The Teleological Lexicon: Biological, Religious, and Ethical Perspectives on Purpose
This project is about the post-Darwinian science and religion dialogue with respect to one of its most central areas of contention—the existence or non-existence of teleology in nature. Teleological concepts are those that deal with purposiveness, ends, or goals in nature and in human life. Ever since Darwin’s breakthrough, there has been a debate about what the theory of evolution entails for whether nature can somehow be seen as teleological, and what it means to say that human beings fit into natural history if nature is indeed devoid of teleology. This debate has, however, too often been hampered by a weakly grounded understanding of the variety of teleological concepts—whether religious, naturalistic—at play. In this study, I therefore explore the variety of teleological concepts in order to provide a new history and conceptual typology of teleological ways of thinking in philosophy, theology, and science. Against this background, I then analyse two influential theories in contemporary biology, self-organization and evolutionary convergence, and discuss the ramifications of these theories on the contemporary science and religion dialogue. By bringing in new empirical material, developing better theoretical tools, and revising the received historiography, I hope to shed new light on the perennially interesting question of how human beings can be said to fit in with the rest of nature in a way that has a bearing on existential questions, as well as on ethics and ecology.
Final report
I was granted an RJ sabbatical during the academic year 2021-2022, which included a research stay as a visiting scholar at Duke University, North Carolina, for 12 months. However, due to the Covid pandemic, the U.S. embassy did not issue any visas, which necessitated postponing the project by one year. During the period from August 2022 to July 2023, I was then able to reside as a visiting scholar at Duke University.
During my year in the U.S., I had the opportunity to work further on a manuscript for a monograph titled “The Varieties of Purpose: Retrieving the Grammar of Teleology” and to engage with leading scholars at Duke University. I also had the chance to present and discuss the ongoing research at conferences and seminars in Rome, Durham (England), and Dublin.
Below, I outline the progress made on the research monograph.
The project addresses the dialogue between philosophy, theology, and natural science (particularly biology) regarding the question of purposiveness — whether one can speak of purposes and goals as part of the natural world or not, and the implications this holds for a range of other issues of ethical, philosophical, and religious significance. In particular, it addresses the question of humanity’s place in nature in light of influential scientific and philosophical theories. Is there a shared “teleological grammar” that allows us to transcend the dichotomy between humanity and the rest of nature?
While working on the book manuscript, the tension between purely philosophical and theological perspectives on the one hand, and scientific perspectives on the other, became increasingly pronounced. I reached a point where I had to choose between developing the project according to the original plan, in which two chapters addressing contemporary scientific theories in theoretical biology would be integrated with a conceptual-historical account and philosophical reflection, or instead distinguishing these inquiries more clearly. Throughout the year, I grappled with the question of whether to continue with the original structure or to rearrange it. Ultimately, I decided to let the material guide me and adjusted the plan accordingly, as otherwise, I would have had to address the scientific developments and biological perspectives in too limited a space, failing to do them justice. The original eight chapters have thus been expanded into two major parts or volumes, each with six chapters, where the first focuses on the conceptual-historical and philosophical perspectives, and the latter on scientific developments.
This restructuring has somewhat delayed the progress of the monograph. I have primarily developed the first part of the project, completing three of the six chapters (as well as one chapter in the second part). Additionally, I have written drafts for the remaining three chapters.
Chapter one presents a framework for understanding the teleological grammar in dialogue with Max Weber, Hans Jonas, and Bernard Charbonneau. Beyond its philosophical relevance, this section clarifies the existential and ethical dimensions of the issue and situates the project in relation to contemporary perspectives within ecological ethics. In this way, the subsequent conceptual-historical development is placed within its intellectual context.
Chapter two explores the roots of the problem — teleological thinking — in Aristotelian natural philosophy. Here, the deep historical and conceptual connection between theories of life (biology) and ethical, political, and existential questions, in particular, is established. Aristotle, one could say, provides the foundation of the Western teleological grammar. Central to this grammar is the close relationship between nature’s own teleology and human action as teleological, which also encompasses the relationship between nature and art.
Chapter three examines Kant’s retrieval of the Aristotelian approach to thinking about living organisms in reaction to the emerging mechanistic understanding of life toward the end of the 18th century. This chapter explicitly addresses the question of humanity’s belonging in the natural context, the relationship between nature and art, and, not least, how this plays into a theological understanding of the world and humanity’s unique position. If Aristotle provides the foundational teleological grammar, one might say that Kant gives teleology its specifically modern language form: he essentially establishes a way of thinking about teleology that continues to largely shape the discussion. Kant also introduces the specific question of historical teleology in modern philosophy and the associated development of a distinct historical consciousness.
Chapter four picks up the thread of historical teleology by examining its continuation in Hegel’s thought and its reception, as well as exploring its theological roots in the ancient legacy of Augustine, who articulates an influential theology concerning the development, direction, and purpose of history. With this chapter, several interrelated lines of teleological development are thus brought to light, and several key domains of teleological concepts become clearer.
Chapter five, which is currently in development, discusses how the grammar of teleology during modernity becomes closely interwoven with scientific developments in what is commonly referred to as physico-theology or natural theology. Here, the question of purposeful design in nature plays a decisive role, which pulls teleological grammar in a distinctly theological direction, at least up until Darwin’s scientific breakthrough. While teleology is afforded renewed significance in philosophy, theology, and public debate, there is also a narrowing of teleological concepts in light of the modern mechanistic understanding of science, which largely underpins the rejection of teleology from the late 19th century to the present day.
Chapter six, finally, addresses Darwin’s role in this development. Here, the focus is less on the theory of evolution itself and more on how it came to be understood and used in the discussion about the problems and merits of teleological thinking — an issue that Darwin himself ultimately could not resolve. One reason for this is that his theory of the development of life forms and its mechanisms brings together many different types of teleological conceptual domains, which has often led to a confused discussion up to our own time. Here, it is both a question of understanding the purposeful organization of life forms and a way of viewing history as something more than mere change — it is a process of development. How this should be understood in relation to the grammar of teleology has since been a subject of lively debate. Thus, the theory of evolution brings the core question of the entire project into sharp focus: ultimately, it is always about how humanity, as a distinctly teleological being, can be said to belong within the context of nature.
This first part of the project has an independent coherence, yet it also provides the necessary background for the second part, where the emphasis is on discussing contemporary theoretical developments surrounding various types of teleology, with a primary focus on the dialogue between natural science, philosophy, and theology. The plan is thus for the two parts to be interconnected, while also allowing them to be read individually with benefit.
Finally, the work on this project during the year in the United States has led to participation in two international projects with similar themes. One, based at Durham University in England, addresses the broader interpretation of the phenomenology of life and life forms; the other is a collaboration between the University of Gothenburg and Fudan University in Shanghai on ecological ethics, where the question of humanity’s place in nature once again holds a central role. In this way, the project has generated added value in the form of international connections, developed questions, and new research initiatives.
During my year in the U.S., I had the opportunity to work further on a manuscript for a monograph titled “The Varieties of Purpose: Retrieving the Grammar of Teleology” and to engage with leading scholars at Duke University. I also had the chance to present and discuss the ongoing research at conferences and seminars in Rome, Durham (England), and Dublin.
Below, I outline the progress made on the research monograph.
The project addresses the dialogue between philosophy, theology, and natural science (particularly biology) regarding the question of purposiveness — whether one can speak of purposes and goals as part of the natural world or not, and the implications this holds for a range of other issues of ethical, philosophical, and religious significance. In particular, it addresses the question of humanity’s place in nature in light of influential scientific and philosophical theories. Is there a shared “teleological grammar” that allows us to transcend the dichotomy between humanity and the rest of nature?
While working on the book manuscript, the tension between purely philosophical and theological perspectives on the one hand, and scientific perspectives on the other, became increasingly pronounced. I reached a point where I had to choose between developing the project according to the original plan, in which two chapters addressing contemporary scientific theories in theoretical biology would be integrated with a conceptual-historical account and philosophical reflection, or instead distinguishing these inquiries more clearly. Throughout the year, I grappled with the question of whether to continue with the original structure or to rearrange it. Ultimately, I decided to let the material guide me and adjusted the plan accordingly, as otherwise, I would have had to address the scientific developments and biological perspectives in too limited a space, failing to do them justice. The original eight chapters have thus been expanded into two major parts or volumes, each with six chapters, where the first focuses on the conceptual-historical and philosophical perspectives, and the latter on scientific developments.
This restructuring has somewhat delayed the progress of the monograph. I have primarily developed the first part of the project, completing three of the six chapters (as well as one chapter in the second part). Additionally, I have written drafts for the remaining three chapters.
Chapter one presents a framework for understanding the teleological grammar in dialogue with Max Weber, Hans Jonas, and Bernard Charbonneau. Beyond its philosophical relevance, this section clarifies the existential and ethical dimensions of the issue and situates the project in relation to contemporary perspectives within ecological ethics. In this way, the subsequent conceptual-historical development is placed within its intellectual context.
Chapter two explores the roots of the problem — teleological thinking — in Aristotelian natural philosophy. Here, the deep historical and conceptual connection between theories of life (biology) and ethical, political, and existential questions, in particular, is established. Aristotle, one could say, provides the foundation of the Western teleological grammar. Central to this grammar is the close relationship between nature’s own teleology and human action as teleological, which also encompasses the relationship between nature and art.
Chapter three examines Kant’s retrieval of the Aristotelian approach to thinking about living organisms in reaction to the emerging mechanistic understanding of life toward the end of the 18th century. This chapter explicitly addresses the question of humanity’s belonging in the natural context, the relationship between nature and art, and, not least, how this plays into a theological understanding of the world and humanity’s unique position. If Aristotle provides the foundational teleological grammar, one might say that Kant gives teleology its specifically modern language form: he essentially establishes a way of thinking about teleology that continues to largely shape the discussion. Kant also introduces the specific question of historical teleology in modern philosophy and the associated development of a distinct historical consciousness.
Chapter four picks up the thread of historical teleology by examining its continuation in Hegel’s thought and its reception, as well as exploring its theological roots in the ancient legacy of Augustine, who articulates an influential theology concerning the development, direction, and purpose of history. With this chapter, several interrelated lines of teleological development are thus brought to light, and several key domains of teleological concepts become clearer.
Chapter five, which is currently in development, discusses how the grammar of teleology during modernity becomes closely interwoven with scientific developments in what is commonly referred to as physico-theology or natural theology. Here, the question of purposeful design in nature plays a decisive role, which pulls teleological grammar in a distinctly theological direction, at least up until Darwin’s scientific breakthrough. While teleology is afforded renewed significance in philosophy, theology, and public debate, there is also a narrowing of teleological concepts in light of the modern mechanistic understanding of science, which largely underpins the rejection of teleology from the late 19th century to the present day.
Chapter six, finally, addresses Darwin’s role in this development. Here, the focus is less on the theory of evolution itself and more on how it came to be understood and used in the discussion about the problems and merits of teleological thinking — an issue that Darwin himself ultimately could not resolve. One reason for this is that his theory of the development of life forms and its mechanisms brings together many different types of teleological conceptual domains, which has often led to a confused discussion up to our own time. Here, it is both a question of understanding the purposeful organization of life forms and a way of viewing history as something more than mere change — it is a process of development. How this should be understood in relation to the grammar of teleology has since been a subject of lively debate. Thus, the theory of evolution brings the core question of the entire project into sharp focus: ultimately, it is always about how humanity, as a distinctly teleological being, can be said to belong within the context of nature.
This first part of the project has an independent coherence, yet it also provides the necessary background for the second part, where the emphasis is on discussing contemporary theoretical developments surrounding various types of teleology, with a primary focus on the dialogue between natural science, philosophy, and theology. The plan is thus for the two parts to be interconnected, while also allowing them to be read individually with benefit.
Finally, the work on this project during the year in the United States has led to participation in two international projects with similar themes. One, based at Durham University in England, addresses the broader interpretation of the phenomenology of life and life forms; the other is a collaboration between the University of Gothenburg and Fudan University in Shanghai on ecological ethics, where the question of humanity’s place in nature once again holds a central role. In this way, the project has generated added value in the form of international connections, developed questions, and new research initiatives.