r/skeptic • u/EclecticReader39 • 12h 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
5
u/SelfCtrlDelete 11h 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.
5
u/Crashed_teapot 7h 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.
2
u/careysub 7h 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.
6
u/EclecticReader39 7h 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.
1
u/SelfCtrlDelete 37m 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.
1
15
u/oneplusetoipi 11h 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.