Regularity /
Purpose
Summary of Hume’s criticisms
Evaluation of Hume’s criticisms
In hypothesising a designer for the world
one is limited in what they can ascribe to
such a being. To say it is God, the God of
Christianity, is to go too far.
One cannot compare the world to a watch
or a ship because we have experience of
these and their creation. However, the
universe is unique, and we have no point
of reference. We have no experience of
universes being created. Therefore the
analogy is based on a fundamental
weakness.
This is a good and valuable point one should not ascribe
attributes beyond those that are necessary.
If the world has been designed, from
whence did the designer come? One is
not logically bound to the conclusion that
the world was designed by an eternal
being.
If the Design argument is based upon an
analogy, one must infer certain
characteristics from the analogy. If we
suggest that the world is analogous with a
human design, then we necessarily
suggest the designer God is analogous to
a human being. Therefore we are left with
an image of a human being, different only
in scale.
If many are involved in the design of a
watch or a ship why should we not
postulate many designers of the world?
Hume suggests the world might be better
compared to a plant, rather than any
human creation. Therefore, the analogy
breaks down.
The universe might be the result of
chance; the order exhibited in the
universe could be the result of
randomness.
There is much evidence of disorder in the
universe.
This too is an important point. We are hindered in our
ability to draw comparisons when we have no broader
experience of universes and their design and creation.
However, certain conclusions can be drawn from the
assertion that the universe was designed. For example, the
designing being would have to be powerful, purposeful and
incorporeal. These are all consistent with God and
although they might not ultimately prove his existence they
do support a belief in such an entity.
It is wrong to suggest that no one is ever at liberty to draw
any conclusion about something that is unique. Lots of
things can be described as unique. Even if something is
unique it can still share properties. If there were only one
man and woman in the world, there would still be two
human beings. The universe can be seen to share many
characteristics with other things, even man made
machines.
This is a fair criticism.
Analogous things are similar, not identical. One can make
certain alterations to the purported designer based on
necessity. For example, the designer could not be
corporeal.
See above.
This holds some weight. Are we using the right analogy? I
analogy a useful vehicle for the design argument?
Hume's point about chance is that over the course of time
there will be periods of order and periods of chaos, so that
the universe may once have been in chaos and the present
ordered universe may derive from this state. In reply to this
point, however, it can be said that Hume is only noting a
logical possibility which need not affect the fact that the
universe is not now in chaos, which calls for explanation.
In one sense this is clearly right: the universe contains
disorder since there are, for example, pain-producing
events of a natural kind. But this fact need not deter
defenders of the argument from design unless they wish to
hold that every particular thing works to the advantage of
other particular things, which they do not want to do
anymore than anyone else does. They only want to say
that there is order in need of explanation; and disorder
such as pain-producing natural events can plausibly be
taken as just an illustration of order. One can, for instance,
argue that pain-producing natural events exhibit order in
that their origins can often be traced and their future
occurrence predicted with a fair degree of success.