Teleology and Atheism

[HypGnosis]

Hey peoples,

Can you be an Atheist and still hold teleological assumptions?

Thomas Nagel seems to hold this position, and although I've read Mind and Cosmos, I was a little worse for wear. Does anyone know of his reasons as to why teleology is compatible with atheism?

Take it easy peeps...

 

[Psyduck]

teleology originated with Aristotle and was free of theological implications. What is your understanding of the word "teleology"? Does it mean "intelligent design" for you? If I recall correctly, Thomas Nagel rejects this theological meaning and returns back to Aristotle.

In this Aristotelean sense:

"the telos of the human intellect is to become more rational"
"the telos of an animal is to survive and procreate"
"the telos of a human eye is to see"
"the telos of a human heart is to keep us alive."
"the telos of an artist is to express himself through art"
etc.

Why is this problematic, or should it rely on God?

 

[HypGnosis]

What is your understanding of the word "teleology"? Does it mean "intelligent design" for you?

No, not 'intelligent design' as such. But more so the tendency of nature to head towards a goal; an increase in complexity maybe? Or the emergence of conscious beings?

Do you think the examples I gave would necessarily imply a god of sorts? Or could you imagine a natural mechanism i.e Sheldrake's Morphic Fields, which could account for this telos without adding a god into the mix?

If I recall correctly, Thomas Nagel rejects this theological meaning and returns back to Aristotle.

In this Aristotelean sense:

"the telos of the human intellect is to become more rational"
"the telos of an animal is to survive and procreate"
"the telos of a human eye is to see"
"the telos of a human heart is to keep us alive."
"the telos of an artist is to express himself through art"
etc.

I see how these examples imply a telos, but doesn't Nagel also suggest that there is some natural law (as opposed to an agent of nature - like the above examples?), which is teleological? I think in his book he never actually gives an example or really get into what this law actually does, but he does posit it. Given the title of the book alone, he is surely implying another sort of law anyway?

Why is this problematic, or should it rely on God?

I don't find it problematic, but I figured when you start implying some law of nature that is teleological, that you could equate that law with a god of sorts?

Thanks for the reply

 

[Vurtual]

I've often idly thought that there is some sort of natural tendency towards complexity in reality (given enough free energy, more complex systems can spontaneously emerge), and that if entropy gets to be a law, why doesn't the tendency for stars planets galaxies animals cells cities etc. to form get to be a law too.

The tendency of complex systems to form (the whirlpool in the bath, the flame) i think is explained in the couple of books i've read as a sort of artefact of random repetition and feedback or something, but it still seems mysterious to me (maybe i should read the books again - but not stoned)

This sort of fits in hindu cosmolgy too (creator and destroyer - maintainer could be conservation of energy or something?)

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

if nature heads toward a goal would you deem it conscious? If so then it is basically a god. If not than it seems like you would just be talking about universal laws, whether they be known or unknown.

I believe we are complex and obviously conscious, and also a result of the happenings in our universe. I don't think there is a natural strive for complexity, but as more time passes there is a greater chance for complex things to emerge due to the chaos of the universe. This doesn't necessarily mean that nature has intent to create these things, they just happen.

It is really a matter of personal opinion. Do you believe that nature is a collection of laws, or a sort of intelligence with a strict guideline? I don't think we will ever have a definitive answer for that question, hence god.

I am an atheist.

 

[Vurtual]

...I don't think there is a natural strive for complexity, but as more time passes there is a greater chance for complex things to emerge due to the chaos of the universe. This doesn't necessarily mean that nature has intent to create these things, they just happen...

I sort of agree with that idea of complexity - the tendency of systems to adapt and become more complex given enough free energy doesn't defeat entropy, but is sort of an illusion of scale/viewpoint: a big enough collection of individual interacting elements viewed from a large enough scale is likely to 'evolve' because at root there is enough repetition for unlikely things to occur by chance (and developmental attractors are likely to persist once reached) (this is basically darwinism i suppose). This to me doesn't imply a consciousness or intent at all. But i can see this as a 'law' or at least a tendency (at least as much as natural selection is a law) - maybe there's not much difference between thinking there are laws that make it possible/likely for things to evolve to complexity and thinking teleologically (i suppose the idea of developmental attractors have a teleological flavour anyway).

I sometimes use the concept of god as a placeholder for stuff i can't understand (eg as a shorthand for a viewpoint outside of time), or in the pantheistic sense (the all). Whether there's really much difference between using analogies this way and more conventional religious cosmology i'm not so sure. So i tend to stick to agnostic rather than atheist (plus i have had a few 'mystical experiences' of a godish nature that stops me being too sure)

 

[rickolasnice]

I do believe this "advancement" of life that is seemingly goal orientated is.. well..

Evolution: Survival of the fittest, natural selection, sexual selection, etc etc..

 

[Vurtual]

I agree; i suppose i was suggesting that this applies much more widely than just organic life (by a similar 'random' process) - eg stars, galaxies, storm cells etc. I suppose some clever bastard has already had this idea (or shown why it's bollocks).

Whether that's extending the definition of natural selction and evolution, or expanding the definition of life i'm not sure (both?)

 

[Jerry Atrick]

I agree; i suppose i was suggesting that this applies much more widely than just organic life (by a similar 'random' process) - eg stars, galaxies, storm cells etc. I suppose some clever bastard has already had this idea (or shown why it's bollocks).

Whether that's extending the definition of natural selction and evolution, or expanding the definition of life i'm not sure (both?)

Herbert Spencer published, "The Social Organism" in 1860. This article applied evolutionary principles to...well....society. It was groundbreaking work for that time period in history although it didn't take long for his idea to be considered outdated. In fact, it was in this article that Spencer coined the term 'survival of the fittest'. Darwin used that phrase as a chapter title in the fifth edition of On the Origin of the Species.

I'm sure one can find Spencer's article online somewhere. Happy reading.