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.