Relationship between Philosophy and Theology

[Tassman]

Of course it is relevant, that is the point. Nature has no goal for any creature. Some get lucky and survive others are unlucky. Nature does not care, nature sets no goals, nature does not intent or not intend our survival.

And I'm not sure what you mean by being careful - we just do what we are determined to do.

[JimL]

No Jim, I have the subjective goal to exist, but non-rational creatures do not have goals. Sure they may strive to survive, but there is no intention (and goals do imply intention). They may get lucky and make it, or unlucky and not.

Yep, thats what I said seer, nature itself is not a mind, it is the fundemental substance out of which minds emerge, and the substance itself has no goal, no intentions, because it takes a mind to have intentions, to have a goal.

[seer]

Well I'm glad you agree that there are no goals for humanity in your godless universe.



But if free will is an illusion then in fact everything we think do or say is determined. So we are only as careful or not as we are determined.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, I have the subjective goal to exist, but non-rational creatures do not have goals. Sure they may strive to survive, but there is no intention (and goals do imply intention). They may get lucky and make it, or unlucky and not.

There is the problem that hold the view that the possibility of explanations of Teleology, can only be explained by Divine purpose and goals of Creation, and reject all other options not viable. The reality is that there are a number of rational and logical philosophical views and scientific options.

Creatures, and groups of creatures, and species do have objective verifiable goals to survive and reproduce regardless, whether rational or non-rational, which is the same as saying they intend to survive and reproduce. Tassman may word it differently, and also believe in only one viable opion, but I believe that 'purpose and goals' can be a function in the natural processes of life, survival, and evolution as described as Teleonaturalism. The following source describes the different rational and logical options for Teleological explanations.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Teleonaturalism

Those who reject teleomentalism typically seek naturalistic truth conditions for teleological claims in biology that do not refer to the intentions, goals, or purposes of psychological agents. Some teleonaturalists seek to reduce teleological language to forms of description and explanation that are found in other parts of science. One class of such views defines teleological notions cybernetically and maintains that teleology in biology is appropriate insofar as biological systems are cybernetic systems. Another, more widely-accepted approach treats functional claims in biology as part of the analysis of the capacities of a complex system into various component capacities.

Other forms of teleonaturalism regard the teleological aspects of biology as unique and ineliminable. One class of such views maintains that teleological claims in biology depend on natural values that apply to biological entities (such as what is good for an organism or species). A different approach, that avoids normative notions, is to define biological teleology explicitly in terms of natural selection and the theory of evolution.

Several theorists have argued for the pluralistic idea that biology may incorporate two notions of function, one to explain the presence of traits and the other to explain how those traits contribute to the complex capacities of organisms. Others have argued that these two apparently distinct notions of function can be unified by regarding the target of explanation as the biological fitness of a whole organism. Nonetheless, the mainstream view among philosophers of biology is that natural selection accounts best explain the majority of uses of teleological notions in biology.

© Copyright Original Source

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

[seer]

There is the problem that hold the view that the possibility of explanations of Teleology, can only be explained by Divine purpose and goals of Creation, and reject all other options not viable. The reality is that there are a number of rational and logical philosophical views and scientific options.

Creatures, and groups of creatures, and species do have objective verifiable goals to survive and reproduce regardless, whether rational or non-rational, which is the same as saying they intend to survive and reproduce. Tassman may word it differently, and also believe in only one viable opion, but I believe that 'purpose and goals' can be a function in the natural processes of life, survival, and evolution as described as Teleonaturalism. The following source describes the different rational and logical options for Teleological explanations.

Again, purpose and goal imply, rather strongly, intent. I mean the whole argument is rather silly. We would not say that the goal of a cloud is to rain. The fact is you are trying force classically theological language into a materialistic worldview.

[Tassman]

Well I'm glad you agree that there are no goals for humanity in your godless universe.

But if free will is an illusion then in fact everything we think do or say is determined. So we are only as careful or not as we are determined

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;424547]Again, purpose and goal imply, rather strongly, intent. [quote]

The phrase 'purpose and goal imply, rather strongly, intent.' is too subjective too base a coherent argument on.

Again, your view is that only your agenda can satisfy 'purpose and goal' to your view, and you reject alternatives as possibilities. I choose not to take this narrow perspective that my view is the only possible correct one.

This response is insufficient for a coherent argument.

I mean the whole argument is rather silly. We would not say that the goal of a cloud is to rain. The fact is you are trying force classically theological language into a materialistic worldview.

Of course not, That's silly, and not related to the discussion at hand. Sarcasm?!?!

[JimL]

Again, purpose and goal imply, rather strongly, intent.

The phrase 'purpose and goal imply, rather strongly, intent.' is too subjective too base a coherent argument on.

Again, your view is that only your agenda can satisfy 'purpose and goal' to your view, and you reject alternatives as possibilities. I choose not to take this narrow perspective that my view is the only possible correct one.

Its not an incoherent argument due to its being too subjective. Purpose, goal and intent are subjective, they are subjective because they are of the mind, they are states of mind, and being that they are states of mind then, prima facie, they are subjective. Nature itself can't be said to have a purpose, a goal, or an intention, because "nature" itself is not a mind. So, if you believe that nature itself has an objective purpose, an objective goal, or an objective intention, then all you are really arguing is that that objective intention is the intention, goal, and purpose of a mind, i.e. god, which is the same argument that seer is making.

[Roy]

The goal is life.

But you can not say that for our species, because you don't know, we could just as well go extinct, then our goal would have been death. And it is humanity (and our teleology) that we are speaking of.

No, the goal would still have been life, but the goal would not have been reached.

Are you really so stupid that you don't know that goals are often not attained?

[seer]

No, the goal would still have been life, but the goal would not have been reached.

Like I said goals and purpose strongly suggest intent. No one here would say that the goal of a cloud is to rain. There simply is no teleology for humankind, not even for our survival. Some species are just lucky other are unlucky.

[seer]

Well thank you, please tell Shuny that! I agree, if materialism /atheism is true there are no goals for humanity.



Just as the wind is an integral part of the causal stream causing the tree branch to fall. And?

[Adrift]

Like I said goals and purpose strongly suggest intent. No one here would say that the goal of a cloud is to rain. There simply is no teleology for humankind, not even for our survival. Some species are just lucky other are unlucky.

This is Natural Evolution 101. I'm surprised so many non-theists are fighting tooth and nail with you over this.

[seer]

Again, your view is that only your agenda can satisfy 'purpose and goal' to your view, and you reject alternatives as possibilities. I choose not to take this narrow perspective that my view is the only possible correct one.

Shuny even in your own link Scientists and Philosophers questioned the usefulness of using teleological language. I don't think Tass or Jim are buying your argument. You seem to want the overlay theological language on natural processes. But the sad thing is that your own faith teaches that there is a purpose for humanity, a God give purpose:
https://bahai-library.com/brown_creation_encyclopedia

[seer]

This is Natural Evolution 101. I'm surprised so many non-theists are fighting tooth and nail with you over this.

It seems that they want the theological language without the God that goes with it. Perhaps it is the image of God breaking through.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny even in your own link Scientists and Philosophers questioned the usefulness of using teleological language. I don't think Tass or Jim are buying your argument. You seem to want the overlay theological language on natural processes. But the sad thing is that your own faith teaches that there is a purpose for humanity, a God give purpose:
https://bahai-library.com/brown_creation_encyclopedia

Of course, I believe that God has purpose and goals, but that is not the subject of the thread. It is obvious that Tass and Jim will not agree, because they are rather extreme Dawkins atheists or atheist/agnostics. Based on Jim's history of his posts I most definitely consider him far more an atheist than agnostic.

You need to read the whole reference, and not a selective citation to support your agenda. Yes, SOME philosophers and scientists question the usefulness of teleological language, but the source describes options and different teleological views and language that are proposed by philosophers and scientists.