Paley's Design Argument for God

[2ndRateMind]

So, this idea is deceptively simple.

If I am walking on a beach, and see a stone, it is no great surprise. The stone is a common, simple object, with simple physical and chemical properties, and needs no explanation.

If I am walking on a beach, and come across a watch, then Paley thinks I should have more respect. A watch is not random, and could not have occurred by random processes. Indeed, the watch is a complex object, built with a specific purpose, to tell the time, and Paley thinks that I should thus infer and deduce from the existence of the watch I have found, the existence of a watch-designer and maker unknown to me. Seems reasonable.

By analogy, Paley then argues that the existence of the world, indeed, the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines, suggests the existence of a universe designer, and maker, commonly known as God.

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?
Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

As before, Paley's Design Argument comprises part of the syllabus of my course of study, and, as before, all your various perspectives will be interesting and useful to me.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Divine Insight]

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?
Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

This is an extremely flawed argument because this argument attempts to make an analogy between a mechanical non-living watch and living animals.

Living animals evolve. A non-living watch clearly could not evolve on its own. Therefore a watch had to be manufactured in its final state.

This is not the case with living animals. Therefore this entire argument ignores evolution entirely.

So today this argument is not only grossly flawed, but it's actually quite dishonest. Although to be fair, it wasn't dishonest in Paley's day because evolution wasn't yet fully understood or shown to be true in Paley's day.

Today Paley's argument is akin to arguing against evolution by arguing that to believe in evolution would be no different from believing that a hurricane could hit a garbage dump and leave behind in its wake an entire neighborhood of neatly built homes with pristine lawns that had just accidentally happened to be the result of the garbage being blown around by the wind.

The watchmaker argument is equally dishonest when argued today. Although, as I've already pointed out, it wasn't dishonest in Paley's day because evolution wasn't yet understood in his day.

Modern theists all too often make extremely dishonest arguments like this, and even refuse to acknowledge the dishonesty of their arguments even after the dishonesty has been pointed out repeatedly. To continue to make Paley's argument today is to make a dishonest argument.

It was an argument that was made prior to our understanding of biological evolution.

It's simply no longer valid today.

Today we understand why a watch cannot evolve and an animal can.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hmmm. I tend to agree with you about evolution. Any respectable theory of life, the universe, and everything, needs to encompass Darwin within its remit. Nevertheless, one can conceive of a God who designed the physical, chemical and biological laws that make evolution possible, as concluding that it would be 'a good thing' if they existed, and contriving a universe in which they did.

The immediate problem I have with Paley, however, is not his inference that God exists, but his idea that he knows the purpose of the universe, in the same way that he knows the purpose of a watch. That he can conceive of the complexity of both does not seem to me to be the same as conceiving the purpose of both. And without any explicit purposes in the creation, where is the justification for believing in a purposeful creator?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Adan53]

Living animals evolve. A non-living watch clearly could not evolve on its own. Therefore a watch had to be manufactured in its final state.

A virus is not a "living animal", yet it's kind can evolve. Paley's watch could reproduce, and in my thinking that is all that you need for evolution. So, his argument is as valid today as it was when first proposed, if all you are concerned about is the ability to evolve.

SUPPOSE, in the next place, that the person who found the watch, should, after some time, discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing, in the course of its movement, another watch like itself (the thing is conceivable); that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts, a mould for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, files, and other tools, evidently and separately calculated for this purpose; let us inquire, what effect ought such a discovery to have upon his former conclusion.

[wiploc]

The way I remember it, he proved that the watch was manufactured.

Then he just stopped. He had no argument that the rock was manufactured, so he just stopped. He never actually made an argument for the existence of gods.

[2ndRateMind]

The way I remember it, he proved that the watch was manufactured.

Then he just stopped. He had no argument that the rock was manufactured, so he just stopped. He never actually made an argument for the existence of gods.

Hmmm. I am not sure this is quite right. It is certainly true that when, in Chapter 1, of Natural Theology, 1802, he discusses the stone and the watch, he makes no specific claims about God. We have to wait until Chapter 3 before Paley even mentions the words 'deity', 'creator', and 'God'. But we know where he is headed, by the title of the work, and by the culminating chapter titles of 23, 24, 25, etc, 'Of the personality of the Deity', 'Of the natural attributes of the Deity', 'The unity of the Deity', respectively, and onwards to the conclusion 'Natural religion prepares the way for revelation'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

Thanks. Maybe I read an excerpt.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 7 by wiploc]

No worries.

Just to keep this thread rolling on, here is what I perceive to be the bare bones of Paley's argument, as sympathetic to him as I can assemble them:

The universe is complex
The universe is regular
Complex and regular things have a purpose (by analogy with the watch)
Therefore, the universe probably has a purpose
Things that have a purpose are deliberately designed and made to fulfil that purpose
Therefore, if the universe probably has a purpose, then it probably has a deliberate, purposeful designer and maker, commonly known as God.

Paley's argument is inductive, meaning that it is not a certain proof, just that its conclusion is probable, and consistent with observed facts.

You are all welcome to dive in and criticise. (Either Paley, or my paraphrase of him).

Best wishes, 2RM

[Tcg]

By analogy, Paley then argues that the existence of the world, indeed, the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines, suggests the existence of a universe designer, and maker, commonly known as God.

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?

Not at all.

Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

Of course there is a flaw. If the existence of the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines as you describe it, suggests the existence of a universe designer, imagine how huge and complex the thing must be that designed the "universe designer". God's god so to speak. Then ponder how great the creator of god's god must be.

We are left with an endless list of creator gods. Each one greater and more complex than the previous. Where do you stop? That's the problem. Following this "Argument for God", you can't.

[2ndRateMind]

By analogy, Paley then argues that the existence of the world, indeed, the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines, suggests the existence of a universe designer, and maker, commonly known as God.

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?

Not at all.

Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

Of course there is a flaw. If the existence of the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines as you describe it, suggests the existence of a universe designer, imagine how huge and complex the thing must be that designed the "universe designer". God's god so to speak. Then ponder how great the creator of god's god must be.

We are left with an endless list of creator gods. Each one greater and more complex than the previous. Where do you stop? That's the problem. Following this "Argument for God", you can't.

That's all fine. But I cannot help but notice that city planners, who design whole communities, and allocate commercial, industrial and residential zones, and the intricate network of roads, electricity, gas and telecommunications that connect them all in ever more complex ways, are somewhat smaller and less imposing than their creations. One does not need an endless succession of city designers, each greater than and more imposing than the last, to design a city. So, why should we need an endless succession of Gods, each more magnificent than the God subsequent, to create the universe?

All we need is one, adequate God, to do the job. And anything else is superfluous.

Best wishes, 2RM.