Re: Doubt 101: The Teleological Argument (Design & Fine-Tuning)

[tireiron]

Truth is not subjective, it's objective and sensory data does not compromise the external world.

The video you replied to explained causation to the extent that your anti-realist observations are unnecessary.

Read Hume's example of the "properties of fire." I'd also suggest a little boning up on Kripke and Wittgenstein to help with your unclear language.

[prodprod]

It's very important when addressing issues like this not to conflate meanings. Obviously, all things exist in the specific *sense* that they exist and are an aspect of the universe in that particular sense.

So, yes, love and purpose, and happiness and consciousness and all of that, by virtue of being aspects of our minds, which are aspects of our brains which are thus all likewise aspects of the universe.

But that doesn't mean that those things are more generally afloat in the universe.

[f1ghtclub2k3]

cannot be explained via reflective conciousness etc b/c we already place valuation in our language.nature is exploitation, power, life is exploitation power.there is a constant that can be asserted in nature and that is change devolving evolving really depends upon the factors that make up struggle pain death suffering threatening conditions to the organism...there is no end just change as for the human species well we have subjected ourselves to cultural decadent valuations for breeding...what?

[f1ghtclub2k3]

the reason why it seems telelogical in creative and destructive procceses in nature is b/c there is a certain stagnation that is employed in self preservation when struggle and threatening conditions are at a minimum...it looks as though there was a beginning and we are working towards an end or a state...this is non sense...to put human valuations on nature already does it to much justice as a "mechanism" concious unconcious, deterministic all are human concepts of a mysterious process which

[Gyrcion]

I watched this entire rebuttal and fail to see how it even holds a candle to the refutation by nykytine (sp).

His arguments are either semantic or excuses about why god is undetectable.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isnt using faith to defend against the rebuttal to the teleological argument a little pointless?

[AutodidacticPhd]

I'm sorry, but conflating the metaphoric uses of the word "design" by naturalists, and the literal use of the word design by creationists is just silly.

The naturalist resorts to design as a metaphor for the way certain structures that perform a definite function purely out of a lack of lexical alternatives... when a creationist uses the word however, they mean exactly what the word literally means. This is a semantic distinction between the two positions, not a point of similarity.

[Gyrcion]

@AutodidacticPhd

I love you.

[AutodidacticPhd]

Thanks, I try.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Structures that perform functions are teleological, literally. There is no way around that. If Darwin's theory is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then it hardly counts as scientific. I think it is meant to be taken literally, which is why I don't deny that natural selection operates in the biosphere. I just deny that such a theory of speciation adequately accounts for the origin or ontology of life. Darwin and W. Paley conceived of life from the same mechanistic perspective.

[AutodidacticPhd]

"Structures that perform functions are teleological, literally."

A barrier of tangled driftwood along a beach has a structure, and that structure effectively functions as a wall... Who designed that structure? Organized its building?

No, it is still NOT teleological. Once again you are trying to impose literalism on comparative language. Neither did I imply that Darwin's theory a metaphor.

It seems you are being obtuse on purpose, or you have a very naive understanding of language use.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I was referring to the functionality of the structures of living beings, not driftwood.

[AutodidacticPhd]

And I was referring to the fact that a "structure" with a "function" need not be planned with intent and purpose. Natural processes are sufficient explanation for patterns that are self sustaining or useful to patterns that are.

There is no difference between the amount of intent or purpose behind a driftwood wall verses a protein... the only differences are scale and complexity. So if you insist that "structures that perform functions" are proof of design, you are including driftwood walls.

[Cr8zyCanuck]

The whole point is we can't give the universe human qualities. We are an anomile. We need to step outside our objective view of time and realize time is relative. Natural laws are not the laws we describe. They are the laws we attempt to understand. If we have such a hard time and tend to disagree there is even less of a chance your view of "design" which is a human concept, is less true. In fact the least likely argument stems from implying our humanity to the universe.

[ronin6767]

Do you know what you're talking about?

[yikeswood]

for there lack of leaders. they dont lack a majority. if the majority

[yikeswood]

you ever been to a hospital

[prunt23]

you talk alot without really saying anything at all

[1982wolpertinger]

there is no firm evidence or anything firm because there is only variability. therefore there cannot be any evidence or faith for anything, it is just perception - this is what einstein understood and what his theory of relativity means. time is not existent, there is only movement in space through gravity which we wrongly interpret as linear time.

[1982wolpertinger]

In chaos theory there is a common denominator which brings order to chaos - this is called the mandelbroth fractal. the whole existing world can be created by/with/through this fractal.

[1982wolpertinger]

in quantum physics, although there are different theories, we today use 4-10 up to 12 dimensions or more, depending on which theory you support. in the highest dimension there mathematically exists only one omnipresent electron in the whole of creation - which it is. creation is the conscious act of what we call god exploring itself, experiencing itself through the mirror of individual existence until we once unite again with all to end the illusion of separateness again.

[1982wolpertinger]

this is true for the smallest consciousness particle up to the largest consciouness particle, which both is the same in infinity or god, through all dimensions in the whole of physical and non-physical creation. we are all one, or is it alone? think about this in order to understand the destination which ultimately is the fundamental cause.

[fareedfilms]

i disagree that time is the creator. You gave your very complex reasoning for this theory. However, i see it more that time is a product of creation also, that God is beyond time, and it is his creation. When you have the view that God created every secound of the universe, and that it is not slowly developing itself but that it is already decreed to do so, you can't really contradict yourself. This is my belief and is also the agreed upon creed of Islam by the highest of scholars.

[stefanlittle]

you constantly ascribe agency to every-thing. It is a flaw.

[stefanlittle]

once again you tend to think of the universe and evolution as having a goal or ideal....this is not a premise of evolutionary biology.

[FuckYouYouFuck]

I didn't quite follow how or why you thought faith was/is a necessary or positive counterpoint or companion of doubt (what I'd refer to as skepticism). Or what you think is necessarily positive or good or reasonable to have faith in, or when doubt/skepticism is inappropriate.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Doubt and skepticism are companions of faith in the sense that one doubts not for its own sake, but in order to eventually find that worthy of one's faith. Any knowledge requires a sort of affirmation on the part of the knower akin to faith. We cannot live on doubt alone.

[FuckYouYouFuck]

This is a matter of semantics but I think there is a big difference between what's commonly referred to as faith, and a reasoned belief.

I would go so far as to describe faith as unreasoned belief; belief in the absence of or in opposition to the evidence.

Compared to reasoned belief; belief or non-belief (often the honest answer of 'I don't know') based on the best available evidence or lack thereof.

I definitely don't think faith is an appropriate word to describe or label reasoned belief.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The very notion that the universe is reasonable and able to be known by the human mind requires faith on our part.

Or I could put it another way, that doubt is a movement of the mind as it recoils away from the world in order to get a more objective view, while faith is a movement of the heart toward embracing the world to get a more participatory and intimate angle.

The relationship between faith and doubt is a rich one that could be construed in many ways...

[FuckYouYouFuck]

Your use of terminology might vary, but I don't consider myself to have any faith.

Beyond 'I exist and I think' we need to use the scientific method to gain an understanding of the reality we live in, to determine what's real and what's imaginary, and it's a tool that works pretty well. It's a tool that has made this exchange possible.

If a belief is based on firm evidence I think it is quite wrong to describe that belief as faith.

[0ThouArtThat0]

My sense for the deep relationship between science and faith is shared by Einstein: "Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe."

The scientific method is a marvelous tool for determining what is true and what is false concerning the empirical, measurable world. But I don't think something must be measurable to be real, for if that were true, consciousness would be a complete illusion.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Science is one way of coming to know the universe, but surely not the only one, unless we are trying to severely handicap ourselves.

[FuckYouYouFuck]

The scientific method is undoubtedly the best tool for understanding reality. Not the only tool, method or approach, but definitely the best. When we actually want to get something useful done, we use science.

Brains exist, minds exist, consciousness exists, and even though we don't fully understand every aspect of these things (nor should we expect to) they manifest and can be studied.

Things that don't manifest can't be observed, measured, studied, and for all intents and purposes don't exist.

[ozweblogs]

All humans are trying to do is to make sense of the world around us. Myths are one way of trying to make sens of our world but the scientific method has succeeded in making a lot of sense, and a way of utilizing our knowledge to make our lives better.

Religion failed to achieve a better quality of life.

[0ThouArtThat0]

yes, but has science achieved a better quality of life for humanity? I fully admit and acknowledge all the technological progress that has been produced because of science, but keep in mind that a relatively small percentage of the total human population enjoys these benefits. I would argue that most of the undeveloped world has actually suffered greatly for the sake of Western industrial progress fueled by scientific innovation.

[marowak1337]

Well, I would suggest you watch Zeitgeist Addendum and especially the part about The Venus Project :)

It may seem utopian or naive, but from what I understand, it would be almost perfect society for someone with your beliefs?

[HighwayHaloFilms]

i have to say that science has achieved a better quality of life for humanity. Ever vaccine, medication, and remedy has come from years of scientific research. There are billions of people who were potentially saved from horrible plagues that would have died if not for the research done by scientists. Chemotherapy has saved millions. Medication to kill disease have saved millions. Implying otherwise is appalling.

[Szakalot]

really? 1/3 of world population is being nourished by technology. Literally, how else would you get enough ammonia to nourish the plants?

[batfly]

It would be very interesting to trip with 0ThouArtThat0.

Very interesting indeed.

[IChoseTheRedPill]

you are my favorite channel..

peace2U Matt

[Processing33]

Just looked up the definition for teleology...

Things that come to mind: we all live we a 'sense of purpose', is there an ultimate end? eh, probably not. But could life refine itself through evolution and become better? I think so... So I would simply define purpose/teleology, as the awareness of our innate drive to become better (as well as that nagging feeling to pop open a bag of potato chips)

[MaBu888]

MMMMmmmm potatoe chipssss.

[Processing33]

do you write down your thoughts before you make vids? or is it more off the top of your head

[0ThouArtThat0]

always off the top.

[Nykytyne2]

There are little pieces of nature that are reasonable.

[plutodrvv]

There's a poem in there, "the mountain has a creator, it is time..." Yes develop it into one of your poems it's due. Great point about faith and truth doubters and believers.

[BlazzingSun]

couciouness can be mindless,

or occupy in part, unit inside cannot contain the energy of the whole/never for that one is the whole ...and that mind can be very intelligent but counciousless...

intelligence is the program of natural evolution within the design...

even in plant life...selfl/care

matthew...now look..the

shadows are trying to run away from the source of light ...funny.

[MaBu888]

Whoa. A Trip. Life is.

[sarahtakash]

YES! Thankyou for fearlessly continuing to post your thoughts. Your philosophical meanderings continue to inspire me. I am grateful.

[jogayot]

it's a TRAP !-)

[connecthedot]

from my own experiences, and as so many atheists have pointed out, the ego/noun god of most christians really isnt such a nice guy. using the mechanical woldview he is the creator of all things and he selfishly expects his payment. billiard balls need their dues. under the organic/process model, God doesnt require reverence or anything at all, because to require something is to not have something all ready. so in this way, "the tao loves and nurishes all things but does not lord it over them."

[connecthedot]

"time is the creator," genious. But not as a noun, of course. i wonder how many christains concieve of God that way: more like a verb. probably not. i think most christans go as far as to attribute to God an ego. "THats God, in a white robe and beard." lol.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, the challenge for theists and materialists alike is to recognize the creative/organic capacity of the universe. Nature is not ruled by fixed law or imposed design; nature is an ongoing genesis. The creator is not separate from the creation.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Borrowed the idea that time is creator from Henri Bergson, who wrote "Time is invention, or it is nothing at all." I take him to be saying that time is more than mere change and in some sense unfolds intelligently (not randomly).

[KillCount666]

I left a comment on Nyk's vid basically telling him that this was the simple regression to "counter" the refutation he gave.

[ThePointlessPoint]

and did you ejaculate?

[KillCount666]

Possibly >_>

[TWITfromURANUS]

You articulate it better than me, but we seem to have a very similar 'essential understanding'/outlook.

Funny how scientistic types don't see how illogical they are.

Language is a truly magical key when you know how to use it.

Very nice vidding.

10/10

[alovelytime]

you know what i love about you Matt?

your sincereity, your love for the subject matter, the awe that comes through in your manner, the simple kind humility and courtesy that you exude.

i hope you always keep those things.

let others act a clown to draw attention to the subject matter while actually drawing attention to their own egoic arrogance.

[freaks182]

your video was really insightful, i really like your viewpoint on things.

[frayzerm]

No! Teleology implies that there is a purpose to evolution. There isn't! To say that there is a telos to evolution because it goes in a particular direction is like saying that matter has a telos because it is attracted to other matter through gravity. There's no telos to either of those things.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I would argue that evolution having a direction is precisely what a telos is (ie, teleology implies not mere change, but movement in a direction). Gravity would also be the effect you'd expect from a teleological process.

Our task is to update our philosophical/scientific conception of teleology such that it no longer conforms to outdated dualisms between mind and matter, form and substance, etc.

[TheNewRenaissance]

There is what I consider a very insightful view put forward by Terrence McKenna where he called the universe a 'novelty generation and conservation machine'. Or rather a tendency for greater complexity and diversity. This can be reduced into a fairly basic mechanical construct and in effect be a 'telos' behind evolutionary processes.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, I think Terence derived a lot of this thought on time from the process philosophy of A. N. Whitehead.