William Paley
William Paley (1743-1805) was an English vicar and philosopher of the Enlightenment. Many of Paley's arguments were challenged by David Hume. He is famous for his apologetics (defending Christian beliefs), especially his "Watch on the Heath analogy" for the Design Argument. This analogy, along with most of his thoughts on the Design Argument, are contained in his most famous book, Natural Theology (1802).
William Paley is a key scholar for issues in the Design Argument.
|
I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology - Charles Darwin
This is ironic: Darwin's Theory of Evolution demolished many of Paley's arguments
Analogy for Design
In his book Natural Theology (1801), Paley sets out a version of the Design Argument in the form of a story sometimes referred to as the “Analogy of the Watch on the Heath”.
In Paley's analogy, the world is compared to a pocket watch (a cutting-edge invention in Paley's time).
Paley argues that no one, upon finding a watch on the ground, would assume it had either been there forever or that it had been put together by blind natural forces. He compares that to finding a stone on the ground. With a stone, it would be reasonable to assume that it had lain there forever or been shaped by natural forces (volcanoes, erosion, etc). The difference between the stone and the watch is the order and purpose found in the watch.
Blind natural forces do not throw together pocket watches by accident. If the universe has characteristics in common with watches then, because similar effects have similar causes, it is reasonable to conclude that intelligent agents are responsible for these characteristics.
In Paley's analogy, the world is compared to a pocket watch (a cutting-edge invention in Paley's time).
- It is a complex collection of separate processes that all interact, rather like the cogs and wheels inside a pocket watch.
- These separate processes all combine together for a purpose: in the watch, the purpose is to measure time; in the world, the purpose is to bring about life, especially intelligent life
Paley argues that no one, upon finding a watch on the ground, would assume it had either been there forever or that it had been put together by blind natural forces. He compares that to finding a stone on the ground. With a stone, it would be reasonable to assume that it had lain there forever or been shaped by natural forces (volcanoes, erosion, etc). The difference between the stone and the watch is the order and purpose found in the watch.
Blind natural forces do not throw together pocket watches by accident. If the universe has characteristics in common with watches then, because similar effects have similar causes, it is reasonable to conclude that intelligent agents are responsible for these characteristics.
amongst the invisible things of nature, there must be an intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support - William Paley
Paley claims we can find two types of design in the natural world:
Design qua purpose is the sort of detailed arrangement of parts that Paley describes in the human eye and in the pocket watch. It is the same idea as what Richard Swinburne calls regularities of co-presence or spatial order.
Design qua regularity includes the underlying laws of nature - particularly, for Paley, the Laws of Motion discovered by Isaac Newton. This is the same idea as Swinburne's regularities of succession or temporal order. Although Paley has less to say about this in his book, design qua regularity made the biggest contribution to the Design Argument in the 21st century with the Anthropic Principle.
- Design qua purpose
- Design qua regularity
Design qua purpose is the sort of detailed arrangement of parts that Paley describes in the human eye and in the pocket watch. It is the same idea as what Richard Swinburne calls regularities of co-presence or spatial order.
Design qua regularity includes the underlying laws of nature - particularly, for Paley, the Laws of Motion discovered by Isaac Newton. This is the same idea as Swinburne's regularities of succession or temporal order. Although Paley has less to say about this in his book, design qua regularity made the biggest contribution to the Design Argument in the 21st century with the Anthropic Principle.
Paley's Contribution to the Design Argument
Paley's book contains one of the most famous and memorable versions of the Design Argument, the "Analogy of the Watch on the Heath". Paley explains it like this:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
Paley's first premise is that there are things in the world that we don't seek explanations for in terms of design. Stones, for example.
BUT SUPPOSE I HAD FOUND A WATCH UPON THE GROUND, AND IT SHOULD BE INQUIRED HOW THE WATCH HAPPENED TO BE IN THAT PLACE; I SHOULD HARDLY THINK OF THE ANSWER I HAD BEFORE GIVEN, THAT FOR ANYTHING I KNEW, THE WATCH MIGHT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE...
Paley's second premise is that there are other things that we do try to explain in terms of design. We don't imagine for a moment they could have come about through unintended natural forces. A pocket watch is the example Paley gives, but more recently the "Junkyard Tornado" analogy uses a Boeing-747 jet.
But in what way is the watch different from the stone?
But in what way is the watch different from the stone?
THERE MUST HAVE EXISTED, AT SOME TIME, AND AT SOME PLACE OR OTHER, AN ARTIFICER OR ARTIFICERS, WHO FORMED [THE WATCH] FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH WE FIND IT ACTUALLY TO ANSWER; WHO COMPREHENDED ITS CONSTRUCTION, AND DESIGNED ITS USE...
Paley identifies that the complexity we can see in the watch suggests purpose. He calls this type of design design qua purpose (design "in the sense of" purpose"). The watch has clearly been constructed intentionally, to carry out a purpose (telling the time). Unintended natural forces do not have purposes, but intelligent agents do.
EVERY INDICATION OF CONTRIVANCE, EVERY MANIFESTATION OF DESIGN, WHICH EXISTED IN THE WATCH, EXISTS IN THE WORKS OF NATURE; WITH THE DIFFERENCE, ON THE SIDE OF NATURE, OF BEING GREATER OR MORE, AND THAT IN A DEGREE WHICH EXCEEDS ALL COMPUTATION."
Paley argues that the natural world also shows this design qua purpose: it looks as if it has been constructed intentionally, with the purpose of supporting life, particularly intelligent human life. However, the natural world is MUCH more impressive in scale and complexity than anything a human agent could design, so the Designer of the natural world would have to exceed human power and wisdom in the same scale. The natural world requires a Designer who is omnipotent and omniscient. In other words, God.
Paley goes on to discuss many specific examples of creatures and organs in the natural world which show signs (he claims) of intentional design or design qua purpose. He spends a lot of time on the human eye. As with the pocket watch, Paley finds purpose here: the eye has the clear purpose of enabling us to see. It is immensely complex and rather fragile. Paley sees in this another quality of the Designer God: compassion.
Paley goes on to discuss many specific examples of creatures and organs in the natural world which show signs (he claims) of intentional design or design qua purpose. He spends a lot of time on the human eye. As with the pocket watch, Paley finds purpose here: the eye has the clear purpose of enabling us to see. It is immensely complex and rather fragile. Paley sees in this another quality of the Designer God: compassion.
an extraordinary degree of care, an anxiety for its preservation, due, if we may so speak, to its value and its tenderness
For Paley, the fact that eyes are safely tucked away inside the sockets of skulls is evidence that God not only designs intricate things, but also cares for them and wishes to keep them safe. This feature of Paley's argument rejects the common challenge, that the Design Argument leads only to the remote God of Deism rather than the loving God of Christianity.
Paley is also familiar with the dysteleological argument. Some eyes don't work very well, some people are born blind or develop cataracts or short-sightedness or glaucoma. Some people are colour-blind and everyone (except octopuses!) has a "blind spot" where the optical nerve passes through the retina. Paley has a response:
Paley is also familiar with the dysteleological argument. Some eyes don't work very well, some people are born blind or develop cataracts or short-sightedness or glaucoma. Some people are colour-blind and everyone (except octopuses!) has a "blind spot" where the optical nerve passes through the retina. Paley has a response:
It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made
But why would God design an inferior product, like a faulty eye (or an eye which easily develops faults?). Paley has an answer for that too.
Whatever is done, God could have done without the intervention of instruments or means: but it is in the construction of instruments, in the choice and adaptation of means, that a creative intelligence is seen
What Paley means is that God could, if he wanted, enable everyone to see "by a miracle" and not bother with eyes at all. But God wants to display his "creative intelligence" so that humans can understand him better. God creates laws of nature and then works within those laws.
Paley also proposes a design qua regularity argument as well as the argument based on the watch. Paley was inspired Newton's laws of motion and gravity which were formulated in 1687. Newton's physics suggested that the universe worked like clockwork in predictable patterns. Paley argues that life is possible on Earth because the orbits of planets are so regular. He focuses on gravity and suggests that gravity needs to be consistent within narrow boundaries to produce planets with stable orbits round the sun. He argues that this regularity has been directed by some higher power: God.
Paley's design qua regularity argument isn't as famous as his watch analogy, but it is an early version of the fine-tuning argument and the anthropic principle. Richard Swinburne refers to design qua regularity as regularities of succession.
Paley's arguments are challenged by David Hume.
Paley's design qua regularity argument isn't as famous as his watch analogy, but it is an early version of the fine-tuning argument and the anthropic principle. Richard Swinburne refers to design qua regularity as regularities of succession.
Paley's arguments are challenged by David Hume.