David Hume's Argument From Design By Cleanthes

William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

Cleanthes replies to Philo’s second objection through directly attacking Philo’s first premise. He does this through presenting an example of a library filled with books. He states that know that a human minds produced the books, although we have not actually seen those human minds produce the books. Thus, although we did not see that the authors of the books produce them, we can still know that human minds produced them. This reply to Philo’s second objection can be presented as:

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

That argument contradicts itself, because it uses itself as a cause for existence in its premise, when it is proving the concept of cause being a necessity. Therefore, it begs the question to prove cause and effect by relying on the conclusion to prove the premise. The ideas of cause and effect cannot vary too far from actual impressions of the mind or ideas from the memory. We must first establish the existence of causes before we can infer effects from them. We have only two ways of doing that, either by an immediate perception of our memory or senses, called impressions, or, by an inference from other causes, called thoughts. For example, “A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island would conclude that there had once been men in that island” (160). Regardless of the source of the impression, the imagination and perceptions of the senses are the foundation for the reasoning that traces the relation of cause and effect. The inference that we draw from cause to effect does not come from a dependence on the two concepts to each other or from a rational objective look at the two. One object does not imply the existence of any other. All distinct ideas are separable, as are the ideas of cause and effect. The only way that we can infer the existence of one object from another is through experience. Contiguity and succession are not sufficient to make us pronounce any two objects to be cause and effect, unless we

The design argument is also referred to at the Teleological Argument stemmed from the Greek work ‘Telos’ meaning end or purpose. It is an ‘A posterior’ argument (from experience) based on our empirical senses and it is synthetic meaning that it is from observation. The argument is also inductive meaning there a number of possible conclusions. The main basis of the Teleological argument is based on a designer commonly known as ‘the classical God of theism’ (hereafter referred to as God)

With this in mind, we can say that the third premise, which states that if something exists now, then something has always existed, is valid. After all, if something exists now, there must have been something to cause it or nothing would exist.

David Hume is one of the world’s most well-known and relevant philosophers, in his time and still to this day. In one of his most famous writings, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he dedicates a whole chapter to exploring the validity of miracles, based on his own premise (That they defy the laws of nature), a chapter so large, it is separated into two parts. Exploration of Miracles is a large topic for philosophical discussion as it has caught the attention and caused the works of many of the world’s most famous philosophers, such as David Hume, Richard Swinburne and Peter Atkins.

When evaluating Paley’s design argument, it is evident that it has its flaws. From the inductive argument presented, objections can be made in the first premise by claiming that not all processes have a clear purpose. For instance, when natural disasters such as earthquakes and tornadoes occur, what purpose do they serve exactly, and why would God’s work include such disaster? In fact, that leads us to ask why the universe would be designed with such imperfections? It is these types of questions that David Hume utilizes to undermine the design

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

A design argument is more commonly know as a Teleological one, which is an argument for the existence of a creator or god “based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world”.The argument has been discussed all the way back to the time of Socrates and Plato. In my essay I will be evaluating one argument put forward by a famous philosopher, in this case William Paley, an English clergyman born in 1743, in which he tries to show similarities in the design of nature and the design of man made artefacts.

First, Cleanthes’ is saying that our universe can only be made with an intelligent designer, which is God. Cleanthes’ argument from analogy can be thought of in a simple cause and effect manner. In Cleanthes’ argument he tries to lay down a basic premise principle. The form of the argument is such that it is reasonable to infer similar causes from similar effects. To break down this principle it can be seen as such, first we have one thing that causes another, or A causes B. If A causes B and C is similar to B, then it is reasonable to infer that A caused C.

To begin, I would like to give a review of part II of Hume’s Dialogues to give a reminder of what exactly Cleanthes principles are in regards to his argument of design. Cleanthes states that even though we cannot experience God directly, there is enough evidence in nature for us to make an informed decision on what God is like. Cleanthes sees each aspect of the universe as a small independent machines created by a designer with high intelligence. These small machines work in unison to make up the overall working order of the universe. Cleanthes then argues that the intelligent designer of this system, God, would be similar to a human designer but be able to produce items of a more perfect quality.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.