Paley’s idea of a divine maker that gives rise to a “good” end opposes nihilistic concepts introduced by Nietzsche.
Regardless of which explanation is adopted in the modern world, rejection of Paley’s argument gives rise to concepts introduced by Nietzsche. Rejecting the idea of a divine maker called “God” and waiting for an explanation behind complex biological design is much more difficult that already having an explanation in place before deeming God to be dead. The reason why atheism was a harder notion to grasp before the emergence of scientific concepts is because an utter lack of explanation is deeply unfulfilling. In other words, atheism was possible before the advent of Darwinian concepts. Dawkins also argues that the organizational complexity of nature does not necessarily require an explanation. Natural selection can be likened to a blind watchmaker, who by virtue of his blindness does not have the foresight to execute a planned design. Natural selection is a “blind, unconscious, automatic process” (Dawkins, 1986) that occurs without any regard for the future. Dawkins draws upon the Darwinian concept of natural selection to offer a fail point in Paley’s theory. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins offers a criticism of Paley’s watchmaker analogy.
Philosophers such as Cicero and Aquinas have followed suit in the idea that what can be observed from nature “is not merely order, but an orderly movement to a good end” (Zagzebski, p. Paley strongly resonates with the teleological premise of a final end that a maker defines as his purpose. Thus, one could reasonably conclude that a divine maker is responsible for directing the processes of nature providentially. (Paley, 1824)” In other words, the perfect regularity of day and night, seasons, and other cosmological trends present a degree of design that far transcends the design capability of a human being. From this basis, Paley goes on to argue that nature is a “manifestation of design in a degree that exceeds all computation. The watch consists of such “precision and intricacy of design” (Paley, 1824) that man is forced to conclude that the watch must have had a maker with the foresight and sense of purpose in mind to execute such as complex design. However, if the object happened to be a watch, man would could not come to the same conclusion. In inquiring about the origin of the stone, a man may reasonably conclude that the stone had lain upon the heath forever. Paley presents a situation where upon a man first comes across a stone while crossing a heath. William Paley is best known for his analogical design argument presented in Natural Theology. Disintegration of Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy & Rise of Nietzschean Thought in ‘No Country for Old Men’
0 kommentar(er)
