But what if the universe is not itself a "mechanism?" Thus not explicable in such terms? If that is the case, any explanation consistent with the premise of a mechanistic universe will "almost certainly" be false.
Metaphysical naturalism in its present form requires the universe to be "a mechanism."
But even "mechanisms" must have designers; and the ones we know of operate according to a rule (e.g., an algorithm, or a program maybe) which the mechanism did not itself create. The other interesting thing about mechanisms is that they are intended to accomplish a purpose — it is here that teleology intrudes — of which they need not be aware; indeed, of which they are not capable of becoming aware. They just execute their program. If they're any good (i.e., if the designer is skillful), they do so reliably. But in NO sense can we claim that a mechanism is conscious, while all living organisms are, at least in some degree.
As for my earlier statement about Marx's "forbidding of questions," this was a statement about Marx, not a statement that I think a given correspondent is a Marxist. (That would be an ad hominum attack.)
Marx did indeed forbid any question that might cast doubt on any aspect of his "system." To challenge his dogma was "streng verboten." You have to buy the dogma "whole cloth." Those who dare to ask questions about "the system" deserve to be "punished" as enemies....
Forgive me if I see associations between this historical fact and the behavior of some — not all — enthusiasts of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
As for me, I do believe that the universe is an evolutionary development. But I don't just assume that it's a giant machine. Thus, I do not agree with materialists of dogmatic Darwinian persuasion, for — to the extent that Darwin accepts a materialist worldview (which I believe he did) — I doubt that Darwin got the problem right.
You wrote in reply (to a statement of mine appearing in italics at the top of your post), "I don't see why. To me, that's like saying any theory of disease that cannot explain viruses, cannot explain why vaccination works."
I disagree. You can't make a vaccine without understanding what a virus is and how it works. A virus is not a machine; it is "alive" (or quasi-alive) in some sense. If you don't understand what a virus is, then associating it with disease is unlikely; and thus the development of a vaccine to kill it so to cure the disease is also unlikely.
I think that many naturalists (i.e., those who tend to metaphysical naturalist persuasion) think that the best way to deal with "wholes" in nature is to isolate and study the "parts" of which they are constituted. The expectation is that if you sum up all the parts, you will have the complete "picture" of the whole. But this certainly doesn't work in biology: If you reduce a living system to its parts, you kill it: As the poet said, "We murder to dissect."
The biggest "whole" of them all in human experience is the universe itself. Planetary motion and star formation are "parts" of that whole. We do not even know how many other "parts" there are. But even if we did, the Universe seems not to be a simple sum of its constituent parts. For the parts only become functional and meaningful when they are brought into dynamic relation with one another; that is, are clearly ordered by something else which is (as Nagel suggests) teleological (purposive, goal-directed), not mechanistic, in its basic operation.
IMHO, this is spectacularly evident in biological systems to the dispassionate analyst/observer.
It's good to see you again, HHTVL. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I think you must mean "is not itself only a 'mechanism'." Because the universe is certainly a mechanism in many of its aspects. If there were no "if we do this, it'll do that" machinelike predictability, we wouldn't be able to land a spaceship on Mars or use the computers we're typing on right now.
But even "mechanisms" must have designers; and the ones we know of operate according to a rule (e.g., an algorithm, or a program maybe) which the mechanism did not itself create.
I would regard that as an unproven assertion. The mechanism that puts Mars right where we predicted it would be--did its algorithm necessarily have an outside designer?
Forgive me if I see associations between this historical fact and the behavior of some — not all — enthusiasts of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Fair enough. The same is true, of course, of many of those who are anti-evolution for religious reasons.
As for me, I do believe that the universe is an evolutionary development. But I don't just assume that it's a giant machine. Thus, I do not agree with materialists of dogmatic Darwinian persuasion,...
I think we've been here before. It's confusing, because it often sounds (to me, anyway) like you're framing your statements as a critique of evolution. And certainly many of the other posters who applaud your statements reject evolution. But if you're okay with evolution but think there must be something more than purely mechanistic, materialist evolution, I'm not sure we have much of a disagreement.
You can't make a vaccine without understanding what a virus is and how it works.
Ah, but you can. People were getting vaccinated against smallpox hundreds of years before anyone had any idea viruses existed, much less how they worked. It was the result of another "if we do this, it does that" observation: if we give people a mild dose of smallpox (or cow pox), they don't get sick when exposed to a larger dose later. No understanding required.
Nice to see you, too. And now I must head to the post office before it closes.