the argument against religion.

the argument against religion. PHI 101, 24 February 2003

religion in the 21st century is controversial to say the least. even dating back to the 18th century when William Paley wrote The Watch and the Watchmaker, it seems obvious that seeking answers to faith and religion are undefined and highly questionable. in this essay, Paley claims that the existence and purpose of a watch can be compared to the existence and purpose of the world. the question I must ask then is this - how can something so mysterious such as our world be compared to that of clockwork?

in the beginning of Paley's argument, he explains that a stone lying on the ground cannot serve any purpose because it cannot be proved that it was intended to be there and that it could have been there since the beginning of time. he follows this explanation with the argument that a watch being found on the ground is completely different because people can understand that a watch is created for the purpose of telling time. my argument against this is that a stone alone might seem purposeless, but when combined with other stones, it can be used to create foundations for buildings or roads which are part of everyday life. likewise, a watch broken down into its parts would be basically useless, but once it is constructed into an actual watch, it serves a great purpose.

referring to the question of god's existence, many people claim that in theory, god created humans. not only is it impossible to find concrete evidence for the existence of an intangible being, it is unfeasible to imagine that such an indefinable being could create other purposeful, tangible things. for example, just like the stone and the watch, parts of a human body broken down would not serve a very great purpose. how could human beings function with just an arm or or just a leg? it simply is not possible because humans are too complex to be compared with the mechanical functioning of a watch. even if human behavior was predetermined, we would still never be as predictable or as consistent as the ticking of a watch. the argument in this sense is not plausible because it does not take into consideration the stone and the watch under the same circumstances; therefore, they cannot be paralleled to the existence of god and what is assumed to have been created by god.

in another instance, Paley describes a watch that may malfunction or may not be perfect, but its design and purpose are still recognizable. this argument is weak simply because the watchmaker did not intend for the watch to malfunction. god creates humans beings, none of which are completely perfect, so in a sense, Paley is suggesting that we are all intended to become malfunctioning watches. a perfect watch would keep perfect time, but a perfect human does not exist. throughout the essay, he does not even address what god intends as the purpose of human beings, so how can it be compared to the watch which seems to have such a clear purpose? what constitutes the characteristics of a "perfect" human being? these are questions that cannot be answered and therefore render Paley's argument incredible.

the final point I will mention concerning Paley's case for the existence of god is in his application section where he claims that every  manifestation of design that exists in the watch must exist in nature. however, he then explains that nature surpasses the art of a watch in complexity, curiosity, and variety. this being so, how is it even reasonable to attempt a comparison between the two when it is obvious that based on these facts alone that they are different? a watch's purpose is mechanical and unchanging while a human's purpose, although it cannot be concretely defined, is clearly not this. we are humans in a diverse, mysterious world in which nothing is really meant to be unchanging or completely unpredictable. sudden, random, and sometimes unexpected events such as earthquakes or tornadoes occur every day in nature, whereas the possibilities for the outcomes of a watch are very limited: it either works or it does not work. the idea of a grand designer for this world cannot be held accountable for the purpose of its creatures.