Q&A: Teleological Explanation vs. Causal Explanation
Teleological Explanation vs. Causal Explanation
Question
Hello and blessings. In past lectures you presented more than once that you hold two views: that everything has a cause, and that explanations in nature (and similarly for human actions) are also teleological, while a causal explanation is just an interesting anecdote.
It’s clear to me that these views can both be maintained together (for example, as Aristotle said, that everything has both an efficient cause and a final cause), but my question is: how exactly do they fit together? Maybe it would be more effective to ask about a specific example—why did a tree grow by the stream? The causal answer is that (I’m not starting the chain from the very beginning, and of course I’m not giving a full explanation) snow fell, the temperature in the mountains dropped, and therefore the snow changed its state of aggregation (according to certain laws of chemistry), so the water flowed downward in the river (according to certain laws of physics) and reached the soil, where there happened to be a tree seed, and so it grew (according to certain laws of biology). If we take this example, I have trouble finding the words for a teleological rather than causal explanation. The direction that comes to mind is that once, for example, the temperature drops, there is somehow “built into” the snow an aspiration or purpose to change its state of aggregation, and then to flow downward to a certain place; and similarly, it is somehow “built into” the components of the tree to change in the direction of growth once they “detect” water. In that way, the teleological explanation somehow relies on and integrates with the causal explanation. My explanation sounds too thin, and even if that is so, it still follows from the explanation that the cause is required in order for each thing to move toward its purpose, and the cause is not merely “an interesting anecdote.” So I’d be glad for your explanation.
Besides that, I’d be glad if you could refer me somewhere, or briefly write here, what your position is on teleological explanation. After all, it is not as intuitive as causal explanation is (at least nowadays), so it is genuinely interesting what the reasoning is for holding such a position—that everything in nature has a teleological explanation.
Have a blessed week, and may we know better days.
Answer
First, thawing is a physical process, not a chemical one. 🙂
As far as I remember, I never said such a thing. Perhaps you mean my statement that in the sciences of inanimate matter the explanations are causal, and above that level the explanations are teleological.
But as for the issue itself, there is no contradiction at all. These are two forms of description that can be equivalent. For example, Fermat’s principle is a teleological explanation for geometrical optics, and it also has causal explanations (Snell’s law). One can prove that one is a translation of the other (that is, equivalent to the other).
I’ve addressed this several times in the past. I think it appears in Notebook 3, for example. Search there.
Discussion on Answer
In physics there are two kinds of explanation for almost all phenomena, but there are areas (such as quantum theory) where there is only a teleological explanation. Therefore the teleological explanation seems more comprehensive and truer.
As for intuition, that is a different matter.
As for your example, it is made up of many stages, so there is no single teleological explanation there. At each stage there will be a different explanation. For example, when the water flows downward, one can describe it as gravity pulling it there, or as a tendency to flow toward minimum potential energy.
I understand. Would you describe that tendency as something “embedded” within things in the world (which God implanted in them in order to reach some purpose)?
And also, is there somewhere you could refer me to in order to better understand the intuition behind teleological explanation and the preference for it in certain cases (or in all cases)?
I have no idea. But those who oppose teleology probably understand it that way, and that is part of the reason for the opposition.
I don’t have an intuition that the teleological is preferable. It’s simply that there are phenomena for which there is no causal explanation at all, so if one must choose, one necessarily has to choose the teleological.
What phenomenon has no causal explanation?
All the phenomena described by the Schrödinger equation.
Thanks for the correction and for the answer! (:
In the series on faith, chapter 26 from minute 15:20 onward, you said that the teleological description in the natural sciences and in general is the true one, whereas the causal description is an anecdote (and you brought an indication of this from quantum physics, where the explanations are only teleological). Your claim there is indeed that the two explanations are equivalent, and what the truth is is a philosophical rather than scientific question—and there you answered as I wrote.
If so, and if you do indeed hold this position, could you present the reasons for it?
And quite apart from your own position, it’s clear to me that there is no contradiction between the two explanations, but I’d still be happy if you could explain how a teleological explanation is given and what its character is in the example I gave and in general (what is the metaphysical explanation for the fact that water “strives” to flow downward, exactly in the direction that gravity causes it to move? Really, it seems simpler to argue for causality, while teleological explanation is the one that requires explanation and is less intuitive nowadays. In the same way, how does the tree grow in teleological terms? Is that information somehow “embedded” in it?).