>Unfortunately, such a teleology is readily subject to Ockham's razor, surviving
>only in the rather anemic form as a human projection onto reality a la
>Dennett's
>'intentional stance'.
This depends on what one considers simpler. The existence of an underlying
teleology explains why things work (why natural laws and fundamental
constants allow our existence, why evolution worked out to produce us, why
we can figure out natural laws, etc.), whereas its absence requires myriad
assumptions that things just happened to work out the way they did. In a
way, the view of Dennett, etc. is a bit like special creation. All the
features of nature originate independently, and the apparent overall
connection is coincidental. Is the addition of teleology or of incredible
luck the one to shave?
Spiritual things provide a much more substantial challenge to the purported
merit of rejecting teleology. Jesus just being lucky about not staying
dead is not very plausible.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 11:43:59 EDT