1. William Paley’s Teleological argument is a posteriori claim that is based off of experiences to prove God’s existence through his design in creation. These experiences are keen on observing objects and their significance. Paley’s view of the teleological argument is presented in “The Argument from Design”, where he expresses his concern towards a wrist watch. His argument states that if an individual stumbled upon a watch one must conclude that its sophisticated design solely exists because of God’s existence. The watch is put together in such an intricate and precise way that one must conclude its complexity is due to the presence of a greater being. According to Paley it is inevitable to suggest the design of the watch had originated from an omniscient being, “there cannot be a design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging”. It is irrational for an individual to believe that the intelligible mechanism was contrived with its …show more content…
The basis of support for Paley’s argument is that the watch has a designer, who is the designer of the universe, and the creator of the complex universe is God. The watch has complex functioning since it is the design of an intelligent being which is similar to other phenomenas that have like explanations. The world is composed of complex artifacts, therefore there has to be an intelligent designer. Stumbling across the watch on the ground was no accident unlike finding a stone, therefore the universe could not have been an accident. Every piece specifically designed in the watch has a purpose. Yet, everything is not perfectly designed in the world, similar to how parts of the watch contain its imperfections. Paley suggests that just because we do not know the purpose of certain pieces of the watch does not imply that they have no function. This is parallel to how each artifact in the universe is so sophisticatedly designed for certain
In fact however, Paley was not talking about a watch. Paley was talking about the universe, with the watch as a metaphor. The universe is obviously much more complex than a watch and they both serve a purpose. The gears in the watch function to tell us time. He also listed a supernatural being as the creator of the makings of the “Watch,” that every living thing, rock, drop of water, and the heavens above were created by a supernatural, all seeing being. Though Paley never says that the “creator” is God, one can assume according to other people’s perspectives that the creator would be, and that the pieces of nature were the equivalent of the parts of a watch that keep it ticking and combining in effort to contribute to a bigger purpose. This bigger purpose however is needing the efforts of those below it, or else nothing else would work, as stated by Paley.
The ability to compare the universe to a watch allows for familiarity, which is what I believe draws agreement and acknowledgement of his argument. It is thought that, as humans, we have at least one person in existence that is aware of how to put together a properly functioning watch, and we know that a watch needs to be put together intelligently. Given Paley’s reasoning he presents that the world is also intricately made which creates a parallel between a watch in the universe, giving individuals a sense of familiarity. As such, it naturally follows that there ought to be a universe maker, or God, who appears to be the only one capable of doing such a thing. Primarily, my concern is that the intelligent maker must be God; Paley merely assumes that the reader agrees and gives no further insight on why the creator must be God. Furthermore, he assumes the universe works without proof or any real knowledge which seems a rather fatal flaw. It is irresponsible to believe that the universe works the way we assume to fulfill our desire to explain the existence of God, similar to Mackie’s objection to the cosmological argument (Mackie 171). I do not believe Paley’s argument survives Hume’s objection due to the necessity of experience. He merely uses analogy to justify his claim; the only difference is that he has experience with a watch and none in regards to the universe. Again, he is
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
The teleological argument begins by stating a special kind of argument, an a posteriori argument. An a posteriori argument is an argument based on the knowledge of experiences encountered in the world. For Paley, the a posteriori argument is established as he imagines himself nature walking, only to stumble upon a watch: a pocket watch, whose function is made visible through a transparent glass and made possible through gears and springs. Paley retrieves the watch and questions how such an object came to be in the middle of vegetation and is easily intrigued to reflect about the nature of the watch. Let us reflect about the physical attributes of the watch. Imagine for a second that the body of the watch was covered in highly polished gold metal and in the middle of its body laid a transparent glass. The glass lets us see two disproportionate metallic rods whose ends are encrusted with small diamonds. Apart from ...
In very complex machines, missing or undiscovered parts are more likely to arise; yet, such disorder would no doubt make an individual more curious as to the objects purpose. Although in some cases, a part may seem useless, the individual would continue to question and wonder what purpose that part serves. No one could believe that the watch was assembled together with sheer luck; therefore, an intelligent designer exists. The watch is definitely not made by the principle of order and it is not believable to say or think that the watch was not invented. Design cannot exist without the designer. Every appearance of design, which exists in the watch, exists in the works of nature. While the world is far more complex than a simplistic instrument, like a watch, it is no different when compared at the base levels, especially when seeing that both are so mechanical, showing elements of order.
The Teleological argument, given by William Paley in 1802 states that there is a “Designing Creator”, and that everything in this world has been designed to fulfill some sort of function. He bases this argument using a traditional time piece, a watch, as an analogy. Paley states that the watch, unlike a stone or a rock, could not have been placed or created by accident, and that the existence of a watch is proof that there must be a watchmaker. He compares this watch to the existence of the universe, stating that the universe itself is proof that there is some sort of designer present, and like a watch (but unlike a rock or stone) could not have been created by accident. He then continues to state that further evidence of a God can be found in the supposed “regularity” of the universe. Paley claims that due to the universe behaving in a very apparent manner, while retaining boundaries (Newtons laws of motion, etc) that this is a very apparent display of a God having rule over a very mechanical universe. Now Darwin on the other hand was a large
The reason why the argument fails is because Paley put’s emphasis on giving things a single sole purpose. If things had multiple purposes from Paley’s point of view then it would be a lot more difficult to strike the argument down. This argument also shows the 3 point rule god. Paley has shown in this argument that god is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. The argument also gives a good argument as to how certain things must have intelligent design in order for it to be created. This is where I believe it mostly thrives. If we were to look at another argument like The Ontological Argument it states that the greatest thing that we can conceive exists in the mind, but it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind, but if nothing greater than god can be conceived in the mind then god must exist in reality. This argument can easily be torn apart if someone just believes that god is not the greatest thing that can be conceived. It also does not prove god’s existence throughout the world physically, but with the mind. Where as Paley’s argument shows god through the “creations” he has created and explaining how god is the
Many people believe that being very technologically advanced is the best thing for society, but not many people know that technology can also be the worst thing for society. In the novel A Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, technology is shown as a harmful thing. Having too much technology is potentially harmful as shown through the use Soma, the reproduction process in the world state, and the World State's method of determining social class.
Harold’s watch is a central part of his life as it times and maintains his uptight lifestyle. The opening scene is a close-up of his watch, beeping and glowing on the bedside table. The narrator also says, “this is a story about a man named Harold Crick... and his wristwatch.” The viewer immediately becomes aware of the importance of Harold's wristwatch and is forewarned of its significance in the story and in his life. Furthermore, the lack of sound and music in this scene, other than the beeping from his wristwatch, highlights that this is the most important object in the room, as well as in his life.
He had two different approaches to how the universe was created. Paley compared a watched the way the universe, he thought the world was like a machine it must have a des... ... middle of paper ... ... nthropic Principle’ believed that ‘Nature produces living beings but with fine tuning that is found in the universe; life could just as easily not developed into earth’ I think that this quote is trying to say that the universe has been developed by evolution and was created by God, a designer.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
William Paley develops his view of the design argument through an example of a wristwatch. He has the reader imagine themselves coming across a watch on the ground. He then asks the reader how they think the watch came to be there or came to exist in the first place. Looking at the watch, Paley says that one will notice the intricate design of the watch and notice that all the parts were put together in such a way to serve a purpose, namely, to tell time. Paley believes that from looking at the watch we will be lead to think that the watch has a clever designer. The watch displays a certain evidence of its own design.
While several argue against the teleological argument speculate that we need to live in a society where truth is known, many of them can be easily diminished. While few would say that living in a society where people could lie would ruin society, our happiness ties up the need for truth on how to successfully live our lives. If teleology is about promoting happiness, people would be inclined to tell the truth if it had a better effect on the world. Whereas if lying in the situation of “does this dress make my butt look big?” could bring happiness and less suffering in the world when you lie. But what about promise keeping? While yes, as stated earlier we are happiest when we can trust our society which means we are told the truth, breaking
Paley’s analogy came about from the concept of a stone. He encountered this stone during his walk and wondered how it came about (Paley, 1802, 196). He applies the idea that since a designer must have created this stone, this designer must have created other things just like how a watch is created by a watchmaker. His analogy for a watch and its watch maker becomes his key argument because he argues that you cannot come to a conclusion that a stone was formed by a natural process, just like how when you look at a watch it has a watchmaker (Paley, 1802, 96). When comparing it to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it.
Proceeding that, Paley introduces his second argument that constructs upon believing in the design of the watch. The stone’s design is not of much interest as that of the watch. Since there exists a design, there must be a designer for that matter. Thirdly, the purpose of some parts of the watch might remain unknown; however, the more complex the parts are, the more likely that one would believe in a designer. Since the stone is still and simple, one would ignore the creation in comparison to that of the watch. In addition to all, the completion of the material provokes the thoughts of the designer’s existence. On the other hand, the last three arguments presented summarise in the purpose of believing in a watchmaker. If one does not believe, he will remain unanswered, filled with void, shocked and scared of the unknown. The meaning of the watch is power of a