To what extent does Hume successfully argue that
observation does not prove the existence of God?
One way in which Hume argues that observation does not prove the
existence of God is through his critique of analogies. Both Aquinas
and Paley make use of analogies in their teleological arguments
when attempting to conclude the existence of God through evidence
of order and design in the universe. Paley compares the universe to a
watch, in the sense that both appear to be intricately designed and
perform complex functions - thus could not exist by chance. Aquinas
uses the analogy of the archer to describe how all objects in the
universe follow natural laws and appear to be guided towards their
telos, which Aquinas argues that God willed it as such that things
should follow natural laws and all things within the universe
(including humans) are guided by an intelligent designer, namely
God. Hume criticises these analogies based on the fact that a weak
analogy would lead to a weak argument. Paley's analogy of the
watch is challenged as a watch is mechanistic whereas the universe is
more organic in nature - Hume likens the universe more to a
vegetable in that it grows and develops over time, but fundamentally
asserts that all analogies regarding the universe would be poor as the
universe is unique within itself and we largely have nothing to
compare the universe to. The same could be said of Aquinas' archer
example, where not everything within the universe can be likened to
an archer and a bow/arrow, especially if God is said to be a supreme,
divine being, we would not be able to analogise God as a human.
Thus, Hume is successful in showing that observation does not prove
the existence of God as the use of analogies; although helpful in
developing an understanding of a theory, is fundamentally unhelpful
since concepts such as God and the universe are unique and can be
said to be beyond the human mind, much in the same way that
Aquinas argues that God is transcendent and beyond human
intellect.
observation does not prove the existence of God?
One way in which Hume argues that observation does not prove the
existence of God is through his critique of analogies. Both Aquinas
and Paley make use of analogies in their teleological arguments
when attempting to conclude the existence of God through evidence
of order and design in the universe. Paley compares the universe to a
watch, in the sense that both appear to be intricately designed and
perform complex functions - thus could not exist by chance. Aquinas
uses the analogy of the archer to describe how all objects in the
universe follow natural laws and appear to be guided towards their
telos, which Aquinas argues that God willed it as such that things
should follow natural laws and all things within the universe
(including humans) are guided by an intelligent designer, namely
God. Hume criticises these analogies based on the fact that a weak
analogy would lead to a weak argument. Paley's analogy of the
watch is challenged as a watch is mechanistic whereas the universe is
more organic in nature - Hume likens the universe more to a
vegetable in that it grows and develops over time, but fundamentally
asserts that all analogies regarding the universe would be poor as the
universe is unique within itself and we largely have nothing to
compare the universe to. The same could be said of Aquinas' archer
example, where not everything within the universe can be likened to
an archer and a bow/arrow, especially if God is said to be a supreme,
divine being, we would not be able to analogise God as a human.
Thus, Hume is successful in showing that observation does not prove
the existence of God as the use of analogies; although helpful in
developing an understanding of a theory, is fundamentally unhelpful
since concepts such as God and the universe are unique and can be
said to be beyond the human mind, much in the same way that
Aquinas argues that God is transcendent and beyond human
intellect.
