Natural Teleology: More Thomas Nagel (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 07, 2013, 18:07 (4305 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher:
> 
> http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/&#... 
> dhw: It may be unwise to comment on a review of a book I haven't read, but a review should itself be coherent, -Having read the book I'll comment. Nagel realizes that teleology seems to be apparent in developing the universe and also in the developmwent of life.- 
> "The bottom line is that local teleological principles at least have some prospect of being anchored in real science, and—if confirmed—they would go a good part of the way towards closing the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and the domain of life and mind."-But Nagel never closes that gap, since he literally flounders around after presenting his criticisms of Neo-Darwin not recognizing the apparent teleology at work. He offers no source for the teleology because he refused to offer the possibility of God.
> 
> dhw: How can local teleological principles possibly close the yawning chasm between the inanimate world and living matter without being applied to the global, and isn't that precisely what Nagel is trying to do? -Yes he is, and he has a valid criticism of Neo-Darwinism, a science which will only recognize material methodologic reductionism. 
> 
> dhw:I need to end by stressing yet again that I am not championing this theory. I am only offering it as an alternative which I find no less reasonable, or no more unreasonable, than those theories involving chance and the many different versions of God.-You are in Negal's dory floating on a sea of confusion. He wants a 'third way' and you do also. Panpsychism is a Spinozan concept to try to sneak purpose into inanimate objects. Rocks have a purpose we give them. Nagel recognizes this. Plants and trees have feelings, mediated by chemicals given them in evolution. But they are not conscious in our sense of the term. We have reflective consciousness. it is back to Adler and "the difference of man and the difference it makes". Nagel wants to know where that comes from, but insists on remaining atheistic. Really he is obviously teetering on agnositicism as practiced by dhw.