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

by dhw, Thursday, July 16, 2009, 07:56 (5608 days ago) @ John Clinch

John has mulled over my criticisms, and has responded. I agree that "the differences are more interesting to explore than the similarities", but am surprised to see how often you manage to come up with differences entirely of your own making. Let's go through the relevant points. - 1) You wrote: "My convictions are borne out of many things ... but I'd like to think that "prejudice" (pre-judgement) isn't one of them. How does agnosticism prejudge the argument about the existence of a deity?" - An excellent question. So let me quote you (July 6 at 16.51): "The idea that a supernatural being like a "sky god" one day "decided" to kick-start life on Earth through a timely miracle is, frankly, preposterous to me." We'll come to "supernatural" later. There are many highly intelligent people, including scientists, who believe in a transcendent deity that did decide to kick-start life (i.e. by designing it). All the major monotheistic religions embrace this concept. At a stroke then, you dismiss the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as preposterous. Not a bad haul for an agnostic without prejudice. - 2) Your next two paragraphs defend your right to "ridicule religion", and you list all the terrible things religious people have done. You will not find a single word of mine in defence of those terrible things, so why bring them up? However, to say that "organised faiths have earned little but the ridicule and contempt of good people" is another of those OTT Clinchisms that make for wonderfully lively debate but don't say much for the writer's sense of proportion. Are there no "good" Jews, Christians, Muslims ... or do the good ones all despise their own religions? - 3) You say, quite rightly, that "Amma and Nommo are mythical accounts. They were never meant to be taken literally. It is the same with Genesis." 
I wrote that these and the other tales I referred to were "variations on the same theme: a supreme being or beings responsible for our existence [...] 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.)" There is no difference between us here. (Incidentally, your wise saying about articles of faith becoming fables was wrongly attributed to me.) My point was that if the theory of abiogenesis is wrong, its reliance on chance to create life will seem just as ridiculous as these myths (I called them metaphors) now seem to you. The latter all centre on the concept of conscious creators, and that is why I have lumped all the theistic religions together, and why I do not accept that a genuine agnostic, devoid of prejudice, would dismiss them as preposterous, or as mumbo-jumbo. - 4) You wrote: "Any reasonable person would accept the proposition that science purports to be objective and literal." It does indeed ... or at least scientists do ... though 'purport' is an interesting choice of words. What you call THE creation story, and "the attempt to discover what is REALLY there and how it REALLY started" is an exciting quest. No dispute here. And I also agree that life arose from non-life, although I'll keep a sympathetic corner free for BBella's theory. One day scientists may well crack the code. But they will not be able to answer the ultimate question of whether what is REALLY there and how it REALLY started came about by chance or by design, which takes us back to (3) and the conclusion you have already drawn, even though you purport to be without prejudice. - 5) On the subject of the supernatural (which I would equate with the paranormal) I wrote to you on 10 July at 12.35, to illustrate your prejudice: "For instance, you have concluded that all the phenomena we have subsumed under the heading of "paranormal" are as "ridiculous" as the concept of a transcendent being. But if there are unknown laws, processes, phenomena of nature, why have you concluded that they will not confirm the existence of, say, forms of communication or even of being, beyond what we now consider normal? How do you know the boundaries of nature?" You have not responded. - In brief, agnosticism refrains from drawing conclusions about the existence and nature of God. Your posts are riddled with conclusions, and yet you see yourself as an agnostic who does not make prejudgements. However, redemption is round the corner. 10 July at 13.17 ... a moment to savour: "Yes, it does rather look as if I'm trying to have the best of all worlds, doesn't it? You have made some valid criticisms...." Hallelujah! Perhaps you'd like to say what they are, if they're not as listed above.