DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Classical Theism
  HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Philosophy
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 96--------------------------------------------------
       Feser on Paleyen Design Arguments
       By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: February 22, 2020, 9:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I am working through Fesers book Neo-Scholastic Essays and in
       chapter 7, he distinguishes the metaphysical assumptions made
       between the fifth way and the ID-style design arguments; the
       fifth way assumes that teleology is intrinsic, whereas the
       ID-style arguments assume that teleology is extrinsic. He then
       concludes (if I am understanding him correctly) that the
       consistent thomist would reject the ID-style arguments on the
       grounds that it assumes an incorrect view of teleology; however,
       I am inclined to think this is false. Take the following
       argument:
       P1 The bacterial flagellum exists
       P2 The probability the bacterial flagellum existing is more
       likely on theism rather than atheism
       C Therefore, God exists
       This doesn't seem to me to entail that biological organsims
       can't have intrinsic teleology, but I may be wrong. I think the
       mantra of "irreducible-complexity" may be the source of Feser's
       objection. I think if the claim ID-theorists make was that some
       natural phenomena can only be explained by theism (is literally
       irreducibly-complex), than perhaps Feser may have a point, but I
       am not even really sure if that stands in contradiction with the
       notion of finality.
       I suppose the question I am trying to have answered is: Does
       finality falsify ID-style theistic arguments? Why or why not?
       #Post#: 97--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Feser on Paleyen Design Arguments
       By: Atno Date: February 25, 2020, 11:44 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It is perfectly possible to have both immanent teleology and
       intelligent design arguments. Though I'm not particularly a fan
       of ID (I don't really know much about it, to be honest, just
       don't have much of an opinion on it), it would just be a matter
       of probabilities. Immanent teleology doesn't alter, for
       instance, the fine tuning argument. Neither does it have to
       alter biological complexity arguments; the matter is just
       whether the immanent teleology we have alters the probabilities
       significantly or not (seems like it doesn't).
       For a thomistic defense of ID, check out Robert Koons's article,
       just google robert koons intelligent design, you should find it
       *****************************************************