Paley's analogical argument- the design argument

• paleys argument is a posteriori

  • it is empirical in nature
  • it is based on sense experience
• paleys argument is inductive

  • it is based on probability and not knock down proof
  • the conclusion is not necessarily true; the stronger the evidence for it, the more likely it is to be true.
• paleys argument is analogical

  • it is based on a comparison between the features of two different things
• paleys argument uses the approach of natural theology

  • it makes no appeal to any form of special revelation, e.g. the bible or religious experience.
  • it uses reason, the latest scientific knowledge and observation
• paleys argument is based on three observations of the world:

  • complexity
  • purpose
  • regularity
• paleys analogy

  when walking across rough ground, stubbing one's toe against a stone would not raise the question of how the stone came to be there. it coming across a watch, however, it would be reasonable to ask that question.
• the watch analogy

  1. observation would point to the watch's complexity and to the exact suitability of its parts and of their arrangement to serve its purpose.
  2. this could not have occurred by chance. a complete explanation requires reference to its purpose-giver.
  3. an intelligent watchmaker must have designed it.
• the watch analogy in reference to the universe

  1. the universe is complex, it shows the same precise suitability of parts and arrangement to serve its purpose.
  2. this could not have occurred by chance- it must have been designed by a universe-maker.
  3. the far greater complexity, etc. of the world requires an infinitely greater designer.
  4. the universe designer is god.
• illustrations given by paley to support his argument

  • the eye is superbly adapted for vision
  • the fins and gills of fish are perfect for living in water
  • birds' bones, wings and feathers are perfect for flight
• Hume's criticisms applied to the design argument: rejection of the idea of design


  mechanistic analogies are inappropriate as they are deliberately chosen as they encourage the idea of a designer. a living organism would be much more appropriate, e.g. a vegetable, which doesn't require explanation in terms of a designer. the apparent order could be due to chance as Hume suggested that given the constantly changing arrangements of its atoms over an infinite period of time, it was inevitable that order would eventually emerge.
• humes criticisms applied to the design argument: little can be said about any designer


  mechanistic analogy is anthropomorphic: humans have no knowledge of how universes are made which means we can know nothing abut the capacities or nature of any universe designer. furthermore, the designer is not necessarily the god of classical theism: a cause must be proportional to its effects, the traditional christian understanding of god is not required by what is known of the universe. teamwork may also be behind the design.
• hume's criticisms applied to the design argument: the problem of evil

  • the existence of so much natural and moral evil in the world is evidence of a flawed design.
  • Hume considered gods omnipotence and omnibenevolence to be incompatible with the existence of evil. thus, the existence of evil calls into question the character of a creator god.
• weaknesses of paleys design argument

  • claims made by theism about the nature of a designer god go way beyond the evidence
  • existence of evil suggests incompetent, indifferent or malevolent designer- or no designer at all
  • apparent order, purpose and design are just chance. support for this from Darwin.
  • universe could have 'designed itself' by chance. support for this from multiverse theories.
• strengths of paleys design argument

  • Swinburne argued the existence of a single omnipotent god is the simplest explanation
  • Paley said evil might be inevitable for god to bring about good.
  • evolution itself requires explanation (Swinburne). it is not incompatible with theism.
  • paleys claim that 'nature shows intention' is supported by the anthropic principle. the multiverse theory is incapable of proof.
• the anthropic principle


  relates to the view that the boundary conditions (cosmological constants) of the universe had to be precisely what they are for intelligent life to develop; the belief is that we are not here by chance and that god 'fine-tuned' these conditions.
• 'paleys design argument cannot offer proof of god'

  • only deductive arguments can give absolute proof. the design argument is inductive so can never be absolutely certain.
  • paleys observations to support his argument can be explained naturally, e.g. the regular rotation of the planets is due to gravity. if the multiverse theory is true, then the apparent design is pure chance.
• 'paleys design argument does offer proof of god'

  • most things that we accept as the in life are based on inductive arguments. they are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. the stronger the evidence, the more probably true a claim is.
  • some would argue that the laws of nature require explanation and that we cannot be sure that the multiverse theory is true. this means that the challenges do not diminish the probability that paleys argument is true.
• the value of paleys design argument for religious faith: the positive side

  • it is consistent with biblical teaching that there is a guiding hand directing the whole of nature and human lives in a purposeful way.
  • theists cannot prove god's existence but nor can atheists prove gods non-existence: both rely on reasoning and empirical evidence to create inductive arguments. paleys reasoning and appeal to observation and the simplicity of his argument provide strong support for theists.
• the value of paleys design argument for religious faith: the negative side

  • for fideists, rational arguments play no part in faith as they do not lead to commitment.
  • paleys argument does not successfully address the issue of evil.
• fideism


  the view that religion is a matter of pure faith in the sense of commitment. rational argument has no role to play.
• the relationship between reason and faith.

  price combines the rationalist approach with the fideist approach.

  in his view, both 'belief that' and 'belief in' are necessary for faith

  • without belief that, 'belief in' has no substance
  • without belief in, 'belief that' has no personal significance.
• the rationalist approach emphasises the role of reason in any consideration of god's existence. without it, faith is unscientific, irrational and meaningless. against this, however, it could be argued that a purely rational faith is dry and impersonal; it does not have a transforming influence on the life and thought of the individual concerned or on the world as a whole.
• the fideist approach claims that the use of reason to justify religion is inappropriate. only faith gives absolute certainty. personal experience leads to absolute conviction about the reality of god. rational arguments cannot give that certainty. from a negative standpoint, it could be said that this approach runs the risk of resulting in irrational extremist. it also rules out any meaningful debate with non-believers.