Hume on t he design argument

1. Hume on the design argument Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk (c) Michael Lacewing

2. Life • Isn’t life amazing? • Organs serve a purpose – heart – pump blood, eye – seeing • We understand parts of an organ in relation to serving this purpose • A living organism requires huge coordination of tiny parts each functioning well (c) Michael Lacewing

3. Design • The universe didn’t have to be like this – there could have been no order, no regularity • Order of this kind, the way parts work together for a purpose, can indicate design • If life involves design, by definition, there must be a designer (c) Michael Lacewing

4. Hume’s version • ‘The intricate fitting of means to ends throughout all nature is just like (though more wonderful than) the fitting of means to ends in things that have been produced by us—products of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence… (c) Michael Lacewing

5. Hume’s version • …Since the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer by all the rules of analogy that the causes are also alike, and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though he has much larger faculties to go with the grandeur of the work he has carried out.’ (c) Michael Lacewing

6. Hume’s argument from analogy • In the organization of parts for a purpose (the fitting of means to ends), nature resembles the products of human design. • Similar effects have similar causes. • The cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design. • Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design. (c) Michael Lacewing

7. Hume’s objections • The analogy between man-made, designed objects and the universe is weak. • There is a ‘great disproportion’ between parts of the universe and the whole universe • So we cannot infer that the cause of nature is similar to a human mind. • Thought is a ‘tiny, weak, limited cause’ which moves the bodies of animals – why use it as a model for the whole universe? (c) Michael Lacewing

8. Hume’s objections to the analogy • The arrangement of parts for a purpose does not, on its own, show that the cause is a designer • We can only make this inference where we have further experience of a designer bringing about such order • We can’t make inferences about causes of single instances, such as the universe • We can only establish what causes what through repeated experience of cause and effect (c) Michael Lacewing

9. Is the designer the best explanation? • A designer may not be the best explanation • E.g. Suppose matter is finite and time is infinite. Then all arrangements of matter will occur, by chance, over time • Neither this explanation nor a designer is clearly better, so we should suspend judgment (c) Michael Lacewing

10. Arguing from a unique case • Causation: whenever you have the cause, you get the effect • ‘Constant conjunction’ • So you can’t know from a single instance, what causes what. Repeated experience is necessary to infer a causal relation. • The universe is unique. So we cannot infer its cause. • We can only infer a designer in cases in which we have repeated experience of something being brought about by a designer • The arrangement of parts for a purpose on its own isn’t sufficient (c) Michael Lacewing