View source for Talk:Teleological argument

{{talkheader}}
{{controversial}}
{{GA|17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1|oldid=622081099}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|logic=yes|religion=yes|metaphysics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=mid|Intelligent design=yes|Intelligent design-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=high}}
}}
{{Archives |auto=yes |search=yes |title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]] ([[{{#titleparts:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|1}}/Archive index|index]]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(90d)
|archive=Talk:Teleological argument/Archive %(counter)d
|counter=5
|maxarchivesize=100K
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft=4
|minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Teleological argument/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Teleological argument/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__

== Rephrase needed ==

{{tq|for example, every two hydrogen atoms are ordered to form a compound with one oxygen atom}}. No, they're not: two atoms can bind to each other to form H<sub>2</sub>, two pairs of atoms can bond with two carbon atoms to form ethane, etc. I don't know exactly what this sentence is saying, so I don't want to change it myself. [[Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:4734:5658:5D1D:3796:2525:6D9B|2001:BB6:4734:5658:5D1D:3796:2525:6D9B]] ([[User talk:2001:BB6:4734:5658:5D1D:3796:2525:6D9B|talk]]) 15:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:I've changed it, since nobody else did. [[Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:4734:5658:D21:6744:8DBD:A8B3|2001:BB6:4734:5658:D21:6744:8DBD:A8B3]] ([[User talk:2001:BB6:4734:5658:D21:6744:8DBD:A8B3|talk]]) 11:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== Does anyone else think this whole article misses the point? ==

Upon cursory review of this article, it appears the teleological argument is being lumped in with the watchmaker analogy and intelligent design. The teleological argument deals with unintelligent objects or beings acting toward a certain end unthinkingly. But it seems like it is being confused with the idea that God intervened at times to change something or with the argument from complexity. I think this article misses the entire point, but I would like public comment before I go editing all willy-nilly. <span style="background-color: maroon; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Kringga|<span style="color: greenyellow">Kringga</span>]] [[User talk:Kringga|<span style="color: greenyellow">talk</span>]]</span> 16:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
:Over its history this article (and others related to it) have sometimes been difficult to edit because of the high political priority many Wikipedians give to making sure that Wikipedia makes all the definitions line up with the way they are recently used in specific American culture war debates which were hot when Wikipedia was young. That ''may'' be having an effect on whatever it is which is concerning you. But here are some questions:
:*Do you have a good source for the idea that the teleological argument is specifically about ''unintelligent'' objects or beings acting toward a certain end unthinkingly? I can see how it might be argued, but I don't think I've ever seen the unintelligent aspect being emphasized and I am not sure why we would need to do that. For most readers it might become very confusing, without really changing the meaning?
:*It is also not so clear how this would make it different from the watchmaker argument and "intelligent design" in the broad old sense? Can you explain the distinction(s) you are making?
:*It does sound right to me that this article should not imply that the teleological argument is "the idea that God intervened at times to change something". (I guess that is a reference to Intelligent Design in those specific recent culture wars debates?) But does this article imply that definition? Can you explain where?
:*What are you seeing in the article which confuses it with "argument from complexity"? Are you sure this is worth changing?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
:ID movement and teleological-argument theistic apologetics are not synonymous but they overlap [[User:FatalSubjectivities|FatalSubjectivities]] ([[User talk:FatalSubjectivities|talk]]) 14:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree the article (starting with the first line) conflates an argument using [[Teleology|teleology]] (the end) with one based on complexity or design which is [[Deontology|deontology]] (the means) and not teleology. The article also narrows it as if such arguments are always about the existence of God.  
:But I’m also thinking such confusion of the means with the ends is so common as to be the norm, and that the existence of God association is so far the greatest [[WP:WEIGHT]] of coverage that arguments which actually use teleology would not get much space here.  Perhaps it would better suit to have See Also links to such areas, e.g. [[Teleological behaviorism]],  [[Teleological ethics]], [[Teleological language in biology]], and [[Teleological interpretation]] (law).  It might be nice to have an explanation for the abstract inductive vs deductive approach, but the WEIGHT just isn’t there.
:Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
::Whatever we do it will need to be based on a balancing of the different approaches found in reliable sources, and we also have to keep in mind that there is a quite different article called "[[Intelligent design]]" which focuses on the specific story of a version of this argument which we know from recent culture war debates. Currently this article is covering all the older variants. It is not really clear from your remarks what types of changes you would like to see, and how you would source them, but I take it you want the differences to be more clear. I have not looked at it for a while but I believe one problem is that reliable sources tend to use these terms in different ways. Currently the discussions of different approaches is split up chronologically, looking at specific proponents etc.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::[[User:Andrew Lancaster]] my comment said the only option I could see was adding some See Also to more technically correct uses of the term.  Mistakenly saying teleology is design or that natural theology is it are so common as to be the WEIGHT here.  It does not matter that academically the teleological argument is literally a phrase meaning talk about the end result.  It does not matter that teleology is nothing about design nor about complexity.  It does not matter that natural theology has many parts and only one is Aquinas use of a teleological argument as one of his proofs for the existence of God.   It does not matter if Socrates use of it was about an unintelligent acorn.  The association by many repetitions, however technically mistaken it may be for philosophy, is so dominant that I cannot see changing the body of this article and we just accept it does not match academic works.  (e.g. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/teleology-in-the-ancient-world/socrates-darwin-and-teleology/7DBBC0DE4DB2898BC1197825970987A1 here] or [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2176001 here] or others.)  Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 18:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I understand that like me you aren't making any big proposals at the moment, but I was wondering if I could tease a more detailed explanation out of you of what your comments really mean in detail. Maybe it is relevant to other articles in the long term. I realize that Aquinas distinguished several different arguments but some of them seem to be equivalent. (Or that is a frequent reading.) Interesting that you cite Sedley. I've also tended to see him as a good source here. Can you point to a line or passage which explains your point?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 22:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Andrew Lancaster]] I had no particular line in mind.  In general, my point is that the literal meaning of “teleological argument” is just an argument based on teleology, and I offered some candidates of such for See Also links that are not about proving God exists.  The most famous teleological argument is the Quinta Via of Aquinas in [[Five Ways (Aquinas)]], which is about proving God exist and became known as “the” teleological argument, perhaps confused as if that’s the only one.  As said at [[Five Ways (Aquinas)]] even that one has nothing to do with design or complexity.    Hopefully this helps.  Cheers  [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 07:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Just my thoughts. No response necessary unless you think I am totally misunderstanding. Design means "intention" in these discussions, or in other words it means there is not only intelligence but also that the intelligences has ends (teloi). Complexity comes into the discussion because when complexity is observed which is not just a random mess, but something which looks organized and systematic, this supposedly implies that intelligence with ends. So no matter what we think of them, it is hard to handle these arguments separately because they are so commonly linked in such ways.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 08:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Mmm, think design or intelligence may or may not be present in individual cases of teleological arguments, but to be clear these are not the teleology part and a teleological argument may exist with one or both or neither.  The acorn or other [[Teleological language in biology]] has no intelligence nor design, but looks at a final end (telos) anyway.  The [[Teleological behaviorism]] and [[Teleological ethics]] has an intelligence looking at that final ends (result), but without a specific design of a mechanism.  And of course one can have a design or intent without complexity.  I don’t think these are inherently linked, but that since they are commonly confused and mistakenly said to be the same that the article cannot ignore that de facto they are taken as synonyms.  cheers Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

== Minor description. ==

@[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]], The body does not necessarily have to state it. It's common sense, really, regarding how teleology works.([[WP:CSIOR]])  It relies on reason rather than revelation. Whether the reasoning is convincing or unconvincing is another matter entirely, but the inherent nature of the argument is obvious.

The lead already has this line "''While the concept of an intelligence behind the natural order is ancient, a '''rational argument''' that concludes that we can know that the natural world has a designer, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes, appears to have begun with classical philosophy.''"

Nonetheless, here are few sources: <ref>{{cite web |title=Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=August 10, 2024 |date=June 10, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Induction Task – Phil Unit 1.1 Summer prep The Teleological Argument |url=https://marlingsixthform.org/media/DOC5D2C53D60EE1C/Religious_Studies_independent_Study_Philosophy%20Task_.pdf |publisher=The Teleological Argument (the argument from design) Marling Sixth Form |access-date=August 10, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Teleological argument summary notes |url=https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/the-teleological-design-argument/the-teleological-argument-summary-notes/ |website=A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies |access-date=August 10, 2024}}</ref> Though, I would argue, we don't need to put the sources on the lead.([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|MOS:LEAD]]) [[Special:Contributions/182.183.53.142|182.183.53.142]] ([[User talk:182.183.53.142|talk]]) 12:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::Rational'''ISM''' is clearly more than just anything involving a rational argument. It also can't be defined as an opposite of "revelation". For a start you can read the article about it on WP which you link to. Using an -ISM means we connect this argument to a specific movement within philosophy, which would I think confuse and mislead. None of the sources you cite mention the word "Rationalism", and two of them are not valid sources according to WP norms.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 15:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::In that case perhaps, we could use "''is a [[Rationality|rational]] argument for''". And instead of linking to the movement, we could simply link rationality as a quality of the argument. That could work. [[Special:Contributions/182.183.6.255|182.183.6.255]] ([[User talk:182.183.6.255|talk]]) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::That is a step in the right direction. But are there such things as deliberately irrational arguments? I mean when we say that an argument is irrational, we mean it was done wrongly, don't we? Invalid? So what is the word "rational" adding here? Do we think our readers will be confused and think that an "argument for X" might actually be an argument which deliberately aims to work in an irrational way?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 23:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's true that most arguments aim to be rational. But, I think that since we are talking about a religious argument, it underscores the argument's intention to appeal to reason and logic rather than emotion or faith alone, which is important in distinguishing it from other types of arguments for God's existence, such as fideistic or purely theological arguments.  I think it clarifies this aspect for the readers early on. [[Special:Contributions/182.183.6.255|182.183.6.255]] ([[User talk:182.183.6.255|talk]]) 00:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== GA concerns ==

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the [[WP:GA?|good article criteria]]. Some of my concerns are listed below:

*The article contains uncited statements.
*The article relies upon quotes and block quotes in some sections. This creates copyright concerns and makes the article more difficult to read and connect ideas. 

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to [[WP:GAR]]? [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 19:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:If GA discussions lead to every statement needing a footnote, and no blockquotes that let readers see more clearly what was said, then they are pushing for a style of writing which is the opposite of what would be considered good in high quality writing about historical or philosophical topics. If there are specific statements that deserve better citation, and your aim is to improve '''quality''', then why not just say ''which'' statements, in a clear and concise manner? Seems easy enough.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Andrew Lancaster}} Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner: I did not see it on my watchlist. The [[WP:GA?|good article criteria]] requires that every statement be supported by a citation. This does not mean every sentence needs a footnote, as a footnote can [[WP:V|verify]] information in previous sentences. However, it does mean that there should be a footnote at the end of each paragraph, with some exceptions (like the lead, which usually does not have citations per [[WP:CITELEAD]]). If you would like, I can add "citation needed" tags to the article to indicate where the citations are needed. 
::As for the block quotes: per [[MOS:QUOTE]] "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." In my opinion, this article uses too many block quotes which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the point that is trying to be conveyed in each block quote. Please ping me in responses so that I can reply more quickly. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)