Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Payley's Analogical Design Argument (Paley's anaology- (When…
Payley's Analogical Design Argument
Criticisms -
Hume - Mechanistic analogies are inappropriate as analogies are deliberately chosen because they encourage the idea of a designer, living organisms would be more appropriate eg a vegetable which doesn't require explanation in terms of a designer
The apparent order could be due to chance, Hume suggested that given the constantly changing arrangements of its atoms over an infinite period of time, it was inevitable that order would eventually emerge. He also suggested the possibility that the universe alternates between periods of chaos and periods of order, and by chance existence is currently a period of order
The mechanistic analogy is anthropomorphic. Humans have no knowledge of how the universe was made, this means we can know nothing about the capacities or nature of any universe designer. The mechanistic analogy is in effect creating a designer in our image.
The designer is not necessarily the God of christian theism, a cause must be proportional to its effects. The traditional Christian understanding of God is not required by what is known of the universe, intelligent minds are attached to physical bodies so the creator could be long dead
A posteriori - it is empirical in nature and is based upon sense of experience
Uses the approach of natural theology, the view that questions about God's existence, nature and attributes can be answered by reasoning, science and observation rather than special revelation
Paley's anaology-
When coming across a stone in the desert you would not ask the question of how it came to be there, however in coming across a watch you would
Observation would point the the watches complexity and its arrangement to serve its purpose. This could not have occurred by chance, a complete explanation requires reference to its purpose giver. An intelligent watch maker must have designed it
The universe is even more complex than a watch, its shows the same exact precise suitability of parts and arrangement to serve its purpose. This could have not occurred by chance, it must have been designed. The far greater complexity requires a much greater designer, this is God
Inductive - based upon probability, based upon evidence more so than the conclusion
Analogical - based on a comparison between two things
Based upon three observations of the world: complexity, purpose and regularity
Weaknesses:
1) claims made by theism about the nature of a designer God go way beyond any evidence 2) existence of evil suggests an incompetent, malevolent designer, or no designer at all 3) apparent order and design are just by chance, Darwin and Dawkins
Strengths:
1) Swinburne argued that the existence of a single omnipotent God is the simplest explanation 2) Paley said evil may be unavoidable for God to bring about good (process theodicy, free will defense) 3) Paley's claim that nature shows intention is supported by the anthropic principle, the multiverse theory is incapable of proof
Its status as proof -
Cannot offer proof:
1) only deductive arguments offer absolute proof, this is inductive so can never be absolutely certain 2) Paley's observations to support this argument can be naturally explained
Argument does offer proof:
1) most things we accept are true about life are based upon inductive arguments, they are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. The stronger the evidence, the more true the claim becomes. 2) Some would argue that the laws of nature require explanation and that we cannot be sure that the multiverse theory is true, meaning that the challenges do not diminish the probability that Paley's argument is true