arndt@lymph.DEC (09/08/84)
May I put forward for your consideration the following book:
Etienne Gilson, FROM ARISTOTLE TO DARWIN AND BACK AGAIN:
A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and
Evolution, Trans. by John Lyon, University of
Notre Dame Press, 1984.
I am currently reading it and would like to discuss it with anyone else
who has, especially in light of the cause and effect postings on the net.
Gilson is a well known Christian philosopher (do I hear the stampede of feet
for the door by 'open-minded' pilgrims who gagged their way through phil 101
and forwent 102 for an advanced math course but none the less just know that
truth is only bearly to be found in philosophy and not at all in religion?).
The central contention of the book is the soundness of natural teleology,
that is, a philosophical discourse about the purposiveness in all living
beings, not only in man whose consciousness is an irrefragable witness to it.
That teleology, Gilson argues, can at best be ignored by scientists but
never systematically evaded without incurring the burden of blatant
inconsistencies.
From the introduction: He points to "the constants of biophilosophy which
doggedly call for the biophilosopher's attention. These constants are the
unfailing presence of facts, such as the baffling organization of all
living beings from nonheterogeneous parts and their coherence in the whole
across the flow of time, which invariabley raise the spector of purposiveness."
(Insert here a dash of Martin Gardner on the use of statistics and this topic
and a pinch of theories about order, from chaos to fractals, blend in a
section from the introduction of the latest molecular biology text, equal
parts of condescention to psychological needs and a knowing nod to religious
grandparents tottering on the brink, and a statement of one's fearless
stance vis a vis the size of the universe (sooo big! or billions and billions
a la Sagon) and one's own smallness and pending dissolution in it. Tie it all
up with a golden braid in a strange loop. Top with a Zen fart! Hug tightly
and ignore this book.)
From the preface: After admitting the bad name given final causality by
theology he goes on to say, "The object of the present essay is not to
make of final causality a scientific notion, which it is not, but to show
that it is a philosophical inevitability and, consequently, a constant of
biophilosophy, or philosophy of life. It is not, then, a question of
theology. If there is teleology in nature, the theologian has the right
to rely on this fact in order to draw from it the consequences which, in his
eyes, proceed from it concerning the existence of God. But the existence of
teleology in the universe is the object of a properly philosophical reflection,
which has no other goal than to confirm or invalidate the reality of it. The
present work will be concerned with nothing else: reason interpreting sensible
experience - does it or does it not conclude to the existence of teleology
in nature?"
In chapter four he quotes Paul Janet, "Finally, . . . , after teleology
has been accepted as a law of the universe, the only acceptable hypothesis
which is capable of making sense of that law is that an intelligent cause
is its origin." He carefully says that that statement is BEYOND the scope
of the present study. Here he only (only?) seeks the evidence for a
teleology in nature.
Good reading,
Ken Arndt
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (09/12/84)
Never saw the book, but heard exactly same arguments from some
everyday folks I know : Gee, it's just too complicated, there
must be intelligence befind it!
I kind of thought about it. That does not constitute a proof,
but can not be ignored either. Suppose there is intelligence
behind it. It is of quality far superior to ours. It must be
VERY complicated (intricate logic, memory, real ingenuity, talk
about attention to detail!). Too complicated to develop all by
itself. There must be some intelligence behind it! There must also
be ...
You know what I mean.
Anyway, what do I know? The book's author is obviously following
in the shaky footsteps of Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, etc.
Proving it. Maybe he's right. But what REALLY interests us
is:
which cult does that intelligence REALLY endorse?
what should we follow to get salvation? (or die forever, whatever)
Being a Christian philosopher he is probably writing another book
proving that this intelligence and Bible's God are same thing.
Now that's HARD!
Good reading to you
Mike Musing