The clockmaking analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument that states, by way of analogy, that design implies a designer. Analogy has played an important role in the theology of nature and the "argument of design," in which it is used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe, both in Christianity and Deism.
Sir Isaac Newton, among other leaders in the scientific revolution, including Renà © Descartes, asserted "that the physical laws which he revealed reveal the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be similar to clockmakers, in which the watchmaker is God."
The publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in 1859 offered an explanation for complexity and adaptation, reflecting a scientific consensus on the origin of biodiversity. In the eyes of some people, this provides a counter-argument to the watchmaker's analogy: for example, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins refers to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker provides his explanation of evolution. Others, however, consider the clock-maker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, arguing that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In the 19th century, the deists, who championed the watchmaker's analogy, argued that Darwin's theory corresponded to "the principle of uniformitarianism - the notion that all processes in the world take place as they did in the past" and that deistic evolution "provides an explanatory framework for understanding variations species in the mechanical universe. "
In the United States, beginning in the 1960s, creationists revived versions of the argument to refute the concept of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker's argument. The most famous statement of this teleological argument using the clock-maker analogy was given by William Paley in his book in 1802 Theology of Nature or Evidence of Existence and Nature of God. .
Video Watchmaker analogy
History
Scientific revolution
The scientific revolution "maintains a growing consciousness" that "there is a universal law of nature in the workplace that commands the movement of the world and its parts." James KA Smith and Amos Yong wrote that in "astronomy, the Copernican revolution concerning the heliocentrism of the solar system, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) the three laws of planetary motion, and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) the law of universal gravitation - the law of gravity and motion, of absolute space and time-all combined to form the order of the celestial and earthly bodies. "Against that backdrop," deists suggest the clock-maker analogy: the same as watchmaker-driven watches, after which they operate according to the mechanism they have as well as the world initiated by God as creator, after which and all its parts have operated in accordance with the laws of nature which they have established.the law is perfectly in place, the event has been folded according to the designated plan. " Sir Isaac Newton, "the orderly motions of the planets make it plausible to believe in the existence of a God sustainable. " Newton also supported the idea that "like a watchmaker, God is compelled to intervene in the universe and tinker with mechanisms from time to time to ensure that it continues to operate in good working order." Like Newton, Renà © Descartes sees "the cosmos as a great time machine operating in accordance with the fixed law, a clock created and folded by a great watchmaker."
William Paley
Watches and watches have been used as examples of complicated technology in philosophical discussions. For example, Cicero, Voltaire and RenÃÆ' Descartes all use watches in arguments about purpose. The clockmaker analogy, as described here, was used by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle in 1686, but most famously was formulated by Paley.
Paley uses a clock-maker analogy in his book Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Presence and Attribute of the God collected from the Appearance of Nature, published in 1802. In it, Paley writes that if the watchmaker is found in health, most it makes sense to assume that someone dropped it and it was made by at least one watchmaker, not by the forces of nature:
In crossing a field, if I press my foot on a rock, and asked how it got there; I may be able to answer, that, for whatever I know otherwise, it has been there forever: nor will it be possible very easily to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I have found a clock on the ground, and it must be asked how the watch is in that place; I can hardly think of the answer I gave earlier, that for whatever I know, the watch may always be there.... There must be, at a time, and somewhere or another, a creator of art or artificers, who make up [the clock] for the purpose we find to be answered for truth; who understands its construction, and designs its use.... Any indication of the invention, any embodiment of the design, present in the watch, is present in the works of nature; with a difference, on the natural side, becoming larger or more, and in degrees beyond all calculations.
Paley goes on to state that the extraordinary complex structure of living things and the adaptation of plants and animals requires an intelligent designer. He believes the natural world is God's creation and shows the nature of the creator. According to Paley, God has carefully designed "even the simplest and least important organisms" and all their features (such as wings and antennas from earwigs). He believed, therefore, that God should care more for humanity.
Paley recognizes that there is great suffering in nature and nature does not seem to care about pain. The way to reconcile that with his belief in a good God is to assume that life has more pleasure than pain.
As an additional note, the wholesale plagiarism cost of this book was brought against Paley at The Athenaeum for 1848, but the famous illustration of the watch was not unusual for Nieuwentyt and has been used by many others before. either Paley or Nieuwentyt.
Joseph Butler
William Paley teaches Joseph Butler's work and appears to have been built on the design argument of Butler 1736 to conclude a designer of the design evidence. Butler notes: "As the Appearance of the Design Design and the Last Cause, in the Constitution of the World, it proves it as an Intelligent Mind... Appearance Design and > Final Causes in the natural constitution as true- really proves this acting agent to be smart designer ... Ã, ten thousand Instance of Design, can not but prove a Designer. ".
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau also mentions the clockmaking theory. He wrote the following in his 1762 book, Emile:
I'm like one who watches the watch for the first time; he never tired of admiring the mechanism, though he did not know the use of instruments and never saw his face. I do not know what this is for, he says, but I see that each part is suitable for others, I admire the worker in the details of his work, and I am pretty sure that all these wheels only work together in this mode for some similarities that I can not feel. Let us compare the specific purposes, the means, the relationships commanded in each type, then let's hear the inner voice of the feeling; what kind of mind can deny the evidence? Unless the eyes are blinded by prejudice, can they fail to see that the visible order of the universe proclaims the highest intelligence? What is the sofism that must be united before we fail to understand the harmony of existence and the extraordinary cooperation of each part for the rest of the rest?
Maps Watchmaker analogy
Criticism
David Hume
David Hume (1711-1776) offers some of the most impressive philosophical criticisms of the Paley clock analogy before Darwin's theory of evolution developed. His criticism can be divided into three main differences:
The first objection is that we have no experience of making the world. Hume highlights the fact that everything we claim to know knows the cause, we have gained induction from the previous experience of similar objects created or viewed of the objects themselves created. For example, with a watch, we know it must be made by the watchmaker because we can observe it made and compare it with watchmaking or other similar objects to conclude that they have the same cause in their creation. However, he argues that we have no experience of the creation of the universe or other universe creations to compare our own universe and never will; therefore, it does not make sense to conclude that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way as a watch.
The second criticism that Hume offers is about the form of argument as the analogy itself. The analogical argument claims that since the object X (watch) is like the object of Y (the universe) in one respect, both may be the same in another, hidden, respectful (the cause, must be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for the argument of the analogy to be successful, the two comparable things must have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the analogous respect. For example, kittens and lions may be very similar in many ways, but just because a lion makes a "rumble", it would not be right to conclude a kitten also "roars": the similarities between two objects are not equal enough and the level of relevance to the sound they make is not relevant enough. Hume then argues that the universe and watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to conclude that both are created in the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material, but the clock is made of artificial mechanical material. He claims that in the same way, the universe can be said to be more analogous to something more organic like vegetables (where we can observe ourselves do not need the 'designer' or 'watchmaker' to make). Although he acknowledges the analogy of the universe with vegetables to look ridiculous, he says that it's just as ridiculous as the analogy of the universe with a watch.
The third criticism Hume offers is that even if the argument provides evidence for a designer; it still does not provide evidence for traditional, "omnipotent," "virtuous" traditional God, "virtuous" (all-powerful and loving) Christianity. One of the main assumptions of Paley's argument is that 'such effects have causes'; or that machines (such as watches) and the universe have similar design features that both also have the same cause of existence: both must have an intelligent designer. However, Hume points out that what Paley does not understand is the extent to which 'causes' expand: how similar is the creation of the universe with the creation of watches. Instead, Paley moves directly to the conclusion that the designer of this universe is a 'God' whom he believes in traditional Christianity. However, Hume takes the idea of ​​"similar causes" and points out some potential absurdity in how far the "similarities" of these causes can be widespread if the argument is taken further to explain this. One example he uses is how a machine or watch is usually designed by a whole team of people rather than just one person. Of course, if we are to analogize them in this way, it will show there is a group of gods that created the universe, not just one being. Another example he uses is that complex machines are usually the result of several years of trial and error with each new machine which is an improved version of the latter. Also with the analogy of both, would not it imply that the universe could also be one of God's 'trials' and that there are many better universes out there? However, if it were considered true, surely the 'creators' would not all be 'all loving' and 'in power' if they had to do a 'try and wrong' process when creating the universe?
Hume also pointed out that there is still a possibility that the universe could be created by random probabilities but still show proof of design because the universe is eternal and will have unlimited time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own. He called that 'Hypicurean hypothesis'. He argues that when the universe was first created, the universe is random and chaotic, but if the universe is immortal, over an indefinite period of time, the forces of nature can naturally 'evolve' by random particles that come together from time to time time becomes a very regular system we can observe today without the need for an intelligent designer as an explanation.
The last objection he made refers to the problem of many crimes discussed. He argues that all the unnecessary daily suffering that happens everywhere in the world is another factor that pulls away from the idea that God is a 'omnipotent' creature.
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin's theory provides another explanation.
When Darwin finished his studies of theology at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1831, he read Paley's Natural Theology and believed that it provided a rational proof of God's existence. That's because living things show complexity and are perfectly suited to their place in a happy world.
Furthermore, on the voyage of Beagle , Darwin found that nature was not very useful, and the distribution of species did not support the idea of ​​divine creation. In 1838, shortly after his return, Darwin understood his theory that natural selection, not divine design, is the best explanation for gradual change in the population over many generations. He published the theory in the Origin of Species in 1859, and in subsequent editions, he recorded the response he had received:
It is almost unpredictable that false theories will explain, in a satisfactory manner like the theory of natural selection, some of the great classes of facts above are determined. Recently there is an objection that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but this is the method used to assess the general events of life, and is often used by the greatest natural philosopher... I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock a person's religious feelings. This is satisfying, because it shows how such impressions are temporary, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, that is, the law of gravitational attraction, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive from nature, and unexpectedly revealed, religion." A famous writer and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is as graceful as a concept of God to believe that He created some original form that is capable of developing oneself into other forms and as necessary, such as believing that He needs a new creation act to supply the cavity caused by His legal action. "
Darwin reviewed the implications of this finding in his autobiography:
Although I do not think much about the existence of a personal God until the end of my life, I will here present the vague conclusions that I have triggered. The old argument about design in nature, as given by Paley, which originally seemed to me so conclusive, failed, now that the law of natural selection has been found. We can no longer argue that, for example, the beautiful hinges of bivalve shells must be made by intelligent beings, like the hinges of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the diversity of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than where the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of the fixed law.
The notion that nature is governed by law is common, and in 1833, William Whewell as a proponent of natural theology inspired by Paley has written that "with respect to the material world, we can at least be so far-we can see that events do not occur an isolated interposition of divine power, given in every particular case, but with the formation of general laws. "Darwin, speaking of" permanent law "agrees with Whewell, writing in his second edition On The Origin of Species :
There is splendor in this view of life, with some of its powers, which the Creator has inhaled into form or become one; and that, while the planet has been rotating according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple, the most beautiful and beautifulest endless forms of beginning have been, and are, evolving.
By the time Darwin published his theory, liberal Christian theologians had supported such ideas, and by the end of the nineteenth century their modernist approach was dominant in theology. In science, the theory of evolution that combines Darwin's natural selection is fully accepted.
Richard Dawkins
In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins argues that the clock analogy revolves around the emerging complexity of living organisms capable of self-reproduction (and can cause more complexity over time) with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to continue the change reproductive (such as the number of parts produced in watches). The comparison is damaged by this important distinction.
In the episode of BBC Horizon , also titled The Blind Watchmaker , Dawkins describes Paley's argument as "wrong as graceful". In both contexts, he sees Paley has made the wrong proposal to solve a particular problem, but Dawkins does not respect it. In his essay The Big Bang, Steven Pinker discusses Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Today's biologists disagree with Paley putting the issue in. They disagree solely with the solution."
In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life is the result of complex biological processes. He makes the argument that comparison with lucky clock construction is a misnomer because evolutionists do not regard evolution as "lucky". Instead of luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the watchmaker's role.
In addition, he argues that the creation of clock watches implies that watchmakers must be more complex than watches. The design is top-down, someone or something more complicated to design something less complex. To follow the line up demands that the clock be designed by the watchmaker (certainly more complicated), the watchmaker must be created by a creature that is more complex than himself. So the question becomes who is designing the designer? Dawkins argues that (a) this line continues unceasingly, and (b) does not explain anything.
Evolution, on the other hand, takes a bottom-up approach; this explains how more complexity can emerge gradually by building or combining lower complexities.
In response to these claims, Nathan Schneider wrote, "Paley died several decades before The Origin of Species was published, and since his views have repeatedly contradicted Darwin which Richard Dawkins gave the title of one of his books. > The Blind Watchmaker By looking more closely at Paley's own thoughts, however, God working through the laws of nature, does not transcend them like a modern ID identity designer.Paley does not object to species that change over time. culture is so polarized today that we do not need to notice that one of the ancestors of intelligent design theory may be very comfortable with evolution. "
Incorrect analogy
Critics have found mistakes in watches, or alternative 'eye analogy'. Biologist Peter Richerson and anthropologist Robert Boyd argue that a human can not make his own watch so that the watch does not have a designer.
Modern day
At the beginning of the 20th century, modernist theology of higher criticism was opposed in the United States by biblical literalists, who campaigned successfully against evolutionary teaching and began to call themselves creationists in the 1920s. When the teaching of evolution was reintroduced to public schools in the 1960s, they adopted what they call science-creation that has a central design concept in terms similar to Paley's argument. The idea was then renamed intelligent design , which presents the same analogy as an argument against evolution through natural selection without explicitly stating that "intelligent designer" is God. The argument of the complexity of biological organisms is now presented as an argument of irreducible complexity, the most prominent supporter being Michael Behe, and, utilizing information theory, the specified complexity. argument, the most distinguished supporter is William Dembski.
The clock maker analogy is referenced in 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. During the trial, Paley was mentioned several times. Defense expert John Haught notes that neither Intelligent Design nor the watchmaker analogy is a "reformulation" of the same theological argument. On the 21st day of the trial, Mr. Harvey drove Dr. Minnich through the modern version of Paley's argument, replacing the phone for watches. In his decision, the judge stated that the use of arguments from design by intelligent designers "is merely a reiteration of Pastor William Paley's argument applied at the cellular level" and that the arguments of the design are subjective.
See also
- The existence of God
- Cosmological argument
- Genetic algorithm
- God of the Gaps
- Unlimited monkey theorem
- Unblegeable complexity
- Junkyard tornado
- Objection of evolution
References
Source
- Paley, William (1802). The Theology of Nature, Or, Evidence of the Presence and Attribute of God. Collected from Nature Appearance . Philadelphia: John Morgan.
- Richerson, Peter J.; Boyd, Robert (2005). Not by Gen Alone: ​​â € <â €
. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0-226-71284-2.
External links
- The Divine Watchmaker
- Robert Hooke
- William Paley (1743-1805)
- The Autobiography of Charles Darwin , a revised version was published in 1958 by Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow.
- Recapitulation and Conclusion ", by Charles Darwin.
- Chaos in the Solar System, by J Laskar
- Animated Watch Analyzer and Dramatic Reading
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments