Examine the criticisms Hume has of Design Theory [10]
Hume heavily criticises the Design Argument, and the conclusion drawn from the empirical
evidence at the time. While he does not dispute the existence of God, he does believe that the
world around us suggests a limited designer. One criticism proposed by Hume is that cause
must be proportional to its effect; this reinforces the idea of a limited designer, as the qualities
God holds are out of proportion with such evidence presented. One poignant example of this is
the existence of evil - the omnipotent, omnibenevolent Divine being of Christian Theism would
surely be able to control the evil humans seem to create. This is a valid argument, because it
resolves the idea of God simply not being omnipotent ‘enough’ to fix His creation, but instead
there was a being with less skill to create a flawed world. This is further developed by the
alternative ‘trial and error’ form of our Universe; the Anthropic Principle, however, does denote
this argument. The ‘odds’ of this Universe being created are inexplicably small, and a ‘limited
designer’ fine-tuning Earth enough to develop intelligent life does make this argument lose
some value.
Another argument that Hume offers to critique Design Theory is that the analogy used to
explain the theory, a machine, in comparison to a Divine designer is anthropomorphic. He
implies that humans, with such limited knowledge, do not know how the Universe works (or if it
even requires a designer). We can therefore not impose our own human analogy onto a ‘divine
designer’; the Wholly other is transcendent and incomparable. This argument is potentially the
strongest of Hume’s, because it illustrates how Design Theory focuses only on the intricate
positives of our Universe (eg. nature shows intention), but fails to justify the overwhelming
amount of evil that exists - COVID19 is a prime example. As a result, he clearly points out how
this theory (and human understanding) is flawed.
Hume also uses an ‘Epicurean Hypothesis’ to suggest that the Universe is made up of indivisible
atoms which, given enough time, could create infinite changing arrangements. As a result, the
atoms would eventually become an ordered state - one which could sustain intelligent life. This
in turn reflects less of a metaphorical ‘machine’, but almost a ‘vegetable’ (something which
grows of its own accord). Whilst still a strong theory, this argument is less effective because it
does not compensate for our lack of knowledge. Just as machines and the Universe cannot be
compared, Hume’s metaphor may not be any more fitting.
Hume heavily criticises the Design Argument, and the conclusion drawn from the empirical
evidence at the time. While he does not dispute the existence of God, he does believe that the
world around us suggests a limited designer. One criticism proposed by Hume is that cause
must be proportional to its effect; this reinforces the idea of a limited designer, as the qualities
God holds are out of proportion with such evidence presented. One poignant example of this is
the existence of evil - the omnipotent, omnibenevolent Divine being of Christian Theism would
surely be able to control the evil humans seem to create. This is a valid argument, because it
resolves the idea of God simply not being omnipotent ‘enough’ to fix His creation, but instead
there was a being with less skill to create a flawed world. This is further developed by the
alternative ‘trial and error’ form of our Universe; the Anthropic Principle, however, does denote
this argument. The ‘odds’ of this Universe being created are inexplicably small, and a ‘limited
designer’ fine-tuning Earth enough to develop intelligent life does make this argument lose
some value.
Another argument that Hume offers to critique Design Theory is that the analogy used to
explain the theory, a machine, in comparison to a Divine designer is anthropomorphic. He
implies that humans, with such limited knowledge, do not know how the Universe works (or if it
even requires a designer). We can therefore not impose our own human analogy onto a ‘divine
designer’; the Wholly other is transcendent and incomparable. This argument is potentially the
strongest of Hume’s, because it illustrates how Design Theory focuses only on the intricate
positives of our Universe (eg. nature shows intention), but fails to justify the overwhelming
amount of evil that exists - COVID19 is a prime example. As a result, he clearly points out how
this theory (and human understanding) is flawed.
Hume also uses an ‘Epicurean Hypothesis’ to suggest that the Universe is made up of indivisible
atoms which, given enough time, could create infinite changing arrangements. As a result, the
atoms would eventually become an ordered state - one which could sustain intelligent life. This
in turn reflects less of a metaphorical ‘machine’, but almost a ‘vegetable’ (something which
grows of its own accord). Whilst still a strong theory, this argument is less effective because it
does not compensate for our lack of knowledge. Just as machines and the Universe cannot be
compared, Hume’s metaphor may not be any more fitting.
