In David Hume's excerpt on the Teleological Argument, he depicts the concept in sort of a dramatic play-like context. This way, as a reader, it is more of an interactive comparison of the explanation and its pitfalls. Basically the teleological argument is rooted in the purpose of things from their observed state. Ultimately, the concept is born out of a posteriori view that explains the cause of certain effects by explanation similar effects. Presuming the causes of separate things are the same because the outcome or effect is similar can result in a fallacy. Using conjecture to fabricate the cause of a similar thing makes it so there is a laziness or lack of interest when trying to the discover truth of origin of something, because the cause was already assumed since its effect was similar to something else's effect. Thus, creating an issue in understanding a things individualistic or unique cause, because there is no need to with a reference point or explanation previously made by an assumption. Unique things, such as God or the universe, are difficult to assume due to the fact that we have nothing to compare them to. The debate to that was the idea that the mind of the "Author of Nature" must be similar to the mind of a human, just expanded to a larger scale or comprehension and understanding (124). But assuming that the creator of the universe can be compared to humans who are very imperfect and flawed, disproves the notion of an all knowing, all powerful, and all good God. Hume explains this in a way that helps me understand it, because I can relate this argument to feelings I have in my life. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people assume things about me or my life because of stereotypes, or rumors, or previous encounters with social groups I am involved in, and they don't take the time to actually understand me or who I am because they think they already know through these other unreliable sources. The excerpt uses Philo as the voice against the teleological argument, and although throughout the entirety of it he is explaining that the world is faulty, not comparable to other things within our limited human thought, and that an all powerful Deity or Divine Being wouldn't or couldn't make such mistakes, he sticks by the concept of the universe having a design. This means that there is a belief within Hume that there is a greater or higher force that designed the universe, but it just can't be explained teleologically.
Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a good summary of David Hume's argument. It makes since that our world was created by a higher intelligence and it is not the kind of creator that is described in the Christian faith because there is chaos and destruction, which we assume is either controlled or can be controlled by a higher being. The thinking behind the universes' purpose as unprovable is legitimate as well as our understanding of why certain things on this earth were created for a purpose.
ReplyDelete