Didn't Darwin make Teleological obsolete?

(1/16) > >>

Michael Meadon (September 14, 2010, 19:36:55 PM):
You know, what the subject says. C.f. Human Nature After Darwin by Janet Radcliffe-Richards.
Teleological (September 14, 2010, 20:33:24 PM):
That old bean Darwin turned out to be a teleologist >:D. Aristotle would have been proud, that naughty boy...
GCG (September 15, 2010, 16:17:08 PM):
tele, i have eventually pulled finger from butt, and decided to see what teleology is all about, and i think i have it now.

what you are basically saying is:
nothing happens by accident. it is either being manipulated right now for a particular end, or has been affected by an event put in motion however long ago (creation), in order to reach an end.

so, i go and buy a hammer, so i can use it to whack nails in my wall. so the design behind me earning a salary, buying a car, having a home with walls, and the mica down the road being there, is so that i can buy a hammer.

how then, does all these designs, satisfy billions of people's needs? how can a design, from either long ago, or from a godly being, satisfy human nature?
does this mean, that the entire universe was created for the sake of human beings' entertainment, so we can look at stars and come up with stories about gods and starsigns?
does it mean, that human beings are reacting to actions set into motion, that creates violence within human society? what is the purpose of this design? apart from suffering and heartache?
what is the end of this design, the purpose? what is the design leading to?
is it a particular, one goal? or is it a set of goals, known/unknown to us?
if this design has been set in motion long ago, where is the instigator now? has it/her/him dissapeared?
is the instigator still around? is he/she/it still tweaking, or sitting back and watching the dominoes fall?


i get the feeling, that the idea behind teleology, is basically one of these contraption projects with balls and dominoes, where one action sets off a whole bunch of other stuff, that eventually leads to fireworks being lit and going off.

if that's the case, why the hell go through millenia's worth of living and dying and suffering. just flip the switch and do whatever you want to do. it's a bit of a sadistic being that makes his creations suffer for his/her/its entertainment.
teleology of course says, that intelligent design alludes to there being an intelligent superior mind, aka 'god'.
what kind of god leaves his best living creations, with agonizing wisdom teeth, which i can attest to. or a pancreas that will kill you. or disease? or hatred, envy?

surely, if a superior mind set things in motion with an intelligent design, then the design isnt all that intelligent at all. it's flawed. and if the intelligent design has been designed so that suffering and hardship is part of the design, then the end result better be one fucking awesome show. so millions of humans, animals, trees, must die in order for a grand ta-da! at the end.

isnt that a bit fucking masochistic?
Michael Meadon (September 15, 2010, 18:43:08 PM):
You're pretty much spot on, GCG...

The point is, until Darwin came along, the only explanation for the complexity we observe in nature was teleological, i.e. involved some kind of volition. (See: Paley's watch analogy). Then Darwin came around... and made that teleological explanation superfluous.

Right, Tele?
Teleological (September 15, 2010, 19:06:21 PM):
You're pretty much spot on, GCG...

The point is, until Darwin came along, the only explanation for the complexity we observe in nature was teleological, i.e. involved some kind of volition. (See: Paley's watch analogy). Then Darwin came around... and made that teleological explanation superfluous.

Right, Tele?
With regards to Paley's teleology (ID today if you want and very Platonic in essence), pretty much. Nonetheless, Darwin the old teleologist would have had a great time chatting to that chap Aristotle when it comes to teleology, even though Darwin loved his mechanistic-cum-Democritus-cum-Lucretius-cum-Descartes view of reality. Right, Michael?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page