Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course, but science doesn't do teleology, Indeed, as far as I know and as my religion teaches, teleology is not to be detected within the closed contingent causality of the universe. Telos must be apprehended in some other way than science. Using religion, perhaps?
Teleology is inescapable, the aversion to teleology is just a capitulation to ontological/philosophical naturalist commitments that are unrequired in science and so the appropriate response should be agnosticism rather than denialism.
Well you better find someone who is averse to teleology to discuss this with, then. I just think you are looking for it in the wrong place, and science never looks for it anywhere.
Don't forget, the IDers insisted that ID was not creationism. But then it was discovered that they'd simply taken their Panda book on creationism and did a global search to replace all instances of "creationism" with "intelligent design", proving that they are one and the same. There was also an amusing typo that resulted in both words being combined; a transitional fossil in black and white.
I was simply replying to a positive post about teleology with some further thoughts, which you seemed to object to for some reason. And to pretend that there isn't an aversion to any hint of teleology in biology, at the very least, isn't interacting with how things operate. And there's a doubling down with it where those who are teleologically averse refuse to engage with the appropriate academic discipline where discussions of teleology are appropriate, which is philosophy. Instead, there is a dominant and largely unquestionable philosophical paradigm that is entrenched in science.
It's why Huxley described himself as an agnostic, and even Richard Dawkin openly states that there might be a god. It's one thing to accept God on faith, but it seems a bit wrong to deny God on faith. But maybe that's just me.
Yes, though it's quite clear when they call themselves "agnostic" they don't mean it literally(as without knowledge) and instead are simply using the term to avoid any real responsibility or discussion of the matter by pretending that atheism is just the self-evident default position or null hypothesis. And the notion of faith is also woefully misunderstood, largely because so many use it as a blunt object to avoid epistemic responsibility as it isn't belief-without-knowledge, as we may have confidence in the existence of God through our perception of His hand on our lives alongside more academic issues such as logical arguments. IMO, the ontological argument demonstrates not only that God exists but that His non-existence is metaphysically impossible and the issue isn't a question of whether or not He is real but how we go about identifying and defining Him. The trouble is, the ontological argument is exceedingly difficult to understand, and entirely impossible to perfectly comprehend(as was Aquinas' principal objection).
i don't know, Fervent. I took a course in the philosophy of science while I was a science undergraduate at an RC college and there wasn't a hint of that point of view. You will not discover divine Telos in contingent causality. Telos is a necessary cause and thus beyond the power of science to even hint at.
And the angle light reflects off water to create a rainbow. And apparently the time it takes for light to travel the width of a proton is 10^-42 seconds.
If more took philosophy of science, that would likely be sufficient to address my principal concern. Because it's an inappropriate argument from silence that I am primarily irked by, and it is one that is more often than not adopted in silence as any attempt to pop the hood and talk about the philosophical issues meets resistance from the sort who are prone to make such arguments. It's not empirical, they cry. So while I agree that telos is beyond the scope of science as a discipline, we must constantly be reminded that scientific silence on such things is not evidence that none exists.
Someone asked how definite he was re His non existence and he said 6 out of 7. Why he picked that scale I have no idea (and it's a long way from what I'd personally propose).
Yeah, I went through a time like that, when in retrospect, I was trying to avoid Him. For me, it was ultimately experiential. St. Tom was helpful to me, but the idea of God evidence by pure reason never quite connected with me. One of the reasons I believe, is that His disciples were so sure that He died and three days later rose to hang out with them, that they were willing to die by crucifixion themselves, rather than deny it.
Yeah, my appeal to reason isn't so much to try to bring people to faith through reasoning, as ultimately I believe it has to come from personal experience, but such arguments serve the faithful by providing reassurance. And I try to convey the arguments in Biblical terms whenever possible, for example I see the ontological argument expressed in Exodus 3:14 for the positive version and Psalm 14:1. It is, in my view, all part of a spiritual war and the intellectual is just one battleground.
But you must not conclude that they are silent because they deny it's existence or are trying to cover it up. That's enough for any scientist to want to keep his ideas about teleology to himself. Because teleology is not treated of in science any opinions scientists have about teleology will have religious implications apart from science. I am confident that there is a divine plan, but I don't think we will figure it out using ID or by any examination of our biological or evolutionary history. There is no plan within evolution itself.
If there was a 14% likelihood that my life (not to mention my soul) would depend on doing something that wouldn't be very costly, I'm pretty sure I would do it. Pascal's wager, sort of. And yet, it seems that not many people apply that to the question of God.
My qualms aren't with scientists or their output, as I wouldn't expect any comment from such sources beyond an analysis of the data and what conclusions can be drawn from whatever hypothesis they were testing.
For me, it depends on which class we're talking. In a science class, sure. But as a general approach to education I think that at the very least a course on mereology, ontology, and epistemics should be required in any general education program so that the populace better understands their own commitments and what kinds of minimal assumptions are unavoidable.
