Historical directionality as an indication of teleology

To see teleology in a physical or historical context is a valid argument, correct or not, and requires careful demonstration and proof but its use as an argument for the existence of god is pace kant most probably fallacious: the latter is borders on incoherence and has no stable referents.

The issues of ‘design’, teleology, proofs of the existence of god, and finally ‘intelligent’ design are all different and can’t be safely collated in a typical secular…

Source: secular humanist (and religious) confusion over…//The Teleological Argument – Darwiniana

 The eonic model as a tool to study teleological thinking

The issue of teleology is confounding to darwinists, but it is likely to prove confounding to its own proponents, for example, the ID group and the Discovery Institute. Teleology is going to enter into a theological subtext, as usual, for the conservative perspective.
Although critical of darwinism and boycotted by its dogmatic orgs, I would suggest to conventional scientists a look at the eonic effect as a self-defense against the religious rights stealth mode.
The eonic effect shows something that religious attempts to reintroduce ‘teleology’ should also examine, but they will not do that because the challenge to the judeo-christian legacy suddenly appears out of nowhere: the religious perspective in any case has theistic views in the background.
Looking at the eonic effect it is clear that monotheistic religion was an aspect of historical directionality in the Axial Age, which is a limited version of the eonic effect, and this gave it a sense of historical entitlement. But with the rise of modernity religion as christianity was challenged, first in the Reformation and then with the secular sphere and these themselves now speak with a kind of historical entitlement (even as they fail to perceive the eonic factor). It is a distressing situation for religious conservatives, and they wish to summon teleological thinking in an antimodernist challenge. It won’t work.

We must note at once that teleology can show multiple tracks in parallel and that ‘monotheism’ appears in parallel with buddhism in a remarkable synchrony along with the other factors of the ‘Axial Age’ in Greece, India, China, and elsewhere. Thus the teleological or directional aspect of religion has nothing to do as such with theism/monotheism: it seems to explore multiple potentials in a multitasking mode. Teleology in a multitasking mode, is a perfect example of the complexification of naive ideas of the idea (which should better be limited to ‘directionality’). Note the title of our other blog: ‘the end(s) of history’, as if history has multiple teleologies in a larger one. There are many examples: it your telos is to finish high school, then your goal at each point is to finish each of twelve grades in succession.
It is good to stand back and try to look at world history in its full complexity with a view to using the eonic model as a guide to, first, directional, and then cautiously possible teleological potentials and definitions. Directionality is all we can actually detect but our eonic directionality can show sub-teleology inside its epoch intervals. It is relatively easy to find directionality, but the passage to teleology is not as ‘simple’ because we are immersed in the system in question and can’t see its ‘endpoint’ or teleological target which might lie in the future.We can try to guess based on limited data  looking at what something is doing: we might consider the ‘telos’ of the evolutionary construct civilization as one such guess.

And the question of our free agency arises. And the teleological, or directional factor is very tricky. As an example we can cite the eonic effect in terms of one interpretation, high level and almost vague: the evolution of freedom, a very complex and confusing idea because it breaks out of the standard causal mode (as does teleology). In any case, the ‘evolution of freedom’ will cause analytical paradox, and will be different from the closed ‘target’ mode of the usual idea of teleology. A teleological system that ‘evolves freedom’ will finally have to come to an end so that the outcome will be free individuals, a teleological system that lets go of its control. Many other such issues arise. We suspect, but can’t be sure, such an effect is visible in the wake of the modern transition, but we cannot be quite sure. We should stop here, and caution against the distorting factor of religious traditionalism in the study of teleology.
As far as the German interest here goes, we have seen how both Kant’s challenge, and the history of the teleomechanists shows the very early orientation of German thought to teleological questions.

Finally, we mention in passing one of the most tricky aspects of teleology and the eonic effect: how does directionality express itself on the surface of the planet. How integrate over such a surface, etc…We have already shown an answer: a single track on the surface wouldn’t work if the teleological endpoint is globalizing planetary unity: just as with the Axial Age our single track must split into multiple parallel tracks to cover both a larger surface and a larger bouquet of diversity.

Let us point to the many materials on the eonic model and leave it at all for the moment.

Source: “Teleology in Nature” Gains a Beachhead in Germany | Evolution News

Design versus ‘Intelligent’ Design

Despite our challenge to darwinism, and support of the idea of design, we might well challenge the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ rather than simply ‘design’. The use of the term ‘intelligent’ is no doubt a deliberate attempt to introduce either ‘god’ or at least some ‘mental power’ in the universe connected to evolution. But the gesture is not legitimate: the idea of a design inference allows us to see ‘design’ but its source may or may not be an ‘intelligent mind’ but a process that mimics intelligence, perhaps, but is something different. the distinction is crucial. The idea of design suggests teleology in nature but we cannot produce theology around that. The distinction is essential because the abuse of design arguments in proofs of the existence of god has long since flunked a Kantian metaphysical test. The idea of design however cannot be dismissed using natural selection arguments and the attempt to do so has almost destroyed biological reasoning of scientists…
It may well be that there is some ‘intelligent’ power in the universe, man is one of them, and philosophers like Hegel use the term ‘geist’ (spirit, or mind) explicitly, but that is open to Kantian challenge and in any case is far more sophisticated and reasoned than creationist theologizing…

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution.

Source: Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al. – Darwiniana

secular humanist (and religious) confusion over…//The Teleological Argument

The issues of ‘design’, teleology, proofs of the existence of god, and finally ‘intelligent’ design are all different and can’t be safely collated in a typical secular humanism diatribe against theism. We discussed yesterday the confusion over ‘design’ and ‘intelligent design’. Design in the realm of biology is almost an inevitable conclusion, but it doesn’t follow it is the result of intelligence, although it might certainly look intelligent…
Teleology is probably the case and this is not an argument for theism. Teleology is visible in the eonic effect, although it is visible only as directionality and must be reconciled with free agency.
Teleology is not proof of divinity, if only because the term ‘god’ is so incoherent we can’t really use it for anything.

Source: The Teleological Argument