Who Is Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg.63
Dawkins believes that everything happens by chance, but it does happen for a reason. He talks about the idea of finding a rock at your feet and finding a watch at your feet. He says there is a difference. The rock you would think has been just been there; it was not placed by anyone it is just there. The watch however had to have been placed there by mankind, because it is not just found in nature. He mentions on page 65 in the Abel textbook that “a true watchmaker has foresight: He designs his cogs and springs, and plans the interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye.” He says that the idea of natural selection has no purpose in mind at all. “If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker …show more content…
in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” He goes on to say that there are a million different was that the world could be played out, it is all by chance. Just like a monkey hitting a keyboard and you are hoping for one sentence. It is chance. Except if you were to manipulate the system to help the monkey then it would be less of a chance that the monkey would get the sentence right, it would be more of a guarantee that they would get it right. On page 73, he states, “Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life’s complex design.”
Aquinas, Treatise on God pg. 39
Question 2 concerns the existence of God and it is divided into three Articles. In the First Article, Aquinas maintains that the proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and it then requires demonstration. The Second Article concludes that such a demonstration is indeed possible, despite objections to the contrary. The Third Article addresses the question of whether God exists, and in this Article, Aquinas offers his Five Ways as proof for the existence of God.
First, we observe that some things in the world are in motion. Whatever is in motion is put into motion by another object that is in motion. We must conclude that there is a first unmoved mover, which we understand to be God.
Second, we observe that everything has an efficient cause and that nothing is or can be the cause of itself. If there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes is not right, and so that first efficient cause must be God.
Third, we observe things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. If nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. We must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself, which would be God.
Fourth, beings in the world have characteristics to varying degrees. There must be something that is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection that we find in beings in the world, which is God.
Fifth, we observe in nature that inanimate and nonintelligent objects act toward the best possible purpose, even though these objects are not aware of doing so. It is clear that these objects do not achieve their purpose by chance but rather according to a plan. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.
Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence pg. 85
There is a quote by Epicurus that goes with Mackie’s views on God.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” There are inconsistencies with God, because he is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful. Mackie does not believe that something can have these qualities and there still be evil in the world. He says that this means God is not omnipotent. The argument he puts up is that if God truly is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful then evil should not exist. Evil does exist so Mackie says that there is no God. Mackie then goes through some adequate solutions. He says that you can reject one of the premises. In particularly, you can reject the properties of God or you can deny that there is evil. Then he goes through some fallacious solutions. The first is that good cannot exist without evil, which implies a limit on God’s power. The second is that evil is a necessary means to good. The third is the universe is better with some evil. It allows for second order goods, such as striving, charity, and heroism. The fourth and final fallacious solution is that evil is due to human free will. Some objections with this are that freedom of the will is false and freedom must entail evil. He then talks about the paradox of omnipotence which is the question: Is God so powerful that he could do something that he ultimately could not control? The most traditional variant of this is could God create a stone that is even too heavy for him to lift
up.
Hick, The Problem of Evil pg. 97
God is all powerful, God is all good, and evil exists. All three of these cannot be true at the same time. An attempt to save God from the problem of evil is known as a theodicy. A negative theodicy takes evil which has already occurred and attempts to justify it. The free will defense is the most commonly used to argue against the problem of evil.
Negative theodicy was first put forth by Augustine in the early fifth century. It depicts man as being born perfect in a perfect world created by a perfect creator. In this scenario evil is attributed to our free will and the choices we have made. Evil that exists in the world is a result of our bad choices and is entirely caused by us.
John Hick argued that humanity did not fall but was created imperfectly but with the tools to become perfect. Without evil to give us problems we would stay imperfect and never use our potential. Hick argues that the Bible is full of evil and disaster. Christianity, he argues, is not a religion which takes place in a perfect world; evil is a necessary part of the religion.
Dawkins believes that everything happens by chance, but it does happen for a reason. He talks about the idea of finding a rock at your feet and finding a watch at your feet. He says there is a difference. The rock you would think has been just been there; it was not placed by anyone it is just there. The watch however had to have been placed there by mankind, because it is not just found in nature. He mentions on page 65 in the Abel textbook that “a true watchmaker has foresight: He designs his cogs and springs, and plans the interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye.” He says that the idea of natural selection has no purpose in mind at all. “If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker …show more content…
in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.” He goes on to say that there are a million different was that the world could be played out, it is all by chance. Just like a monkey hitting a keyboard and you are hoping for one sentence. It is chance. Except if you were to manipulate the system to help the monkey then it would be less of a chance that the monkey would get the sentence right, it would be more of a guarantee that they would get it right. On page 73, he states, “Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life’s complex design.”
Aquinas, Treatise on God pg. 39
Question 2 concerns the existence of God and it is divided into three Articles. In the First Article, Aquinas maintains that the proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself, but not to us, and it then requires demonstration. The Second Article concludes that such a demonstration is indeed possible, despite objections to the contrary. The Third Article addresses the question of whether God exists, and in this Article, Aquinas offers his Five Ways as proof for the existence of God.
First, we observe that some things in the world are in motion. Whatever is in motion is put into motion by another object that is in motion. We must conclude that there is a first unmoved mover, which we understand to be God.
Second, we observe that everything has an efficient cause and that nothing is or can be the cause of itself. If there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes is not right, and so that first efficient cause must be God.
Third, we observe things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. If nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. We must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself, which would be God.
Fourth, beings in the world have characteristics to varying degrees. There must be something that is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection that we find in beings in the world, which is God.
Fifth, we observe in nature that inanimate and nonintelligent objects act toward the best possible purpose, even though these objects are not aware of doing so. It is clear that these objects do not achieve their purpose by chance but rather according to a plan. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.
Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence pg. 85
There is a quote by Epicurus that goes with Mackie’s views on God.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” There are inconsistencies with God, because he is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful. Mackie does not believe that something can have these qualities and there still be evil in the world. He says that this means God is not omnipotent. The argument he puts up is that if God truly is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful then evil should not exist. Evil does exist so Mackie says that there is no God. Mackie then goes through some adequate solutions. He says that you can reject one of the premises. In particularly, you can reject the properties of God or you can deny that there is evil. Then he goes through some fallacious solutions. The first is that good cannot exist without evil, which implies a limit on God’s power. The second is that evil is a necessary means to good. The third is the universe is better with some evil. It allows for second order goods, such as striving, charity, and heroism. The fourth and final fallacious solution is that evil is due to human free will. Some objections with this are that freedom of the will is false and freedom must entail evil. He then talks about the paradox of omnipotence which is the question: Is God so powerful that he could do something that he ultimately could not control? The most traditional variant of this is could God create a stone that is even too heavy for him to lift
up.
Hick, The Problem of Evil pg. 97
God is all powerful, God is all good, and evil exists. All three of these cannot be true at the same time. An attempt to save God from the problem of evil is known as a theodicy. A negative theodicy takes evil which has already occurred and attempts to justify it. The free will defense is the most commonly used to argue against the problem of evil.
Negative theodicy was first put forth by Augustine in the early fifth century. It depicts man as being born perfect in a perfect world created by a perfect creator. In this scenario evil is attributed to our free will and the choices we have made. Evil that exists in the world is a result of our bad choices and is entirely caused by us.
John Hick argued that humanity did not fall but was created imperfectly but with the tools to become perfect. Without evil to give us problems we would stay imperfect and never use our potential. Hick argues that the Bible is full of evil and disaster. Christianity, he argues, is not a religion which takes place in a perfect world; evil is a necessary part of the religion.