Dysteleology as a perspective

Post Reply New Topic

Dysteleology is pretty basically just that which fails to uphold a "good" or "proper" order, which is often defined relative to intuitions about purposive agents.

Theism upholds the idea that there is a BIG and POWERFUL purposive agent who has vast control over the world and its workings, and who acts in an ideal manner. The problem is that in such a framework, dystelology makes no sense. So, the goal is to suppress dysteleology within a theistic framework.

The big, irresolvable, and ultimately incompatible problem is that this cannot be done. Dysteleology is not only something we see, but rather it is everywhere. In the mind alone, there are large numbers of systems that really don't work in a manner that makes sense. This includes our memory that works off of context rather than a memory that is more rigidly specific so that memories are not lost. This includes our vast array of psychological biases. This includes our weakness of the will, where the "desires" of two cognitive systems clash forcing us to struggle over a matter where there can be a clearly right decision. This includes our general failings in understanding statistical data and a failure to approach reality in a statistical mindset. The list of basic cognitive failings runs across the board, yet, none of these makes sense given theism.

The problems don't even just stop with our mental workings, but rather they go back to the ecosystem, as we see biological entities that only survive through harm, such as viruses and bacteria. We see a system governed by the raw economics of survival, without regard to any other virtues. Finally, we recognize just from looking at such a system that many many many creatures would had to die in this wasteful process. I mean, the model of evolution in biology is based upon the existence of dysteleology.

Finally, in reality itself, we see a world which is filled with various causes of suffering, from tornados, to hurricanes, to earthquakes, to volcanoes and so on and so forth, when none of these things are, in any strict sense, needed for a world to exist. Despite this, the potential causes of harm are endless, and the vast vast vast portions of the universe are uninhabitable to any form of life whatsoever. In some sense, they are a colossal waste BECAUSE they cannot be used, they cannot be lived on, and without some "use" by an agent, there is no reason for any agent to desire this created. I mean, even the argument that they are giant pieces of sculpture in space seems questionable given that if we really wanted aesthetic perfection, we'd have more stuff in the sky, and more variation in how it looks.

As it stands, the problem with theism isn't in any particular philosophical argument for God. It's just that theism is just plain pig-stupid given the basic facts about reality. This doesn't mean that people won't try to force it to fit, but the ontology of a "magic man" has far outlived the validity of the concept in any reasonable sense. Too many facts about reality make little to no sense given theism, but they are regardless still true.

You siumply are not reading widely enough or operating at a sophisticated enough level.

Theism Type V - the mid range Christian theism on which you generally focus - thinks along lines not unlike what you describe.

But there is Theism Type IIa. The Gods MAY not smash me if I sacrifice the big bull, and Theism Type IIb, The Gods MAY give us a big crop if we sacrifice Delia.

Dysteleology is a prime assumption here.

Theism Type VIa and VIb - some versions of Christianity and Islam - really prefer a lousy world. The fault of our enemies, all the enemies deserve, we are on our way to Paradise anyway, OR once we win it will be RIGHT.

Theism X you have semisolipsistically ruled out. But, I can broken record one more time. Just for fun, thought experiment, all that, what if Job? What if we - sorry - YOU - do not know the WHOLE story of good, bad, indifferent?

What if God is the boss of us, not vice versa?

I don't consider theology X to be justifiable. It stands against the notion of justified knowledge. I mean, while such radical possibilities are hard to exclude, so is the brain in a vat kind of idea as well, but we don't seriously question whether we are brains in vats, and so we don't really take seriously the matter of "God is so MYSTERIOUS".

I mean, philologos, can you really separate one set of skepticisms as unjustified and the other set as justified if the traits are so similar? Because if you can show me that theism X is different than most skeptical hypotheses, then I am listening, but if it is another skeptical hypothesis, then I am justified in ignoring it. Note: "Skeptical hypothesis" refers to something relatively definite in philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_hypothesis

I don't see the problem. Even if the world is lousy under some type of theism, it still is "teleological" and "directed".

Philologos is promoting skeptical theism. My objection is that skeptical theism is like the belief that the universe was created 5 minutes ago. I can't disprove it in some rigidly deductive sense, but I am sure as hell not justified in accepting it because it disagrees with the most basic starting inferences we use to construct knowledge.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... OWE4&pli=1

I mean, to accept skeptical theism requires us to be so unable to deal with counter-factual claims like "I wish I hadn't done that" and so on and so forth, that it is ridiculous. If we take this seriously, we undercut the justification for such basic emotions as regret, and satisfaction with an outcome.

Well, I am a skeptic, and I am [given available data] a theist.

Regret and satisfaction I have - plenty of each.

More regret my first 25 years, more satisfaction the last 25.

But JUSTIFICATION for regret / satisfaction.

I remind you of Solon to Croesus:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... roesus.htm

as there is no country which contains within it all that it needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best country is that which contains the most; so no single human being is complete in every respect- something is always lacking. He who unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, is, in my judgment, entitled to bear the name of 'happy.' But in every matter it behoves us to mark well the end: for oftentimes God gives men a gleam of happiness, and then plunges them into ruin."

Just as my EVERY belief, from the origins of language through the character of my son to the nature of God, is at every moment open to new data and review, what I regret now may become a triumph tomorrow, and my satisfaction of today may turn to regret.

This has happened to me both ways several times.

JUSTIFICATION of satisfaction or regret is NOT available in this universe.

I'm not going to argue for a creator god or anything like that.. For all intents and purposes, relative to this discussion, you can consider me an atheist.

I would like to point out that "good" and "proper" are subjective terms. How you feel about the way things are is largely irrelevant. They are the way they are. We don't live in an objectively moral universe.

How you perceive things, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is simply arbitrary. Some combination of circumstances and your perspective or orientation towards the world, which could have been any other way if circumstances changed slightly. There is no ultimate good. Perfection is a mental construct. Comparing reality to your ideals is a source of a lot of discomfort.

Making a dysteleological argument kind of buys into the framing of of the teleological. It implies that if only the world were better, intelligent design would have merit.

When really, subjective valuations have no bearing on objective reality. Even if you and I were to think this world couldn't possibly be a better place, the teleological argument would still be without merit. It's just going to muddy up our thought if we buy into the frame that it might be valid under certain conditions.

I think dionysian hath a point.

Awsome, IO just noticed this:

Philologos is PROMOTING skeptical theism.

If you keep tossing out libels like that I will find OUT where you live and I will COME for you and make you EAT those words.

Around here I PROMOTE nothing except more accurate thought and more standard definitions of important terms and the idea that Philogos is a geezer who knows his stuff.

[Comment of an American student on a Brit colleague of mine, reported to me by an eye witness "That guy is EXTINCT". Some here seem to feel that about me, I'll live]

Correct wording:

"Philologos is operating from the basis of skeptical theism"

I assert as I sees it.I do NOT promote.

Uh..... I was clear in what I meant. I'll even quote how my usage is relevant.

So, basically, all I mean is that unless we're talking about a being with an utterly bizarre nature, if this being has purposes that make sense given the basic anthropomorphic assumptions of theism(outright rejecting the Lovecraftianly bizarre intelligences), then the terms "good" and "proper" are set in relationship to those basic assumptions.


......... ???? You're saying that an intelligent designer is literally impossible?


Ok, that's all well and good, but I am not actually invoking moral realism/objective values or anything else like that as my personal assumption, at best only a conditional one used to evaluate the behavior of an actor. You may be right that I skipped over that segment, but I mostly did so because the general value framework that I was criticizing IS clear, BUT.... every halfwit on earth knows how to be skeptical, and no halfwit knows when skepticism adds value and when they're being a dumbass. Usually what ends up happening is halfway skepticisms abound, where the hated ideas are treated with acid, while the beloved ideas are smuggled off to safety.

In any case, without an argument against the possibility of a teleological argument, I can't accept your statement as valid or meaningful. If the teleological argument is without merit, then you can prove it to be without merit. However, "design inferences" are actually valid, just theists are using them in an invalid manner, and constructing them in an invalid manner causing the entire effort to be just stupid.

Philologos you consistently endorse arguments that fit under the category of philosophical ideas labeled "skeptical theism". That is called "promoting skeptical theism". If you want to call that a libel, then either you are a fool or dishonest, and I don't care about people who are either.


Except you don't. If you only promoted more accurate thought, then there are two problems:
1) How come your thought isn't really that accurate? You seem to make a number of intellectual mistakes, one of which is one I ironically covered here, as in the other thread you confuse a statement better read statistically as if the author is saying "All theism is X, and all non-theism is not-X" when the statement as given didn't entail that but only entailed something like a statistical relation. Heck, your continual promotion of skepticism is itself ad hoc, as you aren't promoting a consistent standard for knowledge.
2) How come you really ARE only playing one side? I mean, in what areas do you actually criticize theism? Where do you criticize the arguments of the religious? If this is all about just promoting more accurate thought, then surely you can't say that atheists are the only dense ones, I know we're not. But, you never point out their failings, only criticize the atheists? That's not really accurate to any sense of reality or just that general promotion. You have an axe to grind, and I know it. It's clear from your posting history and the direction you go. You PROMOTE something.


Do you think I give two damns about the difference? If you quibble with me on words, then you waste my time.

I don't really care whether you accept my statement as valid or meaningful. I said my piece. The teleological argument is completely absurd. It's a non-sequitur. It's even worse than that, but that alone should be enough. My point was that the dysteleological argument is silly, because it relies on the assumption that the teleological argument would be true if things were a little better. That's not the case. You just confirmed for me, that is what's going on in your mind when you put forth the argument. It's shameful.

dionysian, you haven't proven/shown anything about the teleological argument. If it is "completely absurd", then instead of babbling this, you can present a variation of the argument and show the flaws, as many people who are more educated and intelligent than you are on the issue apparently disagree, which doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it does mean that you need to elaborate if you don't want to be dismissed. My standpoint is that the probability of a God's existence would be higher(assuming God is coherent) if the world were better. To me, this is without question. Does the dysteleological argument rely on the teleological argument? Strictly speaking, no, instead both arguments rely on a teleological framework which they both share.

In any case, I don't have time for idiots, and people who don't care to explain themselves are effectually no different than idiots.

AG:

I am a student of words and in my small way a wordsmith.

I am the son of two word focussed and word quibbling academics.

I am the grandson of two lawyers, the one I knew being one of the last century's top word quibblers.

I WILL quibble about the right use of words, and it is no more a waste of time than your critiquing my lack of philosophical formalism.

WHICH if you are honest you will see is precisely the same trait, manifested in both of us, but with different focus.

I do not - by COMMON SENSE English - endorse views. I state my views, which sometimes agree, sometimes duisagree with that before me.

To me, claiming I "promote" a view is a very strong insult. You say that by you it is merely a neutral technical; term. Fine, I shall try to hear it that way. Given my associations, it will take some time to get there. I still do not get called an intellectual without seething.

You object I consistently engage claims on the atheist side and allege I play favorites.

Well, you have a piece of a point there. But if you bother to look you will find I critique a number of "churchy" stances. And you MAY just notice : if one amongst us says something which I find misrepresents facts, or the beliefs of X, or the right use of language, I will often speak IF there is evidence the person has some serious intent and a workable mind and at least one ear. Certain people - I will be genteel and not name names - are at the level of lameth that I doubt they know what they are saying, and am sure they would not follow any response. Some of these I totally cut out. You - not trying for a definitive list - have a head you are capable of using, and though we come from different methodological backgrounds I angage you and appreciate that you engage me,

When you and 91 get going - I stand back. Much of what you sling at one another I, a linguist, do not have the background to follow. I might have more chance with higher math. So I generally break into those only when I see deadlocks and frustration eroding the logic. And in those I have spoken mainly to yours because [for all that I agree with much of what he says where I can follow it] your mind is more accessible to mde than 91.

AngelRho, Natty Boh - I do not find a lot of problems with form and content. No more do I with Vigilans.

IF I PLAY FAVORITES AT ALL: it is to engage YOU more than I normally would given our differences in style - focus on intuition versus logic, attitude toward debate, attitude toward the community, your interest in logical / transactional process versus my interest in history and pattern - if that is stated correctly. Your mind is close enough to mind and your opinions far enough that I keep probing.

No such thing as the "right use of words". At least not in the perfectly objective sense. Even further, your quibbling is wrong.

Your lack of philosophical formalism IS a real impediment. You seem to lack the focus that the formalism provides.


No, they are not. Formalism in philosophy is about being conceptually coherent to find the truth. (It also should be done with an eye towards conceptual clarity, not pure formality) There are no right words. There are words that transmit meaning, and those that fail to do so.


Your statements and arguments for them, and consistent efforts to uphold the same views are effectually endorsements.


Deal with it. These are not insults, and while I need to be tolerant, I have little patience for insanity, and at this level it's just ridiculous and I am not that tolerant. I mean, where ought I draw this line, as my usage is without real condemnation, only an evaluation of what I think is occurring.


I know, you don't like organized religion that much either, nor are you really a fundamentalist. That's... not that powerful of an issue to me, as my bigger point is that you aren't a neutral font of reason.

I have not committed any actual misrepresentation. The worst I may do is mock or use rhetoric. In any case, "right use of language" still only boils down to conveying meaning and controlling concepts.


I can understand the 91 accessibility issue. His approach is almost the opposite of my approach. He's very very metaphysically oriented, while I am not, and find the entire direction questionable and contemptible. I mean, I view that kind of approach as being very much like the person pontificating on the teeth in a horse's mouth without bothering to count. (And even then, I don't even think real pontification is his aim anyway, but rather I think he seeks more to be a fortress.)


Heh, fine! I'll accept that as worthwhile.

It's also fair to say that I am logical/transactional.

Philologos really should listen to the first two minutes of this video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjQM8PzCEY0[/youtube]

Maybe I should, and maybe if I could I could get past that hair [I confess to being unman enough to have certain prejudices] and perhaps I might prophet, but as Manuel says, "It is not easy for me".


And yes, Virginia, there IS a right use of words, in a given context in a given community for a given purpose. I come down far off my high horse about certain usages the better to handshake with the general run of English speakers, but certain topics in certain sociolinguistic settings require EITHER specified definitions or joint specification of definitions.

Even falsehood and obfuscation require a specific use of language.