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…
“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
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…
“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