Hume’s second point in his criticisms states that similar effects do not necessarily imply similar causes. Following on from his first point concentrating on the lack of similarities between a machine and the world, Hume takes this further by asking if it really is a solid notion to say that similar effects necessarily result from similar causes. For us to know that an orderly universe has arisen from intelligence and thought, we would have had to experience the origin of the world. The question is whether similar effects could have actually been the result of different causes.
The third point in Hume’s criticisms is other possible analogies. This has already been discussed in his first point when Hume argued that;
“The world plainly resembles more an animal or vegetable than it does a watch or knitting loom.”
One specific example he used was that of a carrot. The carrot is relevant in that if the analogy is made with the carrot then the mark of design in the world could be caused by something similar to generation or vegetation. The natural world could possess some inner self-regulation and growth. By using a carrot as an analogy it is easy to infer there is no purpose. If David Hume had lived long enough he would have most likely quoted Darwinism as an example, which sees beneficial adaptations explained in non-personal terms by natural selection. Hume argued that intelligence is actually caused by the process of generation, and surely the process of causes continues, as intelligence requires a cause. If this is so, then you end up with an infinite regression of causes.
David Hume’s fourth point is that the analogy makes God seem almost human, and not divine (anthropomorphism of God). He argued that the more you look into the analogy of a man-made machine such as a watch, the more human you have to make God. For example, infinity could not be attributed to any of the attributes of God. The cause ought to be proportional to the effect and as the effect (the universe) is not infinite, there is no reason to designate infinity to God. Similarly, perfection can’t be ascribed, as it is impossible for us to tell whether the universe as a system contains any faults, (although some would argue evil, suffering and natural disasters point to many faults.) Even if it was perfect, it would still be uncertain as to whether all these perfection’s can be ascribed to the designer, as there is the possibility of there being several unsuccessful worlds before this one was made. The fifth point Hume commented on fits in with the fourth point, as it assesses the faults found in the universe. Hume commented that the analogy leads to a non-moral God and listed natural disasters such as earthquakes, war and disease, and questioned how a just and good God could have planned and designed a world like this. Hume concluded that if God existed he must have no moral character, with his alternative view being of two forces, one good and one evil. Hume mocks the design argument by pointing out that the world could have easily been made by a poor designer who, in turn, abandoned resulting in condemnation by his superior Gods. Or perhaps a team of God’s made the earth, very much like a team of designers make a watch. To counter this argument it can be said that this view is inadequate from the human perspective as we are within this earth so we cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. Swinburne also argued that Hume is wrong to postulate more than one designer, as there is no need.
John Stuart Mill, another philosopher who challenged the idea that evidence in the world proves the existence of a God of Classical Theism. He saw the evil and suffering in the world and concluded that the designer couldn’t have been omnipotent, all knowing and omni - benevolent, as if the designer was all loving then human suffering would not have been included in the design. The fact that it is, shows one of these three attributes is missing. Mill concluded that God is benevolent and concedes God may not be all-powerful.
Hume’s final point suggests that there may be other explanations for the apparent order in the universe, and that we should not be so sure that the universe was not the product of some blind, cosmic accident. Hume thought it obvious that the universe had evidence of design, as there would be no universe if all the parts in it were not mutually adapted to a certain extent. In an infinite amount of time the world would have been created however slim the odds were which explains our existence. This can be challenged by the likes of Swinburne who feels the odds on the universe coming about via chance are as likely as picking out the ace of spades ten times out of ten packs. Fred Hoyle, a respected scientist also feels the probability is so slim a designer is a far more likely reason.
Darwinism, with its appeal for natural selection exposes a huge weakness in the design argument. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who formulated the theory of natural selection in his book, published in 1859. The book, which revolutionised thinking about the way in which species, particularly human beings developed, challenges the design argument. Darwin provided an alternative explanation with absolutely no reference to God. Instead he offered a mechanical explanation for the development of life on Earth, in which natural selection took place. Darwin argued that random variations, which gave the best advantage to a plant or animal in the struggle for survival, resulted in the survival of the fittest member of that particular species,
“The swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving
and so be preserved or selected”
Darwin led many people to believe that God was not necessary in explaining the way the world worked, and more recently Richard Dawkins has written several books supporting Darwin in his rejection of God, including “The Blind Watchmaker”. He argues natural selection gives the appearance of design, mistakenly leading people to believe there is a designer. Dawkins however, rejects the idea of design and argues that any variations in the world were caused by random mistakes in the DNA molecules of any life form.
Having explored the weaknesses of the design argument, I feel that it most definitely fails in proving the existence of God, but does certainly point to the universe having a design. Whether this is the work of a designer is not wholly clear. Some would look at the Epicurean Hypothesis – stating that the universe is a product of random particles coming together by chance. The weaknesses brought forward by Hume have looked in specific detail Paley’s analogies, and he has managed to find many faults with comparing something as huge as the universe to something man-made such as a watch. It is clear from this that to use an analogy like that is just too simple. Hume may lead us to a probable conclusion that the world was designed but there is nothing to prove that designer was God. A huge disadvantage is also the fact it is an a posteriori argument, as it is merely based on experience and only leads to a probable conclusion so is open to several interpretations. Some of the weaknesses in the argument are due to recent scientific discovery or evidence, which many, trust further than to believe something just based on assumption and probable conclusions. In fairness to the thinkers of the design argument, they did not set out to convert atheists and make them see that they are indeed wrong and there is a designer. Instead they have aimed to reinforce the beliefs of those that already have a solid faith.
