The Design Argument: Demea, Cleanthes, And Philo

The design argument consists of the philosophies of God’s existence and his roll in this universe. Hume’s dialogues on Natural Religion have also influenced other philosophers to be intrigued over the design argument, and analogical reasoning. The main philosophers in his book that Hume’s considers their different positions and argues their points of view are; Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. All three philosophers believe in God’s existence and creations, but each is somewhat skeptical. Demea is looking at his presence and works in more of an abstract theory. Demea argues that the proof of his existence is irrelevant because as humans we cannot mentally and physically understand God through reason. Cleanthes on the other hand thinks it makes sense to see God as the creator of all
existence, but solely through analogical reasoning.
Lastly Philo has a similar theory to Demea, he thinks the human mind is weak and deceiving, and he also does not try to understand the unknown and doesn't think the knowledge and understanding is obtainable. The purpose of the design argument is to investigate the proof on God's existence on earth and how and why he created the universe. The theories within try to investigate through nature that shows proof of design and creation. Analogical reasoning is the comparison between known and unknown to gain understanding of the new ideas, but the analogy must not be weak to uphold an argument. Cleanthes uses analogical reasoning to justify God's intelligent design. He claims to oversee the world as a well-oiled machine. Basically explaining that before you create a machine, you have to have a design in mind and a motive. In this quote he elaborates, “Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines … The curious adapting of means to end, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it
much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, that the causes also resemble, and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed much larger faculties … By this argument … do we prove at once the existence of a Diety and his similarities to human mind and intelligence.” In my opinion Cleanthes is using a machine as an analogy. This comparison is to show the plot God had before creating the world to specially run and perform the way it does. There was a reason for the universe to be the way it is and this is proved through God's design plan. Through analogical reasoning God's existence is real because there had to be an Author of Nature, and a man with a motive. Nature can be compared to a bicycle seems simplistic, but there had to be a detailed plan to transport you. You have the pedals, gears, tires, handle bars, etc all parts that the rider needs to function to complete his journey. Another example is a clock. Just by thinking of the components of a clock, you can tell the creator was intelligent. Also there were reasons these things existence and they were both designed, just like the universe was. Analogical reasoning can only be executed with a strong comparison between two things. For example two students handing in similar papers is immoral, and a man cheating on his wife because his marriage is tough is also immoral. Cheating regardless of the situation you're in is wrong and unacceptable. The outcome maybe different in either situation, one may be more extreme but what is unjust is clear with or without reasoning. Weak analogies on the other hand do not support an argument. There needs to be evidence and an understanding within the analogy for it to be a strong one that makes sense. An example of a false and weak analogy would be use of assumption within the comparison. For example I wear brand names and designer clothes, then I must be rich. This analogy is basing the fact that Louis Vuitton bags are expensive, so the person who is wearing the handbag has money to spend. This could be true, but where is the evidence that I am rich just because I have one item that is costly. Philo claims that the design argument is based on a weak analogy, and this is why he is skeptical. He says that we cannot “affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy here is entire and perfect.” He has doubts that the mind is the cause of the universe, and that our experience of one part of the universe is a rule for parts of the universe very remote from our experience. He does not have the same theory on God's existence and creation of the universe as Clenthes but Demea agrees with his logic. Philo points out in Part VIII in the book that pure intelligence could not manipulate matter, "thought has no influence upon matter except where that matter is so conjoined with it, as to have an equal reciprocal influence upon it. No animal can move immediately any thing but the members of its own body." He argues against Cleanthes analogical reason that the world is like a machine and more like an organ and that God is the soul of the body. Philo believes that God is and was in existence but does not understand how we could comprehend the unknown and that it is beyond our ability. He then adds, "that some patterns in mathematics that appear like wonderful design can be shown to arise from the nature of numbers themselves; maybe the order in nature is similarly merely a result of the nature of matter." Philo is skeptical because he cannot base his thoughts on evidence through theories and can not choose between arguments that involve understanding the Author of Nature through reason. I feel like Philo is less of an abstract thinker, he wants concrete evidence or more of a scientific view on the creation of the universe. This is why he compares the universe to anatomy and organs. He demonstrates his doubts, with a very understandable point of view!