Colin McGinn - Arguing God from Teleology?

To argue from teleology is to claim that the cosmos has a purpose. Is there directionality in the unfolding of the cosmos? Teleology has been a dirty word in science and philosophy, so why recently are a few scientists and philosophers taking a fresh look? Teleology, if one believes it, may lead to God, but need not necessarily do so.



Colin McGinn is a British philosopher, currently Professor of Philosophy and Cooper Fellow at the University of Miami.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[danielpaulson]

Proof for God needs to be argued against anything. A modicum of proof would cease the arguments. But, here we sit. I like Colin. We're here and we exist. No purpose needed. No purpose visible.

[mintakan]

"Probability vanishingly small" (but non-zero). I wonder whether there should be a new principle? In an infinite universe (universes?), if something is *possible*, then it will happen somewhere. Evidence for this? The huge amount of "wasted space", all around us. This applies to the constants in physics, formation of the universe.

The next question is the formation of life, within a given time frame. Abiogenesis, formation of the first cell, is a case in point. Probably not a random uniform distribution, or independent and identically distributed (IID) assumption, in calculating one's probabilities. Things operate in an embedded physical system, with possibly generative rules. (E.g., we get hints of these, even in simplistic computer simulations. Monte Carlo Markov Chain, Wolfram, genetic or evolutionary algorithms.). The probabilities are hard to estimate, in the abstract. It maybe more an empirical question, such as whether we find microbial life on Mars, Europa, Titan, ...

[jamesruscheinski]

What are the probabilities that conscious, intelligent and human life come into existence over 14 billion years of universe and likely even longer multiverse, given the number of planets, solar systems, galaxies and yet to be determined universes?

[TheTruthseeker]

What this guy is saying is the equivalent of saying "it just is... No explanation needed." What if we said that about everything? We would know nothing.

[catherinemoore]

'that's just the way things ate': very improbable, .. science can live with this logic since scientists are trained to look for designs using logic, and they are justly proud to be design detectors... But the best Scientists are those who keep the respect and wonderment that the mysteries of the Universe and life represent. They do not stop at the borders of Logic. They venture into the realms of doubts and wonderment.

[jamesruscheinski]

infinite God"s consciousness of time quantum mathematically designs energy probabilities for universe(s), ?

[benjamintrevino]

Teleology is just the argument from intelligent design, isn't it?

It holds that there must be an intelligent purpose to the universe based on its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity.

But to me that presupposes a lot of things, especially the "design" aspect.

And even if one were to stipulate that the universe is the work of some intelligent creator, it still wouldn't prove that said creator is the Abrahamic God.

[PaulHoward]

The designer could not have been a Martian, because Mars is part of the universe. A designer is more abstract than the design or the creation.

[BugRib]

I have not been impressed with Colin McGinn on this show. 😒

I wonder if his writings might flesh out some of what he's saying, but based on what he says in these interviews, he just sounds like he hasn't thought things through except in the most shallow of ways.

[mattsigl]

Does McGinn really believe that reality having things like mathematical concepts (or actually cognized mathematical concepts), language, self-consciousness, and philosophy in it are just an improbable outcome of a meaningless universe going about its business with no teleological destiny whatsoever? Seems like a very poor theory to me.

[robertdiehl]

After looking at one of Hubble’s ultra deep field photos, and just gasping at the number of galaxies and star systems out there, I am wondering if we are missing something very very obvious?

[tedgrant]

He's still not sure that God exists !

[owencampbell]

Now, what are we observing? we are observing a rise of individuals using their brains no matter if their comments make not much sense, but they come out with their influenced informations and mentality subordination adding new experiences learned here from one another, expressing their thoughts to the matter, and not only depending on so called experts.
The evolutioning mind gets better and better, once it's activated to think, what is right now happening behind keyboards, and the interest to take part, is the ignition for a start.
There may exist a creator, but I say, far far from our imagination.

[drawnmyattention]

I'm not sure probabilities even apply to truly initial conditions. Don't we need a background of "reality", a THERE-there to give something a probability? Dice? Roulette wheels? A universe with laws? A sample of universes? Without these, can we just assume that all imaginable combinations of values are equi-probable? The burden of proof is on those who say we can.

[kallianpublico]

The fact that unexpected things occur implies what? That what was prior is dominant in explaining things, or that what was prior is contingent? Contingent on the unexpected. If your explanation does not include the unexpected then it cannot be a valid explanation.
What is the the only access we have to the unexpected? Intention. Not causation, not creation, intention. How do we explain intention? Through a theory of consciousness?
The realm of the unexpected has no rational pedestal to stand on. Then how does intention claim access to it? Only if intention comes from the realm of the unexpected.

[terrywheelock]

"Design" doesn't suggest "proof", the PHYSICAL evidence of the INFINITE UNIVERSE proves "there can be ONLY ONE!" 🤣

[ahmadfarrag]

Say : He is God, the one . God, to whome the creatures turn
for their needs . He begets not, nor was He begotten, and there is none
like Him

[jasonemryss]

I don't think the question of whether or not an object has a design necessitates a designer was definitively

[JungleJargon]

We are contingent on what is not contingent. An infinitely powerful all knowing God is not contingent by definition of being eternal. The goat herders figured that out a long long time ago. You can't charge your smartphone from an equal or lesser amount of power, you need a greater and greater and greater power until you arrive at an infinite all knowing all powerful *eternal* God. God laughs at those who attack and mock Him.


1Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

3“Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!”

*4He who sits in the heavens laughs, *
The Lord scoffs at them.

5Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury, saying,

6“But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”

7“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

8‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

9‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

10Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.

11Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.

12Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

[Paulus_Brent]

"That's just the way things are"? Not a convincing sort of argument.😆