Suppose you walk across a heath and there, on the path, you find a pocket watch. What would be your first thought? “Poor fellow!” You might think and, “Is there a way it might be returned?” These thoughts clearly do not come naturally to some religious types. An Anglican clergyman William Paley wanted us to believe that the first thoughts would turn to the identity of a watchmaker. In 1802 he wrote an entire book about it.
Paley argued, and after him many fundamentalists up until today, that just as a found pocked watch presupposes a watchmaker, so thus the order in nature proves the existence of God. Firstly, this whole argument, as we have seen, is built upon an unnatural, stilted story. But beyond this funny premise, the whole analogy is false and seriously flawed because it compares living nature to a nonliving machine. Such an analogy is not only logically flawed, it is also arrogant and seriously dangerous. Thinking along these lines (nature is just like some man-made machine) has brought our civilization to the brink of ecological disaster.
But Paley’s argument betrays also his pitiably insecure faith. Arguing the existence of God from the miracles of nature is unfair to nature and unfair to God. Living faith does not need any proof of divine existence and even less arguments from our ignorance. The beauty and complexity of nature are far more than just crutches for insecure religion.
When you find a lost pocket watch on a heath, please, forget about watchmakers and bring it to the lost and found. And when you are awestruck by the intricate beauty of nature, please, forget dim-witted arguments about divine existence and instead pause for a moment and allow your heart to be filled with divine songs of insight and joy.
Paley argued, and after him many fundamentalists up until today, that just as a found pocked watch presupposes a watchmaker, so thus the order in nature proves the existence of God. Firstly, this whole argument, as we have seen, is built upon an unnatural, stilted story. But beyond this funny premise, the whole analogy is false and seriously flawed because it compares living nature to a nonliving machine. Such an analogy is not only logically flawed, it is also arrogant and seriously dangerous. Thinking along these lines (nature is just like some man-made machine) has brought our civilization to the brink of ecological disaster.
But Paley’s argument betrays also his pitiably insecure faith. Arguing the existence of God from the miracles of nature is unfair to nature and unfair to God. Living faith does not need any proof of divine existence and even less arguments from our ignorance. The beauty and complexity of nature are far more than just crutches for insecure religion.
When you find a lost pocket watch on a heath, please, forget about watchmakers and bring it to the lost and found. And when you are awestruck by the intricate beauty of nature, please, forget dim-witted arguments about divine existence and instead pause for a moment and allow your heart to be filled with divine songs of insight and joy.
No comments:
Post a Comment