1. What is the main argument?
This is a little tricky. The main thrust of the reasoning here is that if you take the third premise of the Argument From (to) Design seriously, it will lead you to a different conclusion because you will not be able to claim any of the important attributes of God to the designer of the universe. So, the bulk of the argument here is in setting up the accepted standards for inductive arguments by analogy, and then arguing that important attributes of God cannot be inferred to be attributes of whatever designed the universe.
The main argument could reasonably be reconstructed as follows:
Premise (1) If the Argument from Design is an inductive argument by analogy, then it does not provide reason to believe in the traditional monotheistic God.
Premise (2) The Argument from Design is an inductive argument by analogy.
Conclusion: Although we may be able to infer that the universe might have arisen by design, we cannot conclude anything at all about a possible designer. More specifically: The Argument from Design does not provide reason to believe in the traditional monotheistic God.
2. Are there any terms that need defining?
A couple were noted above, but there may be others:
alacrity
This actually is not a philosophical term, but is probably unfamiliar to you; don't just assume its meaning does not matter.a priori
proves
Does it mean something slightly different than 'rigorous demonstration'?
3. Are there any objections to the reasoning or premises?
Be careful here. To criticize the reasoning you will have to do some research on strong and weak inductive arguments and standards for arguments by analogy. However, you can still look closely at his arguments supporting the various consequences that Philo claims follow from the Argument From (to) Design and see if you can find some weak points.
4. What is the issue?
Whether or not a particular argument establishes the existence of something like the Judeo-Christian God.
The argument Hume is criticizing basically goes as follows (summarized from Section II of Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion):
Premise (1): The world is a great big complicated machine composed of smaller machines that all work together with purposeful adaptation of means to ends.
Premise (2): This machine remarkably resembles productions of human design, say, machines like watches and ships.
Premise (3): Similar effects usually have similar causes.
Conclusion: Probably the world was designed by a being possessing intelligence analogous to human intelligence, though unfathomably greater (we are to understand that this being in the Judeo-Christian God).
5. Does the author present counter arguments?
Yes, but it was not fully reprinted here.
6. Are the premises well supported?
Again, this is not quite the right question for this piece. A better question might be: Is the account of the requirements of an inductive argument by analogy accurate? If so, are the consequences derived well supported?
|