The watchmaker analogy of the teleological argument
(1) The bait:Suppose you find a watch in a field.
(2) The hook:
Surely, it is too complex to have been created by natural processes.
(3a) The sinker?
Therefore, you assume it must have been created by a watchmaker (or, perhaps, by more than one watchmaker).
(3b) And just in case you missed "the sinker:"
How then, when we see the infinitely more complex processes of the universe, can we not come to the conclusion that the universe, too, must have been designed by an intelligent being (or perhaps by more than one)? So the universe must have been created by one or more designers.
(-1) Out of the frying pan, over the fire, and back into the lake:
Let's try this again. Suppose you find a watch in a field. It is too complex to have been created by natural processes. Therefore, you assume it must have been created by an intelligent designer. Right? Ok, sure. So you look closely, and sure enough the watch has an inscription, which reads: "I was made by Afshin. He is intelligent. He is a designer. And in case you were wondering, he is not God." So then you see Afshin. He's much more complex than the watch. So you think, "Gee, Afshin sure is complex. He must have been designed by an intelligent designer or two." So even though you don't see Afshin's intelligent designer(s), you're pretty sure about the designer(s)' existence.
(0) Do you see the problem, yet?
So you've reasoned your way into believing that the complex watch was designed by more-complex Afshin. Then you've reasoned your way into believing that the more-complex Afshin was designed by an even-more-complex designer. Now, why isn't that even-more-complex designer (whose complexity surely implies an intelligent designer - or a whole team of them) an indication of even-more-than-even-more-complex designer(s)? In other words: for all x, with complexity C(x), x must have been designed by a designer, y, with a complexity C(y) greater than C(x), which leads to an infinite regress.
Labels: evolution, intelligent design, logic, philosophy, religion
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home