T
thinkandmull
Guest
how can simple random fact satisfy any of the big questions?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
Wesrock
Guest
The original topic was whether teleology is necessary with science. I don’t view them as contradictory at all or even in competition; they complement each other.
As for whether it implies God, well, there’s the question of how something could have certain ends if they don’t exist in some way. They obviosuly don’t physically exist in the being, and if we follow the logical arguments which I won’t go into here, we end up concluding they must exist in an intellect, and further steps which I’m passing over lead to God. It’s the Fifth Way.
Or, an alternative is just to argue whether belief in the principle of sufficient reason is more rational than not believing in the PSR. If PSR is true, and I believe it is far and away more rational to think it true than not, said natural laws could not just be brute facts and we end up with some sort of eternal ultimate reality which is what we mean when we say God.
Sorry for the minimal effort post. It’s difficult to find time to fully engage.
B
Bradski
Guest
Nature isn’t random.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Coincidences are still random. You think God allows random things to happen, random even to Himself? So He says “I approve of this however it turns out”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So you don’t believe in ultimate meanings at all. You just exist and that is it huh?
B
Bradski
Guest
No. I’m an atheist, remember.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The second question was for you
B
Bradski
Guest
The answer covers both questions.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
Ok, let me see if I can make myself clearer. Perhaps we could start with a couple of questions to help clear things up:
(1) Do you think absolutely everything in the universe “acts for a purpose” or just certain things? If only certain things, what kind of things would they be and how would you know this? And,
(2) What purpose does the universe taken as a whole serve? And how is this ultimate purpose known by us, for example, through Revelation only, or through the use of natural reason?
Thanks.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Coincidences are “random” in the sense that there is an explanation for each factor but no reason why they converge. We know why an earthquake strikes a particular place and why people live there but there is nothing else to explain. It is what may be described as an “irrational fact”, i.e. sheer chance! God obviously knows what will happen and permits such tragedies because they are inevitable in a physical universe. How could they all be prevented without defeating the purpose of creating a fundamentally predictable system?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
“Chance or random” pertains not to things or events, but rather to our inability to explain why something occurs as it does. If we were omniscient and could see all the causes at work in the universe we would never speak of them as chance or random, but rather as predictable causes and effects. In other words, law rules in the physical universe, and the only place where it does not rule is in the mind of man, who chooses his acts not by necessity or randomly, but by freely willing them. Given this scenario, if God exists and created this universe, all is subject to his omniscient and omnipotent providence or governance. The destiny of the universe exists in the mind of God. God cannot be surprised by random events as we can be, because he already knows all that is past, present, and future. To the atheist chance is real. To God, there is no such thing as chance.
I
inocente
Guest
There’s an obvious point which might to overlooked.
The scientific method is about trying to falsify hypotheses (disprove with empirical evidence).
Teleological claims are rarely if ever open to falsification.
The scientific method cannot be used with claims not open to falsification.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If it could be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that all our mental activity has physical causes it would falsify the teleological claim that we are rational beings with free will who can choose what to believe, how to behave and who to love, thereby fulfilling the purposes for which we are created.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is true, Charlie, but it doesn’t exclude the occurrence of irrational events like intrinsically inexplicable coincidences of which God is aware and prevents if He chooses to do so - like earthquakes in an inhabited region. I’m sure He does so on many occasions and ensures that many people are not injured or killed. There could be far more catastrophes in the world for which we are responsible. Mexico City is a disaster waiting to happen…
I
inocente
Guest
I’d bet that many will say it’s already been demonstrated beyond their reasonable doubt.
Yet they still expect to be held morally responsible, and still fall in love, and still freely choose who to vote for, and what to believe.
But sure, followers of Descartes rue the day. RIP substance dualism.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Yes, God’s providence includes not only the laws of nature that are deterministic, but also variations from those laws by sheer fiats of Divine will, such as miracles. The instance of the first living organism coming together all at once, abiogenesis, with every potential for evolution already planted in it seems to me the most evident example of miracle by Providence.
“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I have read a lot of Descartes and he says that the soul and the body form “one substance”. What does dualism mean in that context and why did you bring him up? Just curious
I
inocente
Guest
Could you quote where he says that? He invented substance dualism - according to him, mind and body are different substances, one immaterial and the other material.
“Descartes’ primary metaphysical justification of the distinction of mind and body is the Argument from Indivisibility. He writes, “there is a great difference between a mind and a body, because the body, by its very nature, is something divisible, whereas the mind is plainly indivisible. . . insofar as I am only a thing that thinks, I cannot distinguish any parts in me. . . . Although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, nevertheless, were a foot or an arm or any other bodily part amputated, I know that nothing would be taken away from the mind. . .” (1980, p. 97). Decartes argues that the mind is indivisible because it lacks extension. The body, as an object that takes up space, can always be divided (at least conceptually), whereas the mind is simple and non-spatial. Since the mind and body have different attributes, they must not be the same thing, their “unity” notwithstanding.” - iep.utm.edu/dualism/
T
tonyrey
Guest
The problem with scientific explanation is that it confines itself to what has occurred and ignores what will occur as if the past is more significant than the future! In that respect it is regressive rather than progressive. No wonder Steven Weinberg believes that “It is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves.” pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-frame.htmlhttp:
//www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-frame.html
What he fails to explain is how we can transform “this unloving, impersonal universe” if we are merely cogs in the machine of nature incapable of violating the principle of conservation of energy. According to his scheme of things we are the products of events beyond our control and cannot possibly be independent agents making our own decisions. He doesn’t take scientific determinism to its logical conclusion that self-determination is an illusion, that we are merely helpless spectators in an impersonal and meaningless universe and that “a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves” is sheer fantasy which cloaks fatalism. There is no room for purpose in science because it doesn’t cater for persons and “we” don’t even exist!
- Status