|
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
