Talk:Teleological argument/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions about Teleological argument. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am trying to find some time to work on this section. I will try to record any cases that might be questioned. Here is a first one:

• Aristotle argued for the existence of one or more [[unmoved movers]] to serve as nature's role models and constant inspiration (see [[Cosmological argument|Prime Mover]] and [[Daimon (classical mythology)|Daimon]]).<ref name="ToulminGoodfield1965"/><ref name="Furley1999"/><ref name="Burkert1985">{{cite book |first=Walter |last=Burkert |year=1985 |title=Greek Religion |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-36281-9 |lccn=84025209 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sxurBtx6shoC&pg=PA131 |page=331}}</ref>

I find the terminology "role models" and "inspiration" quite unusual and unclear. I do not find it in the cited modern source (Furley), nor in Toulmin (which is not a specialist book about Aristotle anyway), and Burkert is a 19th century work about Greek Religion so I won't even check. The two Wikipedia articles mentioned can not be sources of course. Anyway I intend to simplify how we describe the unmoved movers. One very basic thing we are "hiding" is that these unmoved movers do CAUSE the cosmos (in some strange way), and do have human-like purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Aristotle described the movers as immaterial "active intellects", incapable of perceiving or interacting with the cosmos, thus assuredly "unmoved".

This might be confusing to readers, because the active intellects do cause all motion and order in the cosmos, and most readers will not find it easy to see how this can be consistent with no "interaction" at all. I also wonder if it is really critical for this particular Wikipedia article. To me it seems like the key point is that the active intellect(s) "cause" nature in a way different from cause we know it in every day life. (See emanation, which is the traditional word used for this type of causation which is not normal causation.) I hope to find some way to explain this in a more simple way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• To the extent permitted by the vagaries of matter, he believed the natural pleroma is exerting its full potential, because it has had an eternity in which to do so.[19]

This is pretty unclear. The unusual word pleroma is cited from Furley but it does not appear in that work. More to the point, what is this sentence trying to explain? It seems intended to be part of the same flow of discussion in the next sentence, but that sentence cites Nussbaum, a completely different work, which says that whatever this sentence is saying does not "imply naive optimism". Also, whatever is being explained, is this point really important for this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For now I am simply going to remove this text, which I record here in case we can recover it in the future: To the extent permitted by the vagaries of matter, he believed the natural [[pleroma]] is exerting its full potential, because it has had an eternity in which to do so.<ref name="Furley1999"/> This is not to imply a naïve optimism, but a logically valid argument from a natural scientist who took a great deal of interest in efficient causal analyses.<ref name="Nussbaum1985"/> --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ADDED LATER. I think that subsequent edits by me have covered the apparent intentions of these sentences, but now using David Sedley as a source. Hopefully I am right in saying that it is now more clear, and also more clearly sourced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The last part of the Aristotle section seems particularly important for this article because it concerns such things as evolution, which is a subject often contrasted with teleological understandings. Here is what we have right now. I think it can be improved. I break it up to show separate sentences and sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that this can be made simpler. Actually we seem to repeat similar things in different wordings a few time so I would like to convert into one flowing discussion, something like the following. This will also require review of the first Aristotle paragraph...

1. he disagrees with those who, like Democritus, ascribe all nature purely to chance [like we already say]
2. similarly, the idea of natural selection by chance and "survival of the fittest" already existed and he disagreed with that for similar reasons [like we already say, but we do not emphasize the bit about chance, which is critical to Aristotle]
3. In fact Aristotle felt that biology was a specific area in nature science which showed most clearly that a teleological understanding was needed. [this linking idea is not mentioned by us, but should be]
4. He conceded that monstrosities, new life forms, come about by chance, [like we already say]
5. but he argued that science can only provide a general account of that which is normal, "always, or for the most part" [like we already say]
6. The distinction between what is normal and by nature, and what is "accidental", and not by nature, is important in Aristotle's understanding of nature [not properly explained yet]
7. The characteristics which are by nature are the ones Aristotle says show evidence of human like intelligence and planning in nature.

Obviously we also need to discuss the bit in the first paragraph then, which says Aristotle did not believe nature is endowed with the same rational purpose and direction as human activity and artifacts.<ref name="Nussbaum1985" />. I am concerned about this. I am aware of this type of defense of Aristotle, but I think there is no consensus about it, and I also think that we are taking this position in a simplified way, whereas someone like Nussbaum makes careful distinctions. Aristotle clearly did for example say that nature has purpose and intelligence, and reader of our article will get that message (before today). Just for example the quotes on our four causes article:

[E]verything that Nature makes is means to an end —Aristotle, On the parts of Animals, Book I, Part I

This is most obvious in the animals other than man: they make things neither by art nor after inquiry or deliberation. That is why people wonder whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty that these creatures work, – spiders, ants, and the like... It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature.<ref>''The Complete Works of Aristotle'' Vol. I. The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes).</ref>

I'll continue working and noting things here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is a diff showing the version I have developed, compared to this morning. I have put related bits together and try to make sure there is a flow from topic to topic. I have reduced our coverage of some details of Aristotle's philosophy which are handled in other Wikipedia articles more completely, and tried to make the discussion more about the teleological argument. Aristotle may well be the most important person in the history of linking discussions about teleology with discussions about living things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that much of the Aristotle discussion is WP:OR, esp WP:SYNTH. The discussion also implies too much, conflating too much (or presuming too much as written) in associating today's teleological arguments ("intelligent design") with Aristotle's quite different arguments re causes. It's also more expedient, imo, to furnish the sources used to support claims in the mainspace when making content changes so such concerns can be better satisfied by consulting the sources used before taking it to talk. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Professor marginalia I have already written a lot more than editors normally do in such cases! Much of the editing was rearrangement (avoiding duplication, trying to create a flow of explanation). There are also already comments about sources above? Some themes about sources: Some of the ones we have been using are poor sources such as very old sources or sources that contain asides about Aristotle rather than being about Aristotle. Secondly, where we are using good sources, I was fortunately able to cross check online editions and confirm that what I have written is accurate. Thirdly, as usual in a field like this, some of the best sources of all contain opinions which are not a consensus, such as Nussbaum in this case. But I think these are easy to identify in this case, and so we can mention them with the appropriate attributions. So that all seems straightforward to me.

I note that you are one of the defender editors on the controversial Intelligent Design talk page, and that seems to be your main concern here, for example when you refer to "today's" teleological arguments? That article tries hard (I would say too hard) NOT to be about the history of ideas, whereas this article clearly can never be like that. Discussion of sources relevant to comparing Aristotle and the Intelligent Design Movement is not really encouraged there, to say the least, so that article is a poor model for this discussion.

But even keeping that difference of approach in mind, it is still not really clear what your point is. You complain that a discussion conflates Aristotle too much with "today's" teleological arguments, but you do not say which discussion. I don't see that anything I was working on or posting on this talk page fits the bill. Of course it is true that this article covers both. But what is the "original research" you say you see? Please give an example.

I am also not sure what point you are making about the differences between "today's" teleological arguments and Aristotle's. The teleological argument is relatively straightforward, and has not changed much over history, so the main evolution has been in the presentation, often to do with fitting the times. You mention the understanding of causation itself? Aristotle's understanding of causation is already the subject of many articles on Wikipedia and is a difficult subject. What specifically are you referring to? Is it a distinction not already mentioned in the article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Inline source all your content changes. Time better spent and all that. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

For now I have used the same sources, as explained in detail above. They remain there, inline, moved to the appropriate positions, and a bit pruned. If you have a specific sourcing concern, please make it more clear. We do not put inline sources into articles in order to compare to past versions of Wikipedia, so that is why discussion of differences between versions is appropriate to a talk page. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Having worked through the classical and medieval sections in more detail, including adding more sources, I note in passing that much of what I ended up giving new sourcing has been about a theme which might be described as "arguments re causes" that distinguish for example Aristotle (but not only Aristotle), from the Intelligent Design creationist movement, and indeed creationists generally (at least according to one definition of creationism). Indeed that there are two "streams" of such teleological argument in history seems clear from numerous sources and I think this is now mentioned clearly in the body, and deserves more clear insertion into the lead. I am not 100% sure that this is what User:Professor marginalia raises concerns about above, but it seems likely it might be helpful. In any case it is source based. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading through various sources, the article should probably eventually include something about the position of Karl Barth (who was opposed from a religious point of view, to all natural theology). Also perhaps interesting are Richard Swinburne and John Polkinghorne.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In the introduction we find "Socratic philosophy influenced the development of the Abrahamic religions in many ways, and both types of teleological argument have a long tradition in them." I cannot see what "both" refers to here. Only one type of argument - the general teleological argument has been introduced. 81.155.122.185 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. It is discussed below of course, but not really needed here. I shall adapt it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the teleological argument a fallacious one, and if so, why isn't that made clear? Cutelyaware (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Socratic philosophy influenced the development of the Abrahamic religions in many ways, and the teleological argument has a long association with them." I'm not arguing for or against whether or not Socratic philosophy has a long association with Abrahamic religions. However, Judaism is the first Abrahamic religion and dates at least a few thousand years before Socrates was born. The Old Testament's latest books of the Christian Bible were written about the same time, plus or minus a century or two and the earliest books match Judaism's. To say that Socratic philosophy influenced them at all far before it was created is a bit 'ambitious'. Unless you can provide a reliable source to the contrary, I recommend an edited sentence to read: "Socratic philosophy and the teleological argument has a long association with the Abrahamic religions." Bristus (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A religion is more than a book. Keep in mind we are talking about one subject only, the teleological argument, which is not really an Old Testament topic. Of course Hellenic influence on Judaism is something which can be sourced, but for this subject, which is especially well discussed in medieval contexts, there is very little debate and the influence is very direct and uncontroversial. By the way, also please keep in mind that a big problem with lead writing on WP is the way people add bits to reflect pet interests. This can cause leads to slowly expand, so as to include detailed asides which should be in the body or even in other articles. There is a section on Judaism already, and maybe you have sources to expand it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC) (and re-edited --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC))

Saying "Paley's work on natural theology" is like saying "Carl Sagan's work on science." It's grammatically incorrect Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless it refers to a publication? Not 100% sure if that answers your point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"In contrast to the approach of such philosophers and theologians, the intelligent design movement makes a creationist claim for an intelligence that intervenes in the natural order to make certain changes occur in nature."

This is a big claim that is not only incorrect but needs to be sourced. Deists are a part of the intelligent design movement a!so. It should be removed. Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I drew attention to the edit because from experience trying to edit our Intelligent Design article, at least on Wikipedia it is seen as one of the essential defining characteristics of the Intelligent Design concept in the Intelligent Design movement. But I must say I have seen this sourced and it is not unusual for a sentence in a lead to be un-sourced because it is normally also handled in the body. Have a look at the section Creation Science and intelligent design (I do not see it spelled out there so perhaps it should be), or the "Main article" for that section, Intelligent design, for example in the section on theological implications. The editors of that article tend to see it as a very important boundary between ancient and modern "intelligent design", and their (over?)emphasis of this boundary is a subject of years of argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the article has been translated to Greek. Thanks everyone! Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Teleological argument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221081439/http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning to http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraphs of the article do not match the content.

I came to the page coming from working on Aquinas' Five Ways page, where it says that Aquinas' first 3 arguments are Teleological Arguments --TA--(which everyone agrees) however his views are completely opposite the view of the TA, which conflates arguments from Final Cause or Ends with Cosmic Watchmaker or Kalam arguments.

I will try to gently rephrase this introductory summary to reflect the rest of the page better. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I see two problems with what you've done so far. (1) the wording is unclear (the physico-theological arguments are "various", we get to read) and (2) you've removed information which was well sourced and patched in different information which no longer matches the sources or the rest of the article. I think this was a big change that needed discussion here first. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

See this diff? I propose rolling back to 1 December version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! All proofs of God are pedestrian and full of holes, so that would not be a reason. But those two are not relevant for the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree; as presented in the article, those two arguments strike me as beyond flimsy. Craig's minor premise needs backup to be more than a mere assertion, and Kreeft's thesis needs better support than a weak cargo-cult analogy to hydrogen atoms being meaningless without the context of water molecules. This talk page and its article are not the place to elaborate on them nor pick them apart; that would give them undue weight, in my unsophisticated opinion. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. The other aspect of what we should look at is the strength of the sources. In my opinion they did not look first rate. Any comment about that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The only aspect we should look at is the strength and relevance of the sources. Editors' personal opinions are not a reason to remove content. Both of these sources are blogs so I agree they shouldn't be cited. However Peter Kreeft, Norris Clarke and William Lane Craig look like people who could be cited in this article as they certainly have expertise in this area. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The whole point seems to have been missed by everyone involved here. Time and space is impossible. There can be logical reason for time and space and yet it occurs and we are in it. Also there can be no laws of nature' that just spring into being on their own. That is not logical. That is just an avoidance of the issue. To presume the universe can come into being on it's own it just arrogance and illustrates a fundamental immaturity of thought. No event can occur without some kind of impetus. If we view the universe as an event, then it must have a cause. The steady state universe is not viable, so the universe had a beginning. All other arguments are moot points as they do not deal with the fundamental issue of how fully formed laws of nature would just come into being on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:THETRUTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This whole article is written as a personal opinion using truncated arguments to support the idea of there being no first cause for the universe. None of the arguments make any sense. The detractors must first address the laws of nature before anything. They must also come up with a way as to how time and space would spontaneously come into being on their own. None of this is possible and makes this whole article seem immature and stilted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:SOURCES? We're not interested in your personal musings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The article does not provide a summary of the argument. This can be difficult for readers since it can be very hard to understand the article without knowing what is being said. Tranman64 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Plantinga seems to suggest that while there is a somewhat defeating argument against this argument, it is nonetheless not a challenge that undermines rational belief in God, because if the argument against the teleological argument was accepted, we could also doubt the existence of other minds. I ask for this to be included, as the book is a classic in religious philosophy. I would add such info myself, but I'm no longer in possession of said book.--Phil of rel (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can someone move the Voltaire photo to Voltaire's paragraph pls? Thanks FatalSubjectivities (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)