Volume 10, Issue 2, 2008
Responding to New Resurrection Challenges
Paley’s Argument Revisited
Reply to Schupbach
In “Paley’s Argument for Design,” I argued for the view that, contrary to received opinion, Paley’s argument for design is a deductive argument that is subject to decisive objections. In “Paley’s Inductive Inference to Design,” Schupbach argues that I fail to show that Paley’s argument for design is a deductive argument, whence it surely follows that the objections that I raised are irrelevant. While I think that Schupbach overstates the case against the view that Paley’s argument for design is a deductive argument, I am persuaded that, at best, it is unclear whether or not we should hold that Paley’s argument is deductive. However, I insist that it does not matter whether Paley’s argument is deductive or inductive: what matters is that the kinds of objections that I raised in “Paley’s Argument for Design” serve to defeat Paley’s argument even if it is properly taken to be an inductive argument.