Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PearlSeeker]

This is the leap I don’t see. Why would regularities imply “ends”, in other words, intentions?

It seems to me that intentions require minds that in turn require regularities to even exist. Regularities simply require things have properties.

The opposite of chaos is not intention.

Because without goal-directedness things would not tend to some specific outcomes. Aquinas: "Every agent acts for an end." Otherwise there would be no reason for it to act this way rather than that way. This is called "the principle of finality".

The return of final causality

I commend to you the late historian of philosophy Paul Hoffman’s paper “Does Efficient Causation Presuppose Final Causation? Aquinas...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[Polymath257]

Because without goal-directedness things would not tend to some specific outcomes.

This is incorrect. All that is required is that there be properties that determine what happens next. In other words, ordinary causality.

So,in the example we have been using, gravity is a property that matter has: any two pieces of matter will attract each other in a specific way.

This means that when there is a large cloud of gas, it will spontaneously condense because of gravity. As it condenses, it heats up (this is the property of conservation of energy). When it is hot enough, fusion reactions start (this is the property associated with the strong nuclear force) and you have a star. This is not goal-directed, but it still has specific outcomes because of the specific properties that things have.

As another example, when fast moving objects hit the ground, they form craters. These craters have sizes that are determined by the energy of the original object. The formation is the result of basic physical laws and produces regular and specific results. But, again, there is no 'goal' here.

I can come up with many more examples where the outcomes are specific and predictable (because of things having properties) and where there is no goal at all. So your basic claim seems to be completely wrong.

And that undermines your whole argument and seems to be a basic mistake.

Aquinas: "Every agent acts for an end." Otherwise there would be no reason for it to act this way rather than that way. This is called "the principle of finality".

The return of final causality

I commend to you the late historian of philosophy Paul Hoffman’s paper “Does Efficient Causation Presuppose Final Causation? Aquinas...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

And Aquinas was simply wrong. He was working from a particular view of metaphysics started by Aristotle that isn't accepted by most philosophers or scientists today. Once the scientific revolution got under way, we realized that the whole notion of 'final cause' is irrelevant to the vast majority of the universe. It *is* relevant in some aspects of biology because there *are* minds in some biological systems that can have 'goals'.

The 'reason' things act one way as opposed to another is that those things have properties that determine how they act. So, for example, hot air rises because it is less dense. No 'end' is required, only density and gravity.

For the vast majority of the universe, the specific results are simply the action of fairly simple laws of physics on initial conditions. No 'goals' are required or in evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does this mean there is a God? Yes, in the sense that there is SOMETHING transcendent determining what is and is not possible.

You've watered down the word God so much that atheists already accept your version but call it by another name: the laws of nature.

Is it "intelligent"? Yes, in the sense that it exhibits complexity and purposefulness through the possibilities and impossibilities that it presents.

The universe does not demonstrate purpose, and complexity can arise from mindless processes.

Once again, you're reaching to try to describe what appears to be a mindless universe being pushed from moment to moment into a future determined by the substances, forces, and their arrangements from the previous instant. You seem to be trying describe what might be a mindless, godless universe using the word God, which I consider either a verbal sleight-of-hand intended to try to slide an intelligent designer into the mix through the back door or else just a bad idea because it does that whether intended or not.

The word God carries so much baggage that even saying that God is just the laws of nature - Einstein's God - makes them seem like more than mindless rules not intended by any mind. Look at all of the confusion that followed when Einstein referred to quantum indeterminacy as God rolling dice.

We can't say that it is necessarily the case that the present isn't being pulled by the future toward it, just that if it is, the evidence that it is is not apparent. Speculating on the possibility has the merit that it stimulates creative thought that could conceivably lead to a test to decide the matter, but until such a test is devised and its results suggest that we are not just being pushed from past to present future but also pulled that way by some as yet undiscovered universal principle.

I assume the very thought of reality as a simulation is difficult to accept for you.

It's pretty common on these threads for people who have their ideas rejected frame that in terms of others being unable to understand them. The concept of a simulation is not difficult to understand.

The arguments for simulation are also easy to understand, and though provocative, aren't conclusive. They include the discoveries and advances in computer processing and virtual reality, the mathematical nature of reality including quantum indeterminacy, the idea of quantum foam which suggest pixelation at that scale and related ideas like the (quantized) Planck time, and maybe also quantum entanglement. Simulation might explain spooky action at a distance as in a kaleidoscope, when two objects in the field seem to be unified and affecting one another instantaneously but are actually mirror image projections of a single thing. If wormholes are a thing, they might also suggest that the substance of spacetime is artificial in some sense.

None of that is difficult to understand, but altogether, it's nothing more than interesting speculation at this time. Even if correct, it would be premature to accept it as such at this time,

Why then, do we assume that physical objects or processes, such as stars and galaxies, are more fundamental than the consciousness required to perceive their existence?

We shouldn't. As you may know, there are four ideas about what the fundamental substance of reality is and how mind and matter relate:

• Ontological materialism (or physicalism) - the physical world is fundamental and mind is an epiphenomenon of matter.
• Ontological idealism - mind is fundamental and matter its epiphenomenon; most Abrahamics fit here.
• Ontological neutral monism - both mind and physical reality are properties or manifestations of some prior substance as space and time are manifestations of spacetime
• Ontological dualism - reality comprises two fundamental and unrelated substances, mind and matter.

Presently, we can't rule any of these in or out, although the last one - Cartesian duality - is difficult to take seriously.

The four form a MECE set, that is they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which is a convenient way to say that one must be correct (the CE part) but not none or more than one (the ME part).

Panpsychism, or the idea that all of reality has elements of mind or consciousness, is consistent with the second and third of these. Panpsychism can be divided further and comes in two flavors, one calling experience fundamental (panexperientialism) and the other calling thought fundamental (pancognitivism).

In our experience, brains precede minds. Brains and can exist without minds, but to our knowledge, there are no disembodied minds. So, we keep that possibility open in our minds, but as always, the critically thinking empiricist awaits sufficient evidence in support of any idea before believing it.

without goal-directedness things would not tend to some specific outcomes.

That's an insufficiently evidenced claim. A boulder rolling down a hill will eventually come to a stop without any goal, purpose, or mind.

Teleology is featured prominently in current philosophical debates. An example of a major philosopher that takes teleology seriously is Thomas Nagel.

Yes, but this is different from Aquinian type teleology which invokes an intelligent designer with a mind and a plan.

Here are a few ideas

From Why? The Purpose of the Universe

"Western thought has been dominated by the dichotomy of traditional religion and secular atheism. But do we have to choose between these options? Philip Goff argues that it is time to move on from both God and atheism ... Maybe cosmic purpose is rooted not in a conscious mind but in natural tendencies towards the good, or laws of nature with purposes built into them. Or maybe the universe is itself a conscious mind which directs itself towards certain goals.

Here's another at Purpose in the Universe: The moral and metaphysical case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism

"Two familiar world views dominate Western philosophy: materialist atheism and the benevolent God of the Abrahamic faiths. This book explores a third way. An anthropocentric Purposivism claims that there is a cosmic purpose, but human beings are irrelevant to it. "

Also, I wrote a post about one specific speculation first introduced to me in a special on TV that I thought was interesting, where it was speculated that the universe strives toward creating valuable things, where life is more valuable than nonlife and conscious life more valuable than unconscious life, and so, the universe evolves to generate these two. One might wonder how that happens without a mind make value judgments a priori. Like I said, very speculative and creative, but not fleshed out well enough to consider it more than an interesting idea.

 

[PearlSeeker]

This is incorrect. All that is required is that there be properties that determine what happens next. In other words, ordinary causality.

So,in the example we have been using, gravity is a property that matter has: any two pieces of matter will attract each other in a specific way.

Could properties be teleological?

For the vast majority of the universe, the specific results are simply the action of fairly simple laws of physics on initial conditions. No 'goals' are required or in evidence.

How can laws act? Aren't they just descriptions of regular ways that things act? Why are there laws at all - why do things behave this way? Why some properties tend to produce specific effects and not something by chance?

 

[PearlSeeker]

That's an insufficiently evidenced claim. A boulder rolling down a hill will eventually come to a stop without any goal, purpose, or mind.

Yes, objects do so regularly - not by chance. They are directed to a specific end. Not with a mind of their own - a tendency is built in.

Yes, but this is different from Aquinian type teleology which invokes an intelligent designer with a mind and a plan.

Yes, T. Nagel proposes a different natural teleology.

 

[PureX]

You've watered down the word God so much that atheists already accept your version but call it by another name: the laws of nature.

Sadly, the atheists that do this are ignoring the most important questions: the questions of source, and of purpose. They cannot answer these questions, and yet they want very much to insist that the theist's answer must be wrong. Which leaves them face to face with their own irrational bias. So to avoid facing this, they simply avoid asking these questions entirely.

The universe does not demonstrate purpose, and complexity can arise from mindless processes.

Wrong, and wrong again. The existence of the universe IS THE PURPOSE of the many processes that are generating that result. "Process" is simply our cognitive awareness of an ordered sequence of events that inevitably produces a specific result.

The word God carries so much baggage that even saying that God is just the laws of nature - Einstein's God - makes them seem like more than mindless rules not intended by any mind.

There is no such thing as a "mindless rule". Rules are cognitive phenomena. They don't exist without a conscious mind to recognize them as a recurring processed result. "Laws" are simply predictable, recurring observations. So the obvious question is, WHY? Why these laws creating this existential result and not other laws creating other existential results? What is the source, and the purpose off these laws?

As you may know, there are four ideas about what the fundamental substance of reality is and how mind and matter relate:

• Ontological materialism (or physicalism) - the physical world is fundamental and mind is an epiphenomenon of matter.
• Ontological idealism - mind is fundamental and matter its epiphenomenon; most Abrahamics fit here.
• Ontological neutral monism - both mind and physical reality are properties or manifestations of some prior substance as space and time are manifestations of spacetime
• Ontological dualism - reality comprises two fundamental and unrelated substances, mind and matter.

Presently, we can't rule any of these in or out, although the last one - Cartesian duality - is difficult to take seriously.

The four form a MECE set, that is they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which is a convenient way to say that one must be correct (the CE part) but not none or more than one (the ME part).

Actually, they are not mutually exclusive, except when being assessed via a single point of cognitive perspective. For example, we can perceive and assess "X" from the outside in, or we can perceive and assess "X" from the inside out. And we will perceive and assess "X" very differently, each way, as a result. Yet "X" will still be what it is. The contradictions we encounter are only the result of the limitations of our own perspective and understanding.

In our experience, brains precede minds. Brains and can exist without minds, but to our knowledge, there are no disembodied minds. So, we keep that possibility open in our minds, but as always, the critically thinking empiricist awaits sufficient evidence in support of any idea before believing it.

This is just one limited, biased perspective. Like viewing "X" from the inside out, only. Whereas by viewing "X" from the outside in, the physical (material) brain developed via these imposed "laws of physics" to express a transcendent mindfulness in a material form. And in fact, this is the whole purpose of the advent of a physical universe: to provide a physical experiential "playground" of sorts for a transcendent realm of pre-existent mindfulness.

That's an insufficiently evidenced claim....

... According to your own particular bias. But how wise or logical is it to impose a set or evidential requirements based on perspective "A" on a proposed alternative theory that is based on perspective "B"? I mean, talk about "confirmation bias"! It's applying the validating criteria of an apple to the characteristics of salt shaker. And then declaring that the apple is the truth, and the salt shaker is a delusion.

A boulder rolling down a hill will eventually come to a stop without any goal, purpose, or mind.

The cognitive experience of it is the purpose. And every molecule plays it's part in providing that.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Philip Goff argues that it is time to move on from both God and atheism ... Maybe cosmic purpose is rooted not in a conscious mind but in natural tendencies towards the good, or laws of nature with purposes built into them. Or maybe the universe is itself a conscious mind which directs itself towards certain goals.

This is nothing new. Such theories have been known in the West and East... But according to Aquinas "whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence." There is simply no other possible way that such a thing can be directed toward an end.

"Two familiar world views dominate Western philosophy: materialist atheism and the benevolent God of the Abrahamic faiths. This book explores a third way. An anthropocentric Purposivism claims that there is a cosmic purpose, but human beings are irrelevant to it. "

What is this cosmic purpose according to ananthropocentric purposivism?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

according to Aquinas "whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence." There is simply no other possible way that such a thing can be directed toward an end.

The question seems to be whether that intelligence need be conscious. The scientific narrative includes no cosmic intelligence or intent involved in the unfolding of events over time, and the Abrahamic narrative includes a conscious, purposive creator god designing and building nature with a final state in mind. These modern philosophers seem to be speculating about something in between.

T. Nagel proposes a different natural teleology.

Yes, I've read a bit about it: Thomas Nagel’s Natural Teleology

This would be a good example of one of those in between positions - somewhere between pure determinism and a creator god. These are interesting ideas, but not useful at this time except to stimulate further inquiry and eventually fleshed out better with supporting evidence, and even then, only if these ideas make predictions that can be confirmed empirically.

What is this cosmic purpose according to ananthropocentric purposivism?

I can't make Mulgan's argument for him. It looks like another of those in between speculations where the universe is being pulled into a preferred future without specifying conscious intent. What I like about his idea is that this purpose isn't necessarily our purpose - an idea that comes up when Abrahamic believers tell me that my purpose and the reason for which I was created was to discover and worship their god, which is definitely not my purpose for myself.

the atheists that do this are ignoring the most important questions: the questions of source, and of purpose. They cannot answer these questions

Nobody can answer those questions if by answer we mean a demonstrably correct answer rather than some unfalsifiable speculation.

I also don't consider them important questions. As I explained, I'm interested in my purpose, not that of a god or a universe unaware of and indifferent to my existence.

they want very much to insist that the theist's answer must be wrong.

Wrong. We reject theistic beliefs for ourselves.

Frankly, you might be right. If you are, you can't know that, nor can you use that knowledge if indeed that is what it is, so I remain indifferent to it all.

The cognitive experience of it is the purpose. And every molecule plays it's part in providing that.

That was a reply to, "A boulder rolling down a hill will eventually come to a stop without any goal, purpose, or mind."

Circularity. You're assuming purpose.

The existence of the universe IS THE PURPOSE of the many processes that are generating that result ... the whole purpose of the advent of a physical universe: to provide a physical experiential "playground" of sorts for a transcendent realm of pre-existent mindfulness.

Same thing. You're assuming purpose. You see movement that serves no purpose and say that whatever you see was its purpose.

There is no such thing as a "mindless rule". Rules are cognitive phenomena. They don't exist without a conscious mind to recognize them as a recurring processed result.

Sure there is. It takes a mind to identify and describe physical laws, but not for the physical regularity to exist or occur.

But how wise or logical is it to impose a set or evidential requirements based on perspective "A" on a proposed alternative theory that is based on perspective "B"?

There is no perspective B for me, although there is for you. I have one set of criteria for evaluating evidence.

You, on the other hand, want there to be another realm where these rules don't apply, and so you simply declare that the rules don't apply in that arena like these sovereign citizens who claim that the laws they don't like don't apply to them, because they are in a different world (natural man walking the earth) with different rules (common law). Like you, they can declare such, but it doesn't make it so:

"Sovereign citizens believe that courts have no jurisdiction over people and that the use of certain procedures (such as writing specific phrases on bills they do not want to pay) and loopholes can make one immune to government laws and regulations."

That sounds like you saying that the rules of inference applied to evidence don't apply to you, because you're some kind of free thinker, and that others who reject your methods and claims - perspective B - are myopic or materialist or guilty of some imagined epistemic offence called scientism, or too much reliance on empirical knowledge as if that were possible. Even those who expect science to eventually answer all questions aren't relying on it to do that and aren't missing anything of value coming from any other way of "knowing."

 

[PureX]

Nobody can answer those questions if by answer we mean a demonstrably correct answer rather than some unfalsifiable speculation.

So ... what? We should run away from the questions?

I also don't consider them important questions. As I explained, I'm interested in my purpose, not that of a god or a universe unaware of and indifferent to my existence.

Well, you just blatantly contradicted yourself, here.

Wrong. We reject theistic beliefs for ourselves.

Then why do you incessantly argue with theists?

Frankly, you might be right. If you are, you can't know that, nor can you use that knowledge if indeed that is what it is, so I remain indifferent to it all.

How lazy and convenient of you! But then, why are you here arguing with theists about it?

That was a reply to, "A boulder rolling down a hill will eventually come to a stop without any goal, purpose, or mind."

Circularity. You're assuming purpose.

Same thing. You're assuming purpose. You see movement that serves no purpose and say that whatever you see was its purpose.

I see magnitudes of order and organization being expressed as "movement" and I presume this has a purpose because it would be idiotic to presume this all just happened with no impetus and for no reason.

Sure there is. It takes a mind to identify and describe physical laws, but not for the physical regularity to exist or occur.

You don't seem to be understanding what cognition is.

There is no perspective B for me, although there is for you. I have one set of criteria for evaluating evidence.

Yes, that is obvious. And it is blinding you to a whole plethora of real possibilities.

You, on the other hand, want there to be another realm where these rules don't apply, and so you simply declare that the rules don't apply in that arena like these sovereign citizens who claim that the laws they don't like don't apply to them, because they are in a different world (natural man walking the earth) with different rules (common law). Like you, they can declare such, but it doesn't make it so:

It has nothing to do with what I "want". It is what it is ... a very profound and complex mystery.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So ... what? We should run away from the questions?

Run away? I've concluded my inquiry into areas that many others including you are still looking for answers in. Recognizing when further investigation will not be profitable is a valuable skill. While others muse over the possibility of gods and unknown purposes they may have for us, some have recognized that no answers are forthcoming and even more relevant, that they wouldn't be useful even if we had them. One could stipulate to all of your unfalsifiable claims and nothing changes.

you just blatantly contradicted yourself, here.

No, I contradicted you.

Then why do you incessantly argue with theists?

I enjoy evaluating the claims and arguments of others and correcting errors of fact as well as identifying and naming logical fallacies. Theists are ripe for that as are other faith-based thinkers including flat earthers, election hoax advocates, and vaccine and virus hoax advocates, but there are fewer of them on RF.

I see magnitudes of order and organization being expressed as "movement" and I presume this has a purpose because it would be idiotic to presume this all just happened with no impetus and for no reason.

The operational word there is presume. I don't do that.

Why? Because I don't need to. That's guessing, and there is no value in guessing EVEN IF ONE GUESSES CORRECTLY. Why? He can't know that he has, and if he could know that, he can't use the information anyway.

So feel free to presume. Let your imagination go and believe what you imagine, but I won't be joining you. I prefer to remain tethered to reality and experience, which means NOT believing flights of fancy.

it is blinding you to a whole plethora of real possibilities.

You frequently make comments like this identifying what you consider mistakes or problems but NEVER have any argument to support that claim. I can claim that your fanciful ideas blind you to reality, and that that is a problem for you because you spend time chasing rainbows, and it never seems to end for you with nothing that I can see to show for your effort, but I don't think that you can do the same in reverse.

You don't seem more centered or happier or to have more understanding of anything or more sense of purpose for your efforts, so why should I agree that it is I and not you that is blind and making a mistake?

It has nothing to do with what I "want".

Disagree. You're like many others who seem to want there to be more magic in the world or to posture as seeing further than conventional thinkers or possessing arcane knowledge.

I don't really understand it, since I apparently have no such need or inclination not met by my present naturalistic worldview, but it's everywhere, so it's obviously a common need. Maybe people want more power over their circumstances, or the envy or respect of others.

 

[Polymath257]

Could properties be teleological?

I don’t see how. Again, intentions require properties to exist at all.

How can laws act? Aren't they just descriptions of regular ways that things act? Why are there laws at all - why do things behave this way?

That is what it means to have properties: that things act in regular ways.

Why some properties tend to produce specific effects and not something by chance?

Well, in our universe, it is random at the fundamental level of quantum mechanics. The properties limit possible outcomes, but don’t determine the specific outcome.

Once you get a large number of specifics, though, averages mean we see specific macroscopic outcomes.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, objects do so regularly - not by chance. They are directed to a specific end. Not with a mind of their own - a tendency is built in.

Not a specific end. A (sometimes) specific next step. That does not imply an intended end.

What I see as your mistake is giving intention and ultimate direction to events. This is very much not in evidence and is counter to the simplest explanation is many cases.

Yes, T. Nagel proposes a different natural teleology.

 

[Polymath257]

This is nothing new. Such theories have been known in the West and East... But according to Aquinas "whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence." There is simply no other possible way that such a thing can be directed toward an end.

Why would you assume Aquinas is correct in this?

It seems that you take Aquinas as authoritative in these matters. I see no reason to do so and many reasons not to do so. In particular, his basis in Aristotelian philosophy immediately makes him questionable.

What is this cosmic purpose according to ananthropocentric purposivism?

 

[PearlSeeker]

The question seems to be whether that intelligence need be conscious. The scientific narrative includes no cosmic intelligence or intent involved in the unfolding of events over time, and the Abrahamic narrative includes a conscious, purposive creator god designing and building nature with a final state in mind. These modern philosophers seem to be speculating about something in between.

Unconscious intelligence presupposes a conscious designer - for example smart phones, computer programs, AI...

Science just studies what it calls the laws. Meta questions are not it's field - this would be philosophy of science. Religious creation narrative is based on myth but the 5th way is based on reason. The early modern philosophers had a completely mechanicistic view of universe devoid of any teleology. Modern philosophers are returning back to Aristotelian telos in nature.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don’t see how. Again, intentions require properties to exist at all.

That is what it means to have properties: that things act in regular ways.

For example a blade cuts. In order to cut it has these properties: it's sharp and hard.

Well, in our universe, it is random at the fundamental level of quantum mechanics. The properties limit possible outcomes, but don’t determine the specific outcome.

Once you get a large number of specifics, though, averages mean we see specific macroscopic outcomes.

This is not fully random. A limited range of effects is still specific. Whenever something tends to regularly produce this and not that effect (OR range of effects) it's goal-directed.

 

[Kfox]

What do you think of "the 5th Way" of Aquinas? Summary and explanation of the argument (from Wikipedia):

Summary

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

I think the 5th way is a way of providing "leaps of logic" and assumptions in an effort to provide explanations to questions we don't have answers to. AKA God of the gaps.

 

[Polymath257]

For example a blade cuts. In order to cut it has these properties: it's sharp and hard.

And everything that is sharp and hard will cut, even if nobody decides it is a blade.

This is not fully random. A limited range of effects is still specific. Whenever something tends to regularly produce this and not that effect (OR range of effects) it's goal-directed.

And not being random is the same as having a property. But there is no intent required. That is the point.

It is a huge logical leap to go from regularity of behavior to the conclusion of intent. It is a huge leap to go from orderly properties to the conclusion that there is a goal.

Do you not see that?

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think the 5th way is a way of providing "leaps of logic" and assumptions in an effort to provide explanations to questions we don't have answers to. AKA God of the gaps.

The 5th Way doesn't say there is no explanation, so it must be God. It says there is an explanation. The argument may have errors or hard to swallow formulations but it's definitely not a God of the gaps argument.

 

[Kfox]

The 5th Way doesn't say there is no explanation, so it must be God. It says there is an explanation.

That's not what I said, I said it uses “leaps of logic”, and assumptions in an effort to provide explanations.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And everything that is sharp and hard will cut, even if nobody decides it is a blade.

And not being random is the same as having a property. But there is no intent required. That is the point.

It is a huge logical leap to go from regularity of behavior to the conclusion of intent. It is a huge leap to go from orderly properties to the conclusion that there is a goal.

Do you not see that?

Yes, every object that is sharp and hard will cut. Natural objects have a built in tendency to conform to certain rules. Properties can also be defined as the basic set of rules (not being random). Inherent tendencies are properties which prescribe the behavior of those objects.

Rules presuppose a rule-maker. It takes an intelligent being to make an object that lacks awareness and intelligence conform to a rule.