BothAndBlog Forum

An Objection to the Teleological Argument
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rgument/p1

The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism. — SwampMan

It's true that in Mesopotamian & Mediterranean traditions, teleological arguments were produced by theologians to defend their belief in the invisible deity (Theism) variously defined by the Abrahamic lineage, of Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But other cultures have different definitions & arguments for their preferred imaginary Author of Reality. Most, if not all, of them assume some kind of creation event (First Cause), and some subsequent progression (evolution) of the creation toward some final resolution (teleology), for some divine reason that may be specified, or left to your imagination. However, there are a few minority belief systems that leave the definition of deity obscure, for lack of direct revelation.

One of those alternative models of reality is Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview that observes order (non-randomness) & meaning (logic) in the world, then infers the necessity for a logical organizer of some kind (e.g. LOGOS) to impose order on chaos, and to create meaningful patterns in randomness. Although they observe a positive direction in evolution (complexity & self-organization), they have only limited scientific knowledge and imperfect human reasoning, from which to predict the future course of evolution. Since the Purpose and Final Goal of our contingent & temporary world is unknown, any speculation on destination would not technically be teleo- (end) logical, but mesia- (middle) logical : the view from the middle of the process.


Note -- for those who see no lawful order or meaningful direction in the physical world, attributions of intention & purpose would be literally Absurd. But such an illogical world would also make Science and Philosophy absurd.

"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein

that it is "absurd" to claim to know what cannot be known here and now. — 180 Proof

I agree that apocalyptic Prophets and commercial Crystal Ball Readers sometimes make absurd claims. But economic analysts and weather forecasters are more scientific in their methods. They don't claim to "know what can't be known". So, you shouldn't tar them with the same brush, as the psychics, whose predictions are all over the map. Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. We now know that evolution began as a Planck-scale speck of Potential, and has produced an immeasurable Cosmos with billions of galaxies, and at least one planet with living & thinking organism. Is it absurd to conclude that something important is going on?

Anyway, the philosophical concept of Teleology is not about personal prospects or divine retribution, but about the rational inference of progression & purpose in evolution. That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face.

But in evolution, the stick-wielder is hidden behind a zillion solar cycles of misty Time. So the original imparter of momentum must be rationally inferred from our experience with causation-in-general. It's not absurd to assume that every chain of causation has an initial link (the Causal Agent), and a terminal link (The End). Aristotle labelled the Prime Mover as the "First Cause". But, he also noted that motion in a non-random direction must have an intentional impetus, which he defined as the "Final Cause". And if the chain makes upward progress from simple to complex, or from seed to tree, we can logically infer that the Prime Cause was not an accident, but intentional.

Hence, even if the future End State is unknown & possibly unknowable, we can deduce the general future trajectory of the causal chain, and logically label its final state the "Purpose" of the unknown Originator. That's the function of Reasoning : a> to fill gaps in knowledge ; b> to predict the future from past experience. Yet, such Prognostication is not an exact science -- it's merely an exercise in rational philosophical speculation.

Psychic Predictions :
Super Bowl LVI will be played on February 13th 2022, at SoFi Stadium (Cal. Predictions diverged, there was no unanimity amongst our psychics, mediums and ...

A philosophy of teleology sees purpose in ends rather than stated causes, making the outcome the actual, or "final" cause.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/teleology

https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/e ... sbohr1.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/84/ca/e7 ... d28a4a.png

I don't know that his is true. It certainly isn't true for today's philosophers and scientists. Do you have specific information on beliefs over time? — T Clark

Teleological explanations for the evolution of "endless forms most beautiful" are certainly not mainstream today, in secular science. But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. Randomness is inherently non-directional and patternless. So, it must be the unknown, but implicit, standard-setter of "Natural Selection" that mandated the fitness criteria for propagating the next generation of natural forms. Moreover, the 'natural laws" that regulate all causes in the world, must either be taken-for-granted, without explanation, or attributed to some logical organizer.

I won't take the time to produce a history of teleology in philosophy. But, I will point-out that, until Darwin & Wallace proposed their theory of Natural Selection, nobody had any better explanation for the orderly & constructive progression of Nature than an intentional First Cause. Some deep thinkers, who pondered the process we now call "evolution", imagined a super-human Lawmaker, while others proposed a more abstract principle, such as LOGOS. As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. And, sitting atop the pyramid of progress is the human brain, often described as "the most complex object in the universe.


Natural Selection, Teleology, and the Logos: From Darwin to the Oxford Neo-Darwinists, 1859-1909 :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/301989

Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Yet, as a recent spate of books by scientists suggests, science itself may have room for a new form of teleology, a new way to quantify and grasp a goal-driven directionality in nature, one more robust than the Aristotelian version, but one unafraid to acknowledge a progressive movement in the evolution of life toward consciousness.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrel ... f3c3a06d69

Teleological Notions in Biology :
The manifest appearance of function and purpose in living systems is responsible for the prevalence of apparently teleological explanations of organismic structure and behavior in biology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.

"There are few places in natural sciences where asking teleological questions is allowed: one is biology," writes SFI Professor Michael Lachmann."
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/new ... n-day-2021

IF our world was designed, then it wasn't designed very well. — Bitter Crank

You seem to be using the term "designed" in the religious sense of the creator of a perfect Garden of Eden. But, even the storytellers of that myth were aware that the world they inhabited was far from perfection. So, they imagined that the world began in a perfect state, and had nowhere to go but downhill.

However, those who propose secular Teleology today are not the blind buffoons you make them out to be. Instead, they understand that perfection is the end of an evolutionary process, not the beginning or middle. The path to perfection is an uphill climb. So, your criticism is aimed at the wrong target. Open both eyes, and you'll focus better.

PS__Evolution is a heuristic (trial & error) process. But you are focusing on the errors instead of the marvelous advances that instill feelings of awe in unromantic scientists..

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein

"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). — 180 Proof

Name-dropping is not a philosophical argument.

Only for Aristotlean pre-moderns (pseudo-science peddlers like e.g. Lamarckians, Chardinites, Sheldrakeans) who fail to understand neo-Darwinian evolution. — 180 Proof

Name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

Many evolutionary biologists do not believe evolution is progressive. I looked on the web for information about the distribution of biologists' opinions on the subject, but I couldn't find any. — T Clark

If you only look at the top lines of a Google search, you'll only see the most popular ideas, not the most perceptive. The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions.

Teleological Notions in Biology :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

And as you'll notice from the article, teleology in biology remains controversial, and even its proponents are quite explicit that they're talking about something different from teleology as e.g. Aristotle would have understood it (chiefly, in jettisoning the theological/metaphysical elements in favor of a naturalistic approach). — Seppo

Oh yes. I notice on this forum that "Teleology" is a hackle-raising four-letter-word for some people. For them, it implies an obsolete anti-science ideology. But my personal philosophical worldview is compatible with the ambiguity & uncertainty of post-quantum cutting-edge science, if not with the black & white certainty of 19th century Classical Physics.

From my peripheral perspective, the Metaphysics of Aristotle seem quite prescient. However, when challenged by the physics-is-Truth disciples, I rely on modern scientific specialists instead of a pre-scientific generalist. But, I still insist on calling the uncharted uncertainties of Quantum Queerness "Meta-Physics" (i.e. grudgingly accepted, but not yet explained by physics). And that medieval term raises the hackles even more. Still, I enjoy the philosophical exercise of chewing on controversial questions.

I was in joke-mode, so don't take what I said as an argument. — Bitter Crank

That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions.

Both Progressive Evolution and Digressive Devolution are opinions based partly on prior attitudes and partly on partial evidence. So, while my non-expert opinion is more sweetly optimistic than your bitter pessimism, I'm encouraged by the pioneering sober scientists, who take the risk to row against the tide of stuffy academic authority. :joke:

Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. — Bitter Crank

Great! I was just playing with your screenname.

I too, am cautiously optimistic that evolution is moving toward an improved version of the paradoxical world we now inhabit. That's because I tend to focus on the sensible stuff, instead of the absurdities. At least, I don't have to worry about sabre-tooth tigers sniffing around my cave. I don't expect to be around to evaluate the next incremental upgrade --- maybe beating our bombs into plowshares. But the history of progression from next-to-nothingness to awesome everythingness (97 light-years across), is evident. And we now expect to see more of our cosmic history with the new James Webb way-back-machine.

Also, it's the undeniable progression in organization that I refer to as "Teleology", moving toward an improved future for all of us passengers on the Blue Marble. Of course, progress in inter-personal morality seems to be much slower than in impersonal technology. However, I do agree with Steven Pinker that human societies have improved in many ways, even as over-population and ecological devolution present newer & bigger problems for each generation to deal with. Together, we can work it out.

Human Culture hasn't yet created an artificial Garden of Eden. But we're getting there, with two steps forward and one step back. That's all you can expect from the heuristic (trial & error) mechanism of random variation and natural selection. Buzz Lightyear defined Teleology as "to the future, and beyond".

I believe this is not true. Do you have some references? — T Clark

Yes. I provide links to expert opinions in all of my posts, to provide support for my layman's opinions. As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview.

You can check-out my other threads if you are interested in references. And my blog goes into even deeper detail, with links & details. But then, you are entitled to your own opinion. So, I won't argue with you.

References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke:


Why Evolution is Progressive :
One of the outstanding recent scandals of biology has been the notion that evolution is not progressive, a concept that flaunts the evidence of our eyes.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10. ... 50501_0011

POSITIVE PROGRESSION ?
http://hollywoodbowles.com/wp-content/u ... lution.jpg

https://cdn.britannica.com/17/189417-05 ... barian.jpg