The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Saturday, February 23, 2008, 08:26 (5901 days ago) @ John Clinch

In response to John Clinch's interpretation of the website, whitecraw writes: "I take the site as saying that the wisest response to the absence of any satisfactory naturalistic or non-naturalistic account of abiogenesis is to adopt a position of agnosticism towards the question of how life emerged from non-life." Precisely. - As I am unable to take sides, I consider all possibilities. This is where some of our correspondents have completely missed the point, and ... if I may be as blunt as you, John ... there are a number of statements which show that you are one of them. - You quote and support George Jelliss: "In the absence of other evidence of the existence of such a being, it is sensible to shelve the idea." (The "evidence" George is referring to is myth.) Once you have made up your mind, it is easy enough to dismiss what some people regard as "other evidence" ... e.g. out-of-body experiences, ESP, spiritualism, healing etc. and the strange fact that many human societies have similar "myths" in common. There is a vast body of literature recording these experiences, and there are countless numbers of people who take them seriously. Of course they are not scientifically proven (nor for that matter is abiogenesis), but the scope of science is limited. While I cannot commit myself to a belief in psychic phenomena or to ideas that have been espoused or at least not rejected by some of the most brilliant minds in human history (including Darwin), unlike yourself and George I cannot dismiss them either. "Remember," you say, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That is a two-edged sword, and if it applies to abiogenesis, it applies to other theories as well. - You equate my arguments with those of the Creationists, who believe that "Genesis is not just the only alternative but one that deserves parity as a scientific theory." There is no suggestion anywhere in my writing that I regard Genesis as a scientific theory. The section entitled "Origins" contains my views on Genesis, together with my views on various other creation myths. To save you the trouble of reading them, let me quote my own conclusion: "I find all these concepts as incredible as that of chance-created life, heredity and adaptability, and that of a benign deity who, in six days 6000 years ago, conjured up heaven and earth and every single form of life..." - You write: "To assume that homo sapiens will not find a naturalistic explanation is a bold statement. 'Never' is very long time, after all." There is no such assumption in my writing. I concur with George Jelliss, however, when he asks: "Is it in fact possible to distinguish whether two atoms come together by "accident" or as the result of G.O.D [his famous Grand Old Designer] action?" Obviously it isn't. However, if scientists do eventually discover how life came about, and if the explanation turns out to be as simple and natural as you and George think, and chance does seem to be the best bet, then it may indeed influence my beliefs. But I can only base these on what I know at the moment, and I need more knowledge before I can take what you are reluctant (but I am not) to call a "leap of faith". - "He has postulated a designer." No I haven't. (Postulate = to assume to be true or existent.) I have examined the alternative to chance, and looked at what has been said about it. And I have found it equally unconvincing. But at least I have considered the "evidence", and until I am able take your "leap of faith" either way, I shall remain open-minded. - "He really wants to be an old-fashioned theist. That's fine: I am told that religion is very comforting and I hope he will eventually find peace with his Sky God when he overcomes his doubts." I am grateful for the implied good wishes, but alas the "evidence" I have examined makes religion anything but comforting, and my vision of the "Sky God" is extremely disturbing, as you would have found out had you read the relevant sections. - This is, I'm afraid, a trait common to many who have made up their minds: they see what they want to see, and ignore the rest. Well, I can do no better than quote whitecraw again: "agnosticism neither rules out nor endorses any of the range of possible beliefs." That is precisely my position.