Teleological argument

===David Hume===
[[File:David Hume.jpg|thumb|David Hume outlined his criticisms of the teleological argument in his ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''.]]

Louis Loeb writes that [[David Hume]], in his ''[[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding|Enquiry]]'', "insists that inductive inference cannot justify belief in extended objects". Loeb also quotes Hume as writing:{{blockquote|text=It is only when two species of objects are found to be constantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other. {{omission}} If experience and observation and analogy be, indeed, the only guides which we can reasonably follow in inference of this nature; both the effect and cause must bear a similarity and resemblance to other effects and causes…which we have found, in many instances, to be conjoined with another. {{omission}} [The proponents of the argument] always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled.}}

Loeb notes that "we observe neither God nor other universes, and hence no conjunction involving them. There is no observed conjunction to ground an inference either to extended objects or to God, as unobserved causes."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Radcliffe |first=Elizabeth S. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6ECxW_2tAf0C&dq=%22insists+that+inductive%22+hume&pg=PA118 |title=Loeb, LE., in Radcliffe, ES (ed.), ''A Companion to Hume'', John Wiley & Sons, 2010, p. 118. |date=31 May 2011 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9781444337860}}</ref>
 
Hume also presented a criticism of the argument in his ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion''. The character ''Philo'', a religious sceptic, voices Hume's criticisms of the argument. He argues that the design argument is built upon a faulty analogy as, unlike with man-made objects, we have not witnessed the design of a universe, so do not know whether the universe was the result of design. Moreover, the size of the universe makes the analogy problematic: although our experience of the universe is of order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe.<ref name="IEP Hume">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=David Hume (1711–1776) |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume |access-date=November 24, 2011 |date=June 30, 2011 |author=Fiesar, James}}</ref> Philo argues:
{{Blockquote|text=A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?|author=David Hume|source=Dialogues 2<ref name="IEP Hume" />}}

Philo also proposes that the order in nature may be due to nature alone. If nature contains a principle of order within it, the need for a designer is removed. Philo argues that even if the universe is indeed designed, it is unreasonable to justify the conclusion that the designer must be an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God – the God of classical theism.<ref name="IEP Hume" /> It is impossible, he argues, to infer the perfect nature of a creator from the nature of its creation. Philo argues that the designer may have been defective or otherwise imperfect, suggesting that the universe may have been a poor first attempt at design.<ref name="God Hypothesis">{{Cite book |last=Auerbach, Albert A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OtDSNNPjpRwC&q=teleological+argument+from+ignorance&pg=PA60 |title=The God Hypothesis and Other Theories of the Universe |publisher=Infinity Publishing |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-7414-0245-5 |pages=59–60}}</ref> Hume also pointed out that the argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God: “why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing the world?” (p.&nbsp;108).<ref name="Hume1779" />

[[Wesley C. Salmon]] developed Hume's insights, arguing that all things in the universe which exhibit order are, to our knowledge, created by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. He also argued that there are no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything. Using the probability calculus of [[Bayes Theorem]], Salmon concludes that it is very improbable that the universe was created by the type of intelligent being theists argue for.<ref>Wesley C. Salmon, "Religion and Science: A New Look at Hume's Dialogues", Philosophical Studies, 33 (1978), 143–176.</ref>

[[Nancy Cartwright (philosopher)|Nancy Cartwright]] accuses Salmon of [[begging the question]]. One piece of evidence he uses in his probabilistic argument – that atoms and molecules are not caused by design – is equivalent to the conclusion he draws, that the universe is probably not caused by design. The atoms and molecules are what the universe is made up of and whose origins are at issue. Therefore, they cannot be used as evidence against the theistic conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cartwright |first=Nancy |year=1978 |title=Comments on Wesley Salmon's 'Science and Religion ...' |journal=Philosophical Studies |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=177–183 |doi=10.1007/BF00571885 |jstor=4319204 |s2cid=170346176}}</ref>