Editing David Hume (section)

==== Design argument ====
One of the traditional topics of [[natural theology]] is that of the [[existence of God]], and one of the ''[[a posteriori]]'' arguments for this is the ''argument from design'' or the [[teleological argument]]. The argument is that the existence of God can be proved by the design that is obvious in the complexity of the world, which ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' states is "the most popular", because it is:<ref name="RE">[[#{{harvid|RE}}|RE]]</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=April 2015}}

<blockquote>...the most accessible of the theistic arguments ... which identifies evidences of design in nature, inferring from them a divine designer ... The fact that the universe as a whole is a coherent and efficiently functioning system likewise, in this view, indicates a divine intelligence behind it.</blockquote>

In ''[[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]]'', Hume wrote that the design argument seems to depend upon our experience, and its proponents "always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled".{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=148}} Philosopher Louise E. Loeb (2010) notes that Hume is saying that only experience and observation can be our guide to making inferences about the conjunction between events. However, according to Hume:{{sfn|Loeb|2010|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6ECxW_2tAf0C&dq=companion+hume+observe+neither+God+nor+other+universes&pg=PA118 p. 118]}} 

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Hume also criticised the argument in his ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]'' (1779).  Hume proposes a finite universe with a finite number of particles. Given infinite time, these particles could randomly fall into any arrangement, including our seemingly designed world.[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm#:~:text=For%20instance%2C%20what,scruple%20this%20determination.]

A century later, the idea of order without design was rendered more plausible by Charles Darwin's discovery that the adaptations of the forms of life result from the [[natural selection]] of inherited characteristics.<ref name="RE" />{{unreliable source?|date=April 2015}} For philosopher James D. Madden, it is "Hume, rivaled only by Darwin, [who] has done the most to undermine in principle our confidence in arguments from design among all figures in the Western intellectual tradition".{{sfn|Madden|2005|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=UKSZeRnuyjAC&dq=teleological+god+hume+darwin&pg=PA150 p. 150, emphasis removed.]}}

Finally, Hume discussed a version of the [[anthropic principle]], which is the idea that theories of the universe are constrained by the need to allow for man's existence in it as an observer. Hume has his sceptical mouthpiece Philo suggest that there may have been many worlds, produced by an incompetent designer, whom he called a "stupid mechanic". In his ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'', Hume wrote:{{sfn|Hume|1779|p=167}}

<blockquote>Many worlds might have been botched and bungled throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: much labour lost: many fruitless trials made: and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making.
</blockquote>

American philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]] has suggested that this mechanical explanation of teleology, although "obviously&nbsp;... an amusing philosophical fantasy", anticipated the notion of natural selection, the 'continued improvement' being like "any Darwinian selection algorithm".{{sfn|Dennett|2009|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=i1tNI9646Q4C&dq=hume++anthropic+principle&pg=PA620 pp. 620–621]}}