William Paley’s Design Argument for God’s Existence
Your paper should be 3 – 4 pages double spaced
It should have 5 parts.
Part I: Introduction
Part II: Thesis Statement
Part III: Exposition
Part IV: Criticism
Part V: Conclusion
Part I: Introduction
State what your paper is going to be about. In this case, it will be about
God’s existence. William Paley, in his “Natural Theory”, presents an
argument for God’s existence. You will be evaluating that argument.
Part II: Thesis Statement: The thesis statement should be one simple
statement. You will either criticize Paley’s argument or you will defend it.
If you are going to criticize it, you should state that.
If you are going to defend it, you should that that.
(Important: To criticize his argument is not the same as criticizing his
conclusion. You can disagree with the argument without disagreeing with his
conclusion. His conclusion is that God exists. His argument is the reasons
for thinking his conclusion is true. Keep separate the conclusion—that God
exists from the argument—the reasons for thinking God exists.
If you are going to defend his argument, it is not enough to simply
agree with his conclusion. Also, don’t provide your own argument for his
conclusion—that God exists. Stick with his argument. There are
philosophers that have raised objections to his argument. You should state
one of those objections. Then, you should defend Paley’s argument against
that objection).
Don’t decide from the very beginning whether you will criticize or defend his
argument. The first thing is to do the relevant reading. Then, process the
argument. Be sure that you understand the argument. Then, consider the
possible objections. Then, decide whether you agree with his argument or
not. If you decide his argument is correct and the criticisms are wrong,
then, you can decide to defend his argument. If you decide his argument is
wrong and the criticisms are correct, then you can decide to criticize his
argument.
Part III: Exposition
This is where you present Paley’s argument for God’s existence. For this,
you must click on the link and turn to the reading.
His argument is a design argument. That means the argument identifies
things in the material world that possess features that indicate they must
have been designed. Take, for example, the human eye. It possesses
features that indicate it was designed. If it is designed, it has a designer.
And, the only thing capable of designing the human eye is God. Therefore,
God exists.
To get you started, he is the skeleton of the argument.
We know a watch has a designer or someone or group of people that
designed it.
Here is the argument:
Premise 1: A watch is functionally complex
Premise 2: Everything functionally complex must have been designed
Premise 3: Everything designed has a designer
Conclusion: A watch has a designer
If we accept his argument, then, we should accept this next argument.
Premise 1*: Things in the material world, like the human eye, are
functionally complex.
Premise 2: Everything functionally complex must have been designed
Premise 3: Everything designed has a designer
Conclusion 1: Things in the material world, like the human eye, have a
designer.
Premise 4: The only being capable of designing something like the human
eye is God:
Conclusion 2: God is the designer of the human eye
Conclusion 3: God exists
You need to flesh out this argument. You should explain what it means for
something to be functionally complex. Read very carefully. You must get
this part exactly right. Premise 1 says a watch is functionally complex.
Premise 1* says things in the material world, like the human eye, is
functionally complex. What does that mean?
For Paley, a thing having functional complexity is a reliable indicator that
that thing is designed. If a watch is functionally complex, that is a good
indicator that the watch is designed. If the human eye is functionally
complex, that is a good indicator that it is functionally complex. Why does
he think that functional complexity is a good indicator of design?
Premise 4 says that only God is capable of designing the human eye. Why
should we think this? Why can’t some being less than God be the designer
of the human eye? Why does it have to be God? Think through this
carefully.
Be sure to provide adequate discussion of each premise. That is, tell us
what each of them means and why we should think they are true.
Part IV: Criticism or Defense
This is whether you either criticize or defend the argument.
If you are criticizing, you should raise one objection to one of the premises.
Let suppose you are going to criticize premise 2—that everything functionally
complex is designed.
If there a way for something to be functionally complex without being
designed? Is there a mechanism that results in functional complexity but is
not guided by design?
The Darwinian process of evolution is a mechanism. Can this mechanism
yield functional complexity? It is not guided by design.
To answer this, you must state what the Darwinian process is. How does
this process yield functional complexity? Why should we say it is not guided
by any kind of design?
According to Richard Dawkins, the Darwinian evolutionary process is more
likely to produce functional complexity than the design process.
Why does he think this? If he’s right, then, that puts premise 2 of Paley’s
argument is serious doubt. But then, the entire argument is in doubt.
After you raise your objection. You should provide consider a response to
your objection.
Look at a. The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity. The
argument here is that for the evolutionary process to account for all
functional complexity, e.g., the functional complexity of the human eye, all
functional complexity must be cumulatively complex. But, people like
Dembski and Behe argue that some functional complexities are “irreducibly
complex”.
What does this mean? What does it mean for some complexities to be
irreducibly complex? What does it mean for some to be cumulatively
complex? Why is it that if some functional complexities are irreducibly
complex, some functional complexities simply cannot be accounted for by
the Darwinian evolutionary process?
If you are criticizing Paley’s argument, and you think that the Darwinian
process of evolution can account for the functional complexity of the human
eye, you need to response to the argument from irreducible complexity.
Conclusion: You should state one thing you learned from having completed
this paper. What’s the one thing you learned? What’s the one thing the
reader should have learned from having read your paper?