Talk:Dysteleology

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of religion

I don't know if adherants of the Anthropic Principle are necassarily committed to rejecting dysteleology. There is a big difference isn't there between constraints (that exist because we exist) and design or directedness. I agree that two can intersect, but the former does not seem to entail the latter. With all the variations of the anthropic principle, wouldn't it make more sense to say that some of the variations are committed to rejecting dysteleology, but not all? I think the summary of the different variations of the Anthropic principle in the Anthropic priciple entry supports this. Anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Humble Coffee (talk • contribs)

I fail to see how this philosophy could, in any way, be described as “optimistic”. Optimistic nihilism sounds like an oxymoron.97.116.64.212 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dysteleology is an aggressive, yet optimistic, form of science-oriented atheism...

In what way is this philosophical stance "aggressive"? Hundovir (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]