Paper Due Date
This paper critically reviews and discusses the paper by Paley, entitled “Natural Theology.” In the following paragraphs the author’s arguments to support his theories / propositions and conclusions are considered and commented upon.
Essentially, Paley’s paper attempts to show by building on a basic comparison between two objects: a stone (simple), and a watch (complex) that the Universe can only exist because it is part of a grand design created and overseen by God. He offered eight individual arguments to develop and support his case, which were as follows:
The first was that just as a watch must have a maker (because it is complex) so must the Universe; then that the watch (the Universe) need not be perfect to confirm its origin as a design. The third argument he offered was that though there might be apparently superfluous parts in the watch (Universe) the concept of an overall design is still just as valid. In other words that even if we don’t understand the purpose or role of certain things in our world, that does not mean they do not have such a purpose, nor does that apparent lack of functionality necessarily affect the overall concept. His fourth argument was that the watch found with its internal constituent mechanical parts, was just one possible combination of those parts that make the whole. For his fifth argument, Paley stated that he did not perceive a “principle of order” being behind the construction of the watch, and did not see how that could throw further light on the matter. Then his sixth argument was that he saw the mechanism of the watch as no evidence of intentional design; only a means to make one believe that. Then his seventh and eighth arguments were that he regarded the watch as a logical outcome of the “laws of metallic nature”, and that because one may know nothing of the matter is no reason to doubt its veracity.
Paley began his discussion by considering the possibility of stubbing his toe on a stone, contemplating how long that stone might have been there, and deducing that the stone could have always been in that same location. He then supposed that he had found a watch there, and asked the rhetorical question why the same answer could not equally have applied to both objects. Paley’s document developed the idea of the watch being manufactured and designed by someone, eventually moving from inanimate objects (watch and stone) to human organs and the theory that no animal, plant, or other object could have designed itself, thereby (in his view) proving the existence of God, who was responsible for the design and creation of the Universe. Paley’s arguments emphasized the diversity and complexity of our world, persuading us that nature could not have created everything on its own, therefore supporting his view that some overseeing all powerful deity must have been responsible for the world as we know it today.
His strategy appeared to be that of progressively moving onto discussing human elements, thereby onto topics more analogous to ourselves as humans rather than watches or stones, for example. The analogy between the watch and the Universe seemed rather weak, although at the time when his paper was written science was not so advanced as it is today, so perhaps in the eyes of a contemporary reader a watch was a complex thing just like the Universe. The concept of the watchmaker being analogous to God is also stretching credulity; it just doesn’t convince.
Overall, his various arguments are diverse and for the most part do not bear close scrutiny. For example, he suggested – in the case of the watch – that because the designer or maker of the watch was not known to the finder that does not mean there wasn’t such a person, but that instead a complex article like a watch – just like the Universe of which it is a part – was created by God. His argument is that not knowing the watchmaker/designer does not mean that there was none. Additionally, as anyone who has seen a watch will be aware (including Paley, no doubt), a watch will have been the product of all those involved, from those who mined the raw materials to those who manufactured and sold the watch to a customer. Hence Paley’s analogy of a watchmaker to God should in fact be claiming there are a number of different Gods involved in creation (which it doesn’t). Although his analogy might be convenient (for Paley), it is inappropriate.
There is also the aspect to consider that while in lay terms a stone and a watch may be considered as simple versus complex, many stones / rocks while apparently simple are in fact themselves highly complex in molecular structure and in some cases were formed from complex geological processes, hence the comparison fails on some levels as viewed by modern day readers. Paley’s paper introduced scientific concepts into a theological discussion, but in the view of this reader was unsuccessful in making a case on that basis. If his ideas were perceived as valid, then the watchmaker would equate to God so would be worshipped by those who believed; sadly this reader at least was not one of them.
Commenting further on the watch design, Paley noted that one might think that the watch doesn’t always work perfectly. He suggested that for a design to have existed, all the parts would have an obvious function, just as in the case of the Universe. Of course that argument doesn’t stand up. Because both good and bad things have occurred throughout the Ages, it seems evident that if there were an overseeing God in charge of everything, then that God is unable to control everything as should be the case.
Another of Paley’s arguments reference the watch is that it is simply one possible (chance) form of many outcomes of combining all its constituent parts. The weakness in that argument is that it is based on the human instinct to try to see order in a situation where in reality none exists. It is our way of rationalizing apparently unexplainable events or processes. Take for instance the planet Venus. Depending on its time of appearance in our skies throughout the seasons it is variously called the “Morning Star” or the “Evening Star.” To attempt to determine which name is correct is trying to create a “reality” where there is none. There is always a possibility of linking chance events in such a way as to “prove” a pattern or a relationship, but that can never be a true proof unless substantiated by other means.
Another Paley position taken in “Natural Theology” is that the watch (and by inference the Universe) is the outcome of laws and that there must therefore exist a power that imposes and enforces the laws. In my view Paley was confusing laws as we know them in our daily lives, (e.g. laws imposed by man regarding contracts or taxation), with the laws of nature where there is no enforcer or law creator (an example is the law of gravity – a matter of simple physics). The reality is that science has been able to explain the complex workings of the Universe and discover some laws of nature including evolution, thanks to the work of people like Charles Darwin, although Paley did not have the benefit of those findings when he wrote “Natural Theology.”
Paley also “saw” the evidence of design in the watch (Universe), again showing the natural instinct of the human mind to “see” patterns or relationships, based on not only previous experience but on the need to make sense of what otherwise appear to be random objects or connections. (Paragraph deleted as it was repetetive)
Another stretching of the imagination was evident in Paley’s affirmation that by viewing the component parts of the watch (Universe) the design can be ascertained. This is similar to the fallacy that if one cannot prove something, then its opposite must be true.
Paley also tried to steer his readers into conforming to his ideas by suggesting that the “ordinary man” (as perceived by Paley) cannot believe other than what he has written and if he does is somehow perverse in his thinking.
Paley’s paper had obviously been the result of deep thought on his part in attempting to explain his ideas to his readers, though for this reader there was an uncomfortable feeling that he was also trying to convince himself, partly because much of his argument included was either based on false premises or assumptions, with comments thrown in to suggest that if a reader either did not understand the content or disagreed with any of it, then he would of course be wrong and out of step. Another reason was that as mentioned earlier, there were multiple instances of attempting to prove order where there is none, to establish relationships where none exist. based on weak evidence. It must also be admitted that the archaic and convoluted style of his writing does make it somewhat difficult to fully understand and therefore to critically analyze.
Additionally, for this reader, (the product of a technical education in a technological age), Paley’s attempts to explain away the creation and complexity of the Universe in the terms used by Paley, are simply appear as alien to the knowledge gained from today’s scientific resources, and are unhappy bedfellows with modern activities like the Space Program. That does not as such preclude the existence of a God, though perhaps leaves more room for doubt.
