David Hume
David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher of the Enlightenment. He is famous for his sceptical views, casting doubt on everything from science to religion. He was an empiricist, believing we can only know what we experience through the five senses. Many of his brilliant insights have troubled philosophers for centuries and the problems he set out not satisfactorily solved. His most popular book is Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779).
Hume was actually born "David Home" but he changed the spelling because everyone mispronounced it
David Hume is a key scholar for issues in the Design Argument and issues in the Cosmological Argument as well as the Problem of Evil and Suffering.
|
No man has influenced the history of philosophy to a deeper or more disturbing degree - Isaiah Berlin
Reasoning about Design
Hume made a number of criticisms of the Design Argument. One of them is his attack on inductive reasoning generally.
Hume points out that all inductive arguments (and all scientific theories) are based on the principle uniformity of nature. This is the assumption that things that have been experienced in the past will be repeated in the future. Hume points out that this is a massive assumption with no rational basis to it. For example, Europeans used to believe all swans were white because they'd never observed a black one. Then explorers went to Australia and brought back the black swans they'd discovered there. Past experiences of white swans led to a false induction: all swans are not white.
Hume doesn't have a solution to the problem of induction. He suggests that we simply have a custom or habit of expecting the future to resemble the past and, even though it's irrational, we keep doing it because it seems to work.
Hume points out that all inductive arguments (and all scientific theories) are based on the principle uniformity of nature. This is the assumption that things that have been experienced in the past will be repeated in the future. Hume points out that this is a massive assumption with no rational basis to it. For example, Europeans used to believe all swans were white because they'd never observed a black one. Then explorers went to Australia and brought back the black swans they'd discovered there. Past experiences of white swans led to a false induction: all swans are not white.
Hume doesn't have a solution to the problem of induction. He suggests that we simply have a custom or habit of expecting the future to resemble the past and, even though it's irrational, we keep doing it because it seems to work.
without the influence of custom we would be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses - David Hume
Challenging the Design Argument
Hume addressed the Design Argument in his famous book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). The book was published after Hume's death, because attacking religious beliefs was considered a sensitive subject.
The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion.
Cleanthes sets out the Design Argument as an analogy:
P1 The world resembles a finely tuned machine
P2 All machines we know of are created by intelligence
C The world must also be caused by intelligence - but an intelligence greater than any human intelligence
At the end of the book, Hume claims that he thinks Cleanthes has won the argument, but he's probably being disingenuous. Readers agree that the best arguments belong to Philo - who offers Hume's own views. By crediting Cleanthes with winning, Hume is showing respect for religious sensitivities, while setting out the reasons why he thinks they're wrong
The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion.
- CLEANTHES supports natural religion (using a posteriori arguments to prove God's existence rather than appealing to the Bible) and puts forward the Design Argument
- PHILO is a sceptic who argues against the Design Argument (but doesn't go so far as to say God doesn't exist)
- DEMEA is the other character who offers a different support for religion but these views aren't important here
Cleanthes sets out the Design Argument as an analogy:
P1 The world resembles a finely tuned machine
P2 All machines we know of are created by intelligence
C The world must also be caused by intelligence - but an intelligence greater than any human intelligence
At the end of the book, Hume claims that he thinks Cleanthes has won the argument, but he's probably being disingenuous. Readers agree that the best arguments belong to Philo - who offers Hume's own views. By crediting Cleanthes with winning, Hume is showing respect for religious sensitivities, while setting out the reasons why he thinks they're wrong
CRITICISING ANALOGIES
Philo argues that the Design Argument doesn't work as an analogy. The analogy between machines and the universe is weak. Even if one part of the universe resembles a machine, the universe as a whole is so enormous, we can't be sure if the analogy extends everywhere.
Philo argues that the Design Argument doesn't work as an analogy. The analogy between machines and the universe is weak. Even if one part of the universe resembles a machine, the universe as a whole is so enormous, we can't be sure if the analogy extends everywhere.
A VERY SMALL PART OF THIS GREAT SYSTEM, DURING A VERY SHORT TIME, IS VERY IMPERFECTLY DISCOVERED TO US; AND DO WE THEN PRONOUNCE DECISIVELY CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE WHOLE? - PHILO
Philo explains that we have no experience of world-making, whereas we know how machines are made. Perhaps it is perfectly normal for universes to look like this, or perhaps this universe is an oddity. But we can't know just by looking at things that humans have made.
TO ASCERTAIN THIS REASONING, IT WERE REQUISITE THAT WE HAD EXPERIENCE OF THE ORIGIN OF WORLDS; AND IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT, SURELY, THAT WE HAVE SEEN SHIPS AND CITIES ARISE FROM HUMAN ART AND CONTRIVANCE - PHILO
The analogy between the universe and a machine does not work because it is not an analogy between two separately existing things, but between the universe as a whole and certain parts of the universe. An analogy between a machine and the universe might be like trying to figure out how an entire man develops by looking at how a single hair in his head grows.
Philo claims it isn't true that all order in the world is the result of intelligence. We know that living creatures have the form they have because of reproduction, not design. So why suppose that the universe is like a man-made machine? The universe might be more like a big vegetable than a big machine.
Finally, Philo attacks inductive reasoning. We can do this when we repeatedly experience causes followed by effects. But God is a unique cause and the universe is a unique effect. Philo concludes that the argument from design is not so much inductive reasoning as a whimsical conjecture.
CRITICISING GOD AS AN EXPLANATION
Philo argues that you don't explain the order in the universe by proposing an intelligent designer. If God's thoughts order the universe, there must be order in God's thoughts. If order always requires an explanation, then we have only replaced one question, "Why is there order in the universe?" with another, "Why is there order in God's thoughts?"
Order still requires explaining in minds as well as in matter. There is disorder in thought (eg madness) as well as in matter (eg disease). Philo claims that, by using "God" to explain order, we are only displacing our ignorance into an area we can never learn more about.
THE "EPICUREAN HYPOTHESIS"
Philo suggests alternatives to the machine analogy. Based on the ideas of the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, Phil proposes that the world might be a chance arrangements of atoms.
Philo suggests these atoms are flung around by "blind, unguided force". By sheer chance, these atoms combine now and then into orderly structures. Order tends to persist because it confers survival advantages. So it might take a long time for random chance to produce orderly arrangements of matter, but once it does, those arrangements will last. Philo suggests that, if the universe is infinitely old, the order we see around us would happen eventually.
Philo claims it isn't true that all order in the world is the result of intelligence. We know that living creatures have the form they have because of reproduction, not design. So why suppose that the universe is like a man-made machine? The universe might be more like a big vegetable than a big machine.
Finally, Philo attacks inductive reasoning. We can do this when we repeatedly experience causes followed by effects. But God is a unique cause and the universe is a unique effect. Philo concludes that the argument from design is not so much inductive reasoning as a whimsical conjecture.
CRITICISING GOD AS AN EXPLANATION
Philo argues that you don't explain the order in the universe by proposing an intelligent designer. If God's thoughts order the universe, there must be order in God's thoughts. If order always requires an explanation, then we have only replaced one question, "Why is there order in the universe?" with another, "Why is there order in God's thoughts?"
Order still requires explaining in minds as well as in matter. There is disorder in thought (eg madness) as well as in matter (eg disease). Philo claims that, by using "God" to explain order, we are only displacing our ignorance into an area we can never learn more about.
THE "EPICUREAN HYPOTHESIS"
Philo suggests alternatives to the machine analogy. Based on the ideas of the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, Phil proposes that the world might be a chance arrangements of atoms.
Philo suggests these atoms are flung around by "blind, unguided force". By sheer chance, these atoms combine now and then into orderly structures. Order tends to persist because it confers survival advantages. So it might take a long time for random chance to produce orderly arrangements of matter, but once it does, those arrangements will last. Philo suggests that, if the universe is infinitely old, the order we see around us would happen eventually.
IT MUST HAPPEN, IN AN ETERNAL DURATION, THAT EVERY POSSIBLE ORDER OR POSITION MUST BE TRIED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES- PHILO
CRITICISING ANTHROPOMORPHISM
Philo goes on to attack the idea that the Design Argument's conclusion - the God of the Bible - is a valid one. He does this by showing how anthropomorphic it is. "Anthropomorphic" means treating something non-human as if it was human. The Design Argument, especially in the analogy form used by Cleanthes (and Paley), compares God to a human designer, but with more power. Philo shows how disastrous this is.
We can't even conclude that God is perfect. Philo starts of arguing that our universe could be a lot better than it is. It might be a very poor universe compared to what it could be.
Philo goes on to attack the idea that the Design Argument's conclusion - the God of the Bible - is a valid one. He does this by showing how anthropomorphic it is. "Anthropomorphic" means treating something non-human as if it was human. The Design Argument, especially in the analogy form used by Cleanthes (and Paley), compares God to a human designer, but with more power. Philo shows how disastrous this is.
We can't even conclude that God is perfect. Philo starts of arguing that our universe could be a lot better than it is. It might be a very poor universe compared to what it could be.
THIS WORLD, FOR AUGHT HE KNOWS, IS VERY FAULTY AND IMPERFECT, COMPARED TO A SUPERIOR STANDARD - PHILO
Even if this universe is the best possible universe, the designer might not be a perfect designer. Perhaps he got lucky, or he copied it from other designers, or else this was a final successful attempt after a string of failures.
[THIS WORLD] WAS ONLY THE FIRST RUDE ESSAY OF SOME INFANT DEITY, WHO AFTERWARDS ABANDONED IT, ASHAMED OF HIS LAME PERFORMANCE - PHILO
In this famous passage, Philo suggests wild conclusions that could be drawn from the Design Argument. If not an "infant deity", how about an incompetent one who gets laughed at by the other gods?
IT IS THE WORK ONLY OF SOME DEPENDENT, INFERIOR DEITY; AND IS THE OBJECT OF DERISION TO HIS SUPERIORS
Or if God isn't a baby or an idiot, couldn't he be old or even dead?
IT IS THE PRODUCTION OF OLD AGE AND DOTAGE IN SOME SUPERANNUATED DEITY; AND EVER SINCE HIS DEATH, HAS RUN ON AT ADVENTURES, FROM THE FIRST IMPULSE AND ACTIVE FORCE WHICH IT RECEIVED FROM HIM
Philo points out that the mind of every intelligent designer in human history has had a physical body. If we take the analogy between God and man seriously, God's mind should also be contained in a body.
The Design Argument leads, not to a belief in a single, all-powerful, spiritual God, but instead to a belief in a team of physical gods who are very imperfect, with human passions and needs - rather like the 12 Greek gods of Mount Olympus.
The Design Argument leads, not to a belief in a single, all-powerful, spiritual God, but instead to a belief in a team of physical gods who are very imperfect, with human passions and needs - rather like the 12 Greek gods of Mount Olympus.
CRITICISING GOOD DESIGN
Philo moves from the idea of a team of incompetent designer gods to the dysteleological argument.
He makes an analogy between our universe and a very ugly palace.Even if the architect did the best he could with shoddy materials, given that the palace is so ugly, we cannot conclude that the architect is talented.
Philo then shows us in what ways our universe appears to be like the ugly palace. He identifies four sources of misery in the world, and shows that (as far as we can tell) they are all unnecessary.
Philo describes the impression we actually get of the universe in a famous image:
Philo moves from the idea of a team of incompetent designer gods to the dysteleological argument.
He makes an analogy between our universe and a very ugly palace.Even if the architect did the best he could with shoddy materials, given that the palace is so ugly, we cannot conclude that the architect is talented.
Philo then shows us in what ways our universe appears to be like the ugly palace. He identifies four sources of misery in the world, and shows that (as far as we can tell) they are all unnecessary.
- The existence of physical pain (why not motivate us with pleasure instead?)
- The operation of general laws (why not use miracles to save innocent people from accidents?)
- The limited abilities of every species (animals have what they need to survive but not what they need to be happy)
- The fragile nature of the universe (too little of something and there is a disaster like drought; too much and an opposite disaster like flooding)
Philo describes the impression we actually get of the universe in a famous image:
THE WHOLE PRESENTS NOTHING BUT THE IDEA OF A BLIND NATURE, IMPREGNATED BY A GREAT VIVIFYING PRINCIPLE, AND POURING FORTH FROM HER LAP, WITHOUT DISCERNMENT OR PARENTAL CARE, HER MAIMED AND ABORTIVE CHILDREN! - PHILO
Philo claims we infer the goodness of God from such a universe. If we do try to infer God's moral character from the world then we must conclude that God is neither good nor evil, but morally neutral.
Criticising the Cosmological Argument
Most of his ideas are set out in his book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion.
- DEMEA offers a version of the Cosmological Argument based on contingency and necessity (like Aquinas' 3rd Way and the PSR)
- CLEANTHES puts forward the Design Argument but argues against the Cosmological Argument
- PHILO is a sceptic who argues against the both arguments (but doesn't go so far as to say God doesn't exist)
CRITICISING NECESSITY
Hume/Cleanthes attacks the whole idea of a Necessary Being. This might seem odd, since Cleanthes is supposed to be religious, but Hume is showing that not all religious people agree with each other. Cleanthes argues that it is always possible to imagine the non-existence of anything.
The non-existence of any being, without exception, is as clear and distinct an idea as its existence - David Hume
CRITICISING CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
Philo now arrives and makes a different point. Philo argues that if something is 'Necessary', does it have to be God? Couldn't the universe itself be the 'Necessary' thing at the end of the argument? This is the same as asserting that the universe is a brute fact - a point later made by Bertrand Russell.
Philo goes on to explain that we have experience of things like houses being created - but not universes. We have no idea what is needed to create a universe or whether universes can create themselves. This links to the Fallacy of Composition - the mistaken idea that, because the component parts of the universe need causes or creators, the universe-as-a-whole must need a cause or a creator. But this is a logical leap we cannot make.
Philo/Hume goes further still and asserts that the entire causal principle - the idea that everything that comes into existence must have a cause - is "spurious" (doubtful). Hume suggests that causation might just be a "habit of mind". We get used to seeing things happen together (acorns fall into the ground; later, oak trees grow) and we imagine there's a causal connection, but really it's just in our heads.
Philo goes on to explain that we have experience of things like houses being created - but not universes. We have no idea what is needed to create a universe or whether universes can create themselves. This links to the Fallacy of Composition - the mistaken idea that, because the component parts of the universe need causes or creators, the universe-as-a-whole must need a cause or a creator. But this is a logical leap we cannot make.
Philo/Hume goes further still and asserts that the entire causal principle - the idea that everything that comes into existence must have a cause - is "spurious" (doubtful). Hume suggests that causation might just be a "habit of mind". We get used to seeing things happen together (acorns fall into the ground; later, oak trees grow) and we imagine there's a causal connection, but really it's just in our heads.
EXPLANATION OF PARTS IS SUFFICIENT
The last criticism is made by Cleanthes. This is that there is no need for a special sort of explanation for the universe-as-a-whole. Cleanthes explains that, once you have explained each event in the world in terms of what caused it, you have provided all the explanation needed. You don't need to explain the universe, once you've explained everything in the universe.
The existence, therefore, of any being can only be proved by arguments from its cause or its effect - David Hume
The example Hume uses is a person have twenty objects like coins in their possession and being asked, Where did they come from? Hume explains you could answer this by explaining where each object came from individually (one was a gift from your mother... you found one in the street... etc). Once you've done this, you've given a complete explanation of the 20 objects. If someone were to go on to ask, But where did the complete set come from? there would be no additional answer to that.
This shows that the universe doesn't need an explanation of its own. An explanation of the parts of the universe is sufficient to explain the whole. |
Hume is an empiricist - he only believes in what we can know through the 5 senses. Hume is very suspicious of any argument that tries to go beyond what the 5 senses tell us and make conclusions about metaphysical realities outside of time and space.
It were better therefore never to look beyond the present material world - David Hume
The Problem of Evil & Suffering
David Hume famously expressed the Problem of Evil in his his book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). The book was published after Hume's death, because attacking religious beliefs was considered a sensitive subject.
The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion. The Problem of Evil is discussed in parts 10 and 11.
The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion. The Problem of Evil is discussed in parts 10 and 11.
- DEMEA offers a the view that evil helps us become more moral
- CLEANTHES defends the goodness of God
- PHILO is a sceptic who argues against both of the others, that evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God. Philo represents Hume's real views.
the rock of atheism - David Hume
THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL
Through Philo's words, Hume restates the Logical Problem of Evil as it was first put forward by the Greek philosopher Epicurus: the existence of evil is incompatible with a morally perfect and omnipotent deity. Hume considers natural evil (in particular, the horrific behaviour of insects) and moral evil (such as "oppression, injustice, contempt, contumely, violence, sedition, war, calumny, treachery, fraud"). He then asks
Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? - Philo
Philo spells the problem out in more detail. He argues that God's omnipotence is incompatible with evil:
Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness - Philo
He also sees a contradiction between an omniscient God and the existence of evil:
He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose - Philo
THE EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL
Hume presents the Evidential Problem of Evil in two ways. He focuses on prior probability and on gratuitous evil.
Prior probability involves asking whether anyone would conclude that God existed from looking at the universe if they weren't already religious. Hume imagines a stranger arriving in our world, someone with no preconceptions about what to expect. Would someone like that look at out universe and conclude it to be the work of a good God?
Philo gives the example of someone being shown a house full of imperfections (eg. the roof leaks, there are holes in the walls, the stairs are unsafe). The explanation for each flaw is that it prevents an even more disastrous structural flaw (eg. the leaky roof stops the fire hazard in the kitchen). Someone viewing a house like this would be surprised to learn that it was designed by a great architect. Philo uses this analogy to show that we ought to be sceptical of the idea that the world was designed by a perfect being.
Prior probability involves asking whether anyone would conclude that God existed from looking at the universe if they weren't already religious. Hume imagines a stranger arriving in our world, someone with no preconceptions about what to expect. Would someone like that look at out universe and conclude it to be the work of a good God?
Philo gives the example of someone being shown a house full of imperfections (eg. the roof leaks, there are holes in the walls, the stairs are unsafe). The explanation for each flaw is that it prevents an even more disastrous structural flaw (eg. the leaky roof stops the fire hazard in the kitchen). Someone viewing a house like this would be surprised to learn that it was designed by a great architect. Philo uses this analogy to show that we ought to be sceptical of the idea that the world was designed by a perfect being.
Is the world considered in general…different from what a man…would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity? - Philo
Hume concludes that the Stranger to our world would NOT decide it was designed by a good God - that conclusion seems unlikely and has low prior probability.
Philo also argues the likelihood of gratuitous (unnecessary) evil. He outlines four factors that account for most of the natural evil in the world.
1. Pain
Since believers often giving physical abilities like "sight" as evidence for God, then physical abilities like "feeling pain" count against God. Philo argues pain does not seem necessary because living creatures are just as motivated by pleasure. Why not have a reduction in the amount of pleasure rather than the sensation of pain?
Philo concludes that it seems that we were created with the purpose of feeling pain - but this makes a good God less likely..
2. Laws of Nature
Laws of nature are necessary for reason and science. However, chance events happen. God have made every chance event turn out for the best (eg. tornados could put things together rather than tear them apart). The fact that things often go terribly wrong prevents us from reasoning from the structure of the world to God.
3. Nature is Cheap
All animals have only what is absolutely necessary for survival. If any of those things fail, the animal’s life becomes miserable. We could have been given more than what we need to survive. (eg. why aren't we naturally cleverer and more hard-working?). The world is difficult enough without having to deal with handicaps like ignorance, stupidity, disease and disability.
4. Nature is not well-organized
Even if everything in the world serves some purpose, nature has has a really hard time keeping its balance – it tends towards excess (too much of something) or deficit (not enough of something). Even the good things in the world easily turn into a problem with only a little deviation from the norm and this causes misery. For example, floods are followed by droughts; in summer it's too hot, in winter it's too cold. It 's possible that the world could have been made a little better (cooler summers, milder winters.
All Philo needs to show is that at least ONE of these circumstances could be improved so as to produce less suffering. For instance, if humans were a bit more resistant to disease, this would lead to a slightly better world. Philo argues that things could easily have been better than they are.
Philo also argues the likelihood of gratuitous (unnecessary) evil. He outlines four factors that account for most of the natural evil in the world.
1. Pain
Since believers often giving physical abilities like "sight" as evidence for God, then physical abilities like "feeling pain" count against God. Philo argues pain does not seem necessary because living creatures are just as motivated by pleasure. Why not have a reduction in the amount of pleasure rather than the sensation of pain?
Philo concludes that it seems that we were created with the purpose of feeling pain - but this makes a good God less likely..
2. Laws of Nature
Laws of nature are necessary for reason and science. However, chance events happen. God have made every chance event turn out for the best (eg. tornados could put things together rather than tear them apart). The fact that things often go terribly wrong prevents us from reasoning from the structure of the world to God.
3. Nature is Cheap
All animals have only what is absolutely necessary for survival. If any of those things fail, the animal’s life becomes miserable. We could have been given more than what we need to survive. (eg. why aren't we naturally cleverer and more hard-working?). The world is difficult enough without having to deal with handicaps like ignorance, stupidity, disease and disability.
4. Nature is not well-organized
Even if everything in the world serves some purpose, nature has has a really hard time keeping its balance – it tends towards excess (too much of something) or deficit (not enough of something). Even the good things in the world easily turn into a problem with only a little deviation from the norm and this causes misery. For example, floods are followed by droughts; in summer it's too hot, in winter it's too cold. It 's possible that the world could have been made a little better (cooler summers, milder winters.
All Philo needs to show is that at least ONE of these circumstances could be improved so as to produce less suffering. For instance, if humans were a bit more resistant to disease, this would lead to a slightly better world. Philo argues that things could easily have been better than they are.
REJECTING SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Hume uses the characters of Demea, Cleanthes and Philo to discuss and reject solutions to the Problem of Evil.
First, Demea appeals to Sceptical Theism - the idea that God is good, but in ways that we cannot understand. Hume argues that, if we go down this path, we must abandon religion, because it involves worshiping a being who is too different from us.
Hume uses the characters of Demea, Cleanthes and Philo to discuss and reject solutions to the Problem of Evil.
First, Demea appeals to Sceptical Theism - the idea that God is good, but in ways that we cannot understand. Hume argues that, if we go down this path, we must abandon religion, because it involves worshiping a being who is too different from us.
In what respect, then, do [God's] benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men? - Philo
Hume's conclusion here don't convince everyone. In the Biblical story of Job, God's values turn out to be incomprehensible to Job. Job worships God at the end of the story because of the numinous experience he has had. Numinous experiences are of a being who is "wholly other" but they seem to inspire rather than count against religion.
Going back to the house example, Hume doesn’t think that pointing out that the flaws serve a purpose by preventing more disastrous consequences is a good excuse. A perfect being should be able to reduce the number of flaws or the amount of suffering more than what we experience.
Given the amount of evil in the world, Philo concludes that an indifferent or MORALLY NEUTRAL deity best explains the universe. There is too much evil for a good deity, too much good for an evil deity and too much regularity (the laws of nature) for multiple gods. Instead, there might be a single God, but he cannot care about us.
Going back to the house example, Hume doesn’t think that pointing out that the flaws serve a purpose by preventing more disastrous consequences is a good excuse. A perfect being should be able to reduce the number of flaws or the amount of suffering more than what we experience.
Given the amount of evil in the world, Philo concludes that an indifferent or MORALLY NEUTRAL deity best explains the universe. There is too much evil for a good deity, too much good for an evil deity and too much regularity (the laws of nature) for multiple gods. Instead, there might be a single God, but he cannot care about us.