Created by Thomas Aquinas and
developed by William Paley
An a posteriori argument
- from evidence
Inspiration from Aristotle
Aquinas's argument
Everything in the natural world
follows natural laws, even
non-thinking things; eg, rivers flow,
trees grow
These things seem to have a purpose/direction and
to do well (eg to become a mature tree)
A non-thinking thing cannot have direction
unless given it by someone - eg an arrow is
directed by an archer
So the natural
world is given
direction by God
This idea is based on the
idea of regularity of
succession (the idea that
a thing happening leads
to something else.)
Criticisms of Aquinas's argument
Anthony Flew:
Rivers and
trees do not
have purpose
Why can't the natural world
just be the way it is? Why does
it need to have a designer giving
it direction?
Swinburne:
Why should
God impose
laws?
What reason does he
have to do this?
How do we know it's God?
William Paley's argument
If you find a rock, you
conclude it's just a rock. If
you find a watch, you can
see evidence it has been
designed
It has a purpose
Its different parts are
fit for this purpose
If the parts are out of order, the
watch will not work
So it must have had a maker
A watch (like the world) can go
wrong, but that's not the issue: the
issue is that the evidence shows it
was designed correctly
The natural world is far
more complex than a watch
For example, the human eye was
designed for a purpose.
Paley looks at how things fit
together for a purpose rather than
at natural laws.
It must have had a designer
Crticisims of Paley's argument
This god is a designer, but not a loving Christian God
Machines and nature
are incompatible; even
similar things in
nature cannot be
compared (eg the
nervous system of an
animal would not work
in a human body)
David Hume: Why
couldn't the world
have more than one
designer?
The world has issues - so
was God stupid, or an infant?
Note that Paley
thought this was
irrelevant - Paley
wrote about his
argument AFTER
Hume made his
criticisms of similar
arguments
For him, not
knowing how
something is
made
increases awe
for the maker
We have no other
universes to compare
the universe to, so
analogies are
insufficient
Swinburne
countered
this: Just
because the
universe is
singular
doesn't mean
we shouldn't
try to work it
out
Other explanations
for order in the
universe
Matter
could simply
naturally
lean towards
order
Paley
countered:
a watch
doesn't
come out
of chance
Trial and error
Swinburne: Time is regular,
and things don't seem to
come out of chaos
Evolution/natural selection
John Stuart Mill questions
that there is good in nature.
Dawkins uses the digger
wasp example
Can 'cruelty' be a word applied to nature?
Paley and Aquinas
weren't interested in
the quality of design