DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 242--------------------------------------------------
Teleology in Nature
By: Brian Date: October 12, 2020, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the best arguments for accepting teleology as a real
feature of the natural world? Are there any good contemporary
accounts/defenses of teleology in nature?
#Post#: 245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Teleology in Nature
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: October 28, 2020, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I guess it depends on whos definition of teleology you are
working with. Teleolgy, to Aquinas, was just the fact that
physical things have certain dispositions: ice melts when it
gets too warm, wood burns, quantum particles don't decay into
flowers but into other particles, etc. It seems to me this sort
of teleolgy is self-evident, and you would have to reject nearly
every piece of scientific literature out there, which seems like
a harsh conclusion and unwarrented skepticism. If you are
working with Paley's defintion, the one which is often employed,
then I have a bit less to say. In my opinion, the intelligent
design folks might (might is an important word. I wouldn't
defend their positions too strongly) have something going for
them when it comes to the existence of the first single celled
organism. It seems pretty unlikely on a purely naturalistic
worldview that such a thing would arise. The best evidence of
teleolgy in nature, in my opinion, would be the fine tuning
argument; however, a multiverse hypothesis seems to me more
probable than a theistic one. If you really want to know more
about this, I would ask Atno. Personally, I think teleological
arguments, although interesting, don't get very far.
#Post#: 249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Teleology in Nature
By: Dominik Date: December 1, 2020, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
CLT, do you think the fifth way doesn't work? Why? I like these
teleological arguments, although I have a tendency with
supplementing them with the PSR
#Post#: 250--------------------------------------------------
Re: Teleology in Nature
By: RomanJoe Date: December 1, 2020, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Teleology has always seemed evident to me. It's the common sense
view--beings have metaphysical dispositions and these
dispositions aren't arbitrary or random.
Teleology and essentialism go hand in hand. I think the
conscious whole we call the human being, or even the conscious
whole we call the animal, have persuaded me of some kind of
essentialism. And by some kind I mean a sort of Aristotelian top
down approach. The fact that matter can be rendered into an
irreducible conscious whole, capable of qualia-laden, and
rational behavior that outstrips the bare capabilities of its
material parts, tells me that there is some organizing
principle, something that baptizes the otherwise disparate
world-stuff into wholes greater than their parts.
Organizing principle, nature, essence, whatever you call it, is
defined by its natural potentials. Humans are rational animals.
Find a mature human whose potential for rational thought is
somehow thwarted and we call him mentally handicapped, insane,
etc. Why? Because there's an expectation of a certain
metaphysical disposition, a disposition that humans exclusively
engage in, e.g. rational thought. Humans aren't snap shots,
nothing is. We know the quiddity of something by the potentials
exclusive to it. This is teleology, an aim beyond a being
towards a determinate set of potentials.
#Post#: 251--------------------------------------------------
Re: Teleology in Nature
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: December 1, 2020, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@dominik
I think the fifth way probably works. I am not very well-read on
the topic, but I have no objections to the sort of teleology
used in that argument. My issue is with the contemporary notion
of extrinisic teleology (like the ID movement's), not the
thomist notion of intrinsic teleology.
*****************************************************