Transference between parts and wholes is tricky. But if there is no teleology in the parts, there is no teleology in the whole. A brick wall is six feet tall because the bricks add up to six feet. But nonteleological activity on the part of basic particles means no real telelogy at the higher levels. The explanation at the basic level provides a sufficient cause, so the mental explanation is otiose.
Sometimes the fallacy of composition isn't a fallacy.
3 comments:
OP
"But if there is no teleology in the parts, there is no teleology in the whole."
Ok, there is no teleology in the whole.
The whole object itself does not contain the property of purpose. There is no such property, it is imaginary, just a projection of your abstraction onto objects that have no idea what you are thinking of.
The fallacy of composition remains a fallacy.
It seems like, in this case you agree with me, and the attempt to apply the fallacy of composition to this case fails.
Victor,
It was your proposal that if there is no teleology in the parts then there is no teleology in the whole.
There simply is not teleology in the whole, whether due to the aggregate of teleology in the parts or as an emergent or aggregate property of the whole in spite of no teleology in the parts.
Irrespective, there is no teleology in the whole.
There is no teleology in the parts.
The fallacy of composition remains a fallacy.
Perhaps your somewhat obtuse point was to assert that atheists are inconsistent about the fallacy of composition by employing it in an attempt to show that there cannot be teleology in the whole if there is no teleology in the parts.
The whole does not derive teleology from the parts because the parts do not have teleology.
The whole does not derive teleology from the arrangement of the parts because the arrangement of the parts of a whole macro object do not have a purpose in and of themselves, rather, we perceive a projected abstracted purpose that we imagine to put the object to.
Post a Comment