William Paley set out to create a logical argument called “The Watchmaker Argument” which proves the existence of a creator, and therefore, the existence of God. In “Natural Theology”, Paley argues that due to the complex nature and resemblance of purpose in reality, the universe must have had a creator. Paley’s argument would seem to make sense, however, when put under modern day scrutiny, it does not hold up to the degree that it was originally intended to. Throughout this essay, I will argue that Paley’s watchmaker analogy is not a logical argument by pointing out the major flaws contained in it, and how they coexist to prove the argument is false. I will firstly give a quick overview of my argument, followed by Paley’s argument for reference. …show more content…
Following this, my premises will be explained, demonstrated and verified using standard logical form. Firstly, Paley’s watchmaker argument is not logically sound, containing numerous logical fallacies. Secondly, the premises and conclusion of the argument are based on an unacceptable level of assumption. Lastly, that the common argument of the complexity and purpose of life needing a creator stems from a lack of understanding of evolution, and that evolution is the most probable ‘creator’, so to speak. All of this gives sufficient reason to deem Paley’s argument (although it would have made sense in his time period), completely unreasonable. Before I bring up my main premises against the logical structure of Paley’s argument, it is only fair that I present his argument, as a source of reference for my own argument. Paley’s watchmaker argument is as follows: 1. The universe (or life) is similar to a watch in terms of the complexity and subjective purpose. 2. A watch must be designed, as it cannot form itself. C. Therefore, the universe (or life) must have a creator. (There are other versions of this argument, however this is the most concise one). With Paley’s argument presented, I will now clarify key terms, which I will be using in my essay. Firstly, I will define a fallacy as faulty or inconclusive reasoning. Secondly I will define the fallacies I will be exposing. Fallacy of Composition refers to when a conclusion is drawn about a whole, based on limited features. False cause is the assumption that because something occurred after an event, that event was the cause of something occurring. Lastly, the appeal to ignorance refers to the false belief of an argument being true, because it has not been proven false. I will now provide by reasons to support my first premise, which is that Paley’s Argument is invalid due to incapacitating fallacies.
To begin with, Paley’s watchmaker argument contains a major Fallacy of composition. Paley explains: “Every indicator of contrivance … which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature”.6 This statement infers that like a watch, nature exhibits the same complexity and perceived purpose, and therefore, like a watch, must require a designer. This statement is completely invalid as it assumes because the individual parts of a watch are made for a purpose and are complex, so to must the parts of the universe, and therefore the universe has a creator, which is extremely irrational.
Secondly, the watchmaker argument, in its entirety, is a false cause fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). Paley correctly argues that as a watch is complex it needs a creator. Where he makes an error is when he states because the universe is much more complex, it also must have a more powerful creator. This is incorrect, as it is not logically sound to suggest that just because the universe is complex, it requires a creator. The presumption is as follows: Watch > complex > creator = nature > complex > creator. The argument incorrectly assumes that if a creator came before the universe, he must have created it, which is a false cause
fallacy. Lastly, Paley’s argument includes an appeal to ignorance, as it assumes that complexity necessitates a designer, simply because there was no explanation or evidence to the contrary. Humanities current knowledge, along with normative logical reasoning, both prove my premise that Paley’s argument is invalid, and therefore illogical, and cannot be rationally understood, due to many inconsistencies and fallacies. I have just explained my first premise, being that Paley’s argument is invalid. I will now present my second premise, which is that the watchmaker argument is based on a remarkably faith based level of assumption. Before I begin, I will mention a few important things in order to again, prevent confusion. I am not necessarily referring to religion when I use the word faith. I am using the word faith defined as “belief not based on proof”. Now, to begin my argument: Paley argues that a watch, having complexity and purpose, must have a creator. Therefore, as the universe or nature is complex and seems created for a purpose, it requires a creator too. This jump of assumption is not liable in such an important and influential argument from a highly respected philosopher. As previously mentioned, this problem is the false cause fallacy. It is not true to wildly assume from absolutely no understanding of the material world, that because it is complex, or seems to have a purpose, it must have been designed. This jump from a simple watch to the complexity of the universe is completely irrational in all respected schools of critical thinking, as it is a well-known fallacy. Following on from the previous two premises, I will argue that this assumption results in a kind of circular reasoning and argument from repetition (Side note: I know what I am trying to argue however I cannot find the correct fallacy, the ones I have listed are the closest). From my understanding of logical reasoning, any attempt to logically establish that an intelligent being created the universe will lead to an infinite loop, which can resemble circular reasoning. For example, when a proponent argues (as above): “The universe is complex and seems to have a purpose, so like a watch, it must have a creator”, it is logically flawed. The specific error here is an argument from repetition (Argumentum Ad Nauseam). The fact that according to the previous argument an intelligent designer created the universe, also logically follows to assuming this intelligent designer must be complex and have a purpose. So it is logically to be assumed that an intelligent designer also designed the intelligent designer, who created that intelligent designer, ad infinitum. In conclusion to this premise, Paley’s argument contains an unacceptable level of assumption, which leads to a major fallacy of repetition and therefore must be rendered null. Having just presented my first two premises, I will now present my final premise. I will debunk the common argument of the complexity and purpose of the eye, and why intelligent design of life and nature is against reasoning and logic. I will begin by acknowledging the complexity of the eye, as it is a wondrous organ, which seems to be perfectly designed for a purpose, which is seeing. However, this is just not the case. A creator did not design the human eye. In reality, the human eye is the result of necessity and advantage in terms of evolutionary survival. ; The change over time can be laid down solely to DNA and gene shuffling. It is empirical fact, backed by undisputable evidence, that when offspring of a species are produced, the DNA and genetic information are very slightly changed due to errors made in DNA replication. This process, over time, is what creates changes in species, and in the long run, is the cause of evolution. With this taken into account, the most probable way the eye developed was a growth of light sensitive cells, which grew through a random genetic mutation. Over time, random mutations gradually caused an eye socket shaped structure to form layers in light receptive tissue, which could tell which direction the light was coming from. After many, many mutations, nature, and the conditions that early human ancestors had to live in, favoured better eyesight. In support of my argument that the eye is not intelligently designed, Professor Trevor D. Lamb goes on to say that “The vertebrate eye, far from being intelligently designed, contains numerous defects that attest to its evolutionary origin.” Some of these defects are blood vessels across the surface of the retina, the optic nerve creating a blind spot, and an inside out retina. These defects further prove that the eye is not perfectly designed by a creator. The intelligent design aspect of purpose in the eye should also be discussed. The eye’s purpose is certainly to see. However, applying the human concept of purpose to evolution is only for naming, just as a car drives or a bird flies. It is not possible to apply purpose to evolution, as evolution creates the illusion of purpose, as all species seem to fit in perfectly, as a result of millions of years of Darwinian survival. Regardless of this, if we were to apply the human concept of purpose to the eye starting from the first light receptive cells and ending in the current eye, it would be similar to the following. A growth of light receptive cells would serve the ‘purpose’ of being able to tell the difference between light and dark, therefore day and night. Once the socket formed, it would be possible to detect where light was coming from. For species which lived in conditions where being able to ‘see’ gave them better chances of survival, the eye further developed into what it is today, providing a reasonable image quality and sound detection of the electromagnetic spectrum, although only the visible spectrum. 14 Taking all this evidence in account, it provides logical and reasonable permission to label the argument from design out-dated, incorrect and irrational, and that evolution is a more suitable explanation. With my main premises against Paley’s watchmaker argument laid out, I will present the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion can be narrowed down to the three premises. Firstly, the argument is full of fallacies as explained previously. Secondly, the argument is based on assumption. Lastly, the complexity of life needing a creator stems from a lack of understanding of evolution, and that evolution is more likely. With these previously explained, this provides enough evidence for the conclusion. The final conclusion is as follows: As all of the premises are not acceptable, and the conclusion certainly does not follow from the premises, Paley’s Watchmaker argument is a poorly structured argument and in conclusion, is ought not to be believed.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
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.
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.
Ms. Nelle Lee is the author of “To kill a Mockingbird” which is a very famous 20th century novel. Recently “Go Set a Watchman” which is a sequel to her previous book was controversially published. Lee is very old and in bad health. Some people believe she never wanted “Go set a Watchman” published. Other people thought that she did want this book published. One of these people is her lawyer Tonja Carter. Carter is the spokesperson for Ms. Lee since Lee is mostly deaf and blind. The people who believe Lee did not want this book published believe Carter is manipulating her in order to make more money off the new book. To answer the question of “Should the publisher have published the book?” I will rely on Joseph L. Badaracco Jr.’s Defining Moments
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.
Gender relations and differences have been a part of society since the birth of civilization. Gender relations in the past have been mainly dominated by men. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, women are lower that men. Women are never really apart of the play and when they are a part of the play, they are usually expressing stereotypical women behavior. In Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, women are mainly expressed overpowering men. Both pieces include patriarchal elements. Kesey and Shakespeare use various stereotypical female characters as a metaphor for the different roles that women have in society, to express the views society holds on these roles.
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
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
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
It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence. He dismisses the idea of a creator by theory of evolution. Although he may have a valid argument for evolution he still does not account for the start of the world. Everything must come from something. The cause cannot be unlimited, there was a cause that had to be free of all other causes, and this points us to creation.
Everybody wants to be accepted, yet society is not so forgiving. It bends you and changes you until you are like everyone else. Society depends on conformity and it forces it upon people. In Emerson's Self Reliance, he says "Society is a joint stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater." People are willing to sacrifice their own hopes and freedoms just to get the bread to survive. Although the society that we are living in is different than the one the Emerson's essay, the idea of fitting in still exists today. Although society and our minds make us think a certain way, we should always trust our better judgment instead of just conforming to society.
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”.
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.
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.