William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
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 is 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 back to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it. He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer would be God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/ thought to design, and argument from design...
... middle of paper ...
...hat the universe is not the same as a human and these two vastly different ideas cannot be compared with each other, Paley argues that the purpose of a watch in terms of its function and complexity, that it had to be created by a designer. Same goes for humans. Hume proves that Paley has a weak conclusion by stating that this does not prove that there is a God, just someone of higher intelligence.
Works Cited
Projman, Louis P., and Fieser James. Introduction to Philosophy – Classic and Contemporary
Readings Fourth Edition. A Critique of the Telelogical Argument, 1779, David Hume,
199-205. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2008
Pojman, Louis P., and Fieser, James. Introduction to Philosophy - Classic and Contemporary
Readings Fourth Edition. The Watch and the Watchmaker, 1802, William Paley, 196-
198. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2008.
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
Beuchamp, Tom (ed), David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ( Oxford University Press 1999).
During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and lastly, the supreme being is compared to the supreme being in Western Philosophy, God.
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.
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.
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
What I found important in this reading is the basis of Paley’s idea, the watchmaker. Paley believes that design implies that there is a designer. He uses the analogy of a watch to show that in order for a watch to work it needs a spring or someone to make the watch work. He compares this to the idea of natural theology and that in order for the intelligent design of the universe to happen there needs to be a designer. This idea then becomes the
Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature. Excerpts from Book III. Part I. Sect. I-II.”
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
...onversation among three individuals who have different beliefs. The aspect of the argument of design is an important one because it sheds light on Hume’s belief once Philo and Demea prove that the argument is weak. Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.
A Christian apologetic method is a verbal defense of the biblical worldview. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. This paper will address the philosophical question of God’s existence from the moral argument. The presuppositional apologetic method of Reformed thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame will be the framework. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture.
Hume, D. (1748). Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding. In T.S. Gendler, S. Siegel, S.M. Cahn (Eds.) , The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present (pp. 422-428). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.