Nowadays, most Christian theologians, in defending theism, put forward the design argument against the arguments of scientists who, by appealing to chance, seek to render God unnecessary in explanation. Over time, the argument from design has been presented under various rubrics and interpretations—sometimes intertwined—in support of theism. It appears that the design argument was initially employed to complement knowledge of God, but over time, it has shifted its focus toward biological and empirical aspects that indicate the order of nature. In the present era, the primary aim of this argument is to defend theism against atheistic theories in the empirical sciences rather than to establish the purposiveness of existence. However, this formulation of the argument from design has not achieved the necessary success in proving God’s existence. Therefore, in this study, by elucidating the methodology of the empirical sciences and demonstrating the incompatibility of the design argument with this methodology, it becomes clear that one cannot rely solely on the design argument to counter atheism. In this way, it is shown that the intelligent design argument, in rejecting chance, lacks a demonstrative structure and not only fails to prove God but also falls short of establishing anything beyond what atheists themselves propose. Hence, one can draw upon the common ground between theology and science—namely, the metaphysical foundations of science—to advance empirical evidence in favor of theism. Accordingly, by employing a philosophical approach and enhancing the natural argument, this argument can be utilized as a strong proof for the existence of God.
Keywords |
- Alston, W. P. (1967). Teleological argument for the existence of God. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 8). USA: Macmillan.
- Aquinas, T. (1992). Summa Theologica. In M. J. Adler & D. J. Sullivan (Eds.), Great books of the Western world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Behe, M. J. (2001). Molecular machines: Experimental support for design inference. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. xx–xx). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Coyne, J. (2001). Creationism by stealth. Nature, 410(April 12), 745–746.
- Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why evolution is true. Penguin.
- Craig, W. L. (2003). Design and the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. xx–xx). London & New York: Routledge.
- Davies, P. (1983). God and the new physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (30th anniversary ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
- Dembski, W. (2001). Intelligent design as a theory of information. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. xx–xx). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Forrest, B. (2001). The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. 5–53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Forrest, B., & Gross, P. (2003). Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Geisler, N. (2016). Philosophy of religion. (H.R. Ayatollahi, vol. 1). Tehran: Hekmat. [In Persian]
- Gilson, E. (1987). Medieval philosophy. (A.M. Davoudi, trans.). Tehran: Institute for Cultural Studies and Research. [In Persian]
- Gilson, (1996). Foundations of Christian philosophy. (M. Mohammadrezaei and M. Mousavi, trans.). Qom: Islamic Propagation Office. [In Persian]
- Hospers, J. (1992). Philosophy of religion (an analytic critique of arguments for God’s existence). Translated by the translation and edition group of the Center for Islamic Studies and Research. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office. [In Persian]
- Ibn Ṣinā. (1982). Al-Ishārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt. Qom: Daftar Nashr al-Kitā [In Arabic]
- Javadi Amoli, A. (1996). Tabyīn-i barāhīn-i ithbāt-i khudā. Qom: Esra. [In Persian]
- Kant, I. (1929). Critique of pure reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). London: Macmillan Press.
- Motahari, M. (1971). Uṣūl-i falsafih va ravish-i riʾālīsm. Qom: Islāmī [In Persian]
- Motahari, M. (1995). Tawḥīd. Qom: Sadra. [In Persian]
- Nussbaum, M. (1995). Aristotle. (E. Fouladvand, trans.). Tehran: Tarh-e Now. [In Persian]
- Obudiyat, A. (2001). Darāmadī bih niẓām-i ḥikmat-i Ṣadrāʾī. (Vol. 2). Qom: Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute. [In Persian]
- Pailin, D. (1986). Groundwork of philosophy of religion. London: Epworth Press.
- Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Reichenbach, H. (2014). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. (M. Akrami, trans.). Tehran: Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian]
- Ṣadrā, M. (1981). Al-Ḥikmat al-mutaʿāliya fī al-asfār al-ʿaqliyyat al-arbaʿa. Qom: Mostafavi. [In Arabic]
- Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God. Oxford University Press.
- Ussery, D. (2001). The stealth creationists. Skeptic, 8(4), 72–74.
- Weiner, P. (2006). Dictionary of the history of ideas. Tehran: Saad. [In Persian]
|
