If you find that something fulfills your nature is it reasonable to think that the object of that fulfillment exists?

[STT]

Here’s an alternative (warning, viewer discretion is advised):

You evolved to want to survive. The reason why you want to survive is the same reason you feel hungry when the body is low on fuel, same reason you feel fear when in danger, same reason you feel cold when the body needs warmth. It keeps you alive. People with those traits tend to survive longer than those without, and so have more offspring to pass on their genes. The traits produce feelings and desires, but they don’t program us to understand why we have them, so people have invented beliefs.

You may not like that explanation, but it’s also teleological in its own way.

It is very sad when we notice that we are slave of our feelings.

 

[IWantGod]

Here’s an alternative (warning, viewer discretion is advised):

You evolved to want to survive. The reason why you want to survive is the same reason you feel hungry when the body is low on fuel, same reason you feel fear when in danger, same reason you feel cold when the body needs warmth. It keeps you alive. People with those traits tend to survive longer than those without, and so have more offspring to pass on their genes. The traits produce feelings and desires, but they don’t program us to understand why we have them, so people have invented beliefs.

You may not like that explanation, but it’s also teleological in its own way.

Saying that an organism with a particular set of traits is more likely to survive and pass on those genes than one that does not doesn’t really explain anything beyond the obvious. I’m sorry innocente but evolution by itself does not explain why those traits exists or why things try to survive at all… You might as well just say those traits are brute facts cause otherwise their existence suggests that there is a teleology in nature.

 

[inocente]

Saying that an organism with a particular set of traits is more likely to survive and pass on those genes than one that does not doesn’t really explain anything beyond the obvious.

Yet it wasn’t obvious to anyone before Darwin 1859 and Mendel 1866. Before that everyone thought God had designed the species exactly as they are now. Some still do.

Your desire to survive is a result of natural selection - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

I’m sorry innocente but evolution by itself does not explain why those traits exists or why things try to survive at all.

Yes it does, this aspect is called genetic variation - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

We have a desire to survive, therefore is it reasonable to believe there is life after death.

All animals try to survive, so by your argument they all have life after death. Teleology is tricky stuff, it’s easy to confuse cause with effect.

 

[IWantGod]

Yet it wasn’t obvious to anyone before Darwin 1859 and Mendel 1866. Before that everyone thought God had designed the species exactly as they are now. Some still do.

.

The point is that if you don’t have lungs to breath, you are not going to survive. Everybody knows that whether they believe in evolution or not

 

[IWantGod]

Your desire to survive is a result of natural selection - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

Natural selection is about having traits that favor survival of the species.

 

[Wesrock]

We have a desire to survive, therefore is it reasonable to believe there is life after death. Or to put it another way, is it reasonable to think there is an ultimate fulfillment of our lives on the bases that we have an innate desire to live.

I would say that all living things always have a desire to preserve their lives. But I’d think humans are the only species that have a desire to preserve their lives for always.

IWantGod, I’d suggest the following blog post by Professor Ed Feser for more on the distinction and how your point could be better formulated: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguments-from-desire.html?m=1

 

[IWantGod]

Yes it does, this aspect is called genetic variation - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01.

Genetic mutations explains the physical existence of physical mechanisms, but like the mind and self-driven processes like freewill, it doesn’t offer an ontological explanation of why the desire for life exists at all. How do you sufficiently describe desire in purely physical terms? Physical mechanisms are not enough to explain teleological processes, a process that acts for meaningful ends such as survival.

 

[IWantGod]

I would say that all living things always have a desire to preserve their lives. But I’d think humans are the only species that have a desire to preserve their lives for always.

IWantGod, I’d suggest the following blog post by Professor Ed Feser for more on the distinction and how your point could be better formulated: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguments-from-desire.html?m=1

Thanks.

 

[inocente]

Genetic mutations explains the physical existence of physical mechanisms, but like the mind and self-driven processes like freewill, it doesn’t offer an ontological explanation of why the desire for life exists at all. How do you sufficiently describe desire in purely physical terms? Physical mechanisms are not enough to explain teleological processes, a process that acts for meaningful ends such as survival.

I think you must be making it complicating it somewhere, but it’s very simple.

Take a population of rabbits. Genetic variation makes some of them bigger, others smaller etc. It also means traits vary. Some rabbits, when they hear a noise, feel fear and run away. Others are less bothered. They have a greater chance of becoming lunch for a fox, so they don’t survive as long and have fewer offspring. Therefore in the next generation, more rabbits have the feel-fear-and-run gene. Rinse and repeat. The fear response increases in every following generation.

In the same way, every trait which contributes to a desire to survive in humans is in competition with every trait which can’t be bothered to survive, The can’t-be-bothered individuals tend to take more risks so they don’t survive as long and have fewer offspring. Therefore in the next generation, more people have the desire to survive. Rinse and repeat.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you must be making it complicating it somewhere, but it’s very simple.

Take a population of rabbits. Genetic variation makes some of them bigger, others smaller etc. It also means traits vary. Some rabbits, when they hear a noise, feel fear and run away. Others are less bothered. They have a greater chance of becoming lunch for a fox, so they don’t survive as long and have fewer offspring. Therefore in the next generation, more rabbits have the feel-fear-and-run gene. Rinse and repeat. The fear response increases in every following generation.

In the same way, every trait which contributes to a desire to survive in humans is in competition with every trait which can’t be bothered to survive, The can’t-be-bothered individuals tend to take more risks so they don’t survive as long and have fewer offspring. Therefore in the next generation, more people have the desire to survive. Rinse and repeat.

Your missing the point. It is irrelevant that certain traits survive and others do not. This fact has no causal or explanatory value regarding the existence of teleological relationships.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I think you must be making it complicating it somewhere, but it’s very simple.

The fear response increases in every following generation. .

Have you got evidence the “fear response” increases in every following generation?

As far as I know foxes are just as good now at catching rabbits as they were in the year dot, and the rabbits still get caught. But the foxes and the rabbits are still foxes and rabbits.

They haven’t become new species, no matter how much natural selection gets thrown at them.

I’d also like to know why some insects pupate, dissolving into a chemical soup while in that state and then rebuilding themselves from the ground up as moths and butterflies.

Why would “evolution” lead to that? What process would have blindly led to a creature dissolving itself so to speak and then rebuilding itself from scratch, and not only that, but creating something beautiful in the process such as the butterfly.

Evolution is a long, long way from being proven in my books.

 

[inocente]

Your missing the point. It is irrelevant that certain traits survive and others do not. This fact has no causal or explanatory value regarding the existence of teleological relationships.

Yikes this is hard work . Try to stay with me bro. The theory has been around since 1859. Traits develop through genetic variation, a blind process. They survive through natural selection, a blind process. So there are no preordained goals, and no teleological relationships.

It steers itself without design, direction, goals or teleology. Now do you understand why creationists don’t like evolution?

 

[inocente]

Have you got evidence the “fear response” increases in every following generation?

As far as I know foxes are just as good now at catching rabbits as they were in the year dot, and the rabbits still get caught. But the foxes and the rabbits are still foxes and rabbits.

They haven’t become new species, no matter how much natural selection gets thrown at them.

I’d also like to know why some insects pupate, dissolving into a chemical soup while in that state and then rebuilding themselves from the ground up as moths and butterflies.

Why would “evolution” lead to that? What process would have blindly led to a creature dissolving itself so to speak and then rebuilding itself from scratch, and not only that, but creating something beautiful in the process such as the butterfly.

Evolution is a long, long way from being proven in my books.

I think it doesn’t matter whether individuals accept heliocentricism, general relativity, quantum theory, evolution, genetics, etc. unless their work involves them. Those working in the life sciences find evolution and genetics useful to their work, they provide answers which no alternative does.

Your questions imply you don’t understand evolution and I’m not a teacher, so here’s a list of resources for learning, from the Catholic University of America - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

 

[IWantGod]

Yikes this is hard work . Try to stay with me bro. The theory has been around since 1859. Traits develop through genetic variation, a blind process. They survive through natural selection, a blind process. So there are no preordained goals, and no teleological relationships.

It steers itself without design, direction, goals or teleology. Now do you understand why creationists don’t like evolution?

You are confusing my use of the word teleology with the idea that God is a mechanic that puts things together. That is not my argument at all. I am not William Paley. My ideas are more n line with Aquinas and he accepts the existence of blind secondary causes.

A blind process does not mean that things don’t act to specific and meaningful ends…The production of life is a very teleological process. The reason being is because it implies the existence of information that specifically acts for the end we call life; a reproducing self-maintaining holistic organism… And it is precisely the fact that it is a blind process that calls for a teleological explanation…It doesn’t matter that this involves a blind natural process. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

That’s only true if you buy into the metaphysical naturalism that Sam Harris and his boys are promoting.

 

[inocente]

You are confusing my use of the word teleology with the idea that God is a mechanic that puts things together. That is not my argument at all. I am not William Paley. My ideas are more n line with Aquinas and he accepts the existence of blind secondary causes.

A blind process does not mean that things don’t act to specific and meaningful ends…The production of life is a very teleological process. The reason being is because it implies the existence of information that specifically acts for the end we call life; a reproducing self-maintaining holistic organism… And it is precisely the fact that it is a blind process that calls for a teleological explanation…It doesn’t matter that this involves a blind natural process. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

That’s only true if you buy into the metaphysical naturalism that Sam Harris and his boys are promoting.

So you agree that same process instilled a desire to survive in all animals, including us.

Now go back to your OP, where you say we “have a desire to survive, therefore is it reasonable to believe there is life after death”. So as I said before, if that were true, it would follow that all animals have life after death, since they have exactly the same desire instilled through exactly the same process.

But that’s not what the Church teaches. My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that only humans have eternal life, because God gives us alone an immortal soul, not because a blind process installed a desire to survive.

 

[swanlinnet]

“If you find that the idea of something fulfills your nature, is it reasonable to have faith that the object of this fulfillment actually exists?”

Well…if, as you say, the idea fulfills your nature then you are already fulfilled, are you not ? Whether it exists or not is neither here nor there.

Bishop Berkeley wouldnt’ mind me saying that all fulfillment exists exclusively in the mind. And that ‘existence’ beyond this realm of idealism does not exist at all.

If, on the other hand, you speak of a desire and its subsequent fulfillmet in satisfaction, then I reckon ‘faith’ in your ability to secure it is, among other things, contingent upon a realistic appraisal of your own ability. Since all human beings can lack ability Faith in the real sense of the word is something essential to life.

Vince

 

[fisherman_carl]

If you find that the idea of something fulfills your nature, is it reasonable to have faith that the object of this fulfillment actually exists?

We get hungry, there is food.

We get horny, there is sex.

We have a desire to survive, therefore is it reasonable to believe there is life after death. Or to put it another way, is it reasonable to think there is an ultimate fulfillment of our lives on the bases that we have an innate desire to live.

Yes, and it seems like this unhappiness and desire for something more to life is universal. I was just reading about this last night. Buddhism tries to deny this desire by saying that the thing you desire is not actually distinct from you and therefore you should not desire what is already one with you. So it deals with the desire by trying to deny the desire so that the goal is not to desire anything. This view denies the reality that we all experience including the distinction between us and other things including other people.

Similarly, stoicism says that all our desires and emotions are chosen by our will and therefore we need to simply control them by using our will. It would say you are unhappy because you chose to be unhappy, but if you simply exercised your will you could be happy. This has some truth but is taken too far. For instance it denies there is a natural emotional response. For example grieving at a funeral is something we would consider normal and natural. You would not tell someone who is grieving you are only sad because you chose to be sad. There is a real objective fact to be sad about. Someone has denied. It is not just all in your head. So stoicism too is a denial of reality.

Hinduism is similar to Buddhism in that it teaches “liberation” from desires of life and union with the divine. Ultimately, the goal is to escape worldly pursuits and the world cycle of death and rebirth to enter Nirvana, where these desires will be no more.

The existentialist denies there is an ultimate objective purpose to everything and says that we can apply our own purpose to life. This however is a fools gold as ascribing ones own purpose to existence does not in fact give it one. If I ascribe one purpose and you ascribe a different contradictory one we can’t both be right. The existentialist says that we must change our desire, settling for something less than what we thought we needed.

Christianity is the only one that treats our desire for transcendence as real. And that those desires correspond to something outside of ourselves and can be fulfilled through a relationship with God. Christianity treats our longing for God the same or as real as longing for food and water. Whereas in comparison Hinduism and Buddhism would try to say there is no desire for food or water. Stoicism would say to choose to not desire it. It’s all in your head . An existentialist would say we must change our desire for food into something else. Do you see anything wrong with these other views? Only Christianity makes sense of the data. Christianity acknowledges the desire and offers something that will actually fulfill it.