a skeptical approach to the argument from design

8/12/2019 A Skeptical Approach to the Argument From Design

1/5


2/5

1) A true similarity of effects, in this case the resemblance of the world to a

machine

2) The uniqueness of the conclusion, or that a deistic god is the only option

Philo then flexes both of these factors to demonstrate arbitrariness, which ends up

being the key to his victory.

First, Philo accepts temporarily that the world is indeed a grand machine. But

there are many ways that a machine is built. Just as many architects combine to

build a house, so too perhaps seve ral Deities combine[d] in contriving and framing

a world. (Hume 167). Since these Deities are numerous, they need to be anywhere

near as powerful as the almighty deity that Cleanthes proposes. So polytheism

becomes a viable option. Similarly, it is often the case that a creation outlasts its

creator, and it always the case (as far we know) that a creator is mortal. A once

mortal, now dead God becomes another possibility. Its not difficult to thi nk of other

possibilities perhaps God is akin to a potter and only provided additional structure

to alr eady existing matter. Cleanthes would object, and does, that all these

propositions still hinge on the hypothesis of design (Hume 169). This misses the

purpose of Philos argument. The key is to show that even taking the designed

nature of the universe as a fundamental axiom, there are several possible

conclusions. It requires more evidence to be able to narrow the playing field.

Philo also challenges the analogy of a machine. Perhaps inspired by Demeas

picture of God as the soul that animates the body of the universe, he compares the

universe to a plant that differs from a tree only in scale and intricacy. This leads to

the conclusion that the universe had no creator at all. Rather it was sprouted from a


3/5

seed. While the mechanisms of a seed is wondrous in complexity, the agency for that

complexity is not thought to go to the tree (Hume 177). Philo also suggests the

analogy of an animal, in which case the universe was birthed just a mother gives

birth to a child. In both these cases, theres no reason to ascribe divine attributes to

the origin of our universe.

The skeptical argument thus reveals several degrees of arbitrariness in

Cleanthes deistic conclusion. It is important to note that this is not necessarily a

disproof of the Christian God. It is however a strong step towards disproving the

necessity of that being. If we imagine the possibility space of the origins of our

universe, we find it populated by essentially infinite options. The chance of any of

these being true a priori is close to zero. We can equip ourselves with a posterio

axioms, but even seemingly strong ones such as that of a designed universe present

us with several options. We need stronger evidence to be able to conclude one

particular option.

It is precisely this evidence that Cleanthes argues for in Part III. He gives two

examples, one of a voice from heaven that we know to not come from any man and

the other a natural library populated by volumes that display undeniable levels of

craft (Hume 152-3). The key to these two examples is they are cases where we

would have no choice to ascribe some sort of divine power to their source. He then

suggests the human eye as an object whose divine design is self-evident. This is a

point that Philo never directly addresses, which is sometimes taken to be a

concession on his part.


4/5

Regardless, we can see that the response to this challenge is in the text itself.

The flaw in Cleanthes argument lies in the jump from a truly divine event to the

human eye. There is no proof of the human eyes divine design. And looking at this

example from the perspective of modern science, we have a clear sense of how

evolution and genetics could lead to such an intricate, well-adapted structure. But

even during Humes lifetime, there was ample evidence of the ability of science to

explain seemingly divine philosophy. One of the most dramatic is mentioned just

earlier in the text, namely the Copernican revolution of astronomy. The laws of

gravity provided a mechanistic explanation for how the heavens arranged

themselves. Of course the question could be raised as to whom or what framed

these mechanistic rules, but then we find ourselves back in that infinite probability

space of possible origins.

This argument of Cleanthes the suggestion of true indisputable miracles

demonstrates the broader epistemological implications of Philos objections. A

skeptic must accept that there might be a divine being with properties like that of

the Christian God. But every claim has to be framed in a truly empirical fashion. So if

there was a voice from the heaven, one must conduct extensive information as to its

cause. And only after exhausting all possible non-divine attributes can one begin to

make the claim that the origin is truly divine.

There does appear to be some asymmetry here between a divine cause and a

mechanistic cause. The reason for this comes again from the evidence we already

possess. We have never directly encountered anything that is immortal or

omniscient or omnipotent (Demea would disagree with this, but it seems Cleanthes


5/5

would concede this on pure sense experience). So a divine being requires more

stringent tests, if only for the reason that it is difficult to even conceive what that

test would resemble. But if we did manage to prove it rigorously, then a skeptic

would have no choice but to accept. Thus the true purpose of Philos argument, and

skepticism in general, seems to be guarding us against making unnecessary claims.

It guards us against falling prey to false beliefs, and sharpens the mind.

Philo successfully demonstrates the flaws in the argument from design,

which stem from attempting to make a definitive claim about an inherently

probabilistic event. He stresses the importance of sufficient evidence, and also

provides a heuristic with which to truly understand the origin and nature of the

universe.

a skeptical approach to the argument from design

Documents