Similarities Between Paley And David Hume

Jessica: Hello and welcome back to The Day Talk, the one and only show that brings you antiquated philosophers and other interesting persons! Now last week, our guest was the lovely Cormac McCarthy on idealism and realism. You could say that his views were pretty…BLACK AND WHITE.

(crickets)

Jessica: Okay….Moving on, this week we have two interesting faces to meet: David Hume and William Paley. They’ll be talking with us today about the Design Argument and why they’re for or against it. Gentlemen, please step on out.

(applause as the two men appear on stage left)

(men sit down in chairs opposite Jessica)

Jessica: Gentlemen, welcome. You’re both aware why we’re here. But before we begin, I have to ask you, Hume, a question.

Hume: By all means.

Jessica: Are you at all… HUME-rous?
(Hume glares off into the crowd)
(crickets)
Paley: Is this going to be how it is throughout the entire show?
Jessica: Okay! Not hume-rous. Moving on. Let’s dig in, then. Paley, you’re a proponent of the Design Argument. Explain to us, for those who aren’t fully aware, what the Design Argument entails.
Paley: Very well. Let’s look at it this way: if we see a rock on the ground, we view it as normal and assume that it has always been there. But if there’s a watch lying next to this rock, we automatically know, without question, that somebody made that watch. Why? Because it had complex design (Paley 90).
Jessica: Okay, so what does this mean in terms of God?
Paley: Elementary, my dear. As I was saying, a watch has a complex design (Paley 90). Can we rightfully assume that anything with complex design-say a piece of literature, a pair of eyeglasses-has someone behind it that created such an object?
Jessica: We can.
Paley: Alright. Now let’s look at ourselves, as humans. We have skin, organs, muscles, bones. Inside all of that are cells upon cells that continue to reproduce. Would you say that we, as humans, are built in a complex manner?
Jessica: It could be taken to be that way.
Paley: Very good. So what that means is this: we ourselves need a designer (Paley 91-92).
Jessica: So what you’re saying is, we’re ultimately just a watch but made differently and created by something much grander than ourselves.
Paley: If you’d like to think of it that way.
Jessica: Interesting. Alright, we’re going to hold right there for a moment Paley. Hume, tell me your rebuttal for the design argument.
Hume: Well for one, it’s almost as ludicrous as its proponents.
(audience gasps)
Jessica: …I mean a logical argument, my dear Hume. Not just insults. We save the insults for the end of the show.
Hume: Very well, then… This way of arguing won’t stand, if you think about it.

“That a stone will fall, that a fire will burn…we have observed a thousand and a thousand times” (Hume 94). In other words, if you want to compare two things, by all means do so. But make sure the two items of such a comparison are actually able to be compared. Otherwise, you have an apple and orange: the only similarity between them is that they’re both fruit. Similarly, while a watch and a human both have complex design, that is the only commonality between them. See? There’s nothing more. So to say that because a watch has a creator, so must a human… the logic is

flawed.
Jessica: Now is that the only thing that you see wrong with Paley’s idea?
Hume: That’s the largest point. I just believe that such an argument is flawed because the outcome cannot explain anything; it gives no understanding of the existence of God (Hume 97).
Jessica: Alright. Now that we’ve heard from both of you, we come to this question: does the design argument prove the existence of God, or does it not?
(Paley and Hume speak at same time)
Paley: Clearly.
Hume: Clearly not.
(the men exchange hostile glances)
(Jessica clears throat)
Jessica: Well, let’s look at the evidence.

Paley, you are a firm believer in God. You say that the Design Argument does work. From what I understand, you take it to be that anything that has some sort of design to it has to have had a maker (Paley 90). This is seen because humans are composed of so many things that to come from anything other than a deity, you believe, is ultimately impossible. You have the notion, Paley, that only God would be capable of making such an ultimate being that is the human. You assume in your argument, then, that God is an ultimate being; he has the ability to create a complex design (Paley 91).

Correct?
Paley: You seem to have understood the greater portion of my beliefs, yes.
Jessica: Good. Now, Hume. You don’t believe that the Design Argument proves the existence of God.
Hume: That is an accurate statement.
Jessica: From what you’re saying, it’s because humans cannot be compared to inanimate objects. They’re not only of a different composition, but there’s also no physical evidence that they have a maker; you can watch somebody create a watch, but nobody has seen, say, Adam and Eve be created from clay. What you’re also against in this argument is that it doesn’t state anything about God’s ability to create a human (Hume 98). The Design Argument goes off of the presumption that God is omnipotent and therefore can create things as we can create objects, but it does not directly focus on that. There’s no evidence in this certain argument that that is true, if God even exists. It skips over a grand part, you seem to be implying, that needs to be touched upon before God’s existence can even be thought to be true.
Paley: Yes, but God’s existence in general proves that he has the power to create a human.
Hume: Or does it? Your argument does not state that originally, and even if it did, you would have no evidence to supply it with. Already your premises make your conclusion, and thus your argument, frail (Hume 94). Shall we add more to make it weaker?
(men again exchange looks)
Jessica: Again, let’s save the fighting for the end of the show… So what can be concluded overall, I believe, is that the Design Argument specifically cannot determine the existence of God.
(Hume pumps fist in victory)
(Paley glowers at Hume)
Jessica: As Hume stated, there are various gaps in that argument which need to be addressed. This disqualifies the argument from being a candidate for the proposing side of God’s existence. However, this does not mean that God couldn’t exist, dear Hume. Would you not agree?
Hume: I could agree to that. If an opponent of mine brought to me an argument in which all bases were covered in terms of explaining God’s existence, I might very well be moved to accept his or her ideas. Until that moment arrives, however, I’ll continue to abide my opinion that God is a mere idea and nothing more.
Jessica: Very well. Well, that concludes this week’s episode of The Day Talk. Tune in next week, folks, to learn Douglas Adams’ answer to life, the universe, and everything!
The End

Works Cited
Hume, David. "A Critique of the Teleological Argument." N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Rpt. in
Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. 9th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 93-99. Print.
Paley, William. "The Watch and the Watchmaker." N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Rpt. in Philosophy:
The Quest for Truth. 9th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. 90-92. Print.