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?
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.
If you ever felt you could, I would love to hear how you counseled that student. I actually found myself in a similar conversation with a student a few years ago, and would be curious to hear what you found helpful!
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?
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.
If you ever felt you could, I would love to hear how you counseled that student. I actually found myself in a similar conversation with a student a few years ago, and would be curious to hear what you found helpful!
This is a great insight!