Is there good reason to believe in an intelligence who has designed the universe?

The modern argument from design points to the precarious balance of a number of fundamental constants of the universe. These constants - numbers upon which the laws of physics hang - seem balanced on a knife edge such that a variation of even a tiny percent in either direction would result in a universe entirely incapable of supporting intelligent life, or even incapable of existing at all. Such a delicate balance, so the argument goes, is inconceivably improbable, and for it to have come about implies the existence of an intelligence that planned the nature of the universe in advance of its creation.

Is there good reason for this belief? Hume tells us that our beliefs must be formed from our experiences, but in this case can our experiences be relied upon? Given an apparently designed object, can we be sure whether or not it is actually designed? The classic example is of a watch on a beach [p157]. On finding such a watch, we might naturally wander who made it, and who put it there. It is complex and organised, with many intricate parts all delicately balanced to operate together. However there are many structures that can appear structured and designed, while in fact being simple and natural. Crystals are complex structures of atoms that can be formed by a child with a chemistry kit, or grow naturally without any conscious intervention. Fractals are infinitely complex shapes generated by very simple mathematical formulae, and occur naturally in the shapes of fern leaves and coastlines. The Giants' Causeway, once thought to be a staircase fashioned by giants, in fact turns out to be fashioned by post-volcanic cooling of basalt [p69].

The classical argument from design can be seriously weakened by such arguments. The modern argument from design takes a different approach, but can be attacked in similar ways. Just because something is arranged fortuitously, does not make it designed.

If the universe did come about by an act of God, then it can be considered a miracle, and should be treated the same way. Hume has much to say about miracles, and gives some reasons why we should be sceptical of such reports. One such reason is that "Human beings are remarkably credulous" [p116]. We are naturally inclined to see order where there is none. This is both part of our psychology - we feel secure when we believe there is order in the world - and of our intelligence, which is well suited to spotting similarities and patterns in disparate things in order to facilitate learning. Plus, we "find it agreeable to hear and relate remarkable stories" [p116]. All this suggests we should be especially wary of reports of uncanny order in the universe. Just because it looks designed is not a good enough reason on its own to believe that it was. But what else could explain the apparently extraordinary balance of physics?

There are two traditional lines of counter-argument. First, there is the infinite universe theory. In essence this says that our universe is merely one of an infinite number of universes. Each universe exists in one of an infinite variety of setups, with their fundamental constants arranged in one of an infinite variety of arrangements. The vast majority of these universe would prove inviolable, and would last for but a fraction of a second. Some would last longer, but would be incapable of supporting life. However, because we are considering an infinite number of universes, it becomes certain that at least one of them would be in such a state that intelligent life could form. Obviously we are in such a universe.

Of course there is no way we could test this hypothesis as, by definition, each universe is entirely separate and unreachable from ours. There is a variation of this theory that instead talks of many domains of a single universe [AC5], but there is nothing to suggest they would be any more reachable, and in any case we certainly can't reach them at the moment. However it must be pointed out that we cannot test for the existence of God either as it is also, by definition, separate and apart from the universe. Thus this criticism is no reason to support a belief in a designer.

Another criticism is based on Occam's Razor - the idea that one should never multiply postulated entities beyond what is necessary [p77]. Postulating the existence of an infinite number of universes is surely far more of a leap of logic than assuming a single intelligent creator.

But this is a false comparison. Occam's Razor is not simply about the number of postulated entities, but about minimising the complexity of the argument. Granted, one might only be postulating one god, rather than an infinity of universes, but it is a small step to take from knowing that one example of a thing exists to supposing that other examples may also exist. An intelligent designer on the other hand is an entirely new complexity that requires explanation. Postulating even a single entirely new concept is a far greater leap of logic than postulating more of the same, and we'd need a good reason for it.

Of course, to postulate the existence of God is only a huge logical leap for an atheist. To an atheist, postulating the existence of god simply to explain some anomalies in the physics is illogical. It makes no more sense than postulating the existence of mischievous leprechauns to explain a set of lost keys. For a believer however, extrapolating that the omnipotent god they believe in may also have designed and created the universe is a relatively small logical step. If one is already convinced of the existence of leprechauns, it is perhaps plausible they might have stolen one's keys.

This leaves us at a stalemate. We need an argument that could persuade people from one side of the belief fence to the other. Are there examples that could illustrate no design?

From the classical standpoint, we could point to mutations and birth defects. Anything that means a child is born that is incapable of surviving more than a few minutes suggests bad design. If you're more modern, we can look to physics, where there are still numerous anomalies that appear to form gaps in the logic of the universe. The calculations of the Hubble constant suggest that the oldest stars are in fact significantly older than the age of the universe, which is clearly nonsense. There is the solar neutrino problem, where nuclear physics predicts a certain number of neutrinos emitted from the sun, and in fact only around a tenth of this number is detected.

These anomalies and contradictions do not point to an intelligent designer. For sure, one could use them for demonstrating the existence of a god, by saying the universe could not possibly be held together without the force of will of a deity, but this is a different argument. One cannot start by saying that the remarkable synchronicity of physics supports an intelligent designer, and then go on to say that the anomalies and contradictions also support the existence. While there are constants that do not work, the case is weakened. So what if we resolve these anomalies?

This brings us to the second counter-argument. We do not yet fully understand the universe, but with investigation puzzles can be resolved. Just as Darwin provided a satisfactory alternative to the classical argument from design, so too could the modern argument be satisfied by some new theory. Russell Stannard, for example, alludes to a new theory that explains the fortuitous arrangement of forces that led to the Big Bang happening in precisely the required manner [p159].

One might criticise this for being a supposition, an argument based on what-might-be. However, all our beliefs are based on supposing that past experiences will be repeated in the future. Prior experience tells me that rain follows black clouds, so I pack an umbrella on this supposition. Similarly, prior experience tells me that scientific puzzles will be resolved. I've no good reason for supposing that this puzzle will be any different from the others.

So do we have enough evidence to give us reason to believe? There is evidence, but it is contested. William Clifford says in no uncertain terms that without sufficient evidence we are absolutely obliged not to form a belief. Such beliefs, even if ultimately proven correct, do harm to mankind and must be avoided. This is an uncompromising view though and should probably be moderated to circumstance. The advancement of science, and many other investigative pursuits, has benefited greatly from speculative leaps of logic that Clifford's views would have us denounce. However, in the case of the argument from design, making a speculative leap is unlikely to gain us anything, but could lead us towards all manner of derivative assumptions that, if wrong, could radically and adversely affect our lives. It is exactly this kind of belief that Clifford was trying to warn us off.

William James would have us believe that this is a momentous decision - one that has to be made and cannot be put off - comparable to deciding whether to leap aside or stay put when standing in front of an oncoming truck. But is it?

The argument for design, even if admitted in full, says only that the universe was designed in advanced by some sort of intelligence. It says nothing of the nature of that intelligence [p78]. If it were to be proven accurate, we would be entitled to ask "So now what?" Just because the universe was designed, does not necessarily have any impact on how we lead our lives. It may have an impact on physicists, who now have to include the question "Why did The Designer make things this way?" but for everyday living it matters not one bit.

So, upon hearing the evidence and not being convinced, am I obliged to decide one way or the other? No. Reserving my judgement until more evidence is unearthed is perfectly acceptable. Making no decision is not the same as deciding there is no designer, just as deciding the Giant's Causeway was formed by cooling basalt is not the same as deciding you don't know what caused it. The scale of the thing in question does not affect the logic.

So, is there good reason to believe in an intelligence behind the design of the universe? I would say no. Postulating the existence of an intelligent designer behind all of creation is a huge logical step, and requires a proof of considerable vigour. No one has yet produced such a proof, and thus we must rely on our own experiences (as recommended by Hume). Yet our experiences are inconclusive. Clifford tell us that in the absence of conclusive evidence we must not form a belief. James tells us that we must form a belief of some sort if it is a momentous decision, even if that belief is based on faith, but I maintain that the existence of an intelligent designer is not such a decision.

Therefore it must be concluded that there is no compelling reason to believe in an intelligence who has designed the universe.

Bibliography

Course Texts
• Book 6 - Destiny, Purpose and Faith
• Cassette 5, side 1