Oh yeah , there is no reason for reasoning. Some even question free will, thus have no free will to determine other wise.
Proofs that God is imaginary
- Thread starter eastsidebagel
- Start date
Are you just trying to confuse us all?
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Counterfactuals: Yes, even without "real" free will you could have determined otherwise IF ....
(Although, "real" free will is meaningless and hence there is not even a counterfactual if-situation under which you could detemine its existence. Just like square circles.)
"no reason" is not the same thing as "not having a telos"
What is a telos?
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
Something like purpose, with the implication of intentionality.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Here's an analogy for part of it:
Imagine a person reading his own biography. Inside the context of the biography, he will age, learn things, etc. and have this commented on by other people appearing in the biography. However, the reader is atemporal relative to the character of himself, because the reader can flick back and forth in the book. This doesn't cause the character to age and then youthen, though, but is merely looking at a different point in the time given inside the book from outside that time.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, yes, but if you redefine terms like this, your not really adressing the question of the existence of a supreme being. You may as well say "if God is my cat, then God exists", which really isn't the point.
I can see why it's worth considering this "universal feeling of awe", or whatever you want to call it, but as a motivation for the human interest in the divine or spiritual. It in itself cannot be attritubed divinty, which labelling it "god" implies.
Possibly. But people can have religious feelings (in fact I'd say religion without feeling does not make sense/has no content). If people interpret these feelings as relating to God, I'd say that makes sense. In the same vein atheism (which is generally presented as rational) generates emotion in atheists. (And to anticipate Plotinus: I'm not saying religion does not also contain elements of liturgy, ritual, social organization etc. As noted there may indeed be certain striking coincidences between religions and political movements, where for instance the gathering of the faithful in a communal act may be compared to a party meeting, speeches replacing the sermons.)
Indeed.
Hence teleology.
Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).
In European philosophy, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the scholastic tradition. Most theology presupposes a teleology[1]: design in nature can be used as a teleological argument for the existence of God. Aristotle's analysis of four causes speaks of a material cause, efficient cause, and formal cause but all these serve a final cause.
Later teleology was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel and was explored in detail by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement.
Indeed.
Hence teleology.
Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).
In European philosophy, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the scholastic tradition. Most theology presupposes a teleology[1]: design in nature can be used as a teleological argument for the existence of God. Aristotle's analysis of four causes speaks of a material cause, efficient cause, and formal cause but all these serve a final cause.
Later teleology was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel and was explored in detail by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement.
Counterfactuals: Yes, even without "real" free will you could have determined otherwise IF ....
(Although, "real" free will is meaningless and hence there is not even a counterfactual if-situation under which you could detemine its existence. Just like square circles.)
Claims and arguments like this are really pointless without a definition of "free will", which has many different and wildly opposing meanings. In particular, statements such as Smidlee's can have a chance of being vaguely meaningful only by equivocating on the term (ie, "free will" in the second sentence is being used in two completely different ways). But again this is irrelevant to the thread.
This is a good analogy. In particular, we could imagine that the book is not just a biography of the reader, but a complete world history, describing all the events that occurred before the reader's birth, during his life, and after it as well (it was written by a very good psychic). The reader can read about any event, in any order that he wishes, and in this respect there is no difference between the events that occur during his life (unconnected to his life) and those that occur at other times. Similarly, the claim that the Son was incarnate for a certain period does not entail that the Son was not atemporally watching the whole universe during that time, any more than the reader cannot read about other events occurring during his lifetime when he is reading the book.
Although this doesn't capture the third option I listed, that of theologians such as Abelard and Leftow, since on that model the Son isn't in the book at all even when he is incarnate. He is merely united to a human nature which is in the book, and is thus said to be in the book derivatively. Of course there are other problems with that model, most obviously (a) how can a single substance be composed of a temporal part and an atemporal part? and (b) if the Son doesn't enter into the book himself, can he really be said to be incarnate at all?
But again, none of this is relevant to the topic of the thread, so I can't think why Flying Pig brought it up in the first place.
Danielos said:
If there were many scientists disagreeing over a particular issue, such as the correct interpretation of quantum physics or the details of the process of evolution, would that mean that they must all be wrong? Why can't it be the case that many people disagree about something but some of them are right?
Indeed, the very proliferation of religions across the planet suggests that God (i.e. a Supreme Being) is real - certainly for all believers, irrespective of if any of their specific interpretations is the correct one. What people call "God" (or god, if you prefer) depends higly on local tradition and formulation of such a phenomenon.
Definite proof - either way - it is not.
(Plotinus, it's been 10 days since you posted on your own thread...)
So a bit like destiny? Sounds a bit hokey-kokey to me.
Flying Pig, "teleological" is very useful word, as you often notice that people understand word "why" wrong. For example I could ask "why is there an obstacle on the road", and you could answer "because somebody put it there", or "because there's a construction site, and you shouldn't go there". The former is causal explanation and latter teleological.
Although that example is kind of trivial, there are plenty of questions and answers which confuse causal and teleological explanation. Try answering following for example: Why are soap bubbles spherical? Why humans walk in stand up position? Why hedgehogs have spikes on their back?
Although that example is kind of trivial, there are plenty of questions and answers which confuse causal and teleological explanation. Try answering following for example: Why are soap bubbles spherical? Why humans walk in stand up position? Why hedgehogs have spikes on their back?
I think I see - so does the idea of having a telos mean that you think you have some kind of destiny?
It's got nothing to do with destiny! You don't have to believe in destiny to believe in purpose. If you put a tea bag in the pot, you are doing something with a purpose (ie, to make a cup of tea). That doesn't mean you're destined to do it. Teleology just means purpose - things being done, or being the they are, with some goal in view.
So you act as you do in order to achieve some end?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I remember hearing the world "teleology" in a class about the science of historical study, but I don't remember anything about it.
If I understand this right, a teleological answer is one that describes purpose (the hedgehog has spikes on his back to protect him from predators) rather than one that describes mere circumstance (the hedgehog was born that way, that's why he has spikes on his back). Is my understanding vaguely correct?
If I understand this right, a teleological answer is one that describes purpose (the hedgehog has spikes on his back to protect him from predators) rather than one that describes mere circumstance (the hedgehog was born that way, that's why he has spikes on his back). Is my understanding vaguely correct?
It all comes from Aristotle.
Aristotle pointed out that if you're trying to explain something, there are four different kinds of explanation. To whit:
Why are the hedgehog's spikes prickly?
(1) Because they are made out of a tough material that is hard and doesn't yield when you press it. This is a material cause (the thing is the way it is because of what it's made of).
(2) Because they are long and thin and very pointy. This is a formal cause (the thing is the way it is because of its shape or structure).
(3) Because the DNA which the hedgehog inherited from its predecessors includes genes which code for pointy spikes. This is an efficient cause (the thing is the way it is because of whatever event or thing brought it into being - what we would normally call its "cause" in modern English).
(4) Because having prickly spikes helps the hedgehog deter predators and survive. This is a final cause (the thing is the way it is because being that way serves a purpose or achieves some kind of goal).
So to explain something fully, you need to explain it under all these four categories. Just saying (for example) "The table is the way it is because it's made of wood" won't explain why there's a table there and why it is the way it is - that's just its material cause, and by itself, just a partial explanation.
Teleology just means having something to do with the fourth kind, final causation.
The relevance of all this to theism and atheism is that theists generally think that there is something fundamentally teleological about the universe. When they look at it, they see it in terms of what its purpose is, and they think that this is something that requires explanation. They may even think that, ultimately, the other kinds of explanation can themselves be explained in terms of final causation. That is, the various material, formal, and (above all) efficient causes that we see around us operate only because there is some great, ultimately final cause that wants them to. So teleology is the explanation for everything, and that simply means that everything is the way it is because that's how God wants it to be.
Atheists, by contrast, generally see nothing intrinsically teleological about the universe. They may even think that all final causation collapses, in the final analysis, into some other kind of causation - especially efficient causation. That is, we may talk about "purpose" in everyday life and explain some things by appealing to teleology ("I put the tea bag in the pot because I wanted to make some tea"), but really that just masks more fundamental efficient causation ("Really I put the tea bag in the pot because my muscles moved in that way, and that only happened because my neurones fired in a certain way, and that only happened because I received some sensation in my brain, and so on backwards"). On this analysis, teleology itself is just a phenomenon of animal life which is itself caused by other factors, and so it cannot be an ultimate explanation for anything.
This is another reason why committed theists and committed atheists typically don't achieve anything constructive in their arguments with each other, because each group is so used to their own way of seeing things - teleologically or non-teleologically - that they are hardly aware that an alternative way exists, so these fundamental differences are rarely made explicit and discussed.
Aristotle pointed out that if you're trying to explain something, there are four different kinds of explanation. To whit:
Why are the hedgehog's spikes prickly?
(1) Because they are made out of a tough material that is hard and doesn't yield when you press it. This is a material cause (the thing is the way it is because of what it's made of).
(2) Because they are long and thin and very pointy. This is a formal cause (the thing is the way it is because of its shape or structure).
(3) Because the DNA which the hedgehog inherited from its predecessors includes genes which code for pointy spikes. This is an efficient cause (the thing is the way it is because of whatever event or thing brought it into being - what we would normally call its "cause" in modern English).
(4) Because having prickly spikes helps the hedgehog deter predators and survive. This is a final cause (the thing is the way it is because being that way serves a purpose or achieves some kind of goal).
So to explain something fully, you need to explain it under all these four categories. Just saying (for example) "The table is the way it is because it's made of wood" won't explain why there's a table there and why it is the way it is - that's just its material cause, and by itself, just a partial explanation.
Teleology just means having something to do with the fourth kind, final causation.
The relevance of all this to theism and atheism is that theists generally think that there is something fundamentally teleological about the universe. When they look at it, they see it in terms of what its purpose is, and they think that this is something that requires explanation. They may even think that, ultimately, the other kinds of explanation can themselves be explained in terms of final causation. That is, the various material, formal, and (above all) efficient causes that we see around us operate only because there is some great, ultimately final cause that wants them to. So teleology is the explanation for everything, and that simply means that everything is the way it is because that's how God wants it to be.
Atheists, by contrast, generally see nothing intrinsically teleological about the universe. They may even think that all final causation collapses, in the final analysis, into some other kind of causation - especially efficient causation. That is, we may talk about "purpose" in everyday life and explain some things by appealing to teleology ("I put the tea bag in the pot because I wanted to make some tea"), but really that just masks more fundamental efficient causation ("Really I put the tea bag in the pot because my muscles moved in that way, and that only happened because my neurones fired in a certain way, and that only happened because I received some sensation in my brain, and so on backwards"). On this analysis, teleology itself is just a phenomenon of animal life which is itself caused by other factors, and so it cannot be an ultimate explanation for anything.
This is another reason why committed theists and committed atheists typically don't achieve anything constructive in their arguments with each other, because each group is so used to their own way of seeing things - teleologically or non-teleologically - that they are hardly aware that an alternative way exists, so these fundamental differences are rarely made explicit and discussed.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Wow. I feel much smarter than I did before that post. Thanks a lot Plot! 
