Reading: Paley, “The Analogical Teleological Argument” and Hume, “Critique of the Analogical Teleological Argument”, pp. 212-221.
Reading Guide
Since the teleological argument , a.k.a. the Argument from Design, is the most popular argument for God’s existence, most of you probably have a basic familiarity with the argument. I know that a few of you are also familiar with Paley’s version of the argument.
Paley starts with the simple example of a watch, but he could have used any other complex artifact as an example. He argues that if we found a watch in a meadow and examined its features, we would naturally conclude that the watch was made by a designer. The best explanation of the watch’s apparent design is that the watch is in fact the product of design. He then extends this argument to the natural world, arguing that the features of the watch that lead us to conclude that someone designed it are found to an even greater extent in nature. If these features when found in artifacts imply design, they also imply design when found in nature.
Paley goes into a lot of detail about the watch, but you will find that the details are generally important for developing or understanding the argument. Notice also that Paley separates the question of whether there is a designer from the question of the designer’s attributes.
For a reading guide to Hume, please consult the editors’ excellent summary at the beginning of the article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think Paley is setting himself up for failure. This argument too contains a “God of the gaps’ notion. He uses eyes as an example. What if a biologist says perhaps an organism evolves a photosensitive cell? Then a patch of photosensitive cells. Next the cells may develop a clear film over them for protection. Eventually a fluid could develop between the film and the cells so that there is enough of a focus to make out shapes. Eventually you have an eye, having gotten their through increments, each offering an evolutionary advantage. Suddenly the argument does not seem as strong.
As for Hume, his approach of pointing out the dissimilarity of the analogy is an interesting one, and he certainly gets points for style, more or less implying that dissenters are idiots. Even so, it would seem the critic, in a position to pick apart other arguments, usually has the advantage.
At the conclusion of the teleological argument, Paley presents the idea of imperfection, comparing yet again, the idea of a watch maker and how like the Creator, a watch maker may create a product which may frequently go wrong. Christian scriptures, however, claim that man was made in God's image. How then could God, assumed to be all powerful, create man to have any diabilities or flaws at all. One could argue that it was man's surroundings that simply infringed upon God's creation. The surroundings too, however, were created by God and thus it would be a flaw for them to negatively infringe on another one of his creations. Paley claims that humans are ignorant of the cause of an imperfection and that the cause is something other than the defect of knowledge or of benevolence of the Creator. This too fails to align with the claim that God created man in his own image. I'm confused as to why God would choose to instill imperfection in his creation if He is in fact the creator as written by Paley.
I agree with Jarrod. Paley uses a watch, a man made device, as the object of his argument. His analogy suggests that just as a watch had a creator, so to must existence. But inventions and nature (or the universe) are very different entities. One has had billions of years to progress and evolve. Why must their be some divine creator when all the energy and particles in the universe have had so long to sort themselves out? I understand Paley's argument, however he has only suggested that an unexplained entity may be out there, but that's not enough to convince me of the existence of God.
The only thing I kept thinking while reading the Paley was that, of course things can come together on their own like that, especially the universe. The laws on the universe make it sensible, in fact, which Hume nicely packages near page 218. I'm fairly certain I said, "Yes, that's exactly it!" as I read it.
A watch is made with a purpose, we don't have to say the universe was in the same fashion. The universe is natural, and as far as we can tell, tends toward chaos, not order.
Paley's argument at first seems to make sense, because we would assume that it was created by something or someone- but I argue it's because we feel it would not be found in nature, not so much for the reasons Paley gives. Is Hume entirely correct? Probably not, but it tears a big enough hole in Paley's argument, in my opinion. A creator? Perhaps not.
In regards to this classic analogy I find two objections. The first, and it's a recurring objection for arguments of this type, is "So what?" If you're persuaded by the argument or not, it has the same bearing on your day to day life. From a simple existence argument one cannot deduce a theology.
The second objection is with the argument itself. Paley derives the thrust of his argument from the complexity of a watch as well as its intended use. The two fallacies which glare at me in his analogy to human existence is that he presumes humans have a reason to exist, and that there is an upper limit to complexity which can occur in nature beyond which only an intelligent creator can move beyond.
If Paley can deduce that one God is the maker of all things, then wouldn't it be just as easy to say that an infinite number of Gods are the makers of one thing each? There could be one God who makes humans, one who makes trees, one who makes rocks, etc. Also, Paley assumes that complexity implies design, but there are many examples in nature that are ordered AND follow a natural process, such as diamonds and snowflakes (Wikipedia). Finally, I see Paley's attribution of design flaws, in humans and nature, to our ignorance as a cop-out and a lame unoriginal excuse.
The old version of our textbook omits Hume's critique and I may be commenting from a limited outlook, but I found Paley's argument for intelligent design rather convincing. By framing his argument in a comparison between a rock and watch, Paley draws his audience into acceptence of the proposition prior to its application to divinity. The complexity and purposeful interrelation of parts found in nature cannot be overlooked. Paley claims this infinitely more detailed creation as evidence of intelligent design, regardless of the minor objections that he addresses.
If I have understood correctly, Paley suggests that there are such things in life that work together or function so cohesively and appropriately that there must have been some type of divine creator. From reading a couple of the other posts I can see that I am not the only one who thinks this is a bit of a stretch. I see almost no logical basis for this argument, at least not one that can not just as easily be refuted by someone who believes that these same "entities" are the result of evolution. Paley might as well say that he believes in God because his faith allows him too. Both claims lack a substantial amount of empirical support but, for that same reason, cannot easily be countered.
I liked Paley's approach. When considering evolution, I find it hard to by into because, like with the watch example, there are infinate posibilities in how beings can be formed, why do we not see more diversity in life. Scientists argue that it is natural selection. Natural selection aside, why do we not see more fossil records which would show us this diveristy. What about emotions such as guilt or feelings in general. They do not provide us with any advantage over another human. One would even argue that our emotions make us weak.
I like Paley's argument overall. I could see it making some bit of sense for a theist who attempts to use reason and reasoning for their beliefs. The defense is fairly strong in this case as well. Philo makes a good point in asking why reason has to be the only deciding factor in coming to the God conclusion. His counter referring to some things being able to organize themselves is pretty efficient as well. The imperfections counterargument is one we all know to well. It is similar to the perfect island example fro Guanilo. I think both parties have strong points, but there is not one shining victor in this debate.
Reading this was interesting because my breakfast table was discussing this same issue this morning. There was one kid who was arguing Hume’s point of view (unknowingly) and the rest of the table arguing somewhat Paley’s argument (the creationists). The people in favor of intelligent design kept coming back to the issue that life and the universe and so on are just too complex to have been a result of a random occurrence. They said that odds of what the universe is now happening from nothing is too little and that it means someone (ie God) must have stepped in and done it. But after listening and reading Paley I think that maybe even though the odds are so small that it does not mean that those small odds did not actually happen. Just because it is more than likely that the universe required an intelligent designer doesn’t mean that it actually did. I thought this was an interesting point to make since it was not addressed Hume’s article, I don’t think.
I do not agree with the last part of his argument entirely because he states that the watch sometimes does not function, but it is not the watch makers fault it does not work. If you take this approach that we have complete free will then this makes sense, however he does not state that. If we do not have free will then the argument falls apart. The watch has a maker, however the watch was not made in the watch makers image, he has no control over the watch once it leaves his hands. However, many people do not believe in free will which means that God still has control over what you do to some extent. If this is true, then he can be held responsible for the mistakes of humans.
Post a Comment