Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Greydanus's avatar

Another story can be told alongside this one. Alongside the move from teleology to (objective) causality is a simultaneous move from teleology to (subjective) freedom. Descartes' Discourse on Method and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason encapsulate this double movement. On the one side of the equation, you have a causally determined objective/observable/external world governed by mechanical laws of cause and effect. On the other side of the equation, you have an utterly unrestrained/self-determining subjective will.

This ought to be seen as a conceptual dilemma, especially if the thinker turns to reflect on their own embodied self. What the thinker encounters is a being capable of exercising freedom within embodied limitations. A person can only jump so high before gravity drags them back down. A person can only ingest a select number of specific organic compounds in order to perpetuate bodily life. A person's genetics express themselves in a limited number of ways (no tails, no forelegs, no wings, no beak). Moreover, persons are both enabled and limited by other embodied beings, most obviously in the parent-child relationship, but also in the teacher-student relationship. and as friends or co-workers, etc.

I have no objection to re-enchanting the world. I don't think, though, that this is best accomplished by recovering teleology. It's accomplished by investing human relationships with moral significance. Why else does the Logos become flesh?

Expand full comment
Laura Frost's avatar

As a parent of two kids majoring in the sciences, I hope they are taught the nuts and bolts (causality) along with the why (purpose). To only learn the cause misses the point. I want their faith and curiosity about purpose to drive their study and exploration of creation and life.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts