The Teleonomic Worldview of Atheism vs. The Teleological Worldview of Theism

[Sapiens]

Right. In the teleonomic worldview of atheism, anything that appears to exhibit purpose (that would also include human behavior) must necessarily be deemed imaginary or illusory. All apparent signs of purpose can be explained away through blind mechanisms. What this means is the atheist is forced by the logical dictates of his or her worldview to deny his or her own creative intelligence

“Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead (source: pg. 12, "The Function of Reason")

Individual organisms can be shown to clear purpose (maximizing w-bar for one). But the universe itself is without demonstrable purpose

 

[viole]

Then you will have to deny your own intelligence.

I wonder why. Can you expand on that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

Right. In the teleonomic world of atheism, nothing exhibits purposeful or goal-directedness because science itself eschews all teleological explanations. Everything must be explained through blind mechanisms.

No, that is your own creation, devoid of any evidence.

 

[Gambit]

I wonder why. Can you expand on that?

Because on the teleonomic view of the world (which you embrace by your own admission), anything that appears to be purposeful or the result of creative intelligence must ultimately be deemed illusory. That would also apply to your behavior. (Your behavior may appear to look purposeful or the result of creative intelligence. But, if we accept the teleonomic view, then we must deem that appearance to be purely illusory.)

 

[Gambit]

No, that is your own creation, devoid of any evidence.

Naturalism holds that there is no telos. Everything must be explained by blind mechanism. That includes your own behavior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the teleological worldview of the theist, there is a real (as opposed to an apparent) purpose.

Justify this statement, please. What grounds do you have to say that you have a "real purpose" apart from purposes that are acceptable to an atheist?

When you reply, please keep in mind that there's a difference between a claim of a purpose - or even a sincere belief that there is a purpose - and an actual purpose.

 

[Sapiens]

Naturalism holds that there is no telos. Everything must be explained by blind mechanism. That includes your own behavior.

Seems to me that I just gave you an example of something that is purposeful, yet is also clearly natural ... kinda puts the lie to "Everything must be explained by blind mechanism". No?

 

[Deathbydefault]

The atheist has a teleonomic view of the world. This is in contradistinction to theist who has a teleological one. In the teleonomic worldview of the atheist, there is no purpose; there is just the appearance of purpose which can be explained away (at least, in theory) by blind mechanism. In the teleological worldview of the theist, there is a real (as opposed to an apparent) purpose. Everything is seeking the good where the ultimate good is God (a.k.a. the uncaused cause, the final cause).

"The good is what everything desires." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Obviously you like deciding these things on your own.

 

[McBell]

Obviously you like deciding these things on your own.

seems the only way he can "win" is to dictate to the other side what they think, know, believe, feel, etc.
Sad really.

 

[Deathbydefault]

seems the only way he can "win" is to dictate to the other side what they think, know, believe, feel, etc.
Sad really.

It very much is.

 

[Willamena]

Because on the teleonomic view of the world (which you embrace by your own admission), anything that appears to be purposeful or the result of creative intelligence must ultimately deemed illusory. That would also apply to your behavior. (Your behavior may appear to look purposeful or the result of creative intelligence. But, if we accept the teleonomic view, then we must deem that appearance to purely illusory.)

So we don't accept it.

 

[Willamena]

Justify this statement, please. What grounds do you have to say that you have a "real purpose" apart from purposes that are acceptable to an atheist?

When you reply, please keep in mind that there's a difference between a claim of a purpose - or even a sincere belief that there is a purpose - and an actual purpose.

He is focusing on the description of teleonomic as "apparent." Obviously what contrasts to that is real.

 

[Mycroft]

You are erroneously equating atheism with materialism. They are not synonymous.

And quoting Equinas out of context.

 

[Mycroft]

The atheist has a teleonomic view of the world. This is in contradistinction to theist who has a teleological one. In the teleonomic worldview of the atheist, there is no purpose; there is just the appearance of purpose which can be explained away (at least, in theory) by blind mechanism. In the teleological worldview of the theist, there is a real (as opposed to an apparent) purpose. Everything is seeking the good where the ultimate good is God (a.k.a. the uncaused cause, the final cause).

"The good is what everything desires." - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?" - Douglas Adams.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He is focusing on the description of teleonomic as "apparent." Obviously what contrasts to that is real.

I know what he's focusing on. I'm more interested in what his argument depends on, but that he's glossing over.

 

[Gambit]

Justify this statement, please. What grounds do you have to say that you have a "real purpose" apart from purposes that are acceptable to an atheist?

My first-person perspective of my own subjectivity reveals that I am driven by a purpose, namely, to seek the good.

"Goodness is that which all things desire." - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Gambit]

Seems to me that I just gave you an example of something that is purposeful, yet is also clearly natural ... kinda puts the lie to "Everything must be explained by blind mechanism". No?

What example is that? At any rate, if you believe science can detect teleology, then you subscribe (perhaps unwittingly) to the intelligent design argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My first-person perspective of my own subjectivity reveals that I am driven by a purpose, namely, to seek the good.

That seems like quite the leap. What is it about your "first-person perspective of your own subjectivity" that leads to this conclusion?

On what grounds do you claim that this purpose is "real" in a sense that's unavailable to atheists?

 

[Gambit]

Obviously you like deciding these things on your own.

I substantiated my claims in the original post of this thread by furnishing appropriate documentation. To date, I have yet to see you make anything resembling a counter to those claims.

 

[Gambit]

So we don't accept it.

I as a theist, reject it. I have a teleological view of the world. It is the only view that can make sense of my experiences.