ChrisK
18th June 2010, 05:24
I wasn't too sure if I should post this here or in philosophy considering I wrote this for my philosophy of religion class. I criticize the watchmaker argument as being extemely weak.
Throughout the history of Christianity, theologians have tried to prove the existence of God through the use of philosophical arguments. Anslem looked within and used Plato’s forms to prove that a god must exist. Aquinas looked at the world around him and used Aristotelian logic and metaphysics to show God. Both of these arguments are interesting and are very good, though arguably flawed. There is one other that is both more interesting and much more flawed than the others and that is Paley’s watchmaker analogy. Paley’s argument runs into intense criticism from David Hume and is subject to other objections.
Paley’s watchmaker analogy is based on, first, an assumption that one has never seen a watch and has no knowledge of watches. Say that this person is walking through a forest with all of nature around them. There are many things here that are not assumed to be designed, but are just considered to be. Then the person happens upon a working watch. After observing it for a time, the person necessarily will assume that the watch has a creator. This would happen because the person would have seen the watch acting in a clear methodical manner, and the person might even deduce that this object is telling time. She could look inside and see the cogs and wheels working and realize that the watch has a definite order and has a specific purpose. Thus, the watch was made an intelligent designer, who would know the art of watch making.
From this, Paley argues that the natural world is complex and ordered, much like the inner workings of a watch. He further sees all things having a purpose in ordered reality, much like a watches purpose of keeping time. Due to their similarity, Paley argues that if one deduces that the watch has a designer, then one must deduce that the world has a designer. His analogy, while it may seem to be solid, comes under fire from many objections, including those by David Hume.
David Hume wrote multiple responses to Paley’s analogy, many years before Paley wrote his argument. It would have done Paley good to have read Hume’s responses, especially these two. The first objection is that there is no possible way for a universe to exist that does not appear to have an intelligent design. The parts in a universe must have its parts adapted to the others in order for the universe to exist. As an example there would not be fish with gills that couldn’t survive underwater. Hume points out that the Epicureans had a philosophy that explains this appearance of design without turning to God. Instead, there are a set number of atoms that are in constant random motion. With infinite time, going through different combinations, eventually what works would come to be.
However, science has produced a better alterative than Hume’s atoms in random motion; evolution. Darwinian theory postulates that genetic variance in a population can create certain traits that helps the survival of a population and is spread through breeding. Over time, the part of the population that does not have the adaption either die off or breed with those that do have it, giving it to their off spring. This would eventually create the world we live in today and does not require a god, only the ability to reproduce.
Hume’s second objection is that Paley committed the fallacy of weak analogy. Comparing the universe to a human machine works just as well as comparing it to a stock of corn. Replacing “machine” or “watch” with “corn” or “monkey” destroys the analogy as these are both things that have complex interacting parts and these are the very things in question. If the very thing in question can be part of the analogy, then it is both weak and it begs the question, thus creating a poor argument.
One final objection is that the analogy only works because the person doing the thought experiment already knows that the watch has a maker. If one creates another thought experiment, it can be shown that other complex things that seem to serve a purpose don’t necessarily mean that they were designed by an intelligent creator. Assuming that a person has never seen a deer before and has no knowledge of a deer, this person happens upon a deer in the wild. They spend time observing the deer eating, drinking, sleeping, running and other things. They also see inside of the deer and observe their complex inner workings. This person could easily conclude that the deer has an observable purpose within their environment. What this person wouldn’t conclude is that the deer is created by some intelligent designer. Rather, it would be naturally occurring. Ergo, the only reason one would assume the watch has a maker in Paley’s analogy is because one already knows that watches have makers.
The analogy set forth by Paley is an interesting argument for the existence of God. It is, however, riddled with problems of scientific alternatives and a weak analogy. Paley’s argument may be interesting, but it is a weak argument.
Any ideas, criticisms or comments?
Throughout the history of Christianity, theologians have tried to prove the existence of God through the use of philosophical arguments. Anslem looked within and used Plato’s forms to prove that a god must exist. Aquinas looked at the world around him and used Aristotelian logic and metaphysics to show God. Both of these arguments are interesting and are very good, though arguably flawed. There is one other that is both more interesting and much more flawed than the others and that is Paley’s watchmaker analogy. Paley’s argument runs into intense criticism from David Hume and is subject to other objections.
Paley’s watchmaker analogy is based on, first, an assumption that one has never seen a watch and has no knowledge of watches. Say that this person is walking through a forest with all of nature around them. There are many things here that are not assumed to be designed, but are just considered to be. Then the person happens upon a working watch. After observing it for a time, the person necessarily will assume that the watch has a creator. This would happen because the person would have seen the watch acting in a clear methodical manner, and the person might even deduce that this object is telling time. She could look inside and see the cogs and wheels working and realize that the watch has a definite order and has a specific purpose. Thus, the watch was made an intelligent designer, who would know the art of watch making.
From this, Paley argues that the natural world is complex and ordered, much like the inner workings of a watch. He further sees all things having a purpose in ordered reality, much like a watches purpose of keeping time. Due to their similarity, Paley argues that if one deduces that the watch has a designer, then one must deduce that the world has a designer. His analogy, while it may seem to be solid, comes under fire from many objections, including those by David Hume.
David Hume wrote multiple responses to Paley’s analogy, many years before Paley wrote his argument. It would have done Paley good to have read Hume’s responses, especially these two. The first objection is that there is no possible way for a universe to exist that does not appear to have an intelligent design. The parts in a universe must have its parts adapted to the others in order for the universe to exist. As an example there would not be fish with gills that couldn’t survive underwater. Hume points out that the Epicureans had a philosophy that explains this appearance of design without turning to God. Instead, there are a set number of atoms that are in constant random motion. With infinite time, going through different combinations, eventually what works would come to be.
However, science has produced a better alterative than Hume’s atoms in random motion; evolution. Darwinian theory postulates that genetic variance in a population can create certain traits that helps the survival of a population and is spread through breeding. Over time, the part of the population that does not have the adaption either die off or breed with those that do have it, giving it to their off spring. This would eventually create the world we live in today and does not require a god, only the ability to reproduce.
Hume’s second objection is that Paley committed the fallacy of weak analogy. Comparing the universe to a human machine works just as well as comparing it to a stock of corn. Replacing “machine” or “watch” with “corn” or “monkey” destroys the analogy as these are both things that have complex interacting parts and these are the very things in question. If the very thing in question can be part of the analogy, then it is both weak and it begs the question, thus creating a poor argument.
One final objection is that the analogy only works because the person doing the thought experiment already knows that the watch has a maker. If one creates another thought experiment, it can be shown that other complex things that seem to serve a purpose don’t necessarily mean that they were designed by an intelligent creator. Assuming that a person has never seen a deer before and has no knowledge of a deer, this person happens upon a deer in the wild. They spend time observing the deer eating, drinking, sleeping, running and other things. They also see inside of the deer and observe their complex inner workings. This person could easily conclude that the deer has an observable purpose within their environment. What this person wouldn’t conclude is that the deer is created by some intelligent designer. Rather, it would be naturally occurring. Ergo, the only reason one would assume the watch has a maker in Paley’s analogy is because one already knows that watches have makers.
The analogy set forth by Paley is an interesting argument for the existence of God. It is, however, riddled with problems of scientific alternatives and a weak analogy. Paley’s argument may be interesting, but it is a weak argument.
Any ideas, criticisms or comments?