Philosophy Notes Part 3
This is the third post in the Philosophy Notes series. Each post is a supplement to my philosophy study guides, designed to help beginning philosophy students read, understand, and think critically about the classic books of philosophy.
Scientific Attempts to Prove the Existence of God
Hume begins by pointing out that the Design Argument is analogical. If it is analogical, then it is inductive. If it is inductive then it gives probability not certainty to the conclusion. Arguments that give probability are a part of scientific not philosophical methodology.
The analogy promoted in the Design Argument is between natural things in the universe like animals and artificial (man-made) things like clocks and pianos. Both have “design,” meaning that natural things in the universe have parts that work together for “an end” in the same way that the parts of a clock work together to display the time of day. For example, the delicate parts of an animal’s eye work together to create sight. The chemical elements that compose the sun work together to create light.
Because the animal and the eye “resemble exactly” artificial machines like clocks and pianos, the proponent of the design argument in Hume’s imagined dialogue refers to the eye and the sun as “natural machines.” The resemblance is to be found in “the curious adapting of means to ends.” Here is how Hume has the character Cleanthes tell the remainder of the argument to his small audience (Philo and Demea): “Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble, and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to that of the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.” (14).
By “the rules of analogy,” Hume means both the form and the content of analogical arguments. Here is the form:
1. P is the cause of effects a, b and c.
2. Q is the cause of effects a, b and c.
3. P is the cause of effect d.
Therefore,
4. Q (probably) is the cause of effect d.
In Hume’s words, the argument form is a posteriori (empirical), not a priori (analytic). The type of argument is inductive. This means that the premises give probability (not certainty) to the conclusion.
The inductive argument form is analogical. In premise 1 and 2, an analogy or similarity of effects (a, b and c) have similar causes (P and Q). Premise 3 states an additional effect (d) of one of these causes (P). It is concluded (in 4) that the other object or event (Q) probably is the cause of the same effect (d).
Unlike the certainty of valid deductive arguments, the probability of inductive arguments comes in several degrees, beginning with low probability and ending with high probability. For example, on the first day of a college philosophy class, Pandorf notices that the book (P) she is holding (e.g. Plato’s Republic) has the same dust cover as the book (Q) Bengrit is holding. Both dust covers are of the same color (a), have same title (b) and the same author’s name (c) imprinted on the cover. Pandorf knows that her book is Plato’s Republic (d) , not some other book. She infers from this resemblance that it is highly probable that removing the dust covers will reveal that Bengrit has the same book (d).
If the premises of an analogical argument are to deliver high probability to the conclusion, then the premises must contain sufficient evidence to support that degree if probability. If Pandorf sees Bengrit holding a large book with no dust cover, then she must adjust the degree of probability that Bengrit’s large book is the same as her dust covered book. Having only a large book in his hand is not sufficient evidence to conclude that it is “highly probable” that Bengrit is holding a copy of Plato’s Republic. The word “perhaps” is more suitable.
And the evidence must be relevant. If Bengrit is holding a hat or an ice cream cone, this has nothing to do with the conclusion.
In his criticism of the Design Argument, Hume is aware of all of this, and more. The character Philo says that Cleanthes has given “a very weak analogy” because the similarity of the natural world to the artificial is “much less than exact.” (16). We know from experience that pianos and clocks are the product of intelligent design and construction. We have no similar experience of intelligent design and construction of an animal eye, a head of cabbage or the universe itself. We have no experience of an intelligent being planning and constructing a human eye, a head of cabbage or a universe. About all that the proponent of the Design Argument has to go on is the weak analogy between the parts and interaction of the parts in both natural and artificial things.
The fact that we have never experienced an intelligent designer put together a universe, a world, a cabbage or an animal eye does not mean that we have not experienced or experimented about the cause of each of these natural things. For example, scientists have discovered that “three embryonic tissue sources—the neural ectoderm, the surface ectoderm, and the periocular mesenchyme—contribute to the formation of the mammalian eye.”[1] The authors of this article also write that “the developing eye has presented an invaluable system for studying the interactions among cells and, more recently, genes, in specifying cell fate.”
The words “an invaluable system for studying the interactions among cells and genes” trigger an alarm for a response from the Design Argument proponents. They will say that a system with cell and gene interactions can only have been caused by an intelligent designer.
But this response begs the question, “How do you know that such interactions can only hav been caused by an intelligent designer? Show us the evidence that supports this. If you can’t provide the evidence, then you are assuming the very thing that you want to prove!”
Philo make the point that because Cleanthes is a human being, he is biased about “thought,” “design” and “intelligence” over other kinds of causes. But there are many more “springs” (causes) in the universe than these. In the 19th century, known active causes at work in nature are “heat and cold, attraction and repulsion and a hundred others which fall under daily observation.” (19) If I observe that water in my kettle is boiling, I will say that this is due to the high heat of the fire under the kettle. If I set a magnet down next to my metal tweezers, and the tweezers slide toward the magnet, I say that magnet causes the tweezers to slide toward it. What I don’t say is “Thought and intelligence are the cause of these effects.”
Of course, there are now more complex physical explanations of these phenomena, using different terminology. Scientists now use the words “thermal energy” to explain the change of “the state” of water from still to boiling.[2] The words now used for magnetic attraction is particle exchange, “a general feature of quantum field theory.”[3]
I confess to knowing little about thermal energy and quantum field theory. But my point is that if Philo (Hume) is right in saying that there are many different causes of events in nature, and the causal activity of thought and intelligence is only one of these, then without producing any empirical evidence at all, it is a fallacy to conclude that the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, human beings, trees and other plants are all the product of an intelligent designer. We might as well say that the universe “sprouted” from a seed or emerged (born) from the body of an animal.
And if it is objected that the process of sprouting from a seed or emerging from an animal body could only have been planned and designed by an intelligent being, then this begs thequestion, “Of all the many causes of events that we know to exist in the universe, why should we choose intelligent design to explain the origin of the universe?”
Have worlds ever been formed under your eye, and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of the phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to its final consummation? If you have, then cite your experience, and deliver your theory.(22)
Finally, it is important to remember that analogical arguments are inductive, proving probability of the conclusions, not certainty. As such, inductive arguments do not belong in the philosopher’s tool box. Inductive arguments produce conclusions from empirical data. Scientists gather empirical data, make observations and do experiments. Philosophers think about concepts and the conclusions they draw from their analyses are certain not probable.
The Limits of Science
Besides collecting sufficient relevant data to support a conclusion, the conclusion of inductive arguments must be falsifiable. This means that there must be a way or procedure that other scientists can use to show that the conclusion is false. Suppose I experiment with a variety of face masks during a pandemic. I conclude that one of the masks gives better protection from the virus than all others I have tested. My conclusion about “better protection” can be falsified. Other scientists can run my experiment and show flaws in the collection of data that prove me wrong.
But suppose someone
says that God will punish those who wear face masks because “God prohibits His people from covering their
face.” How would we prove that this claim
is false? What observations would a scientist
make? What data would the scientist collect?
What science experiments can be performed to show that God does not exist
and therefore, has made no such pronouncements? If there are no such relevant
observations, data or experiments, then it is safe to say that the dictum “God
prohibits His people from covering their face” cannot be falsified. As such, we can safely declare it to be “nonsense.”
I will leave readers with this question: Can the claim that the universe was created by an intelligent designer be falsified?
_________________________________________________
Learn more about David Hume’s critique of the ontological and design arguments in Laurence Houlgate’s Understanding David Hume: The Smart Student’s Guide to Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Essays on Miracles, Immortality at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RN9HQHS
Do you need help reading and understanding philosophy? Get a free copy of Understanding Philosophy: The Smart Students Guide to Reading and Writing Philosophy at www.HoulgateBooks.com
[1] Heavner, W., & Pevny, L. (2012). Eye development and retinogenesis. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 4(12), a008391. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a008391
[2] “Physical conditions like temperature and pressure affect state of matter. ... When thermal energy is added to a substance, its temperature increases, which can change its state from solid to liquid (melting), liquid to gas (vaporization), or solid to gas (sublimation).” https://www.legendsoflearning.com/learning-objectives/effects-of-temperature-and-pressure-on-state/
No comments:
Post a Comment