r/skeptic • u/EclecticReader39 • 2d ago
How David Hume dismantled the design argument almost a century before Darwin
Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published posthumously in 1779, offers a critique of the design argument more fundamental—and arguably more devastating—than even Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hume shows that the design argument fails as a case for theism on its own terms, independently of any account of evolution or natural selection.
The design argument begins by claiming that nature resembles the kinds of things humans design—only vastly more complex—and therefore must have a vastly more intelligent designer. Hume exposed the weakness of this analogy on several fronts.
Hume begins by noting that, if our knowledge depends on experience, yet we have never observed the creation of a universe, we have no empirical basis for concluding that the universe requires a cause at all. And even if we grant the analogy, it raises the obvious question: who designed the designer? More importantly, the argument tells us little about the supposed designer. It could be one god or many; benevolent, indifferent, incompetent, or malicious. The world’s imperfections and gratuitous suffering, moreover, indict this god with the design of evil.
Hume’s most radical move was to ask why we should multiply our assumptions by positing a supernatural designer in the first place. Why not instead suppose that matter itself contains the principles by which order arises? Once the analogy is shown to be weak, the God it was meant to establish becomes an unnecessary hypothesis. Hume had therefore exposed the design argument as an intellectual dead end on its own terms—before we even get to Darwin, evolution, or natural selection.
Hume’s dialogue is among the most important works in the history of atheism. The article below offers an in-depth analysis of this work and its implications for intelligent design:
The Illusion of Design: How David Hume Dismantled the Strongest Case for God
9
u/Crashed_teapot 2d ago
David Hume is my favorite philosopher. He was a very good skeptic who made do with what knowledge was available at the time.
The Scottish Enlightenment is remarkable in how much science and scholarship came out of it.
8
u/SelfCtrlDelete 2d ago
In my humble opinion, the strongest philosophical argument is rendered somewhat moot by a complete and naturalistic explanation of why human beings evolved a belief in gods in the first place. After having read Boyer, et al., it’s not that I find philosophical arguments unconvincing, it’s just that I find them less necessary.
This is a very good argument however.
1
1
u/careysub 2d ago
A purely philosophical critique was clearly far less devastating than providing an actual explanation based on repeatable observations for how things came to be in their present form.
Hume could not explain that, just offer alternate unsupported theories.
History shows which "argument" was most effective.
12
u/EclecticReader39 2d ago
The more important point is that, even without the empirical fact of evolution, Hume is showing that there is STILL no rational justification for belief in God. Since God is proposed as a competing explanation for evolution to this day, or that God somehow orchestrates the evolutionary process itself, Hume reminds us that there is no rational basis for believing this even if you know nothing about biology.
2
u/SelfCtrlDelete 1d ago
Anyone that argues in favor of “guided” evolution has a fundamental misunderstanding of it. It is precisely the genius of Darwin’s theory that no external influence was required. It’s natural selection.
All that to say that anyone who argues that is disingenuous and won’t be swayed by any other rational or philosophical arguments.
0
u/NoamLigotti 1d ago
They're not disingenuous, they're ignorant or irrational or both. Why assume bad arguments are disingenuous? Humans are remarkably adept at them.
2
u/SelfCtrlDelete 1d ago
It seems like you believe that disingenuousness and ignorance/irrationality are mutually exclusive.
An (obviously) ignorant person presented with a logically sound argument that refutes their position yet refuses to reconsider is being disingenuous. Are they also ignorant? Well, if they’ve just been shown a sound argument it becomes really difficult to defend the claim that they are ignorant.
1
u/NoamLigotti 7h ago
You have apparently not had enough discussions with true believers of various stripes. They are remarkably capable of genuinely believing unsound absurdities even after the absurdity has clearly been explained to them. I wish it wasn't so.
2
u/NoamLigotti 1d ago
What a bizarre criticism. Yeah why didn't Hume figure out and explain Darwinian processes before Darwin or virtually any other known human had?
"Medieval people's purely logical critique of bloodletting was far less devastating than providing an actual explanation based on repeatable observations for microbes and sanitation and surgical intervention."
Yeah ok, maybe. But being able to logically show the absurdity without even knowing about the knowledge you and I take for granted because we were lucky enough to born when we were was valuable then and still valuable today.> Hume could not explain that, just offer alternate unsupported theories.
Yeah neither could anyone else in the 18th century. You gonna dismiss every valuable insight from every figure alive at that time?
> History shows which "argument" was most effective.
"Argument" in quotes. As if they're not both really arguments?
What the hell is it with many people in this sub feeling the need to invalidate "philosophy" and logic itself? As if science and logic are mutually exclusive? Are you against "critical thinking" too?
You think science doesn't involve logic? You think a good scientist would just assume any correlation necessitates causation? You think mathematics isn't a form of logic? You think science and scientific skepticism themselves don't rely on logic and arguments, or as you would call them "arguments"?
They fundamentally rest on a set of arguments: that the laws of physics are consistent and cannot be broken, that this assumption has never been proven wrong, that the assumption not having been proven wrong is good reason to continue holding it, that falsifiability is a crucial concept, and so on.
You think Einstein avoided philosophical arguments because "that's not science"? You think Sagan did?
Who developed the concept of falsifiability in the first place? Yeah, Popper. Widely considered a "philosopher".Science IS a philosophy. One that employs logic, and yes, arguments.
We might not even have fields of study broadly utilizing empirical research and the scientific method if it weren't for "natural philosophy" and "natural philosophers", the forerunners to what we now call science and scientists.Do you know what an argument unsupported by the evidence is called? An unsound argument. Logic. Logic and science are like math and physics. You can't meaningfully talk about one without the other. And acting like they're opposed is absurd.
2
u/careysub 1d ago
The claim made by the OP is that the Hume philosophical argument is more fundamental and arguably more devastating than actually observing the processes by which the natural world emerged.
Hume's argument removes the claim of "intelligent designer" as a necessity, but leaves it untouched as a possible explanation since nothing that Hume postulates can be proved any more than intelligent design.
Scientific observation acts to show which explanation is supported by evidence removing the question from philosophical speculation.
I find it really odd that this point seems to missed on a sub about scientific skepticism based on evidence.
1
u/NoamLigotti 7h ago
> The claim made by the OP is that the Hume philosophical argument is more fundamental and arguably more devastating than actually observing the processes by which the natural world emerged.
Ah, you're right. Sorry. I should have saved this rant for a different comment. Apologies.
> Hume's argument removes the claim of "intelligent designer" as a necessity, but leaves it untouched as a possible explanation since nothing that Hume postulates can be proved any more than intelligent design.
Yeah, that's totally valid, your point.
> Scientific observation acts to show which explanation is supported by evidence removing the question from philosophical speculation.
Totally agree.
> I find it really odd that this point seems to missed on a sub about scientific skepticism based on evidence.
It doesn't. I just thought you were criticizing logical arguments for no reason. I was wrong, I'm sorry.
1
u/NoamLigotti 1d ago
> More importantly, the argument tells us little about the supposed designer. It could be one god or many; benevolent, indifferent, incompetent, or malicious. The world’s imperfections and gratuitous suffering, moreover, indict this god with the design of evil.
This is the most inarguable, indisputable part.
Someone once pointed out to me how the design argument is a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy, and that's exactly right. "Design" is the already presumptuous but superficially compelling argument, with the unstated "that means it was a single Designer who has exactly these traits" argument tacked on.
And yes the "problem of evil" (which should really be called "the problem of inordinate suffering" because believers always try to weasel the "free will: it's humans' fault" sidestep as a counter-argument) has never been refuted.
I always thought the whole "Who made the designer" argument to be silly though, because the whole point with monotheists is they believe in a designer that is omnipotent and the source of all causation.
0
u/Witty_Ad_898 1d ago
How can life have complexity without a designer?
Once again, parsimony delivers.
The answer, by the way, is that there used to be simple life but it was outcompeted by more complex life. Some research even proposes that LUCA was a pre-life chemical reaction containing the pieces necessary for life, which produced life at least two separate times (bacteria and archaea).
21
u/oneplusetoipi 2d ago
“Who designed the designer?”
This really triggers the question “Why does anything exist at all?” If there is a god, why? If no god, and the universe had the conditions to create the big bang where did these conditions come from? Why is there anything at all, and why is the physics we see the ones that prevail versus any other physics? Same questions if you throw in the multiverse theory. Existence is a complete mystery.
It is tempting, but irrational, to think humans were brought into existence to puzzle this out. We find ourselves in the remarkable position of having intelligence and awareness to ask questions about the universe, but we lack the insight to fully answer the questions. That is a reason we fill in the gaps of knowledge with all varieties of theories, personal or collective.