tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5144551869096448272..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Answers to some questions from AnonymousVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29795606514573031842008-03-15T03:04:00.000-07:002008-03-15T03:04:00.000-07:00Amazingly enough, I do generally mean to say exact...Amazingly enough, I do generally mean to say exactly what I say. Do you not?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64744177688512023922008-03-14T12:57:00.000-07:002008-03-14T12:57:00.000-07:00I don't think you want to argue that way, do you? ...I don't think you want to argue that way, do you? <BR/><BR/>First, you beg the question when you assert that there can be no goal if there is no intention. And as I have pointed out before, there seems to be no good a priori or a posteriori basis for tying goal -- or at least parts working together to perform a function or bring something about -- to intention and mind.<BR/><BR/>Second, the principle would prove too much, as then the funtionality of God's mind would then require an intended goal by a prior designer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-106207820063263522008-03-13T08:01:00.000-07:002008-03-13T08:01:00.000-07:00Anonymous: "I disagree. With theism, you have tele...<B>Anonymous:</B> "<I>I disagree. With theism, you have teleology that God doesn't cause right there in God's nature. If we allow brute, bedrock order/teleology/functionality in *this* case, then why not for the universe?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Teleology (and, for that matter, functionality) points to <I>intentionality</I>, to a goal, to a purpose, to an end-result. <BR/><BR/>Definitionally, to speak of teleology is to speak of goal(s), purposes, end-results towards with something is striving ... which is, after all, implicit in the very word. And, to speak of a goal is to speak of an intention; for there can be no goal if there is no intention.<BR/><BR/>And, there is no such thing as an intention if there is not a *mind* doing the intending.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2757542947030595912008-03-12T12:10:00.000-07:002008-03-12T12:10:00.000-07:00I disagree. With theism, you have teleology that ...I disagree. With theism, you have teleology that God doesn't cause right there in God's nature. If we allow brute, bedrock order/teleology/functionality in *this* case, then why not for the universe?<BR/><BR/>It's not as though the claim that all order/teleology comes always and necessarily from minds is a synthetic a priori proposition. But if not, then we need a poseriori evidence for it. Unfortunately, this isn't what we see. Order/teleology is observed to come from minds, but it also comes from instinct (e.g., the functionality and order of spider's webs), and it is observed to come from prior internal principles of order (e.g., seeds give rise to rosebushes). So we have multiple observed causes of order/teleology. <BR/><BR/>So what are the most fundamental causes of such *derivative* order? Well, the best we can do is reason from from the observed causes of order to unobserved, ultimate causes of order via arguments from analogy. But if so, then since there are multiple *observed* causes of *derivative* order, and some of these are non-intelligent in nature, then we have no principled way of ruling out that the *fundamental* causes of order are analogous to the *non-intelligent* causes we observe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1750966072043098422008-03-12T11:04:00.000-07:002008-03-12T11:04:00.000-07:00I think anonymous has it backward. The theist has...I think anonymous has it backward. The theist has no problem explaining the mind of God since that is essentially what God is under this terminology (the theological terminology is spirit). The challenge is explaining how God as a non-physical mental (spirit) being interacts with the physical world.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29687835337302364082008-03-12T11:00:00.000-07:002008-03-12T11:00:00.000-07:00Hi Dr. Reppert,What would the "mental being analyz...Hi Dr. Reppert,<BR/>What would the "mental being analyzed out" look like?<BR/><BR/>Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.<BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24396872715236505412008-03-11T18:39:00.000-07:002008-03-11T18:39:00.000-07:00That's fine. Define things however you like. Stil...That's fine. Define things however you like. Still, the view that there is the physical world plus abstracta, where the latter can enter into relations with the former, is an interesting, apparently coherent view, whether or not it entails the denial of the causal closure of the physical (it does not necessarily deny the causal -- or influence -- closure of the most basic level of reality, if abstracta are basic). <BR/><BR/>Also, about teleological aspects of the basic level of reality: theism allows for brute teleology that God doesn't cause or explain (viz., the teleology of his own mind). If that's not a problem for the theist, then it seems to me that they have no decent complaint against non-theistic views of the world that allow for brute teleology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2358439706330338022008-03-11T18:23:00.000-07:002008-03-11T18:23:00.000-07:00I think one of the key issues in the causal closur...I think one of the key issues in the causal closure debate is whether any immediate (or proximate) causes can be teleological or intentional or purpose-oriented. On first blush, the naturalist is committed to all immediate causes being non-teleological. This would seem to saddle the naturalist with a reductive or epiphenomenal account of the mind. Of course, this ties into William Hasker's criticisms of physicalism.Johnny-Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636554916718241492noreply@blogger.com