Arguments about God

[technomage]

Based on whether or not things have functions. Things have functions, ergo teleology exists.

"Things have functions, therefore they are the product of deliberate intent?" You refuse to acknowledge that those functions could be the results of accident.

You assume your conclusion.

[technomage]

The achievement of ends in the Aristotelean sense is when something functions. You're operating on the Modern viewpoint again.

The "Delicate Arch" in Arches National Park functions as a perch for local birds ... therefor its teleos is a bird perch. Right?

GioD, Aristotle was wrong.

You are very much like the man who insists, despite modern knowledge, that tomatoes are poisonous because they are a member of the nightshade family (a short-lived belief in parts of Europe not long after Columbus' voyages). Those who asserted that tomatoes were poisonous were wrong, and later research has proved it ... but you ignore that in favor of the one (or the few) sources that support your claim in order to win the argument ... at least, in your own mind.

No, function does not indicate intent--Bacon clearly destroyed the idea that we could discern intent in function if it existed.. You are not capable of discerning function that developed by accident from function that developed by intent--but don't worry, neither am I.

[GioD]

"Things have functions, therefore they are the product of deliberate intent?" You refuse to acknowledge that those functions could be the results of accident.

No I don't. Even if the means of performing the functions were the result of accident, that doesn't explain why the organ has any function, much less the specific one it has. I've tried to make clear that this is not an attempt to explain how these organs were created but rather why anything natural has goal-directness at all.

[GioD]

No, function does not indicate intent--Bacon clearly destroyed the idea that we could discern intent in function if it existed.. You are not capable of discerning function that developed by accident from function that developed by intent--but don't worry, neither am I.

You clearly have no idea what I or Aristotle are saying.

Bacon did not refute teleology. I already explained that he designed the principles of science in such a way that there was no appeal to final causes, but to say teleology doesn't exist because of that is

A) Question-begging
B) A non-sequitur
C) Just plain moronic because there is every reason to believe in teleology even if the argument fails.

Bacon also didn't refute the notion that we can derive intent from teleology. First of all he can't discuss teleology's efficient causes because he designed his subject matter to ignore it. Second this isn't a matter of "discerning", but rather a direct causal implication. There is absolutely no use of induction here, but rather deduction, so the need to "discern" is a red herring. All of this originates because you think I'm arguing that God designed us. But the fact is, this argument is nothing of the sort. Even if we came to be the way we are by pure, blind chance, teleology still exists and God still needs to ground it.

[technomage]

that doesn't explain why the organ has any function

Why does the Delicate Arch have any function?

[technomage]

Bacon did not refute teleology

You have not read his work.

GioD, I will not argue with a man who says tomatoes are poisonous (per my analogy above). You continue to insist that we listen to, and give credence to, your thoughts, while refusing to extend the same courtesy. That is not "honest debate"--that is "win by any means necessary."

[GioD]

Why does the Delicate Arch have any function?

Because we say it does. That is an example of "projected teleology", where we dictate that something we created has goal-directedness.

You have not read his work.

Have you read Neo-Aristoteleans' works?

You continue to insist that we listen to, and give credence to, your thoughts, while refusing to extend the same courtesy. That is not "honest debate"--that is "win by any means necessary."

Look, I've read several secondary sources on Bacon and other moderns' work against Aristotle and from my understanding that is what the issue is - Bacon supported the mechanistic viewpoint that there were no final causes and designed the principles of science to ignore teleology. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me, but do not continue simply to assert that Bacon destroyed Aristotle with no explanation as to how or why.

[technomage]

Because we say it does. That is an example of "projected teleology", where we dictate that something we created has goal-directedness.

First off, Deliacate Arch was not created by man--it is a natural phenomenon.

Secondly, again I ask--what is your point of distinction between "projected teleology" and "actual teleology." You have, so far, failed to answer this question.

Have you read Neo-Aristoteleans' works?

Yes, including Heddeger, and some MacIntyre. (I also tried to read Rand, but ended up throwing Atlas Shrugged across the room before I was fifty pages in). The big problem with Aristotle (and with at least some of those who follow in his footsteps) is that they place primacy on man's knowledge--if the universe does not match what we know of it, then the universe is wrong. Neither Aristotle nor his followers acknowledge the possibility of error in understanding or non-comprehension of phenomena.

Look, I've read several secondary sources on Bacon and other moderns' work against Aristotle and from my understanding that is what the issue is - Bacon supported the mechanistic viewpoint that there were no final causes and designed the principles of science to ignore teleology.

And that's why, if you want to understand a philosophy, you should stick with primary sources.

Bacon never denied that teleology existed. Bacon's only objection to teleology was that it was not useful within science, because we do not have the ability to discern between intent and accident. I've read some of the defenses of teleology that attempt to refute Bacon, and while what I have read only qualifies as anecdotal evidence, every single one makes the same mistake--the very mistake you just made. They somehow think Bacon attempted to "refute" teleology--he didn't. He refuted our ability to reliably discern it.

[GioD]

First off, Deliacate Arch was not created by man--it is a natural phenomenon.

I was unaware of that. I'm not interested in travel so I wouldn't have known that, lol. Actually in that case birds perching on it would not be a teleos at all then.

Secondly, again I ask--what is your point of distinction between "projected teleology" and "actual teleology." You have, so far, failed to answer this question.

Projected teleology = human says something humans created has teleology.
Actual teleology = inherent to nature.

The big problem with Aristotle (and with at least some of those who follow in his footsteps) is that they place primacy on man's knowledge--if the universe does not match what we know of it, then the universe is wrong. Neither Aristotle nor his followers acknowledge the possibility of error in understanding or non-comprehension of phenomena.

I disagree. Aristotle himself, or at least his contemporary defenders, understood there were things that were incomprehensible to us. He simply viewed that some laws had to be true no matter what, whether it made sense or not otherwise. I'm not going to say he was right to do that - we've discussed that before - but the point is he isn't guiding his metaphysics with his epistemology.

Bacon never denied that teleology existed. Bacon's only objection to teleology was that it was not useful within science, because we do not have the ability to discern between intent and accident.

So how does this damage the TA at all? I made clear that it was not an explanation of how God made the world and its appeal to teleology is not based on "discernment".

[technomage]

I'm not interested in travel

Heathen.

Projected teleology = human says something humans created has teleology.
Actual teleology = inherent to nature.

Ah, so you assume that anything natural that has a function has a purpose--or, in other words, you assume a guiding intelligence before you even start examining the world. You then take your assumption and attempt to prove it to other people, by persuading them that since a natural function has a purpose, it must have an intelligence behind it--a designer.

That is why I say you assume your conclusion.

The problem here is the word "purpose" is multivalent. The informal meaning is "the phenomenon has a function." The more restrictive meaning is "The phenomenon has a function that was deliberately crafted." If you use the first meaning, no teleology is implied--it is simply the way the word s used. If you use the second, the teleology is assumed before the argument starts.

The reality of the situation is that we cannot decide on whether or not something has a purpose (in the more restrictive meaning) unless we first posit a guiding intelligence for that purpose.

He simply viewed that some laws had to be true no matter what, whether it made sense or not otherwise. I'm not going to say he was right to do that - we've discussed that before - but the point is he isn't guiding his metaphysics with his epistemology.

In the case of the laws that had to be true "no matter what," he most certainly is. If confronted with a situation that exists, but is not accounted for in his laws, he demands that the universe change to suit his understanding. (Yeah, I know, I'm using a hyperbolic statement to make the point, but I think it can be justified.)

So how does this damage the TA at all?

Let us propose a universe where there is no guiding intelligence. The universe itself formed by natural means, life (however improbable you may find the statement) came to be without guidance, and evolved iteratively to develop fuctions that were useful, but that had no driving intelligence.

Let us propose a second universe with a guiding intelligence--God. The universe was formed by God, life was created by God, and evolution iteratively developed functions according to God's purpose.

If you start from the position of "I do not know whether or not God exists," based solely on the patterns you see in the functionality of nature, how do you discern which universe you are in?

[GioD]

Heathen.

Ah, so you assume that anything natural that has a function has a purpose--or, in other words, you assume a guiding intelligence before you even start examining the world.

Not everything natural has to have a purpose, so I assume nothing. I observe certain traits and note that it is best explained by teleology, then observe teleology implies an intellect.

The problem here is the word "purpose" is multivalent. The informal meaning is "the phenomenon has a function." The more restrictive meaning is "The phenomenon has a function that was deliberately crafted." If you use the first meaning, no teleology is implied--it is simply the way the word s used. If you use the second, the teleology is assumed before the argument starts.

The purpose is the end which the function is supposed to (and usually does) cause.

The reality of the situation is that we cannot decide on whether or not something has a purpose (in the more restrictive meaning) unless we first posit a guiding intelligence for that purpose.

See, this is the causal reversion I was talking about. We can prove teleology exists based on the behavior of objects, and the fact they have a "right" and "wrong" way of working. The goal of objects can be explained without reference to a divine intellect: The heart ought to pump blood, there's no appeal to an intentionality there.

Let us propose a universe where there is no guiding intelligence. The universe itself formed by natural means, life (however improbable you may find the statement) came to be without guidance, and evolved iteratively to develop fuctions that were useful, but that had no driving intelligence.

Let us propose a second universe with a guiding intelligence--God. The universe was formed by God, life was created by God, and evolution iteratively developed functions according to God's purpose.

If you start from the position of "I do not know whether or not God exists," based solely on the patterns you see in the functionality of nature, how do you discern which universe you are in?

Either way I'd decide I was in a universe where God exists, though not necessarily one where he designed me or where evolution was non-Darwinian. The first universe assumes the falsehood of the TA - unless you're trying to say teleology doesn't exist in that universe, in which case you would have to account for or reject "right" and "wrong" ways of functioning, the latter of which you may be doing but not in a way I can pick up. ;)

[technomage]

Couldn't resist.

Not everything natural has to have a purpose, so I assume nothing.

You've omitted part of my argument, and are thus responding not to me, but to a straw man. You DO assume that every natural phenomena that has a function has a purpose.

I observe certain traits and note that it is best explained by teleology, then observe teleology implies an intellect.

"Best explained." So, in other words, your evaluation is based solely on your discernment--your subjective judgement.

We can prove teleology exists based on the behavior of objects, and the fact they have a "right" and "wrong" way of working.

No, you cannot--because you exclude (without evaluation) the possibility that the function is the result of accident.

Either way I'd decide I was in a universe where God exists

In Universe A, you (and Aristotle) are wrong. In Universe B, you (and Aristotle) are correct. But you have not told me how you decide which universe you are in.

The first universe assumes the falsehood of the TA - unless you're trying to say teleology doesn't exist in that universe, in which case you would have to account for or reject "right" and "wrong" ways of functioning, the latter of which you may be doing but not in a way I can pick up.

"Right" or "wrong" functioning is a judgement by intellect. Better to use a utilitarian view--if it works, the creature depending upon that function lives, if it doesn't, the creature dies. Again, in Universe A, this is solely a matter of accident. In Universe B, it is the result of design, and the terms "right" and "wrong" can be accurately used in the manner you are using them.

[SatanTheAlien]

The achievement of ends in the Aristotelean sense is when something functions. You're operating on the Modern viewpoint again.



I'm not using a design-type argument here. No matter how our hearts came to be or what alternatives there are or were, that doesn't explain teleology.

There is no teleology if there is no goal, and there is no goal. Evolution did not have a goal to produce a heart. If all you are saying is among the many things that could have evolved besides a heart, the heart just happened to be what occured here in our universe, then teleology is a pointless term. It doesn't even imply a mind behind anything.

[GioD]

You've omitted part of my argument, and are thus responding not to me, but to a straw man. You DO assume that every natural phenomena that has a function has a purpose.

Right. But I don't assume it's being guided by an intellect to begin with.

"Best explained." So, in other words, your evaluation is based solely on your discernment--your subjective judgement.

Maybe I didn't choose the best terms - this is a deductive argument, it's either teleology or eliminativism, and it's not based on which "best explains" the situation but which doesn't lead to absurdities.

No, you cannot--because you exclude (without evaluation) the possibility that the function is the result of accident.

Even if the function is the result of accident there is still teleology behind it. (And I would, by the way, say this even if teleology didn't imply an intellect).

"Right" or "wrong" functioning is a judgement by intellect. Better to use a utilitarian view--if it works, the creature depending upon that function lives, if it doesn't, the creature dies. Again, in Universe A, this is solely a matter of accident. In Universe B, it is the result of design, and the terms "right" and "wrong" can be accurately used in the manner you are using them.

So in A, there is no way things "should" act, they just do?

That is to say, it is not the case that the heart ought to pump blood or has any ends, it just pumps blood (over any other effect) by coincidence? There is no "proper" functioning?

[GioD]

There is no teleology if there is no goal, and there is no goal. Evolution did not have a goal to produce a heart. If all you are saying is among the many things that could have evolved besides a heart, the heart just happened to be what occured here in our universe, then teleology is a pointless term. It doesn't even imply a mind behind anything.

When I talk of teleology I don't mean something like that. I mean the fact that the heart has goal-directed functioning (pumping blood because that is its natural end) at all implies teleology exists. It doesn't need to be some cosmic plan whose epitome is humanity. As another example I dug up before writing this post, the growth of a plant is teleological - its functions are directed towards it growing.