Paley's Watchmaker (Teleological Argument)

William Paley

1. 1743 - 1805

2. Archdeacon of Carlisle.

3. Wrote ‘Natural Theology’ published in 1802.

Paley’s Arguments

1. Design qua regularity - he argues that the world follows some regularity/order.

2. Design qua purpose - he argues that the world is designed to fulfil a purpose.

Paley’s analogy of the Watch

1. You find a watch in a field.

2. A watch has a purpose, telling the time.

3. The parts work together, so are fit for purpose.

4. The parts are ordered and put together in such a way to make the watch function.

5. If the parts are arranged in a different way, the watch does not work, it does not fulfil its purpose.

Paley’s Conclusion of the Watch Analogy

1. A complex watch needs a watchmaker to explain how it came into being.

2. It is clear, from the natural world, that the world is very complex so must also have a designer.

3. Nature is too complex for any human to make.

4. Thus the whole of nature requires a designer e.g. G-d.

Paley’s Natural Theology Quote

Paley, ‘Natural Theology’, 1802:

“…the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”

Arguments For Paley

1. It is based on observation.

2. Anthropic principle - The idea that the constants of the universe are remarkably suited for intelligent life, could suggest an intelligent designer.

3. A designer would know what to create and why.

Arguments Against Paley

1. Too many assumptions.

2. It could have happened by chance.

3. The existence of a multiverse means that it actually could exist in other ways.

4. There is no standard for complexity - at what point is something so complex that it needs a designer.

5. The world is imperfect.