|
A. The inference would be inevitable from the
intricate design to a maker who constructed and designed its use. |
|
B. The inference is as follows... |
|
|
watch : watchmaker :: universe :
universe-maker |
| II. Paley thinks the following excuses (i.e.,
possible objections) cannot be accepted. |
|
A. We never knew an artist
capable of making a watch (a universe). |
|
|
Paley's response: Just because we don't
know who the artist might be, it doesn't follow that we don't know that there is one. |
|
|
Counter-objection: The last term of the
analogy, "the universe-maker" is beyond the bounds of possible experience. This
disanalogy is substantial. |
|
B. The watch (universe) does
not work perfectly; the designer is not evident. |
|
|
Paley's response: It is not necessary to
show that something is perfect in order to show that there is a design. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Given natural disasters
and nonmoral evil in the world, it would seem to indicate that the designer is not all
good or not all-powerful. The problem of evil is an
important consideration in the qualities of the maker. |
|
C. Some parts of the watch (the
universe) seem to have no function and so would seemingly not be designed. |
|
|
Paley's response: Simply because we do not
know the function of the parts does not imply that there is no function. The design is
evident from the rest of the watch (the universe). |
|
|
Counter-objection: The argumentum ad ignorantiam works both ways; from
the fact that something has not been proved, no conclusion can be drawn. |
|
D. The watch (universe) is only
one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. |
|
|
Paley's response: The design can't be a
result of chance; no person in his senses could believe this. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Paley's response is an ad hominem. It is the nature of the human mind to impose
order on things whether of not order is present. (E.g., in any finite sequence of
random numbers, a rule or order can be invented by which those numbers can be generated.) |
|
E. There is a law or principle
that disposed the watch (universe) to be in that form. |
|
|
Paley's response: The existence of a law
presupposes a lawgiver with the power to enforce the law. The principle cannot cause the
watch (the universe) to exist. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Paley confuses
descriptive law with prescriptive law (i.e., the fallacy of equivocation). Prescriptive law does imply a
lawgiver, and prescriptive laws can be broken (e.g., speed limits, rules of
behavior). Descriptive laws do not imply a law-giver, and descriptive laws cannot be
broken (one exception disproves the law, e.g., gravity, f = ma.) |
|
F. The watch (the universe) is
no proof of contrivance; only motive induces the mind to think that it is. |
|
|
Paley's response: The design is evident to
an impartial person. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Again, it is the nature of mind to
see relationships; remember the number sequence above. Consider the following picture to
the right. Is the pattern a circle, a pentagon, a star, an automaker's symbol, or a
Renaissance man? |
 |
|
G. The watch (the universe)
came about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. |
|
|
Paley's response: Law presupposes
a lawgiver. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Again Paley confuses
descriptive and prescriptive law. Q.v., E above. |
|
H. One knows nothing at all
about the matter. |
|
|
Paley's response: Certainly, by seeing the
parts of the watch (the universe), one can know the design. |
|
|
Counter-objection: Another argumentum
ad ignorantiam--from the fact that something is not proved, no conclusion follows. |
| III. Paley's summation: Every
manifestation of design in the watch is part of, and is surpassed in, the works of nature. |
| Suggested Reading: |
| David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion (1779). |
Philosophy 102:
Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry
