I thought I would follow this “convertraversy” and it’s various serious rebuttals and re-rebuttals (what’s a “buttal”?) and have decided…
No. Not for me. I got through the first paragraph though!
Teleology should not be at all out of bounds for atheists. Teleologists do not need to posit that there is an intelligent goal-giver who gives natural beings purposes to fulfill, as many theists think. Just as we understand that natural “selection” can occur without an intelligent “selector(s)” so we can talk about the ways that natural beings function optimally according to their natures without their requiring any intelligence that gives them their functions deliberately. This is because every being, I would argue, is understandable precisely as something which is the functional result of its component beings. Water is what emerges when 2 hydrogens function together with an oxygen, for example.
WTF? I just don’t care about the philosophy. I’d rather go demonstrate in front of the diocese headquarters in Syracuse. You know, something a great deal more practical than pissing into the philosophical wind.