If you find these notes helpful, feel free to check
out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is an analogical argument: such an argument is one in which, on the basis
of x and y being similar in certain respects, the conclusion is drawn that they
will likely be similar in a yet further, unobserved respect.
- As an analogical argument, the argument is typically treated as inductive
where it is intended that the truth of the premises increases the likelihood of
the truth of the conclusion (rather than guaranteeing the truth of the
conclusion
- P1: Human artefacts (eg, Hume himself gives ‘watches’ and ‘knitting-looms’ as
examples) have certain ‘teleological’ properties of design.
- By properties of design, Hume is referring to spatial order. This refers
to patterns of order (i.e complexity, order, parts working towards a
purpose) within something in space at one instant of time (eg the
arrangements of the parts of the human body, the eye, or a cell) which
allow a function to be performed
- P2: Nature itself (ie the universe itself, plus natural entities within it) has
these (‘teleological’) properties of design.
- C1: So, In 'the fitting of means to ends', nature resembles the products of
human design.
- His analogy is that the world is like a machine in 'the fitting of means
to ends'; just like a machine has complex and ordered parts which fit
together to fulfil a purpose, within nature we see complex, ordered
parts fitting together such as the parts of an eye working together to
give vision.
, - P3: We know human artefacts have these (‘teleological’) properties of design
because they have been designed by an intelligent being.
- P4: Similar effects/properties typically have similar causes/explanations.
- C2: Therefore, nature/natural entities probably have these (‘teleological’)
properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being.
- P5: Natural entities are much more complicated than human artefacts.
- P6: This greater complexity requires greater intelligence.
- C3: Therefore an intelligent being/designer probably exists which has much
greater intelligence than a human (ie God).
William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- The argument is typically treated as inductive where it is intended that the
truth of the premises increases the likelihood of the truth of the conclusion
(rather than guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion)
- P1. A watch has certain complex features of spatial order and purpose
- A watch is made up of many different parts, such as gears, springs and
hands, which are arranged in a very precise way.
- These parts are not simply complex; they are ordered and arranged to
work together towards a specific purpose - telling the time.
- If the parts were differently shaped, made from different materials, or
arranged differently, the watch would not fulfil its purpose of
accurately telling the time.
- Therefore, the watch displays complexity combined with purpose
- P2: Anything which exhibits these features of spatial order and purpose must
have been designed
- Paley argues that when we encounter something whose parts are
complexly arranged to fulfil a particular purpose, we naturally infer
that it has been designed.
- For example, if we found a watch on a heath, we would not think that
the watch had simply always existed there, because its intricate
arrangement of parts is clearly directed towards the purpose of telling
the time.
, - This is different from finding a rock, since there is nothing about a
rock's structure that obviously indicates that its parts have been
arranged for a particular purpose.
- Therefore, the watch's combination of complexity, order and purpose
indicates that it must have been designed.
- C1: Therefore, the watch has been designed
- P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
- Design implies that something has been intentionally arranged for a
purpose.
- A design therefore requires something capable of intending that
purpose and arranging things in order to achieve it.
- In the case of the watch, this would be a watchmaker, who deliberately
selected and arranged the different parts so that they would work
together to tell the time.
- P4: A designer must (a) be or have a mind and (b) be distinct from what is
designed
- A designer must have a mind because design involves having a
purpose or intention and knowing how particular parts can be
arranged to achieve that purpose.
- The designer must also be distinct from the object designed. A watch
cannot design itself because the watchmaker is the one responsible
for arranging its parts.
- C2: Therefore, the watch was designed by a mind that is distinct from the
watch.
- P5: The universe possesses features of spatial order and purpose, except on
a far more wondrous scale.
- For example, the human eye consists of many complex parts which
are precisely arranged to enable the function of sight.
- These natural objects therefore appear to contain the same
combination of complexity, order and purpose that we recognised in
the watch.
- Paley summarises this by arguing: “Every manifestation of design,
which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.”
- C3: Therefore, the universe has been designed on a wondrous scale
out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume)
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- It is an analogical argument: such an argument is one in which, on the basis
of x and y being similar in certain respects, the conclusion is drawn that they
will likely be similar in a yet further, unobserved respect.
- As an analogical argument, the argument is typically treated as inductive
where it is intended that the truth of the premises increases the likelihood of
the truth of the conclusion (rather than guaranteeing the truth of the
conclusion
- P1: Human artefacts (eg, Hume himself gives ‘watches’ and ‘knitting-looms’ as
examples) have certain ‘teleological’ properties of design.
- By properties of design, Hume is referring to spatial order. This refers
to patterns of order (i.e complexity, order, parts working towards a
purpose) within something in space at one instant of time (eg the
arrangements of the parts of the human body, the eye, or a cell) which
allow a function to be performed
- P2: Nature itself (ie the universe itself, plus natural entities within it) has
these (‘teleological’) properties of design.
- C1: So, In 'the fitting of means to ends', nature resembles the products of
human design.
- His analogy is that the world is like a machine in 'the fitting of means
to ends'; just like a machine has complex and ordered parts which fit
together to fulfil a purpose, within nature we see complex, ordered
parts fitting together such as the parts of an eye working together to
give vision.
, - P3: We know human artefacts have these (‘teleological’) properties of design
because they have been designed by an intelligent being.
- P4: Similar effects/properties typically have similar causes/explanations.
- C2: Therefore, nature/natural entities probably have these (‘teleological’)
properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being.
- P5: Natural entities are much more complicated than human artefacts.
- P6: This greater complexity requires greater intelligence.
- C3: Therefore an intelligent being/designer probably exists which has much
greater intelligence than a human (ie God).
William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose
- It is an a posteriori argument: an argument where at least one premise is a
posteriori/justified on the basis of experience.
- The argument is typically treated as inductive where it is intended that the
truth of the premises increases the likelihood of the truth of the conclusion
(rather than guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion)
- P1. A watch has certain complex features of spatial order and purpose
- A watch is made up of many different parts, such as gears, springs and
hands, which are arranged in a very precise way.
- These parts are not simply complex; they are ordered and arranged to
work together towards a specific purpose - telling the time.
- If the parts were differently shaped, made from different materials, or
arranged differently, the watch would not fulfil its purpose of
accurately telling the time.
- Therefore, the watch displays complexity combined with purpose
- P2: Anything which exhibits these features of spatial order and purpose must
have been designed
- Paley argues that when we encounter something whose parts are
complexly arranged to fulfil a particular purpose, we naturally infer
that it has been designed.
- For example, if we found a watch on a heath, we would not think that
the watch had simply always existed there, because its intricate
arrangement of parts is clearly directed towards the purpose of telling
the time.
, - This is different from finding a rock, since there is nothing about a
rock's structure that obviously indicates that its parts have been
arranged for a particular purpose.
- Therefore, the watch's combination of complexity, order and purpose
indicates that it must have been designed.
- C1: Therefore, the watch has been designed
- P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
- Design implies that something has been intentionally arranged for a
purpose.
- A design therefore requires something capable of intending that
purpose and arranging things in order to achieve it.
- In the case of the watch, this would be a watchmaker, who deliberately
selected and arranged the different parts so that they would work
together to tell the time.
- P4: A designer must (a) be or have a mind and (b) be distinct from what is
designed
- A designer must have a mind because design involves having a
purpose or intention and knowing how particular parts can be
arranged to achieve that purpose.
- The designer must also be distinct from the object designed. A watch
cannot design itself because the watchmaker is the one responsible
for arranging its parts.
- C2: Therefore, the watch was designed by a mind that is distinct from the
watch.
- P5: The universe possesses features of spatial order and purpose, except on
a far more wondrous scale.
- For example, the human eye consists of many complex parts which
are precisely arranged to enable the function of sight.
- These natural objects therefore appear to contain the same
combination of complexity, order and purpose that we recognised in
the watch.
- Paley summarises this by arguing: “Every manifestation of design,
which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.”
- C3: Therefore, the universe has been designed on a wondrous scale
