Title: Regarding the Argument from Design Question: The following is a description of the famous atheist David Hume's view on the traditional argument from design for the existence of God: The ... argument from design supposes that the order and beauty of the universe reflect the greatness and demonstrate the reality of its ultimate cause. Hume noted that since this analogical argument claims to infer a cause from presumed effects, it must be grounded as a matter of fact on the experience of a constant conjunction. But since in fact we have not observed repeated instances of gods creating universes, we cannot have formed the habit of associating our experience of the one with our inferences about the other. No causal relationship can ever be established from the observation of a unique example. What is more, Hume argued that even if it were possible to engage in causal reasoning in this case, it could not warrant the intended conclusion. The presumed cause must always be supposed to be proportional to the observed effect, so the manifest imperfections of this world could never support belief in the perfection of its creator. The argument from design is a two-edged sword, as likely to persuade us of the frailty or malevolence as of the power and benevolence of the presumed cause of the world as we know it ( http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4v.htm .) I am not entirely sure how to respond to the second objection, but here is some material that may or may not be helpful in marshalling a response to the first. There are clear evidences of fine-tuning in the universe when we consider the extremely narrow range of values for the numbers in the laws of science that would allow for the development of life. There are numerous delicate cosmological constants, which, even if they had been slightly altered during the development of the universe, would have disallowed the existence of any form of intelligent life. Elaborating this point in his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time , renowned physicist Stephen Hawking writes: The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would have exploded ... [I]t seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle (p. 129-130). Another example of fine adjustment is the rate of the universe's expansion. Earlier in his book, Hawking relates that If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size (p. 126). If it is indeed true that all these features of the universe were finely adjusted, as the scientific evidence so strongly suggests, then there must logically have been a fine adjuster. This fine adjuster is none other than God Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Regarding the evolution of the universe, Hawking remarks "Yet it appears that [God] chose to make it evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws" (p. 11). After assessing these features and properties of the universe, Paul Davies, another famous physicist, writes in his book The Cosmic Blueprint "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned Nature's numbers to make the universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming" (p. 203). Examples such as these demonstrate that the universe is well-designed and finely tuned and, therefore, requires a designer/fine tuner. Yet all the foregoing information is only material that may or may not contribute to the development of a reply to Hume's first objection. How would you, as a proponent of the argument from design, respond to Hume's objections? Omar Sarwar Answer: The first objection raised by the philosopher is: The ... argument from design supposes that the order and beauty of the universe reflect the greatness and demonstrate the reality of its ultimate cause. Hume noted that since this analogical argument claims to infer a cause from presumed effects, it must be grounded as a matter of fact on the experience of a constant conjunction. But since in fact we have not observed repeated instances of gods creating universes, we cannot have formed the habit of associating our experience of the one with our inferences about the other. No causal relationship can ever be established from the observation of a unique example. This objection carries absolutely no weight. Firstly, it defies common sense and common experience. Would we refuse to recognize the greatness of an artiste or an author merely on the grounds that we have observed only one of his masterpieces and are not aware of his other works? Secondly, we must not forget that the 'design' argument is not based only on the overall 'design' in the Universe, as a whole, but from the 'design' present in each of the innumerable creations of the Creator. Each system and sub-system within the system of the universe, as a whole, is a universe in itself. One, indeed, has to be a 'philosopher' to be able to refuse the existence of the vast variety of 'designs' around us as well as within ourselves. The second argument ascribed to the philosopher is: What is more, Hume argued that even if it were possible to engage in causal reasoning in this case, it could not warrant the intended conclusion. The presumed cause must always be supposed to be proportional to the observed effect, so the manifest imperfections of this world could never support belief in the perfection of its creator. Indeed there are certain imperfections in the universe. However, before one derives any conclusions about the Creator of the universe from these imperfections entailed in the universe, one should first present a clear rebuttal of the explanation given by the Creator, for the existence of these imperfections in the universe. Without such a rebuttal, it would be like criticizing something without even fully comprehending it. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad January 21, 2002