Cla
ssi
fica
tio
n: Sch
wa
b Int
ern
al
ARA12:
1)
According to Paley, if an object has a purpose, what is this evidence of?
This is evidence of a maker. He argues this by argument by analogy with the watchmaker analogy. If a
watch has a purpose, then that means it has a maker. 2)
Put Paley's analogical argument in premise-conclusion form (focus on chapter 1 up to the roman numerals and Chapter III 'application of the argument').
Premise #1: Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
Premise #2: The universe resembles human artifacts.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe is a product of intelligent design.
3)
Based on your understanding the a priori/a posteriori distinction discussed last week (see here
and here
), does Paley's argument rely on a priori reasoning or a posteriori reasoning? Explain your answer.
Paley’s argument relies on posteriori reasoning because posteriori knowledge is based on experience
or empirical evidence. Paley’s argument is based on observations of the natural world and the complexity of its components which he argues suggest a maker. This is empirical evidence, so that means Paley’s argument is posteriori. 4)
Explain Pascal's wager in your own words. On his view, why should one believe in god? Cite the text to support your answer. Pascal’s Wager is that if you believe in God and he exists, then you gain eternal rewards (Heaven), but if it turns out God does not exist, you will lose nothing, besides your belief in him. On the other hand, if you do not believe in God and he exists, then you will be punished eternally (Hell), but if it turns out that he does not exist, you will not gain anything. Pascal says we should believe in god because that is the most rewarding possible way if he exists. “
Let us weigh the gain and the loss involved in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two probabilities; it you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist” (Pascal, pg.2).
