data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/652c7/652c709c179587882fef7a70c3023c9a5fb759b3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8b2d7/8b2d7a29ea4b19606891c77e8b1d6f50d2b31723" alt=""
To what extent does formal teleology still make sense?
pp. 227-246
in: Olga Kiss (ed), Hermeneutics and science, Berlin, Springer, 1999Abstract
Whether teleological analysis is at all useful seems to hinge upon the topic considered. Nobody doubts that human actions can be described teleologically because human agents want to achieve goals. In biology, however, the issue was thought to be so tightly connected to the reductionism-vitalism debate that a new terminology was introduced to describe the fact that DNA is a program for natural processes. Within physics, there even exists a rather general agreement that teleological notions are fruitless if not noxious. This is deeply rooted in the exaggerated debates on physicotheology during the first half of the 18th century. The battles waged then seem quite ridiculous to us today. Nevertheless, those few discussing teleology in physics today do not refrain from emphasizing its possible theological implications [BT].