Paley on the “local” argument from design

Question 1

Local vs global

Answer 1

• Paley is local, Cleanthes is global

Question 2

Local argument from design

Answer 2

draws our attention to the resemblance between particular parts of the world and obvious creations of intelligence, then argues that these parts of the world must themselves be creations of intelligence too.

Question 3

priori vs a posteriori

Answer 3

• A proposition is a priori if it can be known or reasonably believed independently of sense experience.
• A proposition is a posteriori if it is not a priori.
• Paley’s argument is a posteriori

Question 4

argument

Answer 4

P1L) Some naturally occurring objects (e.g., eyes) resemble obvious creations of intelligence (e.g., watches) in that they appear to have been designed for a purpose.
(P2L) The only reasonable explanation of this appearance is that natural objects are the creations of an extremely powerful intelligent designer.
(P3L) Inference to the best explanation: When a given
hypothesis is the only reasonable explanation of some fact, then it is reasonable to believe the hypothesis.
(C1) It is reasonable to believe that an extremely powerful intelligent designer exists.
(C2) It is reasonable to believe that God exists

Question 5

why is p1 plausible

Answer 5

As Paley says, the structural complexity and functionality of eyes and such make them appear designed.

Question 6

why is p3 plausible

Answer 6

It is a plausible principle widely employed on philosophy, science, and everyday life.

Question 7

why is p2 plausible

Answer 7

• The central step is P2L, the claim that the only reasonable explanation of the appearance of design is that natural objects are the creations of an extremely powerful intelligent designer.
• Paley accepts the premise because he thinks that the order underlying the appearance of design can be explained only by positing a mind that creates it.