In Aquinas’ analogy of the archer, he is also essentially reaching the conclusion that a guiding intelligence must lie behind the universe. Since the universe is unintelligent, yet seems to be goal-directed like the arrow, then it must also have a guiding intelligence, just like the arrow has an archer. This guiding intelligence is God. However, there are some criticisms to Aquinas’ analogy. The main premise in Aquinas’ argument is the claim that ‘things that lack intelligence cannot move towards their end unless they are directed by someone with knowledge and intelligence’. But, there is a problem with this premise because it very nearly assumes what it sets out to prove, namely that there is an intelligence being who created the universe. In addition, there are also many things in the world that can have a purpose, without interference from any intelligent beings. For example most ducklings, acorns, embryos etc can grow and develop without guidance from some form of intelligent being. Therefore the claim that some intelligent being must have shaped our world is simply not supported by our observations of it.
Another argument from analogy was put forward by philosopher William Paley. He imagines himself walking across a field and coming across a stone and a watch. He ponders the same question about both objects; “how did that object come to be here?” In the case of the stone for all Paley knows, it could have simply been lying there forever. However in the case of the watch, Paley found that answer unsatisfactory because there are many differences between a watch and a stone. A watch for example, has many moving parts that are arranged intricately in a specific order so that they work together to tell the time correctly. If any of the parts had been arranged in a different way, such motion would not have been produced, and the watch wouldn’t be able to display the time correctly.
From having determined how to decide whether something has been designed, through examining the watch, Paley turns his attention to the natural world. He finds all the indicators of design, observed in the watch, in the natural world. This leads him to the conclusion, that like the watch, nature must also have a designer, who also designed the universe. His argument is essentially as follows: A watch has many complex features, which work together for a specific purpose (to tell the time). Anything which exhibits these features must design. Therefore the watch was has been designed by a designer. The universe is like the watch in that it possesses the same features, except on a far greater scale. Therefore the universe, like the watch, has also been designed, except by a ‘wondrous universe maker’ – God.
However, there are some criticisms to Paley’s argument, and Paley even comes up with some problems the argument may face. One criticism he comes up with is that some parts of the watch may appear to have no purpose. When Paley comes across the stone, he dismisses the stone as having no purpose straight away. Similarly if he came across a part of the watch that had no purpose, then this raises questions about the designer. Why would the designer include parts that have no evident purpose? This is comparable to the world where there are objects that seem to have no purpose such as random stones for example, and this raises questions about the ‘wondrous creator’. The conclusion that the world has been designed is weakened because after all, a designer wouldn’t include pointless parts.
In addition, philosopher David Hume also critiques arguments from analogy, writing thirty years before Paley. One of the main criticisms he makes is that we have no experience of world making. We can only recognize that certain sort of objects, such as machines, have intelligent designers because we’ve had some form or experience, either direct or indirect, of such objects being designed or manufactured. So it is only through observation of the way in which an object like a watch, for example, is produced in our world, that we understand that they require a designer. But if we never had any experience of its manufacture or design, then we would never be able to suppose that an object such as a watch actually was designed.
Hume’s point acts as a criticism to the argument from analogy because he is essentially saying that to know what has brought about something, we need to physically see it being brought about. Therefore unless we actually see a universe coming into existence and experience that event, then we can’t reasonably claim that we know whether our own universe has actually been made or not. However, Paley responds to this criticism by saying that it actually doesn’t matter if we have never seen a watch being made, and have no understanding whatsoever of how it’s produced. Paley asks the question “does one man in a million know how oval frames are turned?” The answer here is ‘no’ yet how can one be so sure that they have definitely been designed. Paley’s answer is that there are certain intrinsic features possessed by certain objects which show that they are designed.
Nonetheless, Hume’s point went deeper and although he accepted that it may be possible to infer that some unfamiliar object may have been designed, he said that this was only because we are able to compare this to other manufactured objects that we’ve come across in the past. He went on to say that if we had absolutely no experience whatsoever, direct or indirect, of the manufacturing process, then we would still doubt whether the object has a designer. Similarly we have no experience of a universe coming into being, as it is unique and there is nothing we can compare it to. The only experiences we may have, are of individual parts of the universe, however, these parts on their own cannot tell us about the origin of the universe as a whole. An example given in Hume’s story is that ‘from observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?’ For Hume, if we have no experience of this universe being designed, and we cannot compare it to other universes that have been designed, then we have no grounds to conclude that God was the designer of our universe, and hence we cannot say that God exists either.
More recently, through Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, a scientific revolution has been brought about, which creates major challenges to the idea that the world is designed. For example, according to Darwin, a duck’s foot was specifically developed to be so well adapted and effective through certain characteristics being favored and passed on through inheritance as well as reproductive success. This whole process is both blind and chaotic, sometimes even leading to a whole species being wiped out because none have favorable mutations to cope with sudden changes in the environment. Therefore Darwin’s theory is seen as a big threat to the teleological argument, as it provides a naturalistic explanation for the existence of telos, without any reference to the concept of diving design.
In conclusion, although Aquinas and Paley make a fairly good argument with the arguments from analogy, there are quite a few weaknesses to it, some of which are even pointed out by Paley. For example, from his analogy, there may be some parts of the watch that are pointless and have no purpose. Similarly there are objects in this world that appear to have no purpose, like stones, and this casts doubts on whether a being like God designed the world, because it raises the question as to why he would design and create pointless objects. Furthermore, criticisms to the analogy from design are made by philosopher David Hume. One of his main criticisms was that since we have no experience of world making, then we can’t come to the conclusion that the world was designed by God. He claims that in order to suggest something has been designed; we need to experience it being designed or manufactured, either directly or indirectly, or at least be able to compare it to something similar to it. However, in the case of the universe this is simply not possible therefore we cannot come to the conclusion that it has been designed by God, and hence God exists.
by
mightybean (student)
