As Hume has been able to write his studies down, he can use literally techniques. He does this by having Philo pretending to take Cleanthes’ arguments seriously and then highlights a weakness. By doing this, Hume is able to show an argument is wrong, but also mocks the argument, making it less believable. He tells us, through Philo, that like effects have like causes. He points out to us that a ship has many carpenters working to build it and by juxtaposing the ship and the Universe, Hume says that there could easily be many gods, rather than just one.
Hume’s second critisism is that the Universe could have easily appeared by chance. Hume does admit that the world is orderly but he counter balances that by questioning if order implies a designer. He does not believe that the assumption from order to design can be made and thinks that it is easily plausible that the universe did occur by chance. As an example, to back up his point, he tells us that animals are not designed as, according to Darwin, they shape themselves into their own environment. Hume beleivs, and allows us to believe through Philo, that we cannot judge whether the Universe has a designer as ther is no substantial evidence supporting one side or another.
William Paley, twenty two years after Hume, tells us his argument via analogy. He explains to us his argument by asking us to compare the watch and the world. If somebody did not know what a watch was, there would be evidence that there had been intelligent design for it to have been created and therefore, an intelligent designer would have been at play. Paley refers then back to the Universe and says that in the same way a watch implies a watchmaker, the Universe implies a ‘universe maker’ and this is God.
A.E Taylor put forward his view of the Teleological Argument based on Darwin’s theories, which he called the ‘Argument from Providence’. This argument has four main points. The first of these tells us that Nature seems to plan ahead for the needs of animals and humans. Life is so improbable, that rather than there just being physical laws at play, there must be something beyond these. Secondly, mind or intelligence is necessary to account for this improbable state of affairs. Humans plan ahead and nature does the same, an example of this being the ozone layer, which nature has made just right for humans. Thirdly, the mind cannot be explained by evolution as evolution requires a mind to impose it, and finally, human beings cannot be explained by Darwin’s theories as humans do not just adapt to their environment, but they change it as well.
The last of the Teleological Arguments was supported by Paul Rout who was a modern Franciscan thinker. This argument is called the Argument from Beauty. Beauty and human appreciation of beauty has no survival value other than attraction of the sexes. It is though, therefore, to have been created by God as a ‘pointer’ to lead us to Him. Rout says that ‘ We [as humans] are not involved in an intellectual exercise; it is more that we are drawn beyond ourselves and our rational concepts by what is desirable.’
Overall, I think that these arguments can point to the God of ‘Process theology’ rather than to a traditional monotheistic God. However, there is no proof for this and I do not think people will be able to prove what they have experienced in the life time of the human race. These arguments all rest on probability and individual judgement and therefore cannot be said to perform the function of ‘proofs’.
