L/O: To explore Hume’s criticisms of the Design Argument.

David Hume Scottish philosopher, Famed also as an historian and economist, a controversial essayist A key figure in the ‘Scottish Enlightenment’ His views on religion are guarded in his works, perhaps deliberately obscure. Some accused him of atheism, others of having an irregular view of God.

Hume’s arguments in the Dialogues a0A a0A Listen to this very clear explanation of The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion from Nigel Warburton and take notes. Reflect: what do you think of the arguments presented? How effective are the criticisms? Very effective Ineffective

Summary of Hume’s Criticisms ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, 1779 Hume focuses on the weaknesses of the analogy and the conclusion drawn from the available empirical evidence 1.Humans do not have sufficient knowledge of the origins of the world to assume that there is only one designer. As humans we only have experience of the things that we design and create. These may not be an adequate analogy. We know that houses require a designer because we have experience of many houses being built. We only have experience of this universe. He argued that it was impossible to draw conclusions about the whole from a small part. Also the universe is not like a vast machine. It is more like a living thing such as a vegetable or inert animal, something that grows of its own accord rather than something made by hand. 2.Even if design analogies were valid it would not necessarily follow that the designer was the God of theism. Hume suggests that we might have the work of several lesser gods or an ‘apprentice’ god who went on to create bigger and better worlds or ‘the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity.’ He speculates that there may be other worlds that are not as good as this one, made whilst this God was practising. 3.Hume felt that people who believe in God project human beliefs onto a non-human world. He argued that to discuss design in human terms is not an acceptable analogy on the grounds that God by definition transcends understanding. If we use a human analogy it is more usual for a machine to be the product of many hands rather than one designer. 4.Hume also used the ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (the Epicurean Thesis). Epicurus puts forward the possibility of infinite time. In infinite time there is a huge but finite number of particles freely moving about. In infinite time, they go through every possible combination. If any one combination happens to represent a stable order, it must occur. The very nature of a stable order is that it must fit together well – it would have the appearance of design. It could be in such a place that we find ourselves. Thus, apparent design could happen at random – there is no necessity to infer a designer. REMEMBER: these criticisms are applicable to Paley. However, Hume was criticising the design argument in general – Paley had not yet even written ‘Natural Theology’ (1802).

Swinburne identifies 8 criticisms from Hume ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, We can only be sure that the designer has the qualities required for that design and no others. So we cannot claim things about God unless they are directly apparent in the universe’s design. 2.The analogy of human design and God is a poor one. The universe is unique and we cannot therefore arrive at conclusions about its origins. 3.If the world was designed, who designed the designer? 4.The argument anthropomorphises God – makes Him too much like a human being. 5.Why should there be only one designer? Many people work together to build a house. 6.Why can’t we think of the universe as a living organism, which grows and reproduces in a similar manner, rather than as a machine? 7.The universe could be the result of chance; there are periods of chaos and of order; we happen to be living in a period of order. 8.There are many ‘inexplicable difficulties in the works of nature’. This leads to the idea that God is not perfect because His world is not perfect. Perhaps God made many worlds before he got it right. Perhaps God is dead.

Identify Swinburne’s reply for each of Hume’s criticisms: The existence of evil does not affect the teleological argument because it does not seek to prove the benevolence and omnipotence of God. A vegetable only grows because the laws of biochemistry apply. We have to ask what generated those laws? God does not have to share all the attributes of human designers. In order to control the regularities of the universe, God must be free, rational and very powerful, but cannot have a body since that would restrict Him. He is therefore very different from human designers. Even if God has more attributes than we can tell from the design of the universe, the universe at least provides some support for His existence. We can assume that a being that created the universe is powerful, incorporeal (without a body) because it exists outside the universe and it is purposive (it creates order). There is no reason to suppose that the cause of order in the universe requires an external explanation for itself. He created the laws of the universe; He does not have to follow them Himself. It is not unreasonable to ask questions about something that it unique. Scientists do it all the time. Also, the universe may be unique, but it has things in common with its parts; for example, like many of its parts, it changes, is composed of material elements and exhibits regularity. Anyway, all things are unique to some extent. The view that the universe is a product of chance becomes less believable as time progresses and order remains. The principle of Ockham’s razor says that we should always accept the simplest explanation. There is no reason to say that there is more than one designer. Also, we see no evidence to suggest that there are many designers; the law of gravity, for example, is universal.