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

[McBell]

Yeah, I got that

I made a full reply to you, because the original poster seems to be missing in action. Sorry.

Ciao

- viole

No worries

 

[Gambit]

So, I am free to rely on my intelligence as much as I am free to deny it. The result would be the same. The product of ultimately blind mechanisms or naturally selected algorithms. Therefore, your suggestion is inherently contradictory.

What exactly aren't you getting? The whole point of a teleonomic explanation (as opposed to a teleological explanation) is to account for what appears to be (as opposed to what really is) the result of creative intelligence or purposeful behavior by appealing strictly to blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out. (IOW, not only are "eyeballs" the result of blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out but so are "pocket watches." Any signs of intelligent creativity - human, divine, or otherwise - is purely illusory.)

 

[Gambit]

How is motivation not a "real" purpose?

Because science cannot invoke a teleological explanation to account for any kind of natural process. All natural processes reduce to blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out.

 

[Gambit]

What evidence? You keep dancing around this point.

I just provided you with the evidence.

 

[Gambit]

Yet you claim that without god being stuffed in there somewhere, it is all for naught, right?
What you have not done, regardless of how much you jump up and down screaming you have, is shown that claim to be true.

I don't see anything here that refutes anything that I have argued in the original post of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

I am not sure what difference there is between real purpose and apparent purpose. It smells like question begging.

Suppose my decisions are driven by blind naturalistic processes. Suppose now I am hungry and decide to get a nice pizza for dinner, so that I am not hungry anymore.

Is my decision taken towards a real or an apparent purpose?

You're presupposing free will or agency. There is no "I." It's an illusion.


Just FYI. To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in the premise of one's argument.

 

[Gambit]

Really? So why did you assert what you think the atheist world view is?
You are incorrect on that, for one. Evidence can be found in the people on this very forum.
You second up to it with the viewpoint you seem to subscribe to, using emphases as though to prove it's truth.

You didn't substantiate anything.
Giving definitions for the terms you are asserting as true is not substantiation.

I suggest you reread my original post and learn the difference between teleonomy and teleology.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I suggest you reread my original post and learn the difference between teleonomy and teleology.

I have and it has not effected my stance.
Your understandings converge on connecting interpretations, something bigots and zealots do.
Maybe you should learn about atheism and a few of its branches before you assume (assert) it all falls under one structural world-view.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The atheist has a teleonomic view

Please point out where you have provided evidence for this bold assertion.
"Cause I can tell" isn't an answer, nor is anything of the same taste.

 

[Gambit]

What? Science is perfectly able to detect what someone feels is useful by measuring their brain activity.

You're conflating correlation with identification.

 

[Mycroft]

You're conflating correlation with identification.

No. I'm not.

 

[viole]

You're presupposing free will or agency. There is no "I." It's an illusion.

And you presuppone that there is a (arbitrarily labeled) real "I" , my "i" is an illusion thereof.

Just FYI. To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in the premise of one's argument.

Yes, and that is what you just did. Illusions make sense only if there is a real thing they are illusions thereof. If there is an "I" that emerges from naturalistic processes, than that is not an illusion. It is an emergent property of naturalistic processes. Period.

You simply assume that there might be "I"s that trascend that and are more real. And that, is begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What exactly aren't you getting?

You are losing your cool

The whole point of a teleonomic explanation (as opposed to a teleological explanation) is to account for what appears to be (as opposed to what really is) the result of creative intelligence or purposeful behavior by appealing strictly to blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out. (IOW, not only are "eyeballs" the result of blind mechanisms aimlessly playing themselves out but so are "pocket watches." Any signs of intelligent creativity - human, divine, or otherwise - is purely illusory.)

That is not what I am disputing. They are definitions, after all.

What I am disputing is why I should deny my intelligence, if any. But I agree that it does not entail that I should not deny intelligences, in general.

And, again, your label "illusory" is question begging, for the above mentioned reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

I don't see anything here that refutes anything that I have argued in the original post of this thread.

try reading again without your special glasses

 

[Gambit]

Yes, and that is what you just did. Illusions make sense only if there is a real thing they are illusions thereof. If there is an "I" that emerges from naturalistic processes, than that is not an illusion. It is an emergent property of naturalistic processes. Period.

You simply assume that there might be "I"s that tra[n]scend that and are more real. And that, is begging the question

I didn't make any argument in the OP of this thread in which I assumed the conclusion in the premise. I simply defined the difference between teleonomy and teleology. That being said, I would argue that if we take the teleonomic view to its logical conclusion, then we would have to conclude that there is no agency whatsoever (divine, human, or otherwise). That's not begging the question. That simply drawing out the logical conclusion of the teleonomic worldview of atheism.

Question:

Do you believe that this emergent "I" exerts some kind of downward causation that cannot be reducible to the upward causation of its underlying naturalistic processes?

 

[leibowde84]

I just provided you with the evidence.

That's not true. You told him to look to the OP, but the OP doesn't provide what he is asking for. So, can you layout your argument?

 

[leibowde84]

You're conflating correlation with identification.

It's not merely a correlation because brain activity causually effects our subjective experience.

 

[viole]

I didn't make any such assumption in the OP of this thread.

Question:

Do you believe that this emergent "I" exerts some kind of downward causation that cannot be reducible to the upward causation of its underlying naturalistic processes?

Let me ask my naturalistic processes. .....

Nope.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Let me ask my naturalistic processes. .....

Nope.

Then I am not responding to a real agent, but only to some collection of blind mechanistic processes that are aimlessly playing themselves out (what atheist Susan Blackmore calls the "meme machine").

 

[viole]

Then I am not responding to a real agent, but only to some collection of blind mechanistic processes that are aimlessly playing themselves out (what atheist Susan Blackmore calls the "meme machine").

Meme machines have no problem to acquire and process responses from other meme machines and output replies to them. At least, this one doesn't. Apparently.

So, go ahead.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole