference between Aquinas's Fifth Way and Paley's argument?

Aquinas's argument is about 'telos' or purpose; he argues that even non-intelligent natural things act towards an end, and this must be directed by an intelligence (God). Paley's argument is an analogy; he compares the complex, ordered nature of an object like a watch with the universe, inferring that since the watch has a designer, the universe must also have one.

Why are Hume's criticisms so significant if he wrote them before Paley published his argument?

Hume, in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', critiques the entire concept of arguing for God's existence from an analogy with human design. Although published before Paley's specific formulation, his criticisms apply directly to the logical structure of Paley's argument, questioning the weakness of the analogy and the conclusions we can draw about the designer.

How does the multiverse theory respond to the fine-tuning argument?

The fine-tuning argument claims the universe's life-friendly constants are too improbable to be chance. The multiverse theory counters this by positing the existence of a vast number of other universes with different constants. If enough universes exist, it becomes statistically inevitable that one like ours would emerge by chance, removing the need for a designer.