Richard Dawkins, in this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwdVD1gGDvA) tells us the importance of “why” is limited to knowing antecedents and that why in a teleological sense or purpose of existence is a useless, even a foolish question.
This short note is not to go too much into the philosophy of these two essential aspects (antecedent and teleology) of causation but to briefly examine their importance.
Is teleology not important? In the four forms of scientific explanations Ernst Nagel lists, teleology and genetic explanations are very well recognized. Genetic explanation (the one that traces the roots of effect in cause) is what underlies the philosophy of searching for antecedents of the present form of universe. Teleology on the other hand, does give answers that are relevant to not just some aspects of life sciences but philosophy. For instance anomalous expansion of water is a known principle. But why exactly should it happen that way and what purpose does it serve? It does serve a purpose, of protecting life under ice by keeping the water beneath above freezing point. Much of evolution, in terms of how living beings develop limbs, resistance, shapes etc in accordance with the challenges of environment, is explained by teleology.
Why is purpose of life and existence then, unimportant? This question is itself teleological in nature and Richard Dawkins’s rejection of importance can be explained teleologically. But leaving that, where is evolution headed? To which end? Teleology is very important to understand this. Mere back-projection into antecedents and fore projections into future evolution path does not help. Unless purpose of evolution is known, its real direction cannot be ascertained. Development of greater abilities, physical or cognitive, is itself serving a purpose.
That purpose, the eastern traditions say, is greater, still greater and ultimate happiness or Ananda (http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Ananda ). An overwhelming majority of human deeds is teleological – not just biological construction of beings. It is for some purpose – and the substratum of all purposes is happiness. How then, can teleology become unimportant, Richard Dawkins?
bhAratIyata 