James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Friday, July 10, 2009, 21:09 (5613 days ago) @ John Clinch

John (in response to my last post:) Yes, it does look as if I'm trying to have the best of all worlds, doesn't it? You have made some valid criticisms which I shall have to mull over and get back to you on. - I appreciate your honesty. Unfortunately, your previous post took you back to your tone of scathing dismissal, which is always hard to take "in the right spirit", but I'm getting used to it! I had drafted this reply before I read the above, but I shall leave it as I wrote it and ask you too to take it in the right spirit. - You wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that a scientific theory about the origins of life would have the same status, the same plausibility as the mythical mumbo-jumbo referred to above? Are you saying that it's all just a question of take-your-pick, that any is as good as another? That, because there is as yet no coherent theory of the origin of life, that the scientologist's world view (say) is as valid, for the purposes of this discussion, as the life-scientist's?" - Once again, I'm afraid, your prejudices shine through. Already you have dismissed the concept of a transcendent God as "ridiculous", and now you dismiss the religions of societies presumably unfamiliar to you as mumbo-jumbo. All the references I gave were to different religious explanations of creation, and I see all of them as variations on the same theme: a supreme being or beings responsible for our existence. Believers in a transcendent being called God or Allah would also consider these other religions to be ridiculous mumbo-jumbo, thus revealing their own prejudices, but I see all of them as very much on a par ... namely, as possible metaphors for a creative force we cannot understand. (There are many monotheists who don't take Genesis literally either. And while I'm in parentheses, I shan't deal with scientology, as I don't wish to be drawn into a libel suit, and in any case I don't know their theory about creation.) - In your less prejudiced vein you stated categorically that "there is nothing in our experience of Nature which should lead us to any particular conclusion". However, as I stated in my previous post, you continually confront us with your conclusions, and you state them not only with emphasis but even with disdain when they concern beliefs you do not share. - I do not believe any of the religious theories I mentioned, but I respect the basic principle for which they stand ... namely, the possibility of a supreme being or beings responsible for our existence. I do not believe in abiogenesis, but I respect those who do, and I would not call it ridiculous or mumbo-jumbo. However, from my agnostic standpoint, I continue to waver between chance and design, and this is the point at which your elevation of a scientific theory above a religious theory falls apart. Supposing the theory of abiogenesis is wrong (unlike you, I have drawn no conclusions, and consequently this remains a distinct possibility for me)? Supposing there is a designer? The theory that inanimate matter can spontaneously transform itself into living organisms with the potential for astonishing variations will seem just as "ridiculous" as Amma and Nommo seem to you. If you have already decided that this unproven theory is right, you confirm that you are prejudiced; if you haven't, then you must allow for it being wrong. - I agree with one of your statements, however: "There needs to be plausibility, evidence and reason." Of course I don't believe in "take-your-pick", but my parameters are a great deal more flexible than yours, and I certainly don't assume that, for instance, the beliefs of monotheists and polytheists lack plausibility, evidence and reason. - There are two other posts on which you have commented. I'm writing a separate reply to BBella ... whose ideas and personal experiences inspire the utmost respect in me ... and I'm sure David will give his own response to your extraordinary attack.