h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

this could hurt a few brains, mine included.

the Teleological arguement is the arguement to the end. it deals with evolution and what its main goal is. over millenia species have developed better ways to survive and adapt. the most notable is the Human race.

the brain for example is thought to originally have been developed to merely control body temperature. but over the generations it developed into the most complex mass of matter in the known universe (to us anyway). the teleological arguement (ta) is the arguement that it is all leading somewhere. you have to take into account that it is based around the theory that a greater being exists, but we can discuss it from the opposing view also.

so, evolution or Gods will, where is it all heading. to perfection? to nowhere as we are all insignificant? or somewhere else?

i will point out that if it is perfection, then surely mankind will die as there is nothing left to achieve.

what are your views?

I am sure there will always be something left to achieve...I am just not evolved enough to imagine what it is and will have to get back to you on that.
Andrea

I reject the ideas of the Teleological arguement. I see it as another attempt to give meaning to a Universe that is existential.

To give yourself a pre-designed purpose is to place a huge amount of significance upon yourself.
It's harder to accept the idea that everything you are and everything you know is meaningless than it is to accept the idea that there is some sort of mystical purpose to your life.
This is why Religion has such a hold over the huge amount of people as it does - people can't bear the thought of their own insignificance. A deep-founded arrogance, in my opinion.

Humans have always had an arrogant sense of self rightousness and predestiny that is the route of all modern organised religion. The teleolgical argument is merely the misconception of scientific ideas to further justify this position. It's still too big a thing for many people to accept that we're a happy accident derived from a set of coincidences several billion years ago and so still cling to the concept of a divine purpose.
Evolution does it's purpose (though not a conscious one) and is heading somewhere. Evolution is blind and merely improves on what is here already by survival of the fittest. Perfection is an irrelevence.

I also reject the Teleological Argument.

The brain did not develop to control temperature. The brain developed to control movement and any bodily functions that need to be controlled. Nothing that doesn't move has a brain, although in some cases the brain is rudimentary - more of an extended nervous system. There's even an animal (the sea squirt) that 'consumes' its own brain when it reaches adulthood and becomes firmly attached to a rock!

Evolution has no goal in the sense of 'leading somewhere'. Evolution is the process of developing life-forms that are better suited to their environment. That's it. Nothing else.

Man is not perfect. He is not the pinnacle of some evolutionary pyramid with amoeba at the bottom and Man at the top. Man should evolve too. Snag is, Man no longer adapts to his environment; he adapts his environment to suit his needs, screwing up the environment for himself and other life at the same time.

I notice that the other two 'researchers' who posted before I started writing this sort of agree with me. Does this mean that the only people who have replied so far are non-believers / agnostics? Or do even the religious people round here acknowledge that there is no purpose to evolution?

You'd be correct in assuming that I'm a non-believer. Evolution is a blind process who's controlling influence is the srrounding environment rather than any supernatural pre-destined perfection

Viruses are the most evolutionary advanced species on the plannet. They have, for millions of years drove evolution of other species to their own ends. Of this viral-lead evolutionary drive, humans are just another servent of the viruses. We have been created in order to provide a carrier service for the viruses, so we can spread the viruses to every corner of the plannet, and to help the viruses reach their ultimate goal; domination of the universe. To facilitate their dispersal around teh universe, a crucial part of human evolution they have driven, is our 'intelligence', and particularly our inquisitive nature; driving human race to explore not only our own plannet but the wider universe/solar system; all so we can act as transport mechanisms to help the viruses travel to other plannets.

yibbitter , yibbitter ,
don't know if this fits but how about us being here as a survival mechanism for 'mother nature'.Not the only ones mind ,there are plenty of other intelligence lifeforms also dutifully employed battleing decay.

virus' are inhabiting my nose as we speak !!

I disagree with the argument too.

Again, it boils down to man's insecurity and unwillingness to accept that we're just here, evolving naturally, and that's it.

As to God, I'd call myself an agnostic, had a religious upbringing, but love science, and don't know either way whether there's a big man upstairs laughing at how self important we think we are.

The TA argument can only be based around god, because if our 'destiny' is to evolve into some supreme being, then what? Well we then say that whatever follows is in *God*'s hands, and we can't possibly try to guess what 'he' has planned for us.
Omitting God from the theory, the TA arguement is basically "our being here can't just be because of such a simple thing as evolution, therefore there is obviously a plan where we are to become higher supreme wonderful beings"

Also, it's rather the man sitting at home just hoping something will happen that will make his life wonderful and problem free. The TA argument hopes that when we are all 'enlightened', there'll be no problems, and we won't have to take responsibility for anything anymore.

"God is not dead, he's just working on a slightly less ambitious project"

Queegle

ok, so no-one agrees with the teleological arguement.

just put aside all the God theory and predestiny theories and ask yourself, where is it heading and why?

i know a lot of you who replied believe mankind to be a happy accident but i would disagree. we have a conscience and we can think so why is this? we are constantly discovering things in science that can disprove religion this is true but they are equally astounding things to believe. it is clear that the universe runs like a machine. galaxies form and move throughout infinity, planets orbit larger planets or stars. all of these are theoretically impossible to the human mind but they seem to keep happening. so what is the purpose? there has to be one.

and i think it easier to believe we are an accident. that way we don't have to think about this. it is kinda like giving up

ok, so no-one agrees with the teleological arguement.

just put aside all the God theory and predestiny theories and ask yourself, where is it heading and why?

i know a lot of you who replied believe mankind to be a happy accident but i would disagree. we have a conscience and we can think so why is this? we are constantly discovering things in science that can disprove religion this is true but they are equally astounding things to believe. it is clear that the universe runs like a machine. galaxies form and move throughout infinity, planets orbit larger planets or stars. all of these are theoretically impossible to the human mind but they seem to keep happening. so what is the purpose? there has to be one.

and i think it easier to believe we are an accident. that way we don't have to think about this. it is kinda like giving up

"...so what is the purpose? there has to be one"

Why? We shouldn't need that safety blancket

"...where is it heading and why?"

This is my point, creachy, there is no cosmic 'why?' We are simply 'heading'. And anyone who claims to know where we are heading, is, quite frankly, a fraud.

"we have a conscience and we can think so why is this?"

Because we have evolved thus. The larger the brain, the greater the intelligence. We have the largest brains on the planet, that is why we can think so effectively. 'Conscience' as in 'right and wrong', well, that can be explained as a natural progression of having social structure - it's in our interest to protect our family units, this way our genes get passed on, most creatures that didn't have this instinct didn't make it as far as we have. As I see it, conscience develops from this - we dislike hurting our own.

"galaxies form and move throughout infinity, planets orbit larger planets or stars. all of these are theoretically impossible to the human mind but they seem to keep happening. so what is the purpose? there has to be one."

Why? Why must there be a purpose for these things to happen? And why are they 'theoretically impossible to the human mind?' I am capable of understanding that planets orbits stars, and, evidently, so are you.

"and i think it easier to believe we are an accident. that way we don't have to think about this. it is kinda like giving up"

By using the word 'accident', you imply that we should never have happened. We are no accident, we are the product of evolution, we are the pinnicle of evolution on this planet.

As for 'giving up', I completely disagree. To assume that life has some enormous cosmic purpose without understanding the relevant science is 'giving up', in my opinion. And using religion to explain the Universe is the ULTIMATE non-thinker.

'...where is it heading and why?'

Evolution is heading in all directions. In fact, you can only really answer that question if you view evolution as a ladder of 'progress', a single line going from more basic, 'less evolved' organisms to highly complex sophisticated organisms such as humans.

Evolution is a bush, not a line. It isn't even a tree because that gives a hint of a main trunk thrusting upwards. When people see a line of progress and call it evolution they are making a mistake of seeing just one path through the labyrinthine, convoluted bush of evolution and heralding that as progress 'towards something'. Evolution is heading in all directions but going towards nothing at all!

People like Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin all showed us, bit by bit, how unimportant mankind is. How we are not at the centre of the universe, or the solar system, and how we are not God's special creation. The last holdout for some against these waves of unpleasant truths is that we are somehow the 'pinnacle' of evolution, that we are the best living thing. Evolutionary-speaking, humans are not very successful. We are not the most successful mammal (see rats, bats, and antelope), we are not the most successful vertebrates (see the teleosts: bony fish), we are not the most successful animals (the insect world rules). We are a highly social, annoying and destructive component of the mostly-green slime that covers this insignificant planet. We are not important. And that's just fine, get over it.


'and i think it easier to believe we are an accident. that way we don't have to think about this. it is kinda like giving up'

Au contraire. How easy is it to think 'how did we come to be?', and then cop out and invoke some sort of deity. To believe in evolution as the only way we came about takes a leap of understanding that is way more difficult than a leap of faith. You have to truly understand all of the processes involved and reject centuries of religious dogma, and a lifetime of cultural conditioning. Learning and understanding is never 'giving up'.


'so what is the purpose? there has to be one.'

Ah! This is what it comes down to. No. There most emphatically DOES NOT have to be one. Why should there be a purpose? The universe owes us nothing.




Ste

Ste,

We seem to more-or-less agree. But I have to argue one point:
"The last holdout for some against these waves of unpleasant truths is that we are somehow the 'pinnacle' of evolution, that we are the best living thing. Evolutionary-speaking, humans are not very successful."
It's all subjective anyway, but I feel I have to sound my disagreement. We are the only animal, ever to have existed on planet Earth that is able to look at all the parts that make us, and change them as we see fit. We are able to de-code nature, in effect. Whether this is right or wrong, damaging or helpful, it is still amazing.

I also agree that we are not important, but I would prefer to state: 'We are not important, we are amazing and facinating, but not important.'

We might be able to look at ourselves, up to our own DNA sequence, and even hold and comprehend the entire universe in our minds. We are amazing and fascinating. We are also the product of a stunted and unsuccessful offshoot of a tree-shrew. In terms of evolution we're nowt special whatsoever. Neither are vertebrates particularly.

The only remarkable thing, as we mentioned, is our capacity for thought. And even then, our consciousness might just be a trick our brains play on us as a neat survival mechanism (though I'm highly sceptical about that one).

Ste

Purposes exist only in the minds of goal orientated entities. And these purposes exist only for the present and the near future that those minds can encompass. Everything else is just function, not purpose. There is no "ultimate goal" of evolution because evolution is not directed by a mind.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

My thoughts exactly. You have a real talent for summing stuff up in a succint and successful way.



Ste

Yeah, and it disguises the fact that I'm often a bit thin on the details.

Noggin