Paley's Argument For Natural Theology

752 Words4 Pages
In this essay, I will argue that the incompatible views between Bertrand Russell and William Paley, regarding the argument from design, hinges upon if our world was tailored or if it came about through random variation. I will begin by outlining Paley’s argument for Natural Theology based on the creation of the world, and then I will explain Russell’s counter argument. Then, I will consider a possible response on behalf of Paley, and a further possible response by Russell. Towards the end of my essay I will discuss what would settle their disagreement. This entails whether natural laws are an eternal force or whether they are caused. Paley argues that the world is so complicated that it must have been designed by a greater power. Paley compares…show more content…
It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it (Perry, Bratman & Fischer, 58).” So, Russell claims that evolution explains why we are alive and why we continue to survive. Paley says that if something has a design than it must have a designer. So yes, a watch was designed, and its function is to tell time. However, Darwinism refutes this point. It says that not everything has a design, take nature for example. As perfect and miraculous as nature seems, it can be explained by survival of the fittest and random variation. Moreover, Russell would explain that design came about without consideration or a god that participated in…show more content…
Consequently, Russell believes Paley confuses natural and human laws. Since Russell claims that, “we now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions/… /the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws (Perry, Bratman & Fischer, 57).” Therefore Russell claims that natural and human laws are dissimilar. Authority issues human laws and natural laws are typically considered to be factual and universal claims. So essentially Russell is saying that just because evolution is complex and seemingly purpose-driven doesn’t mean that somebody made it to serve a purpose. All in all just because there are natural laws with which nature must abide, doesn’t mean that there is a lawmaker, as these laws can be explain through evolution, which essentially relies on

More about Paley's Argument For Natural Theology

Open Document