Does Science really support materialism? Teleological Language In Biology

[IWantGod]

The only thing I will say to back up my own position is that theories like evolution make my position at least philosophically defensible.

I don’t think the theory of evolution has any relevance; or to give you the benefit of the doubt you have failed to demonstrate to me that it is relevant.

There’s no way of saying it can prove my philosophical position true. If we were to come up with some sort of empirical explanation for the origins of the universe (say, invoking Hawkings’ notion of imaginary time, in which the universe is finite in time, but has no actual beginning), then I’d say that would bolster my view that my position is defensible.

It’s not good enough to simply argue that time has no beginning, you have to prove that physical reality itself necessarily exists; that is to say, it’s non-existence would result in a metaphysical impossibility because that is all there is. Science in principle cannot provide evidence for this. If imaginary time were true it still wouldn’t tell us why there was something rather than nothing at all, it would just mean that time has no temporal beginning.

At best you can either attempt to demonstrate this without the scientific method, or in failing that remain agnostic as to why there is something rather than nothing (unless the theist can demonstrate their position). Like i said it won’t do to confuse scientific questions with metaphysical questions since it gives the illusion that such questions are applicable to science.

 

[IWantGod]

I have no illusions that the Universe owes me a nice, simple explanation, or, in fact, any explanation at all.

Well…i would still certainly want to know why for the simple fact that i am self-aware and reality is intelligible and i have natural desires that compel me to understand what is going on. But that’s not a meal served for everyone i suppose.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not attempting to. In reality, when you start talking about a period so primordial that there is no hope of directly probing it, there may always be a wall there that we can’t penetrate. In that situation, no explanation, physical or metaphysical, will really answer the question. We just retreat to our corners, declare the uncertainty an argument for certainty of our view.

Well, sort of. I guess I may be an atheist that borders almost on the agnostic, but even that is probably, at its core a fallacious appeal to my own sense of aesthetics. I just don’t think we’re going to produce an empirically satisfactory explanation for the origins of the Universe. If the Hawking model is true (the universe’s origins are essentially in imaginary time, so it’s a curve that tightens without ever actually coming to a starting point, married with the idea that the net product of all the matter and energy in the Universe equals zero, thus the Universe is essentially an unstable quantum state), it’s not going to satisfy those who still can’t imagine nothing becoming something, and it will immediately be grasped by the New Atheist crowd who want to sidestep any metaphysical discussion at all.

 

[IWantGod]

I just don’t think we’re going to produce an empirically satisfactory explanation for the origins of the Universe.

But what relevance does an empirically satisfactory explanation of the universe hold for your atheism? Why are you looking to science for a metaphysical explanation of existence?

In principle, i have never considered the question “why is there something rather than nothing at all” a valid scientific question. It’s a philosophical question.

 

[niceatheist]

And actually, the idea of the universe as an unstable state is kind of terrifying in and of itself, in that it leads to hypothetical end where the Universe exists in a false vacuum, and a change in the quantum state basically destroys the entire thing. That one is aesthetically pleasing because it’s sort of a descendant of the old Steady State model, in which the universe is born, expands, then the false vacuum collapses, the universe is born anew, expands, then the false vacuum collapses, and so on and so forth in a weird kind of infinity (though not even a temporal one as such).

Let’s be honest. Our real headache, theist, agnostic and atheist alike, is that we shrink in the face of infinity. The concept is so hard for brains wired for a universe where cause and effect and thermodynamics reign supreme that imagining epochs in which none of these apply, is in equal parts humbling and frightening.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I just don’t think we’re going to produce an empirically satisfactory explanation for the origins of the Universe.

But what relevance does an empirically satisfactory explanation of the universe hold for your atheism? Why are you looking to science for a metaphysical explanation of existence?

In principle, i have never considered the question “why is there something rather than nothing at all” a valid scientific question. It’s a philosophical question.

I’m not. My doubt in theistic or deistic explanations simply comes from the fact that I don’t see a place for God. Whether the Universe is finite without a precise starting point and time, or whether it’s just part of an infinite progression of universes, each one being born out of the ashes of the previous one, I just have a very hard time seeing the involvement of any kind of deity; whether the personal god of the Judeao-Christian tradition, or the impersonal one of the Enlightenment deists. As i said, I’m perfectly willing to admit that my thinking may be wrongheaded. I merely stated I think my position is defensible, not that it is right.

 

[STT]

Physics is about finding an instruction which determines the behavior of matter in all scales, so called laws of nature. Properties of matter is assumed to be reducible to properties of parts. Physicists failed to describes reality as it is in small scale. Moreover, there are anomalies in this world view such as consciousness and all sort of impressions that we have about reality, such sense of beauty. Matter doesn’t have such a properties. Perhaps we miss something during the process of reduction (when we zoom in the system). Materialists however believe in a world view that assumes that matter is fundamental. This community mainly believe in reductionism.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If you have a naturally formed gully and it rains, then water will flow down it. You can hardly point the gully and disclaim: ‘Coincidence? I think not!’

This is hardly the same thing as you writing about “naturally formed gullies” on a computer that another organism built. There is directionality in your activity and it is not an illusion. Similarly it is not a coincidence that in an environment which can be seen heard and thought about that we find ourselves having eyes, ears and a brain as functionalities. Organisms have instincts that drives them towards survival in these environments. There is directionality in the functionality of these objects. It doesn’t matter whether these objects formed naturally or not. The directionality we find in nature speaks to something more than physics.

I think that you are confusing why we are here (life came into being and we have no clear explanation for that, although I see no reason to think it’s anything other than a natural process) and the fact that evolution (most definitely a natural process) results in self aware organisms and we have reached a position when we can contemplate our navels and wonder what it’s all about.

The formation of the universe shows no intention, neither does the emergence of life, nor does the evolution of life.

But then you perhaps imply intention, or directionality, because we contemplate our own existence. But there is a straight line from the Big Bang to you reading this sentence. So at what exact point did intentionality emerge? It either had to be there from the beginning or it popped (or emerged) into existence at some point.

Your problem is to decide which of those options is the most viable and then back it up.

This is, of course, ignoring that any religious view of existence cannot but involve intentionality, so how you do that from a secular viewpoint is beyond me. And if you take the religious stance then we aren’t going to get very far.

 

[IWantGod]

and the fact that evolution (most definitely a natural process) results in self aware organisms and we have reached a position when we can contemplate our navels and wonder what it’s all about.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then physical processes don’t act for a purpose or a meaningful end or desire to preserve it’s existence because there are no goals or ends or final causes in that reality. It makes no sense that things such as a natural desire or instinct would exist in that reality. Life is an unintelligible meaningless concept in that world. Therefore it’s not reasonable for anybody to think something like a human being or even life itself would exist or have functionalities to those ends.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve never understood why people cling to teleology. Except that it’s been used for so long in their theology.

I’ve always felt both Plato and Aristotle’s description of it to be full of unfounded assumptions. And using it in arguing about religious matters to be question begging.

In science, laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. If a biologist says “the function of the eye is to see”, it’s a descriptive statement that describes what in fact it is the eye (can) do. I see no reason to couch that sentence in metaphysics vis-a-vis teleology. And if we want to discuss that, I don’t see how we have any epistemic grounds to make firm beliefs on the matter, except that it’s needed for certain theologies.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

and the fact that evolution (most definitely a natural process) results in self aware organisms and we have reached a position when we can contemplate our navels and wonder what it’s all about.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then physical processes don’t act for a purpose or a meaningful end or desire to preserve it’s existence because there are no goals or ends or final causes in that reality. It makes no sense that things such as a natural desire or instinct would exist in that reality. Life is an unintelligible meaningless concept in that world. Therefore it’s not reasonable for anybody to think something like a human being or even life itself would exist or have functionalities to those ends.

But you are describing that which has been brought about by an unthinking process: evolution.

You can’t support it in one thread and then deny what it does in another.

 

[IWantGod]

But you are describing that which has been brought about by an unthinking process: evolution.

There is no contradiction between teleology and evolution. The fact that a quality emerges as a result of a natural process (whether that be some behaviour or other thing) is not necessarily the same thing as saying that it exists because of physics or that it ultimately has it’s genesis in a natural process. Science merely describes the physical relationships that it sees and is not making a metaphysical statement about why the qualities that result in conjunction with these relationships exist as an existential possibility. So to say that you have been naturally selected to have a more efficient brain then other primates is to the describe one kind of cause that is involved, but it is not the same thing as describing a sufficient cause for why there is such a thing as a brain (in respect of what it does) in the metaphysical sense of the word.

Biological organisms and their functionalities have emerged within the activity of a natural unthinking process, and what they are made of and their biological structures is undoubtedly due to a physical process of some kind or another. But it’s irrelevant. Arguing that a quality emerges as a result of natural processes is not same thing as arguing that the existential genesis of these qualities is absolutely natural; that physics is it’s ultimate cause. Neither the theory of evolution or science in general can in principle claim this to be true and no scientist worth his salt would ever make that claim. And if a thing behaves in a manner that would conflict with a completely materialistic description of reality, then i have reason to reject a completely materialistic description of reality.

It is the behaviour of organisms that causes me to question the genesis of that behaviour. It’s one thing to describe the physical processes in which certain qualities emerge, and it’s another thing entirely to present metaphysical-naturalism as the best explanation for why those qualities exist. Of course, arguing for metaphysical-naturalism in a world that behaves contrary to what one would expect if metaphysical naturalism were true is unintelligible and contradictory, and that is good enough reason to reject metaphysical naturalism entirely.

 

[Bradskii]

No problem with most of what you wrote (@IWantGod). But earlier you were suggesting that desire, for example, indicates a purpose and that in itself shows that naturalism is not true (because physical processes don’t act for a purpose).

I would accept that if it were possible to separate desire from the unthinking process which brought it about in the first instance and the fact that desire, back when it had evolved it’s most basic form, served no purpose other than continuing the unthinking process which brought it about in the first place.

It is no more valid to describe desire as a means to a purposeful end than it would be to describe a coat of fur as a purposeful means to keep warm. Fur did not evolve to keep creatures warm. It’s simply that creatures with no fur did not live long enough to pass on their genes, so creatures with fur were the only ones left.

Likewise with senses such as desire (or lust or fear or curiosity etc). They weren’t designed as a means to an end. It’s that those creatures that did not have a desire (for a partner or food or shelter) died off and left those with the desire. Or a basic form of it.

The mistake that is often made is that people think that evolution actively favours those with a particular attribute over those that don’t. And then read purpose into that. Whereas the fact of the matter is that evolution works to kill off those who don’t posess particular attributes (that help survival in any given environment).

Evolution is not about winning, which tends to indicate a sense of purpose - the survival of the fittest. It’s about being lucky enough to avoid losing. Darwins idea would be more accurately phrased ‘the death of the least fit’. But any editor worth his salt would have blue pencilled that.

 

[IWantGod]

I would accept that if it were possible to separate desire from the unthinking process which brought it about in the first instance and the fact that desire, back when it had evolved it’s most basic form, served no purpose other than continuing the unthinking process which brought it about in the first place.

Accept that you presume it to be meaningful to define desire in completely physical terms. And it is certainly a meaningless concept to begin without acknowledging an end towards which a desire is directed, the very reason why we have a concept about it in the first place. And it is the end towards which it is directed, whether it be survival, procreation, or the desire to understand, and the fact that biological functionalities meaningfully exist in conjunction with that fact, which gives me reason to think that there really is such a thing as goal direction in nature, a process that an unthinking undirected process that lacks intentionality to begin with, makes no intelligible sense of. So a materialistic reductionism of these qualities to blind processes that have no goal is out of the question.

Like i said, science merely describes the physical relationships that it sees and is not making a metaphysical statement about why the qualities that result in conjunction with these relationships exist as an existential possibility .

Pointing to evolution to solve this problem offers no explanation at all, and completely misunderstands evolution because science never claimed to have an explanation for directionality in the nature of organisms in the first place. Your insistence that it does is not science but rather this is your philosophical belief, and it is that which i am challenging.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s that those creatures that did not have a desire (for a partner or food or shelter) died off and left those with the desire. Or a basic form of it.

It’s irrelevant. It’s the mere fact that these desires exist at all that causes me to find fault with metaphysical naturalism.

Again using natural selection to support your materialism isn’t going to work.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It’s that those creatures that did not have a desire (for a partner or food or shelter) died off and left those with the desire. Or a basic form of it.

It’s irrelevant. It’s the mere fact that these desires exist at all that causes me to find fault with metaphysical naturalism.

Again using natural selection to support your materialism isn’t going to work.

I pigeonhole desire in the same box as a furry coat. We don’t (or shouldn’t) see intentionality in fur. We shouldn’t in desire either. Apart from the fact that one is a mental process and one a biological feature doesn’t matter.

Fur serves a purpose. So does desire. So does the heat of the sun. So does rain. But your argument is akin to saying that rain exists to water the plants.

 

[IWantGod]

I pigeonhole desire in the same box as a furry coat.

You have given me no reason to think you would be justified in doing so. It’s merely what you would have to do if wish to support metaphysical naturalism. It’s clear to me that the mere existence of fur is not the same thing as you putting on fur for it’s warmth. In the former we are just acknowledging the existence of something. In the latter we are acknowledging the existence of goal direction towards an intelligible or meaningful end. The denial of which you have not justified.

 

[IWantGod]

But your argument is akin to saying that rain exists to water the plants.

It really isn’t. This is a straw-man, or a misunderstanding.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I pigeonhole desire in the same box as a furry coat.

You have given me no reason to think you would be justified in doing so. It’s merely what you would have to do if wish to support metaphysical naturalism. It’s clear to me that the mere existence of fur is not the same thing as you putting on fur for it’s warmth. In the former we are just acknowledging the existence of something. In the latter we are acknowledging the existence of goal direction towards an intelligible or meaningful end. The denial of which you have not justified.

I think you’ve got it. If we were to add fur to an animal to help it survive, it would be intentional. If it evolved, it would not. If someone designed desire to help something survive, it would be intentional. If it evolved, it would not.

Desire evolved.

 

[IWantGod]

Desire evolved.

It’s irrelevant whether desire evolved or not. If we can discern goal direction in the behaviour of an organism, including ourselves, then that’s what it is, and it shouldn’t exist if metaphysical naturalism is true for the reasons i have already argued.