Teleology
Preface
Paris, Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn, March 28 2023. I have a London-Glasgow-Paris trip booked for parts of March-April 2026.
Originally published 20140824, significantly revised on Blogger 20260215.
Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791). Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791).
Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791). In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.
Teleology Defined
British philosopher Blackburn describes teleology as 'The study of the ends or purposes of things.' (374). Blackburn claims that the notion that life has a beginning and end purpose was an idea of Aristotle and is also a Christian theological concept (374). In other words, in contrast, some modern views such as Darwinian evolution, reject teleology. Darwinian evolution holds to 'natural selection' (374) where a thing has a function 'without any idea of a commitment to a designer who put it there for a purpose...' (374). Teleology would therefore be viewed as 'unscientific' (374) within Darwinian evolution.
Scientism
Empiricism
The Oxford Dictionary of Science...
Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view empiricism as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.
Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy
Cited
'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'
'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.
Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'
Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism. I also as a Christian theologian and philosopher within the Reformed tradition, do not embrace any notion of naturalism.
Cited
'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'
'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.
Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'
Noted Bibliography from this source
Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.
Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
---Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism. I also as a Christian theologian and philosopher within the Reformed tradition, do not embrace any notion of naturalism.
Scientism
Blackburn explains...
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
The Oxford Dictionary
Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
---
As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.
For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies and theology. These are found based on legitimate religious history. Also reasonable, rational deductions within theistic philosophy of religion should not be easily dismissed. There exists theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions. With Darwinian evolution we can understand that teleology is rejected for naturalism and what I view as reliance only on scientific data. In the extreme this can be viewed as scientism.
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).
The Oxford Dictionary
Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
---
As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.
For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies and theology. These are found based on legitimate religious history. Also reasonable, rational deductions within theistic philosophy of religion should not be easily dismissed. There exists theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions. With Darwinian evolution we can understand that teleology is rejected for naturalism and what I view as reliance only on scientific data. In the extreme this can be viewed as scientism.
Let us consider that naturalism and scientism which reject teleology, are to some degree within philosophy of science, so as there is some crossover with the academic discipline of philosophy which also deals with worldviews; it is fair and reasonable for me to legitimately have theological and philosophical disagreements with views that embrace scientism and reject teleology.
Teleology: Aristotle and Plato
Aristotle
Aristotle
c. 335–323 BCE for this text
"For if in medicine, or in shipbuilding, or in any other such art, some things are done for the sake of an end, it is evident that this is also the case in the products of nature. Further, in cases where a series of things has a limit, the last step is the end for the sake of which the others are done." — Physics II.8, 199a10–15
A ship being built has a beginning and an end, therefore according to Aristotle is has a teleological purpose. It also has teleological meaning. Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791).
Plato
Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791). Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791).
Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.
Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.
From Plato and Timaeus t
It states in the section Mind Persuading Necessity (48a):"The creation is made up of both [mind and necessity], mind persuading necessity as far as possible to work out good".
The idea of working things out, from Plato, would seem indeed an teleological one.
Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791). Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791).
Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791). In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.
Philosophical Theology
The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a finite, secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions. God would be the infinite, eternal, first and primary cause of all finite things. Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.
In regard to the related teleological argument, it is not the purpose of this article. But when reviewing various arguments over the years under the headings of 'natural theology' some of the premises do at times seem to be over-speculative and views that could be easily endlessly challenged by theists and non-theists. I therefore have not used them online or offline. In other words, how provable are the premises and conclusions philosophically and theologically?
I instead do hold to the concept of first cause and reason it is consistent, although not identical to the concept of the creator Biblical God. First cause being primarily of philosophy and philosophy of religion; God, primarily being of theology and Bible.
As I studied Alvin C. Plantinga's book 'God, Freedom and Evil' very thoroughly for my theses work, there was a section on Natural Theology and he largely dismissed concepts related to the teleological argument as not having evidence with points 2 to 6. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 84). In contrast, R. Douglas Geivett was much more positive in regard to natural theology in 'Evil and the Evidence for God'. Plantinga's views and his dismissal assuredly largely debatable and controversial.
I lean more towards the views of Geivett in favour of at least some significant usefulness for natural theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective, but again acknowledge the speculative nature.
In the Scripture from the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament to Revelation it can be seen and understood though that God does have teleology in play. God has a teleological purpose in creating angelic beings, human beings, in the fall, problem evil, the gospel and in the restoration of the universe.
From a finite human perspective while admitting that all truth is God's truth, in regard to God, it is more reliable depending on revelation and reason than only philosophical speculation and reason. I am certainly not opposed to using philosophy and philosophy of religion in the pursuit of truth, but teleology from a Christian theological perspective is dependent on biblical revelation from religious history found in Scripture.
The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a finite, secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions. God would be the infinite, eternal, first and primary cause of all finite things. Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.
In regard to the related teleological argument, it is not the purpose of this article. But when reviewing various arguments over the years under the headings of 'natural theology' some of the premises do at times seem to be over-speculative and views that could be easily endlessly challenged by theists and non-theists. I therefore have not used them online or offline. In other words, how provable are the premises and conclusions philosophically and theologically?
I instead do hold to the concept of first cause and reason it is consistent, although not identical to the concept of the creator Biblical God. First cause being primarily of philosophy and philosophy of religion; God, primarily being of theology and Bible.
As I studied Alvin C. Plantinga's book 'God, Freedom and Evil' very thoroughly for my theses work, there was a section on Natural Theology and he largely dismissed concepts related to the teleological argument as not having evidence with points 2 to 6. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 84). In contrast, R. Douglas Geivett was much more positive in regard to natural theology in 'Evil and the Evidence for God'. Plantinga's views and his dismissal assuredly largely debatable and controversial.
I lean more towards the views of Geivett in favour of at least some significant usefulness for natural theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective, but again acknowledge the speculative nature.
In the Scripture from the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament to Revelation it can be seen and understood though that God does have teleology in play. God has a teleological purpose in creating angelic beings, human beings, in the fall, problem evil, the gospel and in the restoration of the universe.
From a finite human perspective while admitting that all truth is God's truth, in regard to God, it is more reliable depending on revelation and reason than only philosophical speculation and reason. I am certainly not opposed to using philosophy and philosophy of religion in the pursuit of truth, but teleology from a Christian theological perspective is dependent on biblical revelation from religious history found in Scripture.
A biblical example of teleology is from Revelation 1:8, 21: 6, and Revelation 22: 13, which is the end of the New Testament...
The beginning and the end is what God the Son, Jesus Christ claims...
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Revelation 1:8
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who [a]is to come, the Almighty.”
Footnotes
Revelation 1:8 Or is coming
Revelation 21: 6
6 Then He said to me, “[a]It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give water to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life, without cost.
Footnotes
Revelation 21:6 Lit They are
Revelation 22:13
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
13 ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.14
I the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end
I referenced
---
In great contrast, modern science that embraces Darwinian Evolution may in fact, believe in 'teleonomy', as opposed to 'teleology'. Here is a definition.
'teleonomy The quality of apparent purposefulness in living organisms that derives from their evolutionary adaptation, rather than from any conscious intention or external design."
Source: A Dictionary of Biology (8th Ed.), edited by Robert Hine.
Not to be confused with 'theonomy'
John Frame from Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy I think that Frame’s definition is quite helpful.
'Theonomy can be defined simply as adherence to God's law, which would make all Christians, especially Reformed Christians, into theonomists. Here I define the term more narrowly as a school of thought within Reformed theology which prefers literal, specific, and detailed applications of Mosaic civil laws to modern civil government. The word "prefers" gives us some leeway. At points, the theonomists, like the rest of us, apply the law only in general and non-literal ways. But they tend more than the rest of us to prefer the specific and the literal.'
From: Theonomy The word "theonomy" derives from the Greek words “theos” God, and “nomos” law. It is a theology which applies God's law as rule of law. I reject it for civil authorities, as within this current world system, which is fallen and corrupt, God's law will be to subject to human interpretation and not by the perfect rule of Jesus Christ and the triune God. I support theonomy only under the authority of God the Son and the triune God when the Kingdom of God is eventually fully culminated, with perfect humanity as its citizens.
Again, not to be confused with teleonomy...
---
ARISTOTLE, Physics (1934-1957) Greek text with translation by P. H. Wicksteed, F. M. Cornford. Loeb Classical Library 228, 255. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ARISTOTLE, Physica (1951) Ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BURY R. G. (1960) (ed. and trans.), Plato: Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles, Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HINE, ROBERT (2019) (Ed.) A Dictionary of Biology (8th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HINE, ROBERT (2019) (Ed.) A Dictionary of Biology (8th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLATO (360 BCE) Timaeus, Translated by Benjamin Jowett https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html
SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
