Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PearlSeeker]

Does objective reality exist indepenently of observation? I think that question is unanswerable, but few scientists and only a handful of philosophers even ask it, and most that do would be inclined to declare objective reality as axiomatic, and then declare subjectivity to be a handicap that must be overcome, rather than a reality which itself must be acknowledged.

Another approach is to acknowledge the inevitable subjectivity of our unique human perspective, and ask how then do form, order, and perception interact without attempting to reduce any one to the other. Since every view is a view from somewhere, if we want to understand things as they are as far as is humanly possible, don't we have to begin by acknowledging that object, observer, and act of observation are intrinsically and inseperably connected? Any description of an experiment has to include a description of the laboratry in which it is undertaken, and any description of the universe has to include an account of the consciousness which describes it, in order for either to be complete.

We are not separate from nature, though we are alienated from it; this is a function of our limited perception, but it's also a function of ego, which wants to preserve it's hegemony over the psyche. Because of this alienation, which is really a false perception, we try to understand nature, life the universe and everything, as though we were looking at it from the outside. But we are not outside the universe, we are inside it looking out, while at the same time the universe, or all we know of it, is within us. And only by taking a holistic approach to internal and external realities, can we really hope to understand the world and our place in it.

Objective reality is by definition independent of observation. If not, then it's simply not objective reality. First thing that we usually think of as such are persons and everyday physical objects. It's common sense immediate knowledge to think so. Of course there is also subjective reality - emotions, colors, sound... Some subjective perceptions are shared by many and some are individual.

There is objective knowledge and there is subjective knowledge. The problem is when someone wants to reduce or mix up things. Aquinas’s 5th Way is an example of objective knowledge.

For Aristotle the same form exists in the intellect and in the thing outside it. There is no gap between mind and reality. This is also one of the basic assumptions of science. However, some modern philosophers were sceptic:

- I might be in a dream or matrix (simulation, virtual reality).

- There is no difference between science and woo-woo.

- Solipsism.

etc.

 

[GoodAttention]

The argument is different from the Watchmaker analogy.

The premise is the same.

Take the Earth, it cycles through an axial tilt every 40,000 years, which contributes significantly to the climate and the effect on the environment. Regular, observable, but for what end?

All intelligent life is effectively beholding to “non-intelligent” objects, are we to say that we will not be wiped out by a wayward asteroid simply because of the intelligence that governs such objects?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Take the Earth, it cycles through an axial tilt every 40,000 years, which contributes significantly to the climate and the effect on the environment. Regular, observable, but for what end?

Irrelevant for what end. For the 5th Way just this observable regularity is sufficient.

 

[GoodAttention]

Irrelevant for what end.

How so? The conclusion of the 5th way is the following -

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

For the 5th Way just this observable regularity is sufficient.

It is an insufficient conclusion when considering asteroids exist and all intelligent life on Earth could end.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How so? The conclusion of the 5th way is the following -

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

"Some intelligent being exists BY whom" not "to whom". I guess this was the misunderstanding.

 

[GoodAttention]

"Some intelligent being exists BY whom" not "to whom". I guess this was the misunderstanding.

Yeah...cosmic WATCHMAKER as opposed to COSMIC watchmaker...

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yeah...cosmic WATCHMAKER as opposed to COSMIC watchmaker...

Your misunderstanding is that the 5th Way requires the anthropic reasoning. Natural things are directed to their ends regardless if all intelligent life on Earth ends.

 

[GoodAttention]

Your misunderstanding is that the 5th Way requires the anthropic reasoning. Natural things are directed to their ends regardless if all intelligent life on Earth ends.

Thomas Aquinas makes that conclusion, not me.

You can spin it how you like, but the ending is the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such large collections of interstellar gas do exist now and the stars they will form do not yet exist now.
But the idea exists now, in your mind.
This idea obviously exists now and those stars obviously do not yet exist.
While your existence is not necessary for the idea to exist (allowing the idea itself to exist prior to your existence), your existence has provided evidence of the existence of the idea.

An idea about a star is not a star, though.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Thomas Aquinas makes that conclusion, not me.

You can spin it how you like, but the ending is the same.

"Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

The argument is about objects that act in a regular way - they are directed to specific effects (rather than arbitrary). It doesn't say there are no chance events or that all ends are always fulfilled. A goal is set even if it's not always reached and even if it's never reached. Pointing to a goal is a tendency.

So, even if something wipes out life on Earth, this doesn't change the fact that there are natural objects that manifest goal-directedness.

 

[GoodAttention]

"Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

The argument is about objects that act in a regular way - they are directed to specific effects (rather than arbitrary). It doesn't say there are no chance events or that all ends are always fulfilled. A goal is set even if it's not always reached and even if it's never reached. Pointing to a goal is a tendency.

So, even if something wipes out life on Earth, this doesn't change the fact that there are natural objects that manifest goal-directedness.

Are you modifying the argument to state "all natural things" only includes "non-intelligent" objects?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Are you modifying the argument to state "all natural things" only includes "non-intelligent" objects?

No. It's crucial for the argument. See:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

 

[GoodAttention]

No. It's crucial for the argument. See:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Understood and noted.

Now, a hypothetical. Suppose today's world was to "adhere" to Aquinas 5th Way.

Should we continue to observe the night sky looking for asteroids that could potentially wipe out all life on Earth?

 

[PearlSeeker]

But for that idea to exist, there have to be living beings that have minds. There were none for the first generation of stars.

The ideas exist because there are (now) minds. But the gases and other stars existed long before ideas existed.

Of course our minds (ideas) are not responsible for the natural cycles like this. It must be some other mind.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Understood and noted.

Now, a hypothetical. Suppose today's world was to "adhere" to Aquinas 5th Way.

Should we continue to observe the night sky looking for asteroids that could potentially wipe out all life on Earth?

Of course we should. As we observe weather and other things. We have seen that natural laws don't protect us from natural disasters.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course our minds (ideas) are not responsible for the natural cycles like this. It must be some other mind.

But why would a mind be required at all? Nothing you have said forces there to be a mind for something to exist? Maybe to be known to exist requires a mind, but not existence.

 

[Kfox]

This is completely irrelevant. The 5th Way is about various objects in nature "that lack intelligence".

Humans are a part of nature, and the sperm and egg that combines to become human; lacks intelligence; my argument stands.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But why would a mind be required at all? Nothing you have said forces there to be a mind for something to exist? Maybe to be known to exist requires a mind, but not existence.

The 3rd way is about dependent and necessary existence... The 5th way is about how some things "behave". I said mind is required for regular natural cycles (like the cycle of stars).

 

[Polymath257]

The 3rd way is about dependent and necessary existence... The 5th way is about how some things "behave". I said mind is required for regular natural cycles (like the cycle of stars).

And I see no reason to think that is the case. Why would a mind be required for regular behavior? Isn't simply having properties enough?

Definite properties would lead to regular interactions which leads to regular behaviors, right? The cycles are simply the fact that there is feedback (which mathematically leads to cyclic behavior)..

 

[Ostronomos]

And I see no reason to think that is the case. Why would a mind be required for regular behavior? Isn't simply having properties enough?

Definite properties would lead to regular interactions which leads to regular behaviors, right? The cycles are simply the fact that there is feedback (which mathematically leads to cyclic behavior)..

The entire physical world is an illusion. All of our knowledge of Quantum Physics has lead to this inescapable fact.

The mind is a priori. It contains a wealth of a priori knowledge.

Without God the world would be void of meaning. And the objects around us would appear false. God is a necessary being. Anyone who does not know this, such as yourself, is experiencing a persistent delusion born out of a materialistic illusion.