If God does not exist... why do we perceive a finality in the world?

[PKJ]

Short answer: That finality (teleology) is all in your head, mate. Maybe there's a real one, but we can't know.

Medium-sized: answer:

Human mind evolved to permit us speciation. We can classify our sensations like we classified the animals. We can use ready-made categories or create new ones. That gives us the illusion that there's a pattern, a finality, a teleology in the world. That's just the drawback of the way our mind is made. Don't worry.

Long answer: read Kant's 1st and 3rd critiques. You'll see Kant answers many similar questions (Descartes' "why do we have that Idea of God inside us", why do we have that idea of Good, etc.) Kant always answers by showing that the question is a false debate, and that the notion exists only as a cognitive tool. Lots of good stuff there.

 

[Helo]

One word. Death. We see death and we see the end of ourselves and that mystery, no one really knows what happens when die.

Most people think they know...but..theres still that nagging doubt in EVERYONE'S mind "What happens?"

 

[thelittlegosling]

em because we age are constantly changing and never remain exactly the same throughout time therefore we percieve finality as we have no one infinite moment. Maybe there is no God i am not a person of faith so i dont believe in anything.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!!! An important philosphical argument was raised by my very intelligent soulmate studying physics. All particles are proven by quantum mechanics to be predetermined. Therefore one could assume that because we are ultimately made up of particles we are predetermined. Sounds pretty grim, however as my boyfreind pointed out the very fact that us a group of particles could recognise ourselves as particles suggests that their is some sort of consciouness preceeding our particle makeup
It all can be related to I think therefore i am.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That's just the drawback of the way our mind is made. Don't worry.

Resistance is futile. Join the collective.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If God does not exist... why do we perceive a finality in the world?

First of all, your question is a bit biased. Since this is a Christian website could you may be rephrase to allow for us Christians to join in?

Short answer: That finality (teleology) is all in your head, mate. Maybe there's a real one, but we can't know.

Human mind evolved to permit us speciation. We can classify our sensations like we classified the animals. We can use ready-made categories or create new ones. That gives us the illusion that there's a pattern, a finality, a teleology in the world. That's just the drawback of the way our mind is made. Don't worry.

If you assume that God, or intelligent order, does not exist, then you are no longer looking through a teleological lens but a naturalistic lens. Certainly viewing one lens through another makes the former look like an illusion since they annihilate each other. But what is to say that philisophical naturalism isn't all in your head? Isn't it a product of logic which is also just another way our minds work? It sounds to me like you're assuming that naturalism is superior to teleology because it must be learned and is therefore a 'higher' mode of thinking. If I'm right, well, speaking from my teleological viewpoint, it appears you are mistaken because my lens was designed by God and yours was constructed by man.

This is such a mind bending area of thought it's not even funny. Digging that deep into your own psychological makeup is dangerous... be careful not to go crazy.

 

[PKJ]

First of all, your question is a bit biased. Since this is a Christian website could you may be rephrase to allow for us Christians to join in?

My intention was to answer a frequently seen question asked by christians to atheists. It would be more accurate to read something like:

- There is no finality in the world. And no God.

- Oh yeah? Then why do we perceive a finality? How can you explain that considering that there is (according to you) no God?

It sounds to me like you're assuming that naturalism is superior to teleology because it must be learned and is therefore a 'higher' mode of thinking.

Indeed teleology is an intuition we have while looking at the world. Natural science is slowly but surely gnawing it away.

There are still parts where teleology is very useful though, like in most human sciences. It's easier to say "Tribe X moved from here to there in 500 BC because the food the liked was getting too scarce" than something like "fossil ZYX was found at 100,-232 and a similar fossil at 101,-231". The 1st version is a telological model of explanation. The 2nd one is just raw, chaotic, facts.

If I'm right, well, speaking from my teleological viewpoint, it appears you are mistaken because my lens was designed by God and yours was constructed by man.

Your teological explanation (I am assuming it is the christian god) is supposed to explain things. But it does not, it just makes us wonder and look for even more explanations that will never come because "God works in mysterious ways". Well, science works in very clear ways. I can describe and explain how my view point works and was built. You can't. My viewpoint can be improved, yours can't. My "god" is open-source.

This is such a mind bending area of thought it's not even funny. Digging that deep into your own psychological makeup is dangerous... be careful not to go crazy.

I am a trained psychological digger, don't worry

 

[PKJ]

One word. Death. We see death and we see the end of ourselves and that mystery, no one really knows what happens when die.

Most people think they know...but..theres still that nagging doubt in EVERYONE'S mind "What happens?"

Did you read Heidegger?

 

[Helo]

Did you read Heidegger?

Nope, thats just my own personal observation

 

[PKJ]

Nope, thats just my own personal observation

You have good personal observations then.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If God might exist, why not consider finality? (God does exist, just ask any born again Christian).

Indeed teleology is an intuition we have while looking at the world. Natural science is slowly but surely gnawing it away.

There are still parts where teleology is very useful though, like in most human sciences. It's easier to say "Tribe X moved from here to there in 500 BC because the food the liked was getting too scarce" than something like "fossil ZYX was found at 100,-232 and a similar fossil at 101,-231". The 1st version is a telological model of explanation. The 2nd one is just raw, chaotic, facts.

Your teological explanation (I am assuming it is the christian god) is supposed to explain things. But it does not, it just makes us wonder and look for even more explanations that will never come because "God works in mysterious ways". Well, science works in very clear ways. I can describe and explain how my view point works and was built. You can't. My viewpoint can be improved, yours can't. My "god" is open-source.

How can you be so sure that clarity equates to superiority? Think about it: science will always be incomplete. Why limit ourselves to something that will perpetually fall short of the possibilities found in God?

Lately, I've been pondering the possible underlying factors behind a widespread paradigm shift in the scientific community and I'm beginning to think that it's the scientific method itself which is responsible for widespread rejection of theistic philosphies - not because science has logically disproven any of these, but because the repeated reliance on science's naturalistic explanations actually trains us over time to think in terms of the natural. The end effect is a widely unnonticed retardation of human cognition and intuition to a form of thinking boxed in by that which can be scientifically examined. IOW, by relying on science we have become as dumb as the tool that we hold in our heads. But of course, this is all personal conjecture.

In my previous post I had differentiated the two possible viewpoints of philisophical naturalism and teleology, which are complete opposites, but here you seem to be identifying your viewpoint as being synonymous with natural science. Yes, science is limited to the natural as I stated earlier, but science is a method that exists independantly of all existing viewpoints and is neutral between teleology and naturalism as my own view includes some scientific theory. The interesting thing is that your confusion between philisophical naturalism and natural science seems to suggest that you've associated your way of thinking with the method that taught it to you. In a nutshell, you've given a clear demonstration of the result of scientism.

So with that said, it seems more likely to me that the case is not that science is disproving teleological theories, but rather that science is slowly teaching the world to choose not to see through teleological perspectives, causing the majority to miss out on the big picture.

 

[thelittlegosling]

sojourner your argument at a glance is interesting. Could God with unending possibilities not just be an ideal that everyone of faith believes in. The statement you make cannot be seen as logical. Not every naturalistic thinker is a scientist or predisposed to think in a scientific way. Some philosophise and logically argue against a faith. You cannot categorise all with opposing opinions to your own.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Could God with unending possibilities not just be an ideal that everyone of faith believes in.

There is only one Way, one Truth and one Life that points to God - that is Christ Jesus.

The statement you make cannot be seen as logical. Not every naturalistic thinker is a scientist or predisposed to think in a scientific way. Some philosophise and logically argue against a faith. You cannot categorise all with opposing opinions to your own.

I'm not exactly sure about what statement you're referring to, but I was attempting to generalize the majority of the masses moving from theism to atheism as in a paradigm shift and those who adhere to scientism. I really didn't mean to address everybody with a differing view.

It really doesn't matter though if you're a scientist or simply a philosopher. If you're trying to understand the ultimate nature of your own reality, you're never going to get anywhere so long as you will not allow yourself to step out of the box. Sure, you'll never be able scientifically or logically prove anything using non-rational faculties, but they will get you much farther than the mechanics of deductive reasoning ever will. Think about it. We can find and understand natural processes using deductive logic because this kind of thinking is simple enough to work almost mechanically as compared to pure intuition, ingenuity, creativity and emotions. But this simple logic is good only for taking things apart in order to examine large things in smaller pieces and vice versa. Hypothetically speaking, if God exists, I bet He would exist in a way that is so far above our simple mindedness that we could never find Him by dismantling everything or even by putting pieces together. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an innocent child has a better chance at discovering the mystery behind the universe than Steven Hawkings ever will. How about you?

 

[CLAY1960]

Fictional Finalism.... that is why....

 

[PKJ]

If God might exist, why not consider finality? (God does exist, just ask any born again Christian).

How can you be so sure that clarity equates to superiority?

That is kinda obvious. Clarity > idiocy. [edit: I've just noticed that the word "idiocy" does not have the very same meaning in english, so you can read "idiosyncracy" instead.]

Think about it: science will always be incomplete. Why limit ourselves to something that will perpetually fall short of the possibilities found in God?

What possibilities are found in God exactly? Can you give examples of phenomena that was explained through "God" and that humans "falls short" of describing correctly? (The lightning bolts sent by Zeus are not a good example.)

Lately, I've been pondering the possible underlying factors behind a widespread paradigm shift in the scientific community and I'm beginning to think that it's the scientific method itself which is responsible for widespread rejection of theistic philosphies - not because science has logically disproven any of these, but because the repeated reliance on science's naturalistic explanations actually trains us over time to think in terms of the natural.

What's wrong with that?

The end effect is a widely unnonticed retardation of human cognition and intuition to a form of thinking boxed in by that which can be scientifically examined.

Please, tell me I'm dreaming. Again, "supernaturalistic explanation" is an oxymoron. If it's an explanation, it's not supernatural, coma.

Do you realize you are trying to push wishful thinking as a new way of understanding our world? Mysticism helps no one, except the companies who produce haldol and dogmatil, and of course thousands of charlatans worldwide.

but science is a method that exists independantly of all existing viewpoints

There is much debate over what science is, about it's method, ontology, etc.

The interesting thing is that your confusion between philisophical naturalism and natural science seems to suggest that you've associated your way of thinking with the method that taught it to you. In a nutshell, you've given a clear demonstration of the result of scientism.

Where did you read that exactly?

So with that said, it seems more likely to me that the case is not that science is disproving teleological theories, but rather that science is slowly teaching the world to choose not to see through teleological perspectives, causing the majority to miss out on the big picture.

If by "teleological theories" you mean what is thought in the "humanities" department in universities, then no science is not trying to eliminate that.

If you mean involving a "higher purpose", "higher being", "soul in the world", "intelligent designer", etc., then of course science has nothing to do with that. I would add that such thinking is an ennemy of science, and a huge fraud. Teleological point of views pretend to explain so many things, and can in fact explain none.

Even Behe (remember him?) admits that they are just suppositions built from another, very common supposition, the belief in a god.

 

[thelittlegosling]

hi sojourner, pure intuition, ingenuity, creativity and emotions the things you say are a contradiction to the mechanical nature of thinking logically are mechanical processes themselves. The mechanical nature of these things are undeniable in my opinion which has science to back it up. I also dont think a simple child will discover the mysteries before stephen hawkings but i believe you just said that for effect. I dont think hawkins will uncover the secrets either.
Some of the great philosphers have discovered logical reasonings that open the possibility of a higher being or at least a form of conciousness, - i think therefore i am- Also the phrase you use of thinking outside the box could be used in the context that it isnt the scientists who need to think outside the box.

 

[Sojourner<><]

hi sojourner, pure intuition, ingenuity, creativity and emotions the things you say are a contradiction to the mechanical nature of thinking logically are mechanical processes themselves. The mechanical nature of these things are undeniable in my opinion which has science to back it up.
...
Also the phrase you use of thinking outside the box could be used in the context that it isnt the scientists who need to think outside the box.

My argument is not that these irrational faculties are contradictory to logic, but that they surpass logic. This is where genius comes from.

I also dont think a simple child will discover the mysteries before stephen hawkings but i believe you just said that for effect. I dont think hawkins will uncover the secrets either.

I said it because it is in scripture:

Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Some of the great philosphers have discovered logical reasonings that open the possibility of a higher being or at least a form of conciousness, - i think therefore i am-

By chance are you talking about Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? I'm just curious.

 

[thelittlegosling]

I assume your curiousity is rather an excuse to demonstrate your knowledge of philosophers, I was quoting Descarte - i think therefore i am- in particular one of the most important in my opinion, hope that satifies you.
How can one define genius and know where it comes from. Surely true genius comes from those who are logical and rational.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I assume your curiousity is rather an excuse to demonstrate your knowledge of philosophers, I was quoting Descarte - i think therefore i am- in particular one of the most important in my opinion, hope that satifies you.
How can one define genius and know where it comes from. Surely true genius comes from those who are logical and rational.

I am curious because those three are well known key players in some fascinating teleological philosophies that concern something similar to a "possibility of a higher being or at least a form of conciousness" as you stated. Descartes was definately a very intelligent thinker who did some very important foundational work. I can see why you admire him.

 

[thelittlegosling]

Descarte reasoning and logic led him to find a truth in a world of uncertainty. His logic suggests that there is a conciousness some form of higher being and so appreciation of his work is important, in my opinion of course. But how can one deny how important his truths are?

 

[Sojourner<><]

I have to admit I was a little exasperated when I posted my response. Later, I came back and edited my reply as not to insult your admiration for Descartes. For some reason, I didn't see your last response until now. I think I had left my post open in an old window which is what I came back to to edit without refreshing the thread. From what I know about Descartes, he did some very important foundational work for the natural sciences and mathematics, but I'm unaware of any notable contribution made to theology.