The Teleonomic Worldview of Atheism vs. The Teleological Worldview of Theism

[leibowde84]

My first-person perspective of my own subjectivity reveals that I am driven by a purpose, namely, to seek the good.

"Goodness is that which all things desire." - St. Thomas Aquinas

But, subjective experience is often unreliable and flawed in this regard due to our overwhelming desire for purpose. So, how can you be sure?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I as a theist, reject it. I have a teleological view of the world. It is the only view that can make sense of my experiences.

That sounds like an argument from ignorance.

 

[Gambit]

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?" - Douglas Adams.

Beauty, like the good, is a transcendental. As such, it cannot be detected by science.

 

[Gambit]

I know what he's focusing on. I'm more interested in what his argument depends on, but that he's glossing over.

I suggest you read the OP of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

That seems like quite the leap. What is it about your "first-person perspective of your own subjectivity" that leads to this conclusion?

A desire is present within me to seek the good.

On what grounds do you claim that this purpose is "real" in a sense that's unavailable to atheists?

I never argued that it was unavailable to atheists. But it would appear that atheists believe it is only an apparent purpose (teleonomic), not a real purpose (teleological). Because they believe that it can be explained by appealing only to blind mechanisms.

 

[viole]

Because on the teleonomic view of the world (which you embrace by your own admission), anything that appears to be purposeful or the result of creative intelligence must ultimately be deemed illusory. That would also apply to your behavior. (Your behavior may appear to look purposeful or the result of creative intelligence. But, if we accept the teleonomic view, then we must deem that appearance to be purely illusory.)

Well, that does not explain how I can deny my intelligence, if any. My denial would also be illusory, wouldn't it?

So, I am free to rely on my intelligence as much as I am free to deny it. The result would be the same. The product of ultimately blind mechanisms or naturally selected algorithms. Therefore, your suggestion is inherently contradictory.

But as long as my intelligence seems to help me to expose your fallacies, I prefer to accept it. Rather than deny it, indipendently from it being the result of some blind machinery

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

But, subjective experience is often unreliable and flawed in this regard due to our overwhelming desire for purpose. So, how can you be sure?

In epistemology, knowledge has been defined as justified belief. As such, we can never have absolute certitude. The only question here is whether my belief can be rationally justify. I believe it can for reasons already stated. However, If you disagree, then you will have to accept the logical implications of that disagreement, namely, you must accept that your creativity and intelligence is completely illusory.

 

[Gambit]

That sounds like an argument from ignorance.

Nonsense! That I am acting to a real purpose (as opposed to an apparent purpose) is based on the evidence accorded to me by my first-person perspective of my own subjectivity. To deny that would be to deny my own creativity and intelligence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A desire is present within me to seek the good.



I never argued that it was unavailable to atheists. But it would appear that atheists believe it is only an apparent purpose (teleonomic), not a real purpose (teleological). Because they believe that it can be explained by appealing only to blind mechanisms.

How is motivation not a "real" purpose? Atheists feel motivation just like theists, so if this is a "real" (i.e. actual) purpose for you, why isn't it one for them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense! That I am acting to a real purpose (as opposed to an apparent purpose) is based on the evidence accorded to me by my first-person perspective of my own subjectivity.

What evidence? You keep dancing around this point.

To deny that would be to deny my own creativity and intelligence.

Don't tempt me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suggest you read the OP of this thread.

Your OP doesn't answer my question.

 

[McBell]

Nonsense! That I am acting to a real purpose (as opposed to an apparent purpose) is based on the evidence accorded to me by my first-person perspective of my own subjectivity. To deny that would be to deny my own creativity and intelligence.

Yet you claim that without god being stuffed in there somewhere, it is all for naught, right?
What you have not done, regardless of how much you jump up and down screaming you have, is shown that claim to be true.

 

[viole]

Nonsense! That I am acting to a real purpose (as opposed to an apparent purpose) is based on the evidence accorded to me by my first-person perspective of my own subjectivity. To deny that would be to deny my own creativity and intelligence.

I am not sure what difference there is between real purpose and apparent purpose. It smells like question begging.

Suppose my decisions are driven by blind naturalistic processes. Suppose now I am hungry and decide to get a nice pizza for dinner, so that I am not hungry anymore.

Is my decision taken towards a real or an apparent purpose?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Deathbydefault]

I substantiated my claims in the original post of this thread by furnishing appropriate documentation. To date, I have yet to see you make anything resembling a counter to those claims.

Really? So why did you assert what you think the atheist world view is?
You are incorrect on that, for one. Evidence can be found in the people on this very forum.
You second up to it with the viewpoint you seem to subscribe to, using emphases as though to prove it's truth.

You didn't substantiate anything.
Giving definitions for the terms you are asserting as true is not substantiation.

 

[McBell]

It smells like question begging.

question begging is not what I think it smells like....

 

[Mycroft]

Beauty, like the good, is a transcendental. As such, it cannot be detected by science.

What? Science is perfectly able to detect what someone feels is useful by measuring their brain activity.

 

[McBell]

Beauty, like the good, is a transcendental. As such, it cannot be detected by science.

Ah, so spiritual is synonymous with subjective..?

You know what, based upon the "definitions" given here on RF for the word spiritual, that makes sense.

 

[viole]

question begging is not what I think it smells like....

Yes, i see what you mean

However, it is question begging because it arbitrarily declares that naturalists must believe only in the illusion of the "real thing", without evidence that there is such a thing as the "real thing". It makes no sense to talk of illusions of X without first independently deducing the existence of X. So, the best it can be said, is that naturalists believe only in the illusion of what theists believe, for instance in a metaphysical intelligence, which could very well be just a figment of the pious imagination.

Ergo, that line of arguments leads to naturalists holding an incoherent position, under the unproven assumption that naturalism is wrong (the "real thing" exists). And that is circular.

Which is not surprising, considering that all so-called logical arguments for the existence of God suffer from the same exact logical disease.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Yes, i see what you mean

However, it is question begging because it arbitrarily declares that naturalists must believe only in the illusion of the "real thing", without evidence that there is such a thing as the "real thing". It makes no sense to talk of illusions of X without first independently deducing the existence of X. So, the best it can be said, is that naturalists believe only in the illusion of what theists believe, for instance in a metaphysical intelligence, which could very well be just a figment of the pious imagination.

Ergo, that line of arguments leads to naturalists holding an incoherent position, under the unproven assumption that naturalism is wrong (the "real thing" exists). And that is circular.

Which is not surprising, considering that all so-called logical arguments for the existence of God suffer from the same exact logical disease.

Ciao

- viole

Oh, don't get me wrong.
I do not disagree with the use of "question begging" to describe the post.
I disagree with the use of "question begging" to describe the smell said post is emanating.

 

[viole]

Oh, don't get me wrong.
I do not disagree with the use of "question begging" to describe the post.
I disagree with the use of "question begging" to describe the smell said post is emanating.

Yeah, I got that

I made a full reply to you, because the original poster seems to be missing in action. Sorry.

Ciao

- viole