An argument for intelligent design that I've been contemplating for some time

Alright, so I was reading Body and Soul, Human nature and the crisis in ethics by JP Moreland and Scott Rae, and I was reading about Final causes, and how certain biological systems and processes appear to have a final cause. 

First, a final cause is an end. For instance, the final cause of a chair maker is to have a chair. Likewise, the final cause of birds having wings is so they can fly. 

and this brings me to my point: We all see some teleology in biological systems. Birds develop wings so that they may fly. Fetuses develop so they can become babies. Cells break down Glucose into ATP so they may have energy to function.

However, a final cause denotes purpose, the purpose of an agent.

and this brings me to my ultimate point, a final cause deductively gurantees some kind of free, intelligent agent. So since many features of biological systems in the natural world appear to have a final cause, we should deduce from that that these biological systems have designers.  

Now some may try to undercut this argument by saying "well, as humans, we are almost programmed by evolution to sense patterns and teleology where there needn't be any". But I think this objection fails because it appeals to a causal theory of knowledge rather than an internalist theory of knowledge. 

allow me to elaborate further; the causal theory of knowledge is the theory that beliefs are justified by whatever caused them. For instance, if we see a tree in front of us, our belief is justified because our senses are caused by a tree being in front of us. 

but as I showed in my blog post about "Knowledge and Rationality", the causal theory of justification because causality provides neither a necessary nor sufficient set of conditions for knowledge. Further, as I showed earlier in the same post, internalism best accounts for knowledge. 

So, that being said, we should investigate internal, first-person factors in the justification of our belief in the teleology in nature. Since we dont have defeaters for such a belief, I think we should conclude that most systems in nature are designed.  

How does "internalism best account for knowledge"?

Does a "purpose" necessarily represent a "purpose of an agent"? 

 

How does "internalism best account for knowledge"?

Does a "purpose" necessarily represent a "purpose of an agent"? 

 

 

RationalAtheist

-Second, a purpose always represents an agent, by definition. I mean, seriously, how can an unconscious process have an end-goal?  

We all see some teleology in biological systems.

danwallacefan

Internalism best accounts for knowledge because of our first-person perspective of the world. Further, internal factors and facts of our minds are the only things we know incorrigably

-Second, a purpose always represents an agent, by definition. I mean, seriously, how can an unconscious process have an end-goal?  

danwallacefan

That's why we can't trust our own perceptions - The scientitific framework for discovery uses objectivism to determine reality. In that respect, internalism is not a popular skeptical position.

A purpose can also mean a "practical result", without even resorting to intention.

right, there is something to strongly suggest teleology in biological systems, and we haven't much of a reason to doubt it now do we?danwallacefan

I thought the scientific community strongly preferred metaphysical naturalism.

We do have "deductive reason" to doubt teleology.

Dan have you ever heard of the proximate/ultimate distinction? Because I think that what you're calling final causes are actually proximate causes and that your entirely forgetting that the ultimate cause of any evolved adaptation is that it increases fitness.

Ultimate causes in this evolutionary sense do not have a purpose and so they do not denote a designer.

Now what I often hear from my religious friends is that all life does in fact have a purpose and that from that we can conclude the existence of a divine designer. But do you know what they put forth as the purpose? The satisfaction of God. You can't get much more circular and question begging than that.

So I suppose my question of you dan is what purpose does life have? I know that life has a complicated suite of functions that helps it to survive and reproduce but what is it all "for".

I browsed over your long-ass blog post and the Gettier examples that underpin the whole discussion are rubbish so I don't really have any confidence in the philosophical fortitude of your argument about internalism and how we should just accept our intuitions despite what we later find out in the real world.

This whole argument seems to basically be along the lines of "Wings enable birds to fly; therefore, the purpose of wings is to enable birds to fly; therefore, someone designed the wings for the birds so they could fly."  I don't see how this makes any sense at all.  Natural selection is a natural process that separates those traits that grant an increased ability to survive and reproduce from those traits that bring a decreased such ability.  Mutation provides new traits that may then be subjected to natural selection.  It's the exact same way as how a magnet, sitting in a pile of sand, will cause metallic shavings to be separated all by themselves from the sand when the wind blows.  You don't need an "intelligent separator" for that.

This argument would be all well and good if we just plain didn't know whether or not there was a designer, but there is so much evidence in favor of evolution now that this all just seems like a philosophical exercise of "spot the problem", not a real argument.

this all just seems like a philosophical exercise of "spot the problem", not a real argument. GabuEx

That reminds me I should make another sophistry thread on OT sometime.

I think the main meat of Dan's argument is in the humbuggery that he brings up to support the initial intuition of teleology. Who cares about what discoveries in biology are uncovered when you can just BS your way directly to God by taking advantage of the philosophy of epistemology and justification.

I thought the scientific community strongly preferred metaphysical naturalism.RationalAtheist

Therefore....what? Science is grossly incompetent to comment on metaphysics.  

We do have "deductive reason" to doubt teleology.

RationalAtheist

Dan have you ever heard of the proximate/ultimate distinction? Because I think that what you're calling final causes are actually proximate causes and that your entirely forgetting that the ultimate cause of any evolved adaptation is that it increases fitness.

Ultimate causes in this evolutionary sense do not have a purpose and so they do not denote a designer.domatron23

Here's the problem, once again: we're dealing with an intuition, or rather a basic belief (see my post on Skepticism). If we have such an intuition that biological processes have a teleology, then the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.

The problem, of course, is that the evolutionary cause merely gives an alternative explanation. But that would only be a problem for this argument were my argument an inference-to-the-best explanation. But its not an inference, its a basic belief.  

I browsed over your long-ass blog post and the Gettier examples that underpin the whole discussion are rubbish so I don't really have any confidence in the philosophical fortitude of your argument about internalism and how we should just accept our intuitions despite what we later find out in the real world.

domatron23

You haven't actually amounted to saying anything much more than "..well, the appearance of design implies a designer, ergo there is a designer". Which is what ID supporters have erroneously being spouting for ages. :?

This whole argument seems to basically be along the lines of "Wings enable birds to fly; therefore, the purpose of wings is to enable birds to fly; therefore, someone designed the wings for the birds so they could fly."  I don't see how this makes any sense at all. GabuEx

Of course you dont, you're knocking down a strawman! The argument wasn't "wings enable birds to fly, therefore wings exist to fly" but rather that we have an almost instinctive tendency (some would say that it IS instinctive) to understand that birds have wings so they can fly.  

Natural selection is a natural process that separates those traits that grant an increased ability to survive and reproduce from those traits that bring a decreased such ability.  Mutation provides new traits that may then be subjected to natural selection.  It's the exact same way as how a magnet, sitting in a pile of sand, will cause metallic shavings to be separated all by themselves from the sand when the wind blows.  You don't need an "intelligent separator" for that.

This argument would be all well and good if we just plain didn't know whether or not there was a designer, but there is so much evidence in favor of evolution now that this all just seems like a philosophical exercise of "spot the problem", not a real argument.

GabuEx

Therefore....what? Science is grossly incompetent to comment on metaphysics.  

danwallacefan

Therefore, there's nothing to suggest a teleogy in biological systems, from a naturalistic deductive perspective.

Who is grossly competent to comment on metaphysics? 

 

Really? What "deductive reasons" do we have to doubt teleology in biological systems?

danwallacefan

Simply, we can't deduce teleology in biological systems, because alternative conclusions, such as philosophical naturalism, exist. 

If biological systems are designed then whoever designed us is an idiot. Case in point: The eye. If you told someone to design an eye they would probably put the light sensing tissue on top of all of the rest of the tissue in the back of the eye and have the nerves innervating that light sensing tissue from the back since they also need to run their axons back to the brain to deliver the sensory information. Duh, simple, even a child would design it that way.

In reality, however, the eye is nothing like that. The light sensing tissue is actually buried underneath four other layers, meaning that light must pass through four layers of tissue before it can be transduced into a neural signal. As dumb as that is, the real design failure is that the neurons are all at the TOP of those tissue layers. The consequence of that is that all those neurons' axons have to create a hole in the eye so that they can get to the brain. Hence the reason you have a blindspot in your vision; you literally have a hole in your eye. A hole that doesn't even need to be there.

Another example that shows that your creator is an ignoramous are insect species that lack mouths. They're born, grow up, and as adults have a very short period of time during which they spend doing nothing but mating before they die from starvation. That makes sense if you accept evolution since you don't need a long life span, you just need to live long enough to pass on your genes. It doesn't make sense, however, if you assume that an intelligent being designed all life on Earth.

As a final example, I wish to use your own example about birds and wings. You say that "birds have wings so that they can fly". Why, then, do flightless birds exist? Ostriches, emus, and kiwis all have wings but none of them can fly. Not only is that a direct contradiction to your statement, but it's contridicts in more ways than one since if the teleological position really were correct then those flightless birds should at least have arms or some other useful appendage instead of two atrophied, useless wings.

Of course you dont, you're knocking down a strawman! The argument wasn't "wings enable birds to fly, therefore wings exist to fly" but rather that we have an almost instinctive tendency (some would say that it IS instinctive) to understand that birds have wings so they can fly.danwallacefan

No offense to humanity, but who really cares what humans instinctively understand?  If there's one thing that quantum mechanics and modern science in general has taught us, it's that basic human instinct sucks for anything more complicated than what a primitive hunter-gatherer would need.  Our brains have quite simply not caught up to the modern era.

The problem is, once again, that evolution merely provides an alternative explanation. Here's the problem: the argument I presented was NOT an inference to the best explanation. danwallacefan

It provides an explanation that gels with all available evidence:

1. Fossils become more diverse and complex the earlier to the present day they're dated, indicating strongly that life on Earth has become more complex and diverse as time passed.

2. There have been hundreds of fossils that have spurred debate among scientists regarding, for example, whether it is a "reptile-like mammal" or a "mammal-like reptile", indicating strongly that the long-understood solid borders between types of animals are utterly imaginary.

3. We now know the existence of DNA, the way in which it impacts the development of the organism possessing a certain set of DNA, and the way in which DNA may be changed, giving us insight into precisely why and how those borders could be more malleable than would intuitively suggest.

4. All life on Earth is interconnected through common traits which become more numerous the closer taxonomically related two animals are, indicating strongly universal common ancestry.

All of this unequivocally adds up to evolution.  One can debate how evolution works, but the time for the debate over whether evolution has happened is basically over. 

You are effectively trying to give me a philosophical argument that the sky is not blue.  You can get as fancy as you want, but at the end of the day I'm still going to look up at the sky and see blue.  I'm fine with philosophical musings on topics that we can never really know, but the moment we start making philosophical arguments whose conclusions are just plainly in conflict with something you can see for yourself, that's when it starts getting a little silly.

4. All life on Earth is interconnected through common traits which become more numerous the closer taxonomically related two animals are.GabuEx

Just one example is the protein cytochrome c, which is identical, or differing only by one amino acid in species that are thought to be closely related.

NB: It's also very good to see gameguy posting here

No offense to humanity, but who really cares what humans instinctively understand?  GabuEx

Our instinct and intuition is the foundation of, well, almost all knowledge. For most beliefs in our noetic structure, whether a belief is instinctual or intuitive is the determining factor in whether it is justified.  

If there's one thing that quantum mechanics and modern science in general has taught us, it's that basic human instinct sucks for anything more complicated than what a primitive hunter-gatherer would need.  GabuEx

And, as you should know, Science makes a whole asswad of assumptions about metaphysics and epistemology, many of which have no epistemological support outside of their being properly basic (or rather intuitive). A realist interpretation of science requires that our commonsense beliefs be generally reliable, and if they aren't then you undercut quantum mechanics.  

Our brains have quite simply not caught up to the modern era.GabuEx

And, of course, that assumes an externalist, almost hard-empiricist theory of knowledge.

But we all know why hard empiricism is nonsense.   

It provides an explanation that gels with all available evidence:

1. Fossils become more diverse and complex the earlier to the present day they're dated, indicating strongly that life on Earth has become more complex and diverse as time passed.

2. There have been hundreds of fossils that have spurred debate among scientists regarding, for example, whether it is a "reptile-like mammal" or a "mammal-like reptile", indicating strongly that the long-understood solid borders between types of animals are utterly imaginary.

3. We now know the existence of DNA, the way in which it impacts the development of the organism possessing a certain set of DNA, and the way in which DNA may be changed, giving us insight into precisely why and how those borders could be more malleable than would intuitively suggest.

4. All life on Earth is interconnected through common traits which become more numerous the closer taxonomically related two animals are.

All of this unequivocally adds up to evolution.  One can debate how evolution works, but the time for the debate over whether evolution has happened is basically over. 

You are effectively trying to give me a philosophical argument that the sky is not blue.  You can get as fancy as you want, but at the end of the day I'm still going to look up at the sky and see blue.  I'm fine with philosophical musings on topics that we can never really know, but the moment we start making philosophical arguments whose conclusions are just plainly in conflict with something you can see for yourself, that's when it starts getting a little silly.

GabuEx

If biological systems are designed then whoever designed us is an idiot. Case in point: The eye. If you told someone to design an eye they would probably put the light sensing tissue on top of all of the rest of the tissue in the back of the eye and have the nerves innervating that light sensing tissue from the back since they also need to run their axons back to the brain to deliver the sensory information. Duh, simple, even a child would design it that way.

In reality, however, the eye is nothing like that. The light sensing tissue is actually buried underneath four other layers, meaning that light must pass through four layers of tissue before it can be transduced into a neural signal. As dumb as that is, the real design failure is that the neurons are all at the TOP of those tissue layers. The consequence of that is that all those neurons' axons have to create a hole in the eye so that they can get to the brain. Hence the reason you have a blindspot in your vision; you literally have a hole in your eye. A hole that doesn't even need to be there.

Another example that shows that your creator is an ignoramous are insect species that lack mouths. They're born, grow up, and as adults have a very short period of time during which they spend doing nothing but mating before they die from starvation. That makes sense if you accept evolution since you don't need a long life span, you just need to live long enough to pass on your genes. It doesn't make sense, however, if you assume that an intelligent being designed all life on Earth.

As a final example, I wish to use your own example about birds and wings. You say that "birds have wings so that they can fly". Why, then, do flightless birds exist? Ostriches, emus, and kiwis all have wings but none of them can fly. Not only is that a direct contradiction to your statement, but it's contridicts in more ways than one since if the teleological position really were correct then those flightless birds should at least have arms or some other useful appendage instead of two atrophied, useless wings.

gameguy6700

You have made a very simple error of assuming cause and effect. Your argument, really, is very circular, since you assume design (insofar as you assume purpose) in order to prove design. In truth, there are two possible relationships: the first, that the bird develops wings so that it can fly; the second, that the bird can fly since it develops wings. Assuming the first, as you have done, is fallacious unless you can prove why it is true. You have done no such thing.chessmaster1989

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]You have made a very simple error of assuming cause and effect. Your argument, really, is very circular, since you assume design (insofar as you assume purpose) in order to prove design. In truth, there are two possible relationships: the first, that the bird develops wings so that it can fly; the second, that the bird can fly since it develops wings. Assuming the first, as you have done, is fallacious unless you can prove why it is true. You have done no such thing.danwallacefan

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

No, teleology is a philosophical idea. It is not necessarily valid, nor does everyone adopt it. You are confusing a philosophical theory with truth.

Perhaps you can read the thread, or my post, again. I'm saying that the perception of teleology, or a final cause is a basic belief. Its highly intuitive, and thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to give reasons to doubt it. That fetal development, cell metabolism, or other processes have a final cause is really a null hypothesis. 

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

danwallacefan

You should "prove" that "high intuition" is better than objectivity first. Subjectively, teleology may be your basic belief, but its not mine. The burden of proof is on the one making claims. Are you asking skeptics (who suspend judgement) to prove why they don't believe something? Surely the evidence for Darwinian evolution should be enough to doubt teleology. 

Do you know a final cause exists yet and that evolution has stopped?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]You have made a very simple error of assuming cause and effect. Your argument, really, is very circular, since you assume design (insofar as you assume purpose) in order to prove design. In truth, there are two possible relationships: the first, that the bird develops wings so that it can fly; the second, that the bird can fly since it develops wings. Assuming the first, as you have done, is fallacious unless you can prove why it is true. You have done no such thing.chessmaster1989

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

No, teleology is a philosophical idea. It is not necessarily valid, nor does everyone adopt it. You are confusing a philosophical theory with truth.

Chessmaster, teleology isn't some "philosophical theory", its an *intuition* that we have no reason to doubt. Given particularism, it is up to you to give reasons to doubt it.

Or you can go the other route and say that niether you nor any other atheist in this thread has an instinct/intuition of teleology in biological systems. 

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Perhaps you can read the thread, or my post, again. I'm saying that the perception of teleology, or a final cause is a basic belief. Its highly intuitive, and thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to give reasons to doubt it. That fetal development, cell metabolism, or other processes have a final cause is really a null hypothesis. 

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

RationalAtheist

You should "prove" that "high intuition" is better than objectivity first. Subjectively, teleology may be your basic belief, but its not mine. The burden of proof is on the one making claims. Are you asking skeptics (who suspend judgement) to prove why they don't believe something? Surely the evidence for Darwinian evolution should be enough to doubt teleology. 

Do you know a final cause exists yet and that evolution has stopped?

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?  

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Perhaps you can read the thread, or my post, again. I'm saying that the perception of teleology, or a final cause is a basic belief. Its highly intuitive, and thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to give reasons to doubt it. That fetal development, cell metabolism, or other processes have a final cause is really a null hypothesis.

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.

danwallacefan

You should "prove" that "high intuition" is better than objectivity first. Subjectively, teleology may be your basic belief, but its not mine. The burden of proof is on the one making claims. Are you asking skeptics (who suspend judgement) to prove why they don't believe something? Surely the evidence for Darwinian evolution should be enough to doubt teleology.

Do you know a final cause exists yet and that evolution has stopped?

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?

There is no great teleology, because there is no end; organism live, reproduce and die, and this meaningless cycle is destined to continue until the Earth or any other viable planet is still 'healthy' enough to accomodate it.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Perhaps you can read the thread, or my post, again. I'm saying that the perception of teleology, or a final cause is a basic belief. Its highly intuitive, and thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to give reasons to doubt it. That fetal development, cell metabolism, or other processes have a final cause is really a null hypothesis.

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.

MetalGear_Ninty

You should "prove" that "high intuition" is better than objectivity first. Subjectively, teleology may be your basic belief, but its not mine. The burden of proof is on the one making claims. Are you asking skeptics (who suspend judgement) to prove why they don't believe something? Surely the evidence for Darwinian evolution should be enough to doubt teleology.

Do you know a final cause exists yet and that evolution has stopped?

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?

There is no great teleology, because there is no end; organism live, reproduce and die, and this meaningless cycle is destined to continue until the Earth or any other viable planet is still 'healthy' enough to accomodate it.

Further, once again, you people are misconstruing my argument and reading it as an inference-to-the-best-explanation when really it appeals to our basic beliefs.  

Chessmaster, teleology isn't some "philosophical theory", its an *intuition* that we have no reason to doubt. Given particularism, it is up to you to give reasons to doubt it.

Or you can go the other route and say that niether you nor any other atheist in this thread has an instinct/intuition of teleology in biological systems. 

 

danwallacefan

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.Wikipedia

And sorry if you dont like it that I quoted Wikipedia (ololol Wikipedia is wrong etc)

Also intuitions are not always correct. Therefore we can place doubt on them.

intuition and other basic beliefs are a necessary condition for "objectivity" and really all forms of practical reason. 

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?  

danwallacefan

There are two different ways to view the law of cause and effect:

1) That the cause was created in order to create the effect

2) The effect exists because the cause exists.

The difference in the wording reveals much I think.

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT!? Saying that we dont need teleology to explain life isn't going to cut it, you need some kind of REBUTTING DEFEATER for the existence of teleology.

Further, once again, you people are misconstruing my argument and reading it as an inference-to-the-best-explanation when really it appeals to our basic beliefs.

danwallacefan

I've shown why there is little evidence for this ultimate teleology in nature, now you have to provide evidence to the contrary.

You can't present teleology as if it is an axiom. That just doesn't cut it.

NB: Also, I'm aware that you're asking me to try and prove a negative i.e. that an ultimate teleology doesn't exist. The burden is very much on you to provide evidence for your claims.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Chessmaster, teleology isn't some "philosophical theory", its an *intuition* that we have no reason to doubt. Given particularism, it is up to you to give reasons to doubt it.

Or you can go the other route and say that niether you nor any other atheist in this thread has an instinct/intuition of teleology in biological systems. 

 

Teenaged

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.Wikipedia

And sorry if you dont like it that I quoted Wikipedia (ololol Wikipedia is wrong etc)

Also intuitions are not always correct. Therefore we can place doubt on them.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

intuition and other basic beliefs are a necessary condition for "objectivity" and really all forms of practical reason. 

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?  

Teenaged

There are two different ways to view the law of cause and effect:

1) That the cause was created in order to create the effect

2) The effect exists because the cause exists.

The difference in the wording reveals much I think.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't post in all-caps as it is against the rules. Thanks.MetalGear_Ninty

Rules schmules. I'll emphasize what I want to emphasize.  

I've shown why there is little evidence for this ultimate teleology in nature, now you have to provide evidence to the contrary.MetalGear_Ninty

Again, teleology is highly intuitive. Its your job to give reasons to doubt it.  

You can't present teleology as if it is an axiom. That just doesn't cut it.MetalGear_Ninty

Its a basic belief for reasons i've outlined repeatedly  

NB: Also, I'm aware that you're asking me to try and prove a negative i.e. that an ultimate teleology doesn't exist. The burden is very much on you to provide evidence for your claims.

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Chessmaster, teleology isn't some "philosophical theory", its an *intuition* that we have no reason to doubt. Given particularism, it is up to you to give reasons to doubt it.

Or you can go the other route and say that niether you nor any other atheist in this thread has an instinct/intuition of teleology in biological systems. 

 

danwallacefan

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.Wikipedia

And sorry if you dont like it that I quoted Wikipedia (ololol Wikipedia is wrong etc)

Also intuitions are not always correct. Therefore we can place doubt on them.

So its either we follow a partially flawed theory or we follow another flawed theory?

I dont think so.

uh oh, someone doesn't understand Aristotle's 4 causes. danwallacefan

I bet you are referring to the formal cause.

Still a philosophical theory though... =/

What will you bring up next as valid argument? Plato's theory of the forms? Because you know thats where the formal cause is based on. >___>

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I'd appreciate it if you didn't post in all-caps as it is against the rules. Thanks.danwallacefan

Rules schmules. I'll emphasize what I want to emphasize.

I'm not going to edit your posts or anything, because that's not actually against the union rules; however, I'm just saying that it is against the ToS.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I've shown why there is little evidence for this ultimate teleology in nature, now you have to provide evidence to the contrary.danwallacefan

Again, teleology is highly intuitive. Its your job to give reasons to doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]NB: Also, I'm aware that you're asking me to try and prove a negative i.e. that an ultimate teleology doesn't exist. The burden is very much on you to provide evidence for your claims.

danwallacefan

You're the one who is making the affirmative statement, therefore the burden is on you to qualify that claim. Unless you want me to prove a negative which is impossible.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]You have made a very simple error of assuming cause and effect. Your argument, really, is very circular, since you assume design (insofar as you assume purpose) in order to prove design. In truth, there are two possible relationships: the first, that the bird develops wings so that it can fly; the second, that the bird can fly since it develops wings. Assuming the first, as you have done, is fallacious unless you can prove why it is true. You have done no such thing.danwallacefan

Further, this argument sounds like Tooltime9901's idiotic argument against miracles, where he claimed that arguments from miracles to God are circular because miracles require a miracle causer.

But only the existence of design requires a designer, but one can be perfectly justified in saying that there's a final cause for something without knowing beforehand that there was a designer.  

No, teleology is a philosophical idea. It is not necessarily valid, nor does everyone adopt it. You are confusing a philosophical theory with truth.

Chessmaster, teleology isn't some "philosophical theory", its an *intuition* that we have no reason to doubt. Given particularism, it is up to you to give reasons to doubt it.

Or you can go the other route and say that niether you nor any other atheist in this thread has an instinct/intuition of teleology in biological systems. 

I think you need to look up what you're talking about...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology

 

intuition and other basic beliefs are a necessary condition for "objectivity" and really all forms of practical reason. 

And RationalAtheist, you REALLY see no teleology in biological systems? It never dawned you in biology class that cells break down glucose IN ORDER TO create ATP IN ORDER TO sustain metabolism IN ORDER TO stay alive?  

danwallacefan

I think you over-estimate intuition to suit your argument. Objective conclusions are more "mind independent" than spontaneous subective judgements.

And danwallacefan, I really don't see teleology in biological systems and never have. The amoral and arbitrary nature of nature sees to that. Those biological processes you describe were covered in my biology class, I think (it was a long time ago), but God's final plan was not discussed there.

p.s. You don't have to shout, do you?

So far we can see that:

Danwallacefan concedes to the fact that teleology is just a philosophical argument (which of course it is).

He chooses philosophical arguments because they are a better option than skepticism which is to him self-refutting

He therefore chooses the -to him- better out of two wrongs.

Choosing the least problematic route to form an argument doesnt render that route non-problematic (philosophical arguments).

In consequence the argument itself is not without problems. Its not even objectively less problematic than other mindsets that try to refute the argument.

So far we can see that:

Danwallacefan concedes to the fact that teleology is just a philosophical argument (which of course it is).Teenaged

all arguments are philosophical arguments at their core Teenaged.  

He chooses philosophical arguments because they are a better option than skepticism which is to him self-refuttingTeenaged

Well yes, Skepticism is self-refuting. There's nothing to stop us from concluding "There is no Knowledge" once we concede that "the burden of proof is always upon the cognitivist". This is because of the problem of criterion, and can only be solved by proposing that the burden of proof is on the skeptic.  

He therefore chooses the -to him- better out of two wrongs.Teenaged

You have never shown why Particularism is wrong or problematic in the least.  

Choosing the least problematic route to form an argument doesnt render that route non-problematic (philosophical arguments).Teenaged

Right, its the fact that Particularism is the ONLY solution to the problem of criterion that is at all coherent. Do you have one? Then please, for the audience, present it! 

In consequence the argument itself is not without problems. Its not even objectively less problematic than other mindsets that try to refute the argument.

Teenaged

Our instinct and intuition is the foundation of, well, almost all knowledge. For most beliefs in our noetic structure, whether a belief is instinctual or intuitive is the determining factor in whether it is justified.  

danwallacefan

It is the foundation of knowledge, but does it itself provide most of the knowledge that we have today?  I would assert that the answer is no.  Pretty well all scientific discoveries were made based on the investigation of that which went contrary to basic human intuition.  At one point in time, the motion of the celestial bodies was considered horribly unintuitive, because there seemed to be these objects in the sky that just moved with no apparent rhyme or reason whatsoever.  So the explanation for these things were given to the gods, as it made perfect sense that of course such odd behavior must have an intelligent source.

We now know, of course, that this explanation is wrong, and that there is a perfectly natural explanation for the motions of the celestial objects.  This explanation is certainly unintuitive (just staring out into the sky, no one would guess we're hurtling at blinding speeds through an impossibly large expanse called the "universe" and that the world in which we live is just a tiny dot in comparison), but that does not make it incorrect.  When our intuition is in conflict with the evidence available, that is when we ought to entertain the possibility that our intuition is wrong.

Occam's Razor instructs us that we ought not make any assumptions beyond those which are necessary to account for our observations.  So, in this sense, it is indeed the case that we ought to trust our intuition in the absense of evidence to the contrary.  Once we have that evidence to the contrary, however, our basic intuition no longer accounts for our observations, and we must allow that our intuition could be wrong.

And, as you should know, Science makes a whole asswad of assumptions about metaphysics and epistemology, many of which have no epistemological support outside of their being properly basic (or rather intuitive). A realist interpretation of science requires that our commonsense beliefs be generally reliable, and if they aren't then you undercut quantum mechanics.  

danwallacefan

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

And, of course, that assumes an externalist, almost hard-empiricist theory of knowledge.

But we all know why hard empiricism is nonsense.

danwallacefan

Let's look at the track record:

First, the intuition was that the motions of celestial objects must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

Then, the intuition was that orbits of planets around the sun must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

Then, the intuition was that the stability of the solar system must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

When it comes to scientific investigation, human intuition is about zero for a million.

GabuEx, you DO realize that I'm not arguing against evolution, but merely the neo-darwinian model of evolution which sees Evolution as a natural process driven by natural selection and completely devoid of any teleology...right? Or are you still stuck at Dover? danwallacefan

Well, considering you called this "an argument for intelligent design", and considering that intelligent design is generally taken to be the assertion that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent designer rather than evolved through natural processes, no, I did not realize that, and I do not see where I would have come to that realization, either.

But really, if you're going to allow that animals evolved, and that life on Earth became more complex over time, and that there is evidence of universal common descent in life on Earth, then where exactly does teleology come into play?  Most who argue in favor of design reject evolution outright.  If evolution is true, then at what point did God tweak things here and there?  It seems as though you're just writing the word "God" on a tag and then tying it to evolution, without really adding anything material whatsoever.

that assumes an externalist, almost hard-empiricist theory of knowledge.

But we all know why hard empiricism is nonsense.   

danwallacefan

Yeah I think this is really the crucial point of the argument that requires elaboration on your part dan.

Like I said earlier the meat of your argument is in the philosophy of epistemology so that is the area that we need to look into, otherwise your argument will just seem absurd to us and our responses will seem irrelevant to you. So let's start at the beginning then with the problem of the criterion. I'm reading from wikipedia btw.

The problem of the criterion asks two simple questions in consideration of knowledge:

1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge?

2. How do we know? or What is the criteria of knowing?

These two questions make for quite a conundrum because if you tell us what you know then you must also justify that by telling us how you know yet if you tell us how you know you must be telling us what you know and soon and so forth. There is a certain circularity involved in knowledge then and this can be approached in three different ways.

1. Skepticism. The skeptic would acknowledge the circularity and hold that there is no way to justifiably know something without introducing an initial axiomatic assumption that is itself not justifiably known.

2. Particularism. The particularist would first give an answer to #1 and outline a couple of things that are known and then use these things as axiomatic asumptions which will later shape how all other things will be known. In the case of your argument dan you are using teleology and the assignment of purpose to biological systems as an initial starting point for your approach to knowledge. Particularism is internalist in that it prioritizes apriori reasoning, intuitions and revelation in the consideration of knowledge.

3. Methodism. The methodist would first give an answer to #2 and outline a process which will later determine what is known. In the case of empiricism this process is pretty much the scientific method with the observation of external evidence and the falsification of hypotheses being the initial starting point of knowledge. Methodism is externalist in that it prioritizes a posteriori reasoning, evidence and experimentation in the consideration of knowledge.

Now I think it's safe to say that everyone here responding to your argument is not adopting the particularist approach that is required for its validity. They are either being skeptical or are appealing to an empiricist approach to knowledge which points out that living systems have formed via a process that does not require purposeful end-causes.

Now in order to make your argument persuasive you will have to tell us very clearly and very simply why a particularist approach to epistemology is preferable to a skeptical or methodist approach. THAT is your area of concern and THAT is what you need to argue for.

For myself I adopt a methodist approach to epistemology with a touch of skepticism. What I know is formed through an initial empiricist process of justification but this doesn't so much arrive at proper knowledge or truth but rather a certain level of versimilitude. What's the point of false certainty afterall?

Let's look at the track record:

First, the intuition was that the motions of celestial objects must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

Then, the intuition was that orbits of planets around the sun must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

Then, the intuition was that the stability of the solar system must be due to an intelligent source.  We now know that it is not.

When it comes to scientific investigation, human intuition is about zero for a million.

GabuEx

Ah but according to an epistemology that takes a particularist approach we do not know that those things are not true because we have no reason to doubt our initial intuitions that they are true.

To hell with you and your empiricism I say.

Ah but according to an epistemology that takes a particularist approach we do not know that those things are not true because we have no reason to doubt our initial intuitions that they are true.

To hell with you and your empiricism I say.

domatron23

Oh yeah, well my properly basic intuition tells me that your intuitions are bunk; that means my intuition wins! :P

By the way if anyone's interested danwallacefan has made somevideos that relate to the epistemological problems that he's utilizing here.domatron23

At least his uses less jargon in his videos; which can be a really large barrier to communication.