Talk:Teleological argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

the above added in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Tarl Cabot 08:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Kindly delineate which specific issues are in dispute. (This article currently needs cleanup and better articulation, but it is not clear exactly what might be in factual dispute.)Kenosis 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Removing a reference to Cicero's argument (since been replaced)

Removing this, at least until someone clarifies if it is a summary or a quotation:

If a watch is found lying on the ground in a wood, upon examining we can see that it is very complex and we might conclude that this object is too complicated to have emerged out of nothing, we might assert that there must have been a watchmaker. Since the Universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it follows that the Universe must also have had a designer.

--Ryguasu

The above paragraph is a summation of the famous watchmaker's argument by William Paley

--Peter Robinett

To clarify: are the best teleological arguments always proofs by contradiction? I can't think of any variations that aren't, but perhaps someone else knows more about this. --Ryguasu 19:42, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--I don't think that it would be appropriate to say that the best teleological arguments are proofs by contradiction. In fact, I don't know if any of them are proofs by contradiction. Although it is tempting to say that the argument from fine-tuning is a reductio ad absurdum (i.e. if you suppose that the universe is life-sustaining by chance, then you suppose something impossible or exceedingly unlikely) this type of argument is best classified by an argument by explanation to best inference. In this case, the proponent of the anthropic priniciple claims that the best explanation is design. Other arguments, such as one dismissed by Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, rest on analogical reasoning. --becks028 4:50 PM, 4 Feb 2006

[edit] What is a teleological argument?

To state a blanket formula for teleological arguments, as in this article, is erroneous and leads the reader to believe that it is the only argument, which is untrue. Stronger teleological arguments do exist. Argument from irreducible complexity as put forth by Michael J. Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" is particularly effective as a teleological argument. In fact, because of this book the American Academy of Biochemists changed their creed from total acceptance of evolution to acceptance of the possibily for an intellegent designer.

[Per Google, there is no such organization as the American Academy of Biochemists. What was intended?]

I think we need to come to an agreement about what the scope of "teleological argument" is. You seem to think that "teleological argument" is usually used to cover all the arguments for God that can be parodied/summarized like this: "The universe exhibits too much X not to have been made by God"? X might be "design", "complexity", "harmoniousness", "non-randomness", etc.. What I'm wondering is this: is "teleological" really the right adjective to describe these arguments? If teleology has to do with design for a purpose, then what's the purpose in the universe being complex, harmonious, or non-random? Only in the case of design (which by definition has to do with purpose) does the connection to teleology clear. It seems that either A) these latter cases aren't really "teleological arguments", or B) "teleological argument" now applies to a wider range of arguments than would be logical if it's meaning was strictly a function of the two component words. Which (if either) or these is the case?
Another question is whether arguments not about God in particular count as teleological arguments. I think one could argue one way or the other about whether it counts if you replace "God" with "Intelligent Designer". Some similar arguments don't count, however; although many teleological argument can easily be converted into an argument that life did not start on Earth but came from other planets, for example, these aren't to be called "teleological arguments".
What do you say? --Ryguasu 21:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then I must agree.

It is my understanding that you mean that the theory that life started on other planets is called a teleological argument by some, but which doesn't fall under the classic definition.

If, though, to say that to use the term "intellegent designer" instead of the the word "God" is not a teleological argument, then I disagree.

The teleological argument is, in fact, over whether it is an intellegent designer or not, and not whether it is God or not. The term "intellegent designer" does not go beyond the scope of teleology. Nay. It encompasses it completely, as it accounts for the two common theories: a)that God created life and the universe, or b)that aliens created life on the earth (Not that life came from another world). Certainly, to say that life on earth was created by aliens still poses the question of where they came from, and were we designed off of their model? If so, then posit "a" is still valid and cancels out posit "b". However, since we've never met these aliens, we don't know what they are made of, and if they themselves can be reduced to irreducible parts that themselves demonstrate the likelihood of design...And the argument could go on and on. Therefore, the quest for alien design is mute and void until such aliens should come to lay claim to the creation of man.

In additon the component words are "tele-" and "-ology", -ology meaning "the study of", and tele meaning "over a long distance" in one definition, and "completion" in another. Under even the second definition, I find the word lacking as a proper description for this sort of argument. However, since "genealogy" is already taken by a perfectly suitable field of endeavor, then I can't think of a better term for it. -- Corey 03:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, you make a good case for discussing "intelligent designers" instead of "God"; about the only thing "God" has going for Him is historical precedence. So it seems we actually agree on most things. I'm still unclear, though, if you think the article should discuss "arguments from complexity", "arguments from universal harmony", etc. under the heading of "teleological argument", or if they should be considered closely related but nonetheless different from teleological arguments? --Ryguasu 04:46, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be long dead, but I thought I'd point out that the OED suggests that "tele-" comes from Greek τέλος, which simply means "end". I wonder if the "long distance" interpretation has just been grafted on by us westerners without any real understanding of the original word. I would also point out that "-ology" has been interestingly corrupted from the original Greek λόγος, meaning simply "word". I agree, in any case, that the invention of a word (teleological) for such a deep issue has done nothing but further confound things. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I consider those more or less teleology. And, interesting enough, in reviewing the dictionary term (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language), I discovered the definition that corresponds with the second definition of "tele-" as I discussed above. Note also the other defintions, which correspond to arguments from complexity and arguments from universal harmony, and is actually a quite broad defenition:

  1. the docrtine that final causes exist.
  2. the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.
  3. such design or purpose.
  4. the belief that purpose and desgn are a part of or are apparent in nature.
  5. (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization. {This last definition being congruous with the living Gaia theory. While this view does not entirely preclude an intellegent designer, it does detract from the idea, encouraging evolutionary theory and/or worship of nature. I personally do not subscribe to such a view.} -- Corey 08:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There are two closely related arguments: the teleological argument for God, and the teleological argument for an intelligent designer. The former is more historically interesting, while the latter is more defensible, and perhaps more relevant today. Martin 09:32, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since "teleological argument" and "argument from design" are phrases from philosophy, I think it would make sense for us to use them as philosophers do. After consulting The Routelege Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Oxford Compendium of Philosophy, and Britanica, I think it is fair to say that philosophers only use these phrases when there is a question of "purpose" or "design" (which implies purpose) involved.

What does this mean for us? Well, critical to mention are arguments like "the eye is pretty obviously designed for seeing, so there must be an intelligent designer" as well as "the cosmological constants are pretty obviously designed to allow life to exist, so there must be an intelligent designer". But arguments from complexity, harmony, non-randomness do not count so obviously.

Take the "irreducible complexity" argument. It could be part of some kind of argument from design:

  1. The eye is apparently designed for seeing.
  2. There are only three ways things can appear to be designed: 1) if there actually were designed by humans, 2) if they actually were designed by some other intelligent designer, or 3) if evolution made them appear to be designed.
  3. The eye is irreducibly complex.
  4. Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution.
  5. The eye was not designed by humans.
  6. Therefore, the eye was created by some non-human intelligent designer, who must therefore exist.

In this case, we have a real teleological argument. However, irreducible complexity can also be used for non-teleological arguments, e.g.:

  1. The eye was obviously designed by some mechanical process.
  2. The eye is irreducibly complex.
  3. Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution as currently discussed in the scientific literature.
  4. So scientists have yet to uncover the natural process that explains the eye.

So "irreducible complexity" is not always a type of teleological argument.

Consider another kind of argument from complexity:

  1. Left to its own devices, the universe tends toward simplicity.
  2. In actuality, we see that the universe is rather complex.
  3. The best explanation for this unlikely happening is that an intelligent being has somehow interveined in the natural unfolding of the universe.

Even if this could be an argument for the existence of an intelligent God-like being, I don't think such an argument could count as a teleological argument, because it makes no claims about the aims of that being. So "argument from design" and "argument from unlikelihood of something or other" are not synonyms.

Any thoughts? --Ryguasu 23:09, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] link to SETI

The link to SETI is that SETI advocates believe that they can infer the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, merely by examining incoming signals - similarly, they believe that an alien species will be able to listen to carefully coded sequences of prime numbers and such, and the aliens will be able to determine that these sequences are the product of intelligent design.

I'll back down on AI, on reflection: the behaviourist school of AI suggests that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the actions of an intelligent agent - this is subtly different from the belief that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the creations of an intelligent agent: clearly there's still a link, but it is perhaps weaker. Martin 00:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SETI would not infer intelligence from a signal simply because a given string exhibits a pattern looks like design. They would have to find a non-repetitive match to a prediction based on the observed string. Proponents of design have failed to make any verifiable predictions. Occasionally a psychic will get a lucky hit, of course.
If your interpretation of the behaviorist school is correct, then it seems relevant. Just don't try to include all of the AI community.

Fairandbalanced 03:40, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Certainly SETI has a more traditional prediction-based approach than Intelligent Design advocates, but that's a difference in method, not a difference in belief.
To generalise massively, the AI community is behaviourist - it is the dominant paradigm, just as natural selection is the dominant paradigm amongst biologists. Martin 14:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The difference between confirming a prediction and inferring design by mining existing data for patterns is huge. See critiques of The Bible Code.
I suspect your interpretation of current AI is wrong, but I have not checked. At my last contact, they were interested in emulating intelligence, not detecting intelligent design. Fairandbalanced 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree that the difference in method is important. Maybe even huge. But it's still a difference only in method, not belief. Martin

As far as I know, SETIans are mainly searching for aliens on other planets that also formed through evolution, not aliens who created us. This is an critical distinction between searching for equal intellegence, and higher intellegence. The assumption is that if we get a signal pattern which is similar to what we would send out, than there must be other creatures that think like us out there responsible for that signal. As for Paley's watch: PEOPLE drop watches all the time, so we can assume it was a PERSON. But we don't know if GOD makes and drops watches all the time, so we can't tell whether GOD did it or not. So, by this argument, there is no way of confirming that God designed everything unless we had the same intellegence as God. --Macrowiz 07:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The articles for teleology and teleological argument are confused as to what "teleology" means, or at least what it has meant in the philosophical sense. Stating that God creates life spontaneously is not "teleological". Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument. Other philosophers and thinkers who have made "teleological arguments" are Aristotle, who phrases it in terms of "final cause", Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who talks about reality driving towards perfection in the Absolute, and Karl Marx, who offers a historicist teleology which describes a final state of human history that we're being driven to. I believe certain religions like Zoroastrianism have teleologies that talk about a process in nature driven towards a meaningful goal. Use of the concept "teleology" in any other way, is either new to me, or misunformed. Please, someone correct these articles! Brianshapiro

[edit] not a very sound argument

  • Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
  • Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).


These above are hooey. I'm a theist, and I think God is a fact obvious to those wise enough to know him, but this argument is silly. I donno that its right to say anything in the article (maybe its my own "personal research"?) but humans could have designed ourselves, and so could have space aliens, or a number of other entities. Just for sake of argument, how about the idea presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or the idea that future humans who have discovered time travel come back and genetically engineer us (or apes) to speed and alter our evoloution? However unlikely these ideas (or a thousand others) might be, they are not easilly excluded as a possibility. Sam Spade 06:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

actually, I think it may legitamately be critisized as an argument from lack of imagination. Sam Spade 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem with any god is that it's absolutely no reduction in complexity. It's a mere shifting of the complexity onto the god. So the whole theoretical framework includes the god (which is presumably not derived from something else), which is at least as complex as the world, plus the statement that god created the world. Therefore it is more complex than a theoretical framework which simply says that the world is just as it is. So any god hypothesis falls victim to Occam's razor. Icek 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph 3: clear anti-creationist bias

"This argument is very popular today in Iran and the United States, probably because it seems to be the most "scientific" argument for the existence of God. It is at the core of the theory of Intelligent Design. Opponents point to it failing to meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, particularly falsifiability and naturalism."

This argument is not at all scientific, and it is by no means the "most scientific argument for the existence of God". Nor is it at the core of the theory of Intelligent design. Paragraph 3 is obvious anti-creationist propaganda, and it must be removed. --ChrisDuben 19:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph seems to be talking to much about the intent of the arguers (probably because...) Paragraph should refer back to ID page for an in depth discussion of ID. Popular in "Iran and US" should be a direct quotation and cited, claims implying statistical facts (popularity) should be supported with statistics. -tznkai

[edit] Small change

"Most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection. They reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the existence of X but a better explanation. Thus they tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god."

Changed "existence of X" to "complexity of life." The former phrase leaves room to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. The replacement is more specific and deals directly with the argument over complexity.

-R Beschizza

[edit] Self-organization, Emergence, Ontological Reductionism

This article could do with a section on the relationship between these concepts and the TA. Any takers to get it started?

[edit] Design argument

It's been pointed out by many philosophers that the term 'argument from design' is question begging; after all, the claim that the universe is designed is part of what the argument is trying to prove, not a fact from which it argues. Writers like J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew have preferred 'arggument for or to design'. I've taken to calling it the 'design argument', which is both shorter and simpler, and neutral. I've changed the summary to reflect this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 2005 overhaul

I removed the SETI paragraph; it is completely irrelevant to anything in this article. The statement that the teleological argument and SETI share a logical foundation is wrong, and ridiculous. The teleological argument states that EVERYTHING self-evidently is designed by an extra-universal force, using means that couldn't occur without invoking the supernatural. SETI is based on the belief that if there is intelligent life in the universe they would purposely send transmissions using patterns that non-living objects are unlikely to ever make (e.g. ascending prime numbers). There isn't even much of a passing similarity between these two statements.

It is argued in defence that the outside force through which X came into being must then be explained. (See also the cosmological argument).

This is indefensible by either side, since it would require those who believe in God to explain how God came into being. There is no reason to include this sentence in the article. It lends no clarity to anything. This is equivalent to the reductio ad absurdum argument right after it, which I also took out, since it also lends nothing to the article. It is a badly formed reduction, and it is totally unnecessary, given the conceptual flaws in the teleological argument. If the reader wants a reductio ad aburdum, let them form their own. It's pretty easy.

I've removed every instance of "creationist" and "evolutionist" from this article, and most of the words that surrounded those terms, since it was all irrelevant. This article is about the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. Not contemporary intelligent design. Not creationism vs evolution. Not religion vs science. Not biblical literalism vs secular humanism. KEEP YOUR FUCKING EXTRANEOUS DEBATES THE FUCK OUT OF WIKIPEDIA.

I considered removing the "controversy" section entirely, since it was full of the extraneous debate shit I just mentioned. Instead I re-wrote it to say something meaningful about why things like the teleological argument form in the first place. That should be plenty controversial.

It is also irrelevant whether various religions differentiate between natural and supernatural. Once again, this is the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, people. Wake up. The teleological argument demands a diametrical opposition between "designed" and "evolved". The terms are mutually exclusive. Something evolved doesn't have a designer, and is therefore not designed. Something designed has a designer, and is therefore not evolved. Evolution, by definition, does not progress through the arbitrary whims of a designer. Design, by definition, does not occur through the blind forces of evolution.

Jesus fucking christ, people.

--69.209.242.45 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, although I agree with the sentiment, there is no diametric opposition between design and evolution. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of design, it merely makes it redundant as an explanatory factor. Design does not exclude evolution, it just says that design at some point in time was involved with the origin of certain features of life/the universe. -Superiority 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted all this. It may be that some of it could be reinstated (in modified form), but most of it was simply a matter of misunderstanding. A lot of that was terminology (e.g., to call it the argument from design is question begging, as was explained at the time of the change; premises can't be logically sound — they're either true or false, accepted or not accepted), but also of matters such as the relationship between the design argument and evolution (many people believe that design does indeed occur through evolution; in fact, that's the main position among non-fundamentalist Christians). The article needs work, but as a process, not as one person coming in, swearing and shouting at us, and making wholesale mistaken edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


I mostly agree with the revert. The changes of 69.209.242.45 move the slant highly towards scientific point-of-view. They also seem quite condescending towards people who take the view of the Teleological Argument. However, I did find a section that might be worth including if it were cleaned up a bit.
It is impossible for us to ever observe most of the universe to determine whether it shows a "stamp of design" and thus an extremely small number of examples on Earth are taken to answer the question for the whole universe. Even if it is shown that life on Earth was designed, it does not follow that the rest of the universe was, and it does not follow that life on Earth must have been designed by an omnipotent entity.
Any thoughts on this?
--Macrowiz 06:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The description here misses the point

"Premise 1: X was designed by an intelligent being."

Starting from here, the argument is laid down in great detail.

But this totally misses the point, right?

Please look at the bogus mathematical proof of 1=2 given at Division_by_zero#Fallacies_based_on_division_by_zero.

Then, would you say that the following is an accurate description of that "proof"?

  1. We know that x + x = x \quad
  2. Set x = 1
  3. From 1 and 2 follows 1 + 1 = 1
  4. From 3 follows 2 = 1
  5. From 4 follows 1 = 2

I'd say no. The description of the teleological argument in the article, like my example, hides the crucial fallacy by omitting the steps leading to Premise 1 and then painstakingly lays down every trivial step in the already trivial logic you need to go from there to the conclusion.

In one of the links [1] given in the article, there is a much better description of the teleological argument:

  1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
  2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
  3. Like effects have like causes.
  4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

I'd say we should rewrite that list of "conclusions" instead of keeping that red herring in the article. What do you say? --Hob Gadling 17:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This criticism still applies. In Teleological_argument#The_argument, the first point is already bogus and the rest is trivial. --Hob Gadling 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-occurred/have no cause

"X is too complex to have self-occurred (have no cause)."

The terms "self-occurred" and "have no cause" are a problem. Nothing in this universe has no cause. Something could be perceived as completely uncaused if it were randomly caused, but even then the cause is randomness itself and the premise should state so. The counter-arguments written against premise #1 argue that things could be unguided instead of designed.

Therefore, premise #1 should be corrected: "X is too complex to have occurred without design."

Either that or the counter-arguments are arguing against the wrong first premise.

Cause requires time. Also, you say "in this universe" - but is the universe itself "in the universe"? Your suggested replacement "to have occurred without design" is already part of the argument as in conclusion (2) "X must have been created by an intelligent being." But yes, I realise my mistake that the "self-occured" premise is indeed not part of the "official" recognised argument, and have changed it. Infinity0 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all rather confused. First, the claim that everything has a cause is itdelf in need of justification, but us, secondly, irrelevant to this premise. Thirdly, caused "by randomness itself" makes no sense. Fourthly, cause doesn't need time, especially in the context of the seventeenth-century and before (when "cause" was more a matter of explanation than merely efficient cause). (It's "i.e.", by the way.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Infinity0, good work correcting precedent #1. I like your wording there. Mel Etitis, you're right about "i.e." so I fixed that. But don't go reverting Infinity0's corrections without discussing them. All of your arguments above are against the old wording anyway, so why on earth did you revert it back to that?Fanblade 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring it all up at once, but for this to be a valid logical argument, each premise must have a logical relationship with the next through deductive reasoning. Now that we've adjusted the first premise, we must make an intermediate assertion before arriving at assertion #2, "Things can only be designed by intelligent beings." Only then is assertion #2 (now #3) valid. This is also a part of the "official" recognized argument. Yes, I can provide a source for this: "If the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it."Fanblade 23:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"for this to be a valid logical argument, each premise must have a logical relationship with the next through deductive reasoning."  ??? A deductively valid argument has to have a certain logical relationship (one of valid deduction, unsurprisingly) between its conclusion and its premises; there doesn't have to be any particular logical relationship between one premise and the next (and assertions can be neither valid nor invalid; they're true or false). What you mean is that there's a suppressed premise, without which the argument is invalid.
Moreover, I don't understand the reference to "the 'official' recognised argument". What on Earth does that mean? There are many versions of the argument, none of them more "official" than any other. Do you mean Aquinas' version? Paley's? Swinburne's? Whose?
My revert was a careless mistake, but while the article isn't terribly good, I don't see the current discussion helping it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm offering constructive criticism of the logical argument presented in the article. Mel, you don't even seem to be disagreeing with my proposal. You're just picking apart my wording and complaining that the article isn't better. The core of this article is the argument, and it is missing an important statement. Can anyone cite a reason why this statement should not be included? It's being implied by premise #2, but not explicitly stated.Fanblade 15:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think "Things can only be designed by intelligent beings." is correct - the argument says that X is too complex to be undesigned - basically, it admits that simple things can be undesigned. Infinity0 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that trying to formalise (even to semi-formalise) the argument is unhelpful (and especially in an introductory encyclopædia article like this). The argument comes in many different forms, differing from each other in various ways; trying to find one underlying logical structure in this way can't be done, and trying to do it just gives the false impression that the argument has a simple, underlying logical structure, while glossing over the significant differences between versions.
There are general things that can be said (involving the drawing of distinctions between the notions of "design" that feature in different versions, as well as of the strands of the argument found in the various versions in different combinations. When it comes to the arguments themselves, though, I think that they need to be explained clearly and concisely, but in plain English prose.
Finally, some versions of the argument stress complexity, others stress certain sorts of pattern, others stress the presence of purpose (which is unrelated to complexity). In other words, I partly agree with Infinity, but I think that he's still oversimplifying things. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, whoever horsePunchKid is, I think his recent revision is clear and to the point. I'm fine with it now. Anyone else?Fanblade 22:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I gave above. Even if it were adequate as an account of one sort of design argument (the sort that appeals to complexity, or pattern) it fails to capture the other main sort, which is concerned with purpose. Many advocates of design arguments have no problem at all with the idea that complexity has come about naturally; they argue that it's the presence of purpose that does the work in indicating the existence of god (the argument from fine tuning, or anthropic coincidence, is of this kind). Why oversimplify? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, go write it down then :) The argument needs to be extended a little anyway, maybe you could could add a paragraph or two about different variations of it. Infinity0 15:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If term weren't about to start, and my watchlist weren't ludicrously long, I'd do that. As it is, it'll have to wait until I have time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had been reading the discussion before I made that edit. It seemed sufficiently innocuous that it was worth making the edit without asking permission of the debaters. ;) I still think "God exists" is rather redundant when you've already accepted that "God is...", but I also understand the value in explicitly stating the desired conclusion of a proof. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Supposed" evidence

I believe that the first sentence in this article needs to remain as "based on supposed evidence of design in nature" (emphasis mine). To remove this word is to tacitly cede the entire basis for the argument, which I find unacceptable, particularly in the first sentence of the article. I do agree that "supposed" is a somewhat pejorative term, but the proponents of Intelligent Design are very keen on these little semantic games. Leaving the exact sense of the terms up to the interpretation of the reader is dangerous; I would prefer that the introduction to the article be expanded rather than reduced. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence is abundantly clear. It's what you take to the judge and jury; it's not the verdict. I certainly appreciate the concern, not wanting to see things degenerate to the quagmire of the ID article, where nearly every paragraph has a loaded, derogatory term or anti-something phrase thrown in, making it impossible for the reader to get a fair sense of the concept or its criticisms. The essence of this article is philosophical, and a thoughtful tone is required. Supposed is cheap journalism. Let's make the argument itself as clear as possible, and the criticisms as clear as possible, and let them stand on their own. Gandalf2000 07:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you've pretty much just restated what you said in the edit summary; I didn't intend to make you do that. So more constructively, would it be appropriate to give some summary of the criticism in the introductory paragraph? I certainly feel it would be appropriate, especially given how scant the introduction is, but perhaps I am just overly eager to criticize the notion. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe you are "overly eager to criticize the notion". There is plenty of opportunity in the course of the article, or in a separate section. But I stand by my initial observation -- "supposed" is inflammatory and unnecessary. It's only usage is a sideways insult. Consider any of these examples: "Thursday is named after the supposed Norse god Thor." "Conservative politics is based upon the supposed principles of limited government and free enterprise." Use another term, if you really need an adjective for "evidence" ("perceived" or "apparent" come to mind), but the word "evidence" is quite neutral already. Gandalf2000 05:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Your examples certainly helped me see how negatively it could be perceived. I'm content with the current revision, in any case. I still want to see the introductory paragraph expanded, but nothing is really springing to mind... —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reductio ad Absurdum?

"Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
Conclusion: one of the three premises is false."

Interestingly, this infinate chain has mathematical backing a la Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, start with theory T, which is sufficient to explain basic arithmatic. Then there exists statement s in T such that s cannot be proven nor disproven by T. However, theory T' can be constructed such that T < T' (or everything in T can be proven in T') and s is provable in T'. However, then there exists statement s' in T' such that s' is unprovable in T'. This chain can be extended ad infinatum. I don't think this merits a change in the article, since it states that this is an arguement used.. not that it's a valid arguement.. thoughts?--Graatz 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't heard that line of reasoning applied to this argument before, though it's quite natural. Unfortunately, a devout ID supporter would undoubtedly reject premise #2, though I'm curious how well they'd be able to defend the rejection... —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This counter-argument is common to arguments for the existence of god where god is elevated to a status beyond the universe. It can be applied to the Cosmological argument, amongst many others. Infinity0 19:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This infinite chain is not related to the infinite chain of proofs of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The individual statements in this chain are single premises and conclusions designed to prove one point, not a whole system designed to prove another whole system. Infinity0 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps not a direct one-to-one relation as such, but one can concieve of a 'super'-universe such that the realities of this universe are a proper subset. One can then picture an inhabitant of said universe molding this slightly inferior one. The question might still remain as to how this being came into existance, but certainly there may be some 'super'-universe-prime which is again another superset... the logical arguement is certainly suspect to Occam's razor but certainly isn't one I'd call "absurd" per se, especially given modern science's increasingly successful ability to reconstruct key elements of the Big Bang and the origin of life (too lazy to refind some of the sources, but I suppose I will if anyone asks)... If, conceivably, scientists could put all the pieces together in the future, why couldn't have scientists of some higher universe done the same for ours? And, given if one thinks this is a real possibility, should we consider it irony that the God being believed in is actually a scientist?--Graatz 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, can you clarify this some more? I've only just learnt about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in maths, I gather that it basically says you cannot prove the consistency of a closed logical system. Are you suggesting there might be an infinite chain of container universes? But how can infinity actually exist, except as an abstract concept?? Infinity0 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Godel basically set forth a methodology by which to use the statements in closed theory T to define statement s such that s if s is provable in T, T is inconsistant, and if T is consistant, s is not provable. This is not to say that s cannot be proven, but simply that a better system must be constructed. However, this better system is subject to the same failing. Mathematicians certainly aren't focused on "winning" against Godel (perhaps in such a way that all statement s such that s is unprovable in T are trivial/uninteresting, etc), but it is a big problem to the fundamentals of mathematical philosophy. For example, it is because of Godel's incompleteness that finitism is an impossible notion. Now that that's cleared, yes, I am suggesting the logical possibility of infinate container universes, although there's certainly no scientific evidence suggesting it, and the possibility has a weaker logical backing than does a single universe model, since another universe adds a frivilous element into the fray.--Graatz 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
But Godel's model is based on a logical system, not real objects. The universe isn't the same as a logical system, because its components are real things, not abstract concepts linked together by logic. Infinity0 19:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of the existence of an actual infinity, I think that the onus is on the person who denies the possibility, For an in-depth debate on this, see William Lane Craig & Quentin Smith Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology; for a more introductory discussion, see Quentin Smith & L. Nathan Oaklander Time, Change, and Freedom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's interesting that we can imagine infinity but at the same time find it easier to deny its existance--Graatz
Of course part of the problem is that to many people (in fact, essentially everyone without a strong mathematics background, I imagine) infinity just means "a lot". But infinity is beyond the concept of "a lot". It is something fundamentally different such that it causes all sorts of logical problems, not just practical problems. "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space." (D.A.) —HorsePunchKid→龜 17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Hehe... infinity isn't "mind-bogglingly big". But I think infinity is only a concept in mathematics and can't exist in the real world, for the reason that you can't measure infinity (and that which exists can be measured). You might disagree with my assumption, I welcome any arguments. Infinity0 19:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
These are worthwhile issues, but off-topic. The Kalam cosmological argument is where the issue of actual v. potential infinity is hashed out, starting with the points made by Infinity0.--Gandalf2000 17:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Matter of Philosophy or Science

I'm not sure the "scientific support to their faith" and corresponding criticism ("neither falsifiable nor natural") belong in this article. (However, these issues do belong in the ID article.) The teleological argument is a philosophical one. Many philosophical arguments, though logically formed and perhaps derived from scientific evidence, are neither falsifiable nor natural in and of themselves. I almost changed it to "philosophical support to their faith" and deleted the corresponding criticism, but wanted to bring it up for discussion first.Gandalf2000 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point saying "philosophically" since all the arguments are philosophical. Also, it would be taking focus from the point that ID attempts to justify God scientifically. The rest of the article is about the philosophy, so I think this one paragraph of science is reasonable. Infinity0 18:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

The words "first (and therefore second)" make no sense. This is poorly written and does not address the watchmaker analogy - we CAN infer design by looking at an object. In fact, science is based on observation and inference.

It makes perfect sense. You CANNOT infer design. A watch is different from the universe in that (the atoms in) a watch is regular, whereas the universe is mixed and chaotic. By the "watch argument's" logic, you can "infer" that diamonds are so beautiful they must have a designer, but they are actually created, without outside interference, in very high temperatures and pressures.

You can also argue that the watch did NOT have a designer, since the watchmaker is just a collection of atoms randomly formed from the processes in the universe which are natural and self-sustaining.

Also, who designed the designer?

The above argument ignores the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), according to which the "intelligent designer" is God, for whom there is no prior cause since He has always existed.

No, the "above argument" points out that the assumption "it has always existed" is illogical and circular.

Infinity0 18:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forms of the teleological argument?

From the article:

Simplistic forms of the teleological argument assume that because life is complex, it must have been designed. Some characterise this approach as an argument from ignorance. Stronger forms rely on concepts such as irreducible complexity, which was proposed by Michael Behe.

I'm unable to see how the irreducible complexity argument is any stronger or in fact meaningfully different from the "simplistic" form described - it seems to reduce (um) to the same argument, and is subject to the same criticism. My inclination is to simply remove the quoted paragraph from the article. Irreducible complexity should certainly be referred to here (since it is a form of the teleological argument), but it's already linked from later in the article. Any comments before I hack and slash (something this article could use a little more of in general ;) ? - toh 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the paragraph tried to say that most of the time people just assert that life's complexity means design, but sometimes someone comes up with something that tried to explain why. I've reworded it, see what you think of it. Infinity0 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Y not God

The teleological argument is one for the existence of God. It confuses the topic to insert "Y" in the summation. As commonly argued for millenia, God is the designer, not Gods or Goddesses, and not extraterrestrials. The suggestion that there might be alternative designers may be objections to the argument, but they are not part of the argument. --Gandalf2000 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the teleological argument is necessarily an argument for the existence of God. Paley uses the design argument to establish the existence of a designer, then goes further and links the evidence about the designer to scripture to establish that the designer is God. And Plato used teleological arguments in reference to the demi-urge. The first sentence should not equate the TA to an argument for the existence of God. ID proponents claim (in some contexts) that they are using design arguments, but not arguing for the existence of God. And I'm pretty sure there are other historical examples of design arguments that were not God arguments (aside from Plate and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers).

--ragesoss 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I added "or a creator" after God in the first sentence. I feel like there should be a more elegant way to say this, but I can't think of it.--ragesoss 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The teleological argument is not 'necessarily' an argument for the existence of the God of the monotheistic religions. You are correct to distinguish between two steps in the argument (1) that there is a designer and (2) that the designer is God. However, if (2) is not emphasized, a critical part of the argument is missed. Although it is true that (1) is not argued for apart from (2) in some context, the vast majority of arguments considered teleological by philosophers of religion include arguments that seek to establish God as the designer. The article should be reformed to include part (2) of the argument. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something that is possible is always more likely true than something that is impossible

Assumptions

  • Something that is unlikely is always moret likely than somthing that is impossible.
  • The natural laws as we know them are true.
  • X is possible under the natural laws.

Therefore If the above assumptions are true then logically an explanation for X that is possible under the natural laws will always be more a likely than an explanation for X that is not possible under the natural laws.

Assumptions

  • A supernatural being cannot exist under the natural laws as we know them.
  • It is possible that X was caused by evolution.

Therefore If the all of the assumptions featured are true, then logically the hypothesis that X was caused by evolution is more likely to be true than the hypothesis that X was caused by a supernatural being.

Loophole If X is true, and if the probability that X happened under the natural laws as we know them is so small that it is more likely that the natural laws as we know them are incorrect than that X happened under those laws, then the natural laws as we know them would no longer be the most likely natural laws to be true. If this were to happen a supernatural being might not be supernatural under the new most likely natural laws.

Fixed the markup. What's this for? Infinity0 talk 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Reforms Needed

[edit] Fine-tuning/the anthropic principle

"The anthropic principle" is a contemporary design argument and it does not belong in the history section. Some more detail regarding the argument by figures such as Richard Swineburne would be useful. Perhaps, a new subsection could be added to discuss the fine-tuning argument and the creationist argument. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I made "the anthropic principle its own section, but I don't know enough to do justice to the fine-tuning argument at this point. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The argument

The "The argument" section includes only form of the teleological argument that is based on abduction. It would be beneficial to say some more about the analogical form criticized by Hume and Paley's deductive form. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the original argument didn't coincide with any of the major argument forms, I changed it to the popular analogical version and made it a little more rigorous. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument does not turn on complexity alone. The teleological argument is mostly based on the perceieved purposiveness of order. Hence, the analysis of the argument should be reformed to make this stick out. Becks028 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the introduction to reflect on the purposive order that the argument turns on. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You could makes these changes yourself instead of writing about how to make these changes :P Infinity0 talk 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the changes made by the anon. For example, he or she presented the design argument to be simply about purpose, but some versions concentrate primarily if not wholly on pattern. Similarly, the claim that the argument always involves two parts in the way claimed is simply not true; some early versions are presented in this way, and others can be analysed as having that form, but that's not the same thing. While I agree that the article isn't very good, that's unfortunately true of most Wikipdia articles in this area. Because everyone who's ever taken a single philosophy course, or who has ever read a popular book on the subject (and even some who haven't even done that) think that she's an expert on the subject, the reliability found in articles on physics, maths, etc., seems to be impossible for philosophy. Adding religion to the mix serves to multiply the problems. That's not to say that we shouldn't try, but it's best to bear the barriers in mind; it can save disappointment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very antagonistic to the subject

While I admire the subtlety in which it is done, this article (like the one on Intelligent Design) is quite antagonistic to its subject.

It's quite comparable to letting a pro-choice or pro-life advocate write the "Abortion" entry, or letting a Republican or Democrat activist write the entries on Iraq or Bush.

It's interesting how the entries of say, the Rolling Stones or Miles Davis, would not be allowed to be written by someone who thought their music was rubbish, even though there are a few rational people out there who think that.

In short, it's not "Neutral Point-Of-View" - a central Wikipedia policy.

So, I've removed some blatant NPOV statements and added some counter-arguments (although there are more counter-arguments than I have time to properly state and add at the moment). (unsigned comment of 07:57, 5 March 2006 by user:Tarl Cabot.)

---

It's specifically under the "objections" section. I'll go tone it down a bit, but there is no need to delete the valid points. -- infinity0 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, this time I will give specifics:

  • I'm deleting the entire "Controversy" section. In philosophy, there is the argument and there are counter-arguments. There is also the history of the argument. In this case, the "Controversy" section is only a place to add additional arguments to appeal to emotion - which is not only irrelevant to philosophy, but ironically is counter to the scientific method.

Here are specifics:

As explained above by another, issues of "falsification" and science, are relevant to Intelligent Design and opposition thereof, but not to philsophical arguments. For example, "2+2=4" is a statement that cannot be falsified - just like all true statements. Thus, falsification is relevant to the interaction with ID specified in "History", but not to the argument overall.

In the next paragraph, the claim is being made that Neodarwinism has evidence, but Teleological Argument somehow does not have evidence merely because it is not falsifiable. Of course, this is nonsensical, and in fact, there is indeed evidence for the Teleological Argument, such as from Information Theory, the link for which was surreptiously removed by the previous editor, (undoubtedly without even having read the information in the link beforehand).

Third, creation of the universe is not a "miracle", as it is not contradictory to natural laws - there are many references to that point, including from Einstein. So, all references to the word "miracle" need to be removed.

Fourth, the "faith" argument is entirely contrary to NPOV, as both sides claim "faith" is necessary to believe their opponents point of view (cf scientism ).

Fifth, the fact that the Controversy section refers to Intelligent Design as the subject being argued, and not the Teleological Argument, leads one to posit that it is cut-and-pasted from an argument against ID, and so is not relevant to this page.

Also, advocacy pages were moved from External Links (which probably should be relatively neutral information) to References.

Tarl Cabot 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tarl Cabot: This is a fairly radical maneuver to remove a whole section and replace it with the Pope's POV-- I think many editors would even call it vandalism. The controversy may well be quite germane. Would you kindly endeavor to achieve a consensus on this page before making such radical deletions?Kenosis 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Everything in the section was NPOV, except for the last paragraph, which I retained and thus retitled the section, and added the Pope's comment as an example. Probably, Einstein should also be added as an example from "science". Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Intelligent Design is very closely related to this argument, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some aspects overlap. The teleological argument is precisely falsifiable. Its premises are not obvious axioms, and so they need to be tested.
The subject of Milk and Cheese overlap, but arguments against Cheese, are not likely to be relevant to discussion of drinking Milk. The references to ID in the Controversy section were all to parts of ID that are not part of Teleological Argument. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, 2+2=4 is a falsifiable statement. Falsifiable only means "able to be verified as false OR true". Get two apples, and another two, and you get four. You've now falsified the statement as being true.
Look up "falsifiable" in the dictionary and you will find "capable of being proven false". Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"Falisifiable" doesn't mean "perhaps false". 2+2 = 4 is falsifiable since it would be proven false if 2+2 = 5. See the wikipedia article for mor details. Poktirity 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I editing the article using the revision before you edited; I missed the link. Sorry.
I don't see the problem with using the word "miracle". How do you define miracle?
Creation is not contrary to natural laws. As I said, cf Einstein on that. "Miracle" is a term used to bring forth an image of the beliefs of unsophisticated people. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The "faith" section is NOT contrary to NPOV. It argues that it requires less faith to believe evolution than design.
But, as I mentioned, both sides say the other side requires more faith to believe. Cf. "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" an article by two atheist scientists

from Stanford University about the Big Bang. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

References are supposed to be for things actually referred to in the text. External links can contain advocay links too.
I think the main issue is whether that section should be on this page or Intelligent Design. I'll go have a look aroudn it now. -- infinity0 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Per the ID talk page, that article's already quite lengthy and it would need to be an extremely strong case made for addition of any new sections there. Moreover, after lengthy development of that article it has finally reached some sensible form and is fairly stable for the present by a strong consensusKenosis 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The Information Theory link probably belongs in the Information Theory article if there is one. -- infinity0 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tarl, I just read through the section again and I honestly do not see why it is POV. All it does is say that "miracles cannot be tested" and "how believable is the teleo arg?". You are saying Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, yes, which isn't what the section is talking about.

Also, Information Theory is on cybernetics. I don't know where that link should go, but Intelligent Design seems a better place, since, as you pointed out, this is a philosophical argument. -- infinity0 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This section, Tarl, should be thoroughly parsed I believe, edited point by point, and generally tightened up so it better reflects the controversy today--especially given the ruckus over ID's attempted hijacking of science in the USA that pervades much of the public consciousness. Even the former Pope's POV may well be germane to presenting the various slants on the controversy. But it should be better organized to reflect the most significant POV's so that the sum of the section is NPOV...Kenosis 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

PS It seems that - due to people who feel their own POV is "obviously correct" - the articles will ultimately end up saying whatever the most fanatical and dedicated adherents want it to say ( the people with "no lives" ).

Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't reply in place, it makes things confusing.

  • That is not the definition of "falsifiable". All scientific theories are falsifiable but that does not mean they are not true. Falsifiable means "capable of being verified as either true OR false."
  • The existence of an intelligent designer is a miracle.
  • The section at the moment says exactly "both require faith to believe".

-- infinity0 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Tarl, I respectfully disagree with what you just said. If you take it point by point, which you've already begun to do above, it is possible to have a strong influence on the consensus (within the rules and methods of Wikipedia of course), and end up with a superior article that is yet more useful to the uninformed reader and still NPOV...Kenosis 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

It's only NPOV if both sides are presented. If there is an additional section called "Controversy" and it only has one side, then it is not NPOV. Yes, each statement could have been balanced with the other side's POV, rather than removing, except that as it stood, it was extraneous and redundant, as argument and counter-argument already occurred above. Looking at the history shows the Controversy section was originally very brief, and was added to by an adherent of a particular POV to add emotional arguments. Tarl Cabot 20:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How are they emotional arguments? Go add in the necessary stuff that would provide the opposite POV, then. -- infinity0 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tarl Cabot: I've reviewed most of your points above and still agree this section should definitely be dealt with. The initial problem appears to have been that you deleted it all without explanation and replaced it with just one POV example, that of the former Pope's position, and only later did you bring up the points. So let's get started. I think other editors will likely agree that the changes are at least well considered once we start taking it point by point (even if there is disagreement about the points themselves). Soon enough, we may be able to arrive at a section that articulates what the issues are, and perhaps also how the issues might be related to the widespread confusion about Intelligent Design and other overlapping topics too (this should be subject to further debate of course).
I'm going to just go ahead and start in on a couple of your issues, one at a time, with an explanation for each edit. No doubt it will be very imperfect at first (perhaps outrightly wrong) and require debate as other editors may choose to respond. Please do feel very much free to edit or re-edit each point with an explanation of some kind for each, and we'll see where it ends up.
I trust this approach may also be suitable to Infinity0 and other interested editors?...Kenosis 23:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, fine by me. The section needed condensing anyway. -- infinity0 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I will get back to this later on. Undoubtedly there are some useful issues to explain here, but a bit too much for now. Thanks Tarl for bringing it up and Infinity0 for the help to get it going. Look forward to seeing where it goes. See you laterKenosis 00:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant revisions to the article in March, 2006

A process of further development, correction and a degree of much needed reorganization of this article has just very recently begun. Notably, to start with, the phrase in the introduction stating that the teleological argument solely focuses on naturalistic issues has been removed-- it was simply incorrect. Fact is, teleology has always grappled with relationships between natural and supernatural, and has always been part of a most interesting set of debates between what are today known as deism and theism.

A note on the History section: Beyond the basics such as the need to include Plato and Aristotle here (who both have a bit more to contribute to the perspective), I immediately imagine there are a at least a couple more signicant items relevant to a summary such as this. Heraclitus' (pre-Socratic) contribution of the logos is debatable, but worth considering because it is very multifaceted and yet hints at an underlying teleology in the cosmos-- I think it requires thought and perhaps discussion because it could be concise, but it could also be a 'can of worms' if it's not handled deftly and effectively. So I'm going to hold off and think about that, and maybe throw it in for consideration later.

The three notable British empiricists, John Locke, (Bishop) George Berkeley, and David Hume have a thread running though that classic cluster of 17th and 18th Century philosophical arguments which plays into the Hume Dialogues and is significant in the context of the teleological argument(s). It will take some thinking and a bit of work, but I think it can be encapsulated where Hume currently is in the article. Kenosis 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Formal Objections section is still being allowed to make characterizations as "facts" that are disputed. For example, "or explained by unscientific conjecture, such as irreducible complexity." I can come up with the names of a number of respectable PhD scientists at major universities that feel that "irreducible complexity" is not "unscientitific conjecture". The use of a Bible organization link on that issue, instead of an ID link, can only either be ignorance of this, or else a cynical manipulative technique used to sway opinion. Tarl Cabot 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can come up with more names of scientists that think it IS unscientific conjecture. It's not accepted by the vast majority of scientists, however many names you can cite. -- infinity0 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that section is a bit messy at present. I should point out quickly, though, that the concept of irreducible complexity is not only conjectural, it also is not at all scientifically useful. The concept does not give rise to a variable that can be tested in comparison to other known phenomena, so any inferences it intends to hypothesize cannot be properly replicated or peer reviewed (which is understandable, because the concept's intended inference is in the range between somewhat etherial and completely spiritual)...Kenosis 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section on the "Eye argument". It was a rambling argument and counterargument among and between intelligent design, creationism and evolution, which could be re-summarized in one or two brief paragraphs should it be deemed appropriate. More importantly, unlike the watchmaker argument, the eye argument is at most a marginally relevant curiosity in the context of a summary article such as this. There is much more work to be done here; somehow this article got itself all confused and still needs a better section scheme than it has at present.Kenosis 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I am now proceeding to address the issues in Formal Objections which Tarl may not have gotten around to quite yet--subject to the usual further edits and discussion of course.Kenosis 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Biased Article

I whole heartedly agree with others on this comment page, that this entire article stinks of bias. It’s like whoever wrote the majority of it was on the payroll of Richard Dawkins himself. Perhaps some information derived from Paul Davies or Freeman Dyson or Sir Arthur Eddington could be added to balance things out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.10.183 (talk • contribs). (23:42, 13 May 2006)

[edit] Non-theistic teleological arguments

A teleological argument for God fits the definition given in Wikipedia, but a teleological argument in general means an argument for purpose or for end causes (see Webster's) as opposed to an argument for prior causes.

For instance, there is a particular species of snake which not only has the behavior of playing dead, but also has a gland which emits the odor of dead snake. The predator snake (the king snake) often decides not to eat the prey, apparently because it takes the prey for dead. Any time we use the expression "in order to" or "so that", we are making a teleological argument, e.g. if we say that the potential prey plays dead and emits the odor in order to trick the predator into thinking that it is dead, so that it can survive the encounter.

The opposite of a teleological argument in this case is a deterministic argument ("such that"). Determinism is the argument for solely prior causes. In other words, if I say that the behavior of playing dead and the gland are not at all aimed at aiding in its survival, but instead that both the behavioral trait and the anatomical trait arose from chance mutations or meaningless adaptations which coincidentally permitted this snake to survive encounters with the king snake, and thus were passed on to later generations of survivors through natural selection. To make a deterministic argument, we are not permitted to think of the traits as intended to help the prey survive, but only as unintentionally and accidentally resulting in survival for no reason - not even the apparent reason. We can only speak of "reason" as prior causes, not as results.

In summary, any argument that a trait exists to lead to a result is a teleological argument (the trait is mainly the cause), whereas any argument that a trait IS itself merely the result of forces which produced it in the past is a deterministic argument (the behavior or trait is merely an effect).

Irreducible complexity in this case is the idea that playing dead alone (it actually lies upside down to play dead) would not convince the predator to pass it up for dead without the scent gland, and the scent gland alone would not convince the predator to pass it up for dead if it were still moving around normally. The improbability that both the behavior and the physiology evolved independently in this snake, whereas we find no such glands in any snakes which do not play dead (no transitional species) and no such behavior in snakes without these glands (no transitional species), leads us to believe that the occurrence of the two traits together are actually designed to protect the snake from predators, rather than being the accidental result of factors unrelated to survival.

This is not an argument for God or gods, but merely the argument that the snake plays dead in order to survive, as opposed to the idea that those snakes which accidentally started to play dead also survived better as a result. Did the snake's behavior have a purpose or no purpose? Did the snakes odor gland have a purpose or no purpose? Purpose = teleology. No purpose = determinism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.245.163 (talk • contribs).(01:40, 30 August 2006)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/l/Talk%7ETeleological_argument_4e6a.html"