Paley's Design Argument

Question 1

What is Paley’s Teleological Argument based on?

Answer 1

• Paley’s argument is based on observation (empiricism).
• It is a posteriori (post-experience).
• It is inductive and makes inferences.

Question 2

What are the three observations Paley makes in his Design Argument?

Answer 2

• Complexity
• Regularity
• Purpose

Question 3

Explain Paley’s observation on the complexity of the world?

Answer 3

• Paley observes the complexity of the natural world, including the things within it.
• He looks at the complexity of biological organisms and organs, such as the eye.

-He also looks at the complexity of the laws of nature by which everything is governed.

Question 4

Explain Paley’s observation on the regularity of the world?

Answer 4

• Paley particularly observes the regularity of the orbits of comets, moons, and planets.
• He also observes the regularity of the seasons of the year.

Question 5

Explain Paley’s observation on the purpose of the world?

Answer 5

• Paley observes the machines we make and infers they are built for a purpose; their complexity and regularity imply they have a purpose (they serve a particular function).
• Our observation of the complexity and regularity of the world therefore implies the world also has a purpose.

Question 6

Simply summarise the Design Argument:

Answer 6

1. Some objects in the world show clear evidence that they were designed because they exhibit complexity and regularity, from which we can infer that they were made for a purpose.
2. The universe appears to exhibit complexity and regularity, from which we can infer that it was made for a purpose.
3. So it is likely that the universe was designed.
4. In summary: Paley argues inductively from what we can see in the world (appearance of design) back to the supposed cause (God).

Question 7

The book that Paley wrote to describe his argument and analogy:

Answer 7

“Natural Theology”

Question 8

Summarise Paley’s Analogical Design Argument:

Answer 8

1. A watch has complex parts, each with a function, and the parts work together for a specific purpose.
2. So the watch must’ve been made by a watchmaker.
3. Similarly, the universe has parts that function together for a purpose
4. So the universe must’ve been designed by a universe maker
5. The universe is far greater in design than a watch, so its designer must be greater than any human designer.
6. Therefore, the universe designer is God.

Question 9

Quote + Explanation from “Natural Theology”

Answer 9

“Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”

• He is essentially saying that all the conclusions you can make about a watch’s design, in link to its purpose, you can make about the natural world, but on a much larger scale, a scale that goes beyond our understanding.

Question 10

How does FR Tennant’s “The Anthropic Principle” supports this argument:

Answer 10

• He states that there are 30+ “boundary conditions” that have to be “fine-tuned”/perfect for an ordered universe containing intelligent life to develop. (Important boundary condition examples: distance from the sun, force of gravity, expansion rate of the big bang. )
• The odds against all the boundary conditions being at exactly the right settings are colossal. It seems that something must’ve designed it to bring about intelligent being such as ourselves.

Question 11

Contemporary support: John Polkinghorne

Answer 11

• John Polkinghorne is a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest who, much like FR Tennant, agrees that the possibility of the universe’s creation and ability to develop intelligent life/human-kind is so low that it is extraordinary “proof” of the existence of God and his creation of the universe.
• He argues that science shows us a universe that is deeply intelligible, rationally beautiful, finely tuned for fruitfulness, and intrinsically rational…these properties are not just happy accidents. The best explanation is God. The approach is evidence-based, asking how what we observe may best be explained.
• It is not a conclusive argument, but highly suggestive.

Question 12

How does David Hume criticise the Design Argument?

Answer 12

• David Hume argues: Why not many Gods? The argument does not prove the existence of the Christian God.
• Even if we grant that the universe was designed, there is no evidence that this was the God of Christian theism. The universe could’ve been designed by “lesser” beings or by many Gods working together.
• Hume also argues that there could be a possibility that, if the universe was designed by a higher being of some sort, the “perfect” world we live in may have come from multiple trials and errors, and attempts to design a universe fit for intelligent life to develop and live in. But Hume believes that this “higher being” may be “limited” as the world is not perfect, rather, it is full of evil and suffering, suggesting a lack of omnipotence which led to mistakes in the world.

Question 13

How does David Hume criticise Paley’s analogy? (multiple Gods)

Answer 13

• Paley claims that, of course, a watch has a watchmaker, so therefore, the universe must too, and the universe is grander in design to a watch. Hume states that a ship is clearly grander in design to a watch, therefore, it requires multiple makers. It is a fact that a ship cannot be designed and built by one person. Therefore, if the universe does has a maker, and because it is so grand in design, then wouldn’t there be a possibility of multiple designers?

Question 14

How does Hume criticise Paley’s analogy? (vegetable):

Answer 14

• The analogy is flawed- the world is more like a vegetable than a machine.
• Hume states: “The world plainly resembles more an animal or vegetable than it does a watch” because vegetables grow themselves, without the need for a designer.

-This argument has some similarities with evolution, which is also not directed by an external agent, such as God.

Question 15

Hume’s Anthropomorphic Criticism of the Design Argument:

Answer 15

He also suggests that to make an analogy between the designers of human machines and the designer of the universe is an anthropomorphism, which is prohibited in Christianity (or any Abrahamic faiths). To compare an omnipotent and great God to a mere watch-maker, and envision your God creating the universe like a watch-maker is committing anthropomorphism.

Question 16

The Design Argument Criticism: JOHN STUART MILLER

Answer 16

• Miller argues: The natural world is filled with evil and suffering- the creator of this would not be omnibenevolent.
• He states: “Nearly all the things which men are hanged for or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s everyday performances” - J.S Mill observes that nature kills and the natural world is filled with pain and suffering.
• It, therefore, does not suggest the existence of an omnibenevolent creator (one of the key beliefs in Christian theism). This undermines the idea that our observation of the natural world leads us to believe in Christian theism.
  The amount of evil and suffering caused by nature is irreconcilable with the idea of an all-loving designer.

Question 17

A Christian response to J.S Miller’s criticism:

Answer 17

• St Augustine’s argument about the concept of Original Sin, and how Eve’s disobedience to God is what brought about evil into the world.
• BUT, Miller claims that if God was omnibenevolent, as Christians believe, then why are we being punished with so much suffering so many years later because of the mistake of ONE person?

Question 18

The Design Argument Criticism: RICHARD DAWKINS

Answer 18

• Dawkins argues: Evolution and Natural Selection explains the illusion of design. There is no intelligent designer.
• 21st Century scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a book titled “The Blind Watchmaker”.
• He argues that there is no watchmaker- “Natural selection is the watchmaker”. Dawkins believes that humanity needs to “outgrow belief in God”.
• Science can now explain the appearance of design in the universe as being the result of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.
• The world was not designed for us; we adapted to it, which is why our species has survived. He writes “natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view…”

Question 19

The Design Argument Criticism: BERTRAND RUSSEL

Answer 19

• Russel argues : THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS A “BRUTE FACT”.
• …A fact that cannot be further explained or explains itself. He asserted in a famous 1948 radio debate that “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.”
• CRITICAL RESPONSE: Leibniz’s “Principle of Sufficient Reason” (everything must have a sufficient reason for existing)

Question 20

How does Paley’s Design Argument provide “proof” of a God?

Answer 20

• Most things we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments. They are accepted as “true beyond reasonable doubt”. The stronger the evidence is, the more probably true a claim is.
• Many theists may be satisfied that the argument offers proof because it is consistent with their pre-existing beliefs and world view. It is consistent with Biblical teaching (“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earths”). Theists may see this rationally and empirically based argument as providing “proof” for their religious beliefs.
• The argument uses observation/empiricism - this is a popular way of attaining proof in the 21st century.

Question 21

How does Paley’s Design Argument NOT provide proof of a God?

Answer 21

• Only deductive arguments can offer absolute proof. The Design Argument is inductive, so can never be absolutely certain. (Pacal: “it has little impact”.)
• Richard Dawkins has demonstrated significant flaws to the argument. (“The Blind Watchmaker”).
• Even if it did prove design, it cannot prove who the designer is (this part of the argument requires faith). God being the designer has not been empirically proven by Paley.
• There are credible alternative explanations for the appearance of design- they undermine the argument’s status as proof. An atheist is unlikely to be satisfied by the Design Argument because these alternative explanations to demonstrate that the argument is outdated/incorrect/flawed.
• Fidiests (believe Knowledge of God is through faith alone) would argue that Natural Theology cannot lead to Knowledge of God. It is impossible to “know” God in this way. Religion is a matter of faith, rather than objective proof.

Question 22

How is Paley’s Design Argument valuable to religious faiths?

Answer 22

• Pope John Paul II authored the encyclical “Fides et Ratio” (1988). He asserts that reason and faith are mutually supportive- “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”. This argument compliments faith- faith is beyond reason but not contrary to reason.
• John Polkinghorne: “Faith is motivated belief, based on evidence.”
• Paley’s argument is rationally and empirically based. His reasoning and use of empiricism therefore provides strong support for theists. It gives them a “reasoned defence of their fair” (Ludwig Wittgenstein).
• It is consistent with Biblical teachings (e.g Genesis 1:1). It confirms the Biblical teaching that there is a “guiding hand” directing nature in a purposeful way.
• Paley’s argument gives evidence to support the “belief that” God exists. His description of the universe’s design encourages “belief” in God (H.H Price).

Question 23

How is Paley’s Design Argument NOT valuable to religious faiths?

Answer 23

• Pascal: Faith is a matter of the heart, not just reason. “We know the truth, not only through our reason, but also through our heart” - The existence of God is not something that can be proved.
• For Fideists, rational arguments play no part in faith as they do not lead to commitment. Belief in God must be based on “faith alone” - you cannot try to “prove” God exists in this way.
• Paley’s argument does not successfully address the Problem of Evil. This may restrict its value for faith in an omnibenevolent God.