Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, March 10, 2008, 08:48 (6100 days ago) @ clayto

Clayto writes: "It looks to me quite likely that when the conditions for life are present then often (not necessarily always) life develops...Why should this not be so?"
"I suspect (I do so wish I knew!) that life is a natural and widespread phenomenon throughout the universe" although "we do not yet have evidence for other planets." - David Turell has given scientific responses to your various questions, but I would like to approach them from a different angle. If I may link them to the thread heading, we get the following: - 1. Knowledge: we have the right conditions for life here, and we have life.
2. Beliefs: a) where conditions are right for life, it will generate itself spontaneously (= atheist); b) the process whereby non-life becomes life is so complex that the most likely explanation is design (= theist, but not necessarily the God of the monotheistic religions).
3. Agnosticism: a) we shall never know, or b) we can't make up our minds.
Let me add George Jelliss's neat maxim: that "one's belief should be proportional to the evidence". - I'm going to assume that you adhere to 2a, but it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, because the point I want to raise is general. Belief is something positive, in so far as it entails an inner conviction. You can't base your faith in 2a on the fact that you don't believe in 2b. When you say "it looks to me quite likely", "I suspect (I do so wish I knew!)", "we do not yet have evidence", you are obviously not basing your beliefs on evidence or on knowledge. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation or of life on other planets. So what is it that gives you your inner conviction? In most areas of life, we need to form beliefs or opinions so that we can make decisions, but there is no urgency here, so why can't you wait and see? (I should add in passing that problems only arise when people who have formed their beliefs ... whether theist or atheist ... try to ram them down other people's throats, or hold others up to ridicule. I'm not passing judgement; I'm genuinely asking a question.) - Here is an interesting test. David Turell writes (Absence of Evidence, 07/03 at 20.12): "There are two key points in discussing agnosticism: The Big Bang Theory of a created universe which allows life; and the appearance and evolution of life itself." In relation to the appearance of life, David explains some of the problems facing the abiogenesis hypothesis in his posting under Near to Death, 05/03 at 17.54, and raises questions about the limitations of science. After drafting this response to you, I logged onto whitecraw's entry on 09/03 (many thanks) under The Real Alternative, in which he draws our attention to a truly fascinating interview with Andrew Knoll, which ties in very neatly with David Turell's entry. If, after reading these two items, you (or anyone reading this thread) still have an inner conviction, what is it based on? My question is not about abiogenesis, but about the nature of belief.