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

by dhw, Friday, February 08, 2013, 10:45 (4304 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God has various forms in various religions, usually anthropomorphic. And I feel worthless. 
dhw: I was genuinely shocked to read this, and cannot for the life of me understand why you should feel worthless. If that is what belief in God makes you feel, come and join me on my fence, where you will be treated with all the affection and respect you deserve!
DAVID: I am not worthless. It is my poor inferential writing. Anthropomorphic gods are worthless.-Hilarious! All the same, you will always be welcome on my fence, though I clearly have more respect for anthropomorphic gods than you do. That is because I cannot imagine a self-aware God creating minds totally different from his own.
 
dhw: What seems planned and designed to you seems higgledy-piggledy to me! If the laws of nature require a black hole at the centre of each galaxy, I don't see how that provides proof of a conscious designer. And I still wonder what might be the point of all this matter appearing and disappearing, and what it has to do with God's purpose, which you believe was to create us. 
DAVID: Remember matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Each galaxy is the same, like different model cars coming off an assembly line. Globular, eliptical or spiral. Looks designed to me.-Yeah, but different model cars are designed for an obvious purpose, and I still wonder what might be the purpose of all this matter appearing etc...(see the passage you have quoted above).-DAVID: Even more about Nagel from James Barham, atheist philosopher: -http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/11/12/nagel-dembski-life-mind/-dhw (quoting from Barham's review:) "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."
DAVID: 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.-My criticism was of Barham, who does not seem to have understood the link I presume Nagel is trying to establish between "local" and "global" teleology (see below). But of course Nagel flounders, because none of us have a clue how life and mind came out of the inanimate world. Hence all these faith-based theories.-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? 
DAVID: Yes he is, and he has a valid criticism of Neo-Darwinism, a science which will only recognize material methodologic reductionism. -Thank you for this, as it confirms the incoherence of Barham's criticism.-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.
DAVID: You are in Nagel's dory floating on a sea of confusion. He wants a 'third way' and you do also. -We are all floating on a sea of confusion, but those of you who believe in anthropomorphic gods, in chance, in panpsychism, in panentheism, are content with your particular faith, and this allows you to shut out the confusion. As for me, no, I don't want a 'third way'. I would just like to know the truth (which I can't), and am exploring all the options.
 
DAVID: 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. -I don't think many people (including panpsychists) seriously believe they are. That is why I keep banging on about degrees of "intelligence" (in inverted commas).

DAVID: 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 agnosticism as practiced by dhw.-You have read the book and I haven't, but I suspect you're right. Perhaps only agnostics are willing to admit that they are floating on a sea of confusion.