Palley appeals to natural theology as evidence for certain portions of Christian truth. To what extent are you impressed with his arguments? To what extent are they unconvincing?
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Nature and nature's god (William Paley)
Palley appeals to natural theology as evidence for certain portions of Christian truth. To what extent are you impressed with his arguments? To what extent are they unconvincing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found a passage in Paley's argument that seem to speak to me at the moment "It is a perversion of language to assign any law, as the efficient, operative cause of anything. A law presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode, according to which the power acts. Without the agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, the law does nothing; is nothing." This is his explanation of "Natural Law" and one that I really enjoy. I ponder about man in the state of nature sometimes, and I come to the conclusion that every man would make rules and laws for himself. Even if you were the only person on the face of this earth a person would still follow their own set of rules. That same person never having been taught right from wrong would still live the best most moral life he could, even with nothing to judge it against...human beings are inherently good, no original sin for this guy.
ReplyDeleteTo disagree with his argument, as persuasive as his watch argument may be, it still didn't convince me. It just means your really good at deductive reasoning and can figure out the mechanics of a watch; far cry from proving the existence of God, in my book.
I thought Paley’s use of the watch was a nice way to cast doubt on the theories of evolution. But to me it spoke not of a watch found in a field but the entire universe. All the gears and mechanisms that make the clock run in an orderly fashion are the equivalent to the forces that govern the operation of the universe.
ReplyDeleteOnce a watch is set into motion its gears and mechanisms run until its energy runs down. It does not require any user interference for it to do what it is designed to do, well at least until I needs to be wound again. That brings forth questions. Does the universe and what it contains require designer interference once it is set into motion? If the galaxies don’t need management do people need management? Is an individual more or less complex than a galaxy? In the vastness of the universe are we God’s only intelligent creations? Does either a yes or a no answer change anything?
I don’t have answers to those questions. I am sure others are more willing than I am to do that.
Maybe people in Paley’s time raised similar questions and that lead to his writings being suppressed.
Jerry Taylor
I like what William Paley is doing in "Natural Theology". Paley is trying to state in argument over Christianity to other who in fact don't see it as the same for example the Roman Catholic Church. I think he was very convincing every chapter in this book is a different state of the argument. I also liked the quote he did in chapter 3 when he was applying the argument with atheist. "This is Atheism: for 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"(Bush 357). I'm very impressed with his argument overall because he is able to extract every aspect form the argument when it comes to both a faith side as well as a non faith or non-believer side like atheists.
ReplyDelete"Nature Theology" is a very interesting theory in and of itself. This would be because the theory basically saying the other denominations of Christianity besides Roman Catholic is wrong. Further into the reading, he talks to/about atheism and why the thinking behind it is wrong. Personally, I am very shocked that he would have the gall to say that everyone except the Roman Catholics are wrong in their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteNatural Theology is an interesting idea to talk about. However, from what I've seen I don't know how good of an apologetic it is. People seem to dismiss the watchmaker argument or think it's too simple. I definitely hold to a natural theology and it being derived from the Bible. But we sometimes don't realize how hard peoples hearts are to the truth.
ReplyDeleteOne argument I've heard against any form of fine-tuning argument is that "we don't know of any other world." Why would it be impressive to us if this is the only way the world could function and surivive.
One of the more interesting arguments I found is his discussion regarding links in a chain. No matter how many links we add to the chain (for example, no matter how many steps we add to evolution to explain how humans came to be about), someone had to have been the creator of the original design.
ReplyDeleteSure, we can say humans were evolved from a fish or a monkey, but then the question would be how the monkey or fish came about. The same with if the fish and monkey came from a germ or a small molecule - who designed that? No matter how complex the picture gets, someone painted it.
However, one of his weaker points that I've chosen to focus on is that he states that 'chance' can never seem to produce an eye. Sure, it can produce a wart or a pimple, but never an eye. This is untrue. While admittedly rare, people do tend to develop extra limbs or eyes. These all occur by chance.
He also mentioned something about how people not knowing something is tied to rarity, that we have lacked the ability to witness what something can do simply because we are never given the chance to witness it.
These are merely the weaker parts because they are trying to argue against atheism by (from what I can gather) implying ignorance or making simple things complex. This is also not true. Many individuals were well read or were deeply invested in the Bible, later becoming atheists. It is not for a lack of understanding that people choose not to follow God, just as it is not due to a lack of complex thinking that people are Christians.
Paley's argument, as presented in the text, is that the principle of order in nature is not a sufficient explanation for the complexity and adaptation found in the natural world. Instead, he suggests that the adaptation of means to an end implies the existence of an intelligent Creator.
ReplyDeleteI find Paley's arguments impressive to the extent that he highlights the difficulty in explaining complex natural phenomena without reference to an intelligent designer. His example of a watch being produced by a principle of order is a compelling analogy that challenges the idea that natural order can arise without intelligent agency.
However, Paley's arguments are unconvincing to the extent that they rely on an argument from ignorance - namely, that because we cannot explain the principle of order without reference to an intelligent Creator, it must be the case that such a Creator exists. Additionally, Paley's appeal to natural theology as evidence for Christian truth may not be persuasive to those who do not share his theological assumptions.
Furthermore, modern scientific explanations for the complexity of natural phenomena, such as evolution through natural selection, may provide alternative explanations for the adaptation of means to ends that Paley did not consider. Nevertheless, Paley's arguments remain a significant contribution to the debate about the nature of reality and the role of intelligent design.
Solomon Haile
Delete