Thanks for the ping…
A little food for thought....
Burrrrppppttt!!! Thanks!
Great defense of Newton’s teleology. Unfortunately, people will always try to Divine no Providence from the writings of others.
“Newton confronted with deep distrust the mechanical worldview of Descartes, which derived all change in the world alone from the mechanical mutual effects of the bodies. The Cartesian model of the world, in which the mutual play of mechanical powers was to explain the development from chaos to the ordered cosmos, seemed to him all too self-contained and self-sufficient so that it would not need any divine assistance or would even admit such.” [ibid., p. 60]
Chaos? Did you say ‘chaos’ agent 86? I think you’ve exposed Maxwell’s demon. “How can chaos make cosmos which made intelligent life to discover its origin?”
To deny order and design in our cosmos would be similar to denying ‘compressed design’ in DNA. We see, have evidence of, and study design with science. The use of teleology while denying teleology is again, divining no providence in an attempt to ‘Get Smart’.
Not only that, Heartlander, but I think this operation reveals a fatal self-contradiction in the very basis or premise of this type of argument. At least, according to the methods of Aristotelian logic.
You ask: “How can chaos make cosmos which made intelligent life to discover its origin?”
With brilliant concision, you state the question that it seems the many in increasingly doctrinaire academic life and the wider intellectual community are implacably, strenuously determined to avoid engaging in the first place.
Thank you so very much for writing, Heartlander!