Talk:Teleological argument

From Academic Kids

Removing this, at least until someone clarifies if it is a summary or a quotation:

If a watch is found lying on the ground in a wood, upon examining we can see that it is very complex and we might conclude that this object is too complicated to have emerged out of nothing, we might assert that there must have been a watchmaker. Since the Universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it follows that the Universe must also have had a designer.

--Ryguasu

The above paragraph is a summation of the famous watchmaker's argument by William Paley

--Peter Robinett

---

To clarify: are the best teleological arguments always proofs by contradiction? I can't think of any variations that aren't, but perhaps someone else knows more about this. --Ryguasu 19:42, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Contents

1 What is a teleological argument? 2 link to SETI 3 not a very sound argument 4 Paragraph 3: clear anti-creationist bias 5 Small change 6 Self-organization, Emergence, Ontological Reductionism 7 Design argument

What is a teleological argument?

To state a blanket formula for teleological arguments, as in this article, is erroneous and leads the reader to believe that it is the only argument, which is untrue. Stronger teleological arguments do exist. Argument from irreducible complexity as put forth by Michael J. Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" is particularly effective as a teleological argument. In fact, because of this book the American Academy of Biochemists changed their creed from total acceptance of evolution to acceptance of the possibily for an intellegent designer.

[Per Google, tyhere is no such organization as the American Academy of Biochemists. What was intended?]

I think we need to come to an agreement about what the scope of "teleological argument" is. You seem to think that "teleological argument" is usually used to cover all the arguments for God that can be parodied/summarized like this: "The universe exhibits too much X not to have been made by God"? X might be "design", "complexity", "harmoniousness", "non-randomness", etc.. What I'm wondering is this: is "teleological" really the right adjective to describe these arguments? If teleology has to do with design for a purpose, then what's the purpose in the universe being complex, harmonious, or non-random? Only in the case of design (which by definition has to do with purpose) does the connection to teleology clear. It seems that either A) these latter cases aren't really "teleological arguments", or B) "teleological argument" now applies to a wider range of arguments than would be logical if it's meaning was strictly a function of the two component words. Which (if either) or these is the case?

Another question is whether arguments not about God in particular count as teleological arguments. I think one could argue one way or the other about whether it counts if you replace "God" with "Intelligent Designer". Some similar arguments don't count, however; although many teleological argument can easily be converted into an argument that life did not start on Earth but came from other planets, for example, these aren't to be called "teleological arguments".

What do you say? --Ryguasu 21:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then I must agree.

It is my understanding that you mean that the theory that life started on other planets is called a teleological argument by some, but which doesn't fall under the classic definition.

If, though, to say that to use the term "intellegent designer" instead of the the word "God" is not a teleological argument, then I disagree.

The teleological argument is, in fact, over whether it is an intellegent designer or not, and not whether it is God or not. The term "intellegent designer" does not go beyond the scope of teleology. Nay. It encompasses it completely, as it accounts for the two common theories: a)that God created life and the universe, or b)that aliens created life on the earth (Not that life came from another world). Certainly, to say that life on earth was created by aliens still poses the question of where they came from, and were we designed off of their model? If so, then posit "a" is still valid and cancels out posit "b". However, since we've never met these aliens, we don't know what they are made of, and if they themselves can be reduced to irreducible parts that themselves demonstrate the likelihood of design...And the argument could go on and on. Therefore, the quest for alien design is mute and void until such aliens should come to lay claim to the creation of man.

In additon the component words are "tele-" and "-ology", -ology meaning "the study of", and tele meaning "over a long distance" in one definition, and "completion" in another. Under even the second definition, I find the word lacking as a proper description for this sort of argument. However, since "genealogy" is already taken by a perfectly suitable field of endeavor, then I can't think of a better term for it. -- Corey 03:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, you make a good case for discussing "intelligent designers" instead of "God"; about the only thing "God" has going for Him is historical precedence. So it seems we actually agree on most things. I'm still unclear, though, if you think the article should discuss "arguments from complexity", "arguments from universal harmony", etc. under the heading of "teleological argument", or if they should be considered closely related but nonetheless different from teleological arguments? --Ryguasu 04:46, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally I consider those more or less teleology. And, interesting enough, in reviewing the dictionary term (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language), I discovered the definition that corresponds with the second definition of "tele-" as I discussed above. Note also the other defintions, which correspond to arguments from complexity and arguments from universal harmony, and is actually a quite broad defenition:

1. the docrtine that final causes exist.
2. the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.
3. such design or purpose.
4. the belief that purpose and desgn are a part of or are apparent in nature.
5. (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization. {This last definition being congruous with the living Gaia theory. While this view does not entirely preclude an intellegent designer, it does detract from the idea, encouraging evolutionary theory and/or worship of nature. I personally do not subscribe to such a view.} -- Corey 08:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are two closely related arguments: the teleological argument for God, and the teleological argument for an intelligent designer. The former is more historically interesting, while the latter is more defensible, and perhaps more relevant today. Martin 09:32, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since "teleological argument" and "argument from design" are phrases from philosophy, I think it would make sense for us to use them as philosophers do. After consulting The Routelege Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Oxford Compendium of Philosophy, and Britanica, I think it is fair to say that philosophers only use these phrases when there is a question of "purpose" or "design" (which implies purpose) involved.

What does this mean for us? Well, critical to mention are arguments like "the eye is pretty obviously designed for seeing, so there must be an intelligent designer" as well as "the cosmological constants are pretty obviously designed to allow life to exist, so there must be an intelligent designer". But arguments from complexity, harmony, non-randomness do not count so obviously.

Take the "irreducible complexity" argument. It could be part of some kind of argument from design:

1. The eye is apparently designed for seeing.
2. There are only three ways things can appear to be designed: 1) if there actually were designed by humans, 2) if they actually were designed by some other intelligent designer, or 3) if evolution made them appear to be designed.
3. The eye is irreducibly complex.
4. Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution.
5. The eye was not designed by humans.
6. Therefore, the eye was created by some non-human intelligent designer, who must therefore exist.

In this case, we have a real teleological argument. However, irreducible complexity can also be used for non-teleological arguments, e.g.:

1. The eye was obviously designed by some mechanical process.
2. The eye is irreducibly complex.
3. Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution as currently discussed in the scientific literature.
4. So scientists have yet to uncover the natural process that explains the eye.

So "irreducible complexity" is not always a type of teleological argument.

Consider another kind of argument from complexity:

1. Left to its own devices, the universe tends toward simplicity.
2. In actuality, we see that the universe is rather complex.
3. The best explanation for this unlikely happening is that an intelligent being has somehow interveined in the natural unfolding of the universe.

Even if this could be an argument for the existence of an intelligent God-like being, I don't think such an argument could count as a teleological argument, because it makes no claims about the aims of that being. So "argument from design" and "argument from unlikelihood of something or other" are not synonyms.

Any thoughts? --Ryguasu 23:09, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

link to SETI

The link to SETI is that SETI advocates believe that they can infer the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, merely by examining incoming signals - similarly, they believe that an alien species will be able to listen to carefully coded sequences of prime numbers and such, and the aliens will be able to determine that these sequences are the product of intelligent design.

I'll back down on AI, on reflection: the behaviourist school of AI suggests that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the actions of an intelligent agent - this is subtly different from the belief that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the creations of an intelligent agent: clearly there's still a link, but it is perhaps weaker. Martin 00:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SETI would not infer intelligence from a signal simply because a given string exhibits a pattern looks like design. They would have to find a non-repetitive match to a prediction based on the observed string. Proponents of design have failed to make any verifiable predictions. Occasionally a psychic will get a lucky hit, of course.

If your interpretation of the behaviorist school is correct, then it seems relevant. Just don't try to include all of the AI community.

Fairandbalanced 03:40, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Certainly SETI has a more traditional prediction-based approach than Intelligent Design advocates, but that's a difference in method, not a difference in belief.

To generalise massively, the AI community is behaviourist - it is the dominant paradigm, just as natural selection is the dominant paradigm amongst biologists. Martin 14:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The difference between confirming a prediction and inferring design by mining existing data for patterns is huge. See critiques of The Bible Code.

I suspect your interpretation of current AI is wrong, but I have not checked. At my last contact, they were interested in emulating intelligence, not detecting intelligent design. Fairandbalanced 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the difference in method is important. Maybe even huge. But it's still a difference only in method, not belief. Martin

---

The articles for teleology and teleological argument are confused as to what "teleology" means, or at least what it has meant in the philosophical sense. Stating that God creates life spontaneously is not "teleological". Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument. Other philosophers and thinkers who have made "teleological arguments" are Aristotle, who phrases it in terms of "final cause", Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who talks about reality driving towards perfection in the Absolute, and Karl Marx, who offers a historicist teleology which describes a final state of human history that we're being driven to. I believe certain religions like Zoroastrianism have teleologies that talk about a process in nature driven towards a meaningful goal. Use of the concept "teleology" in any other way, is either new to me, or misunformed. Please, someone correct these articles! Brianshapiro

not a very sound argument

• Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
• Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).

---

These above are hooey. I'm a theist, and I think God is a fact obvious to those wise enough to know him, but this argument is silly. I donno that its right to say anything in the article (maybe its my own "personal research"?) but humans could have designed ourselves, and so could have space aliens, or a number of other entities. Just for sake of argument, how about the idea presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or the idea that future humans who have discovered time travel come back and genetically engineer us (or apes) to speed and alter our evoloution? However unlikely these ideas (or a thousand others) might be, they are not easilly excluded as a possibility. Sam Spade 06:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

actually, I think it may legitamately be critisized as an argument from lack of imagination. Sam Spade 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 3: clear anti-creationist bias

"This argument is very popular today in Iran and the United States, probably because it seems to be the most "scientific" argument for the existence of God. It is at the core of the theory of Intelligent Design. Opponents point to it failing to meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, particularly falsifiability and naturalism."

This argument is not at all scientific, and it is by no means the "most scientific argument for the existence of God". Nor is it at the core of the theory of Intelligent design. Paragraph 3 is obvious anti-creationist propaganda, and it must be removed. --ChrisDuben 19:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph seems to be talking to much about the intent of the arguers (probably because...) Paragraph should refer back to ID page for an in depth discussion of ID. Popular in "Iran and US" should be a direct quotation and cited, claims implying statistical facts (popularity) should be supported with statistics. -tznkai

Small change

"Most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection. They reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the existence of X but a better explanation. Thus they tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god."

Changed "existence of X" to "complexity of life." The former phrase leaves room to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. The replacement is more specific and deals directly with the argument over complexity.

-R Beschizza

Self-organization, Emergence, Ontological Reductionism

This article could do with a section on the relationship between these concepts and the TA. Any takers to get it started?

Design argument

It's been pointed out by many philosophers that the term 'argument from design' is question begging; after all, the claim that the universe is designed is part of what the argument is trying to prove, not a fact from which it argues. Writers like J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew have preferred 'arggument for or to design'. I've taken to calling it the 'design argument', which is both shorter and simpler, and neutral. I've changed the summary to reflect this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)