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

by John Clinch , Monday, July 20, 2009, 12:30 (5388 days ago) @ xeno6696

Sounds an interesting curiosity, xeno. I may have a peek. - David has reminded us many times here of how extraordinarily difficult it is for life to get started. His view is that it is, in principle, impossible and that, accordingly, science will NEVER be able to describe with certainty how it came about. He draws a metaphysical conclusion from this and asserts that an interventionist God miraculously kick-started it. That seems to me to be philosophically - logically ... unjustified. - It seems to me that two main logical fallacies are being deployed and repeated:
1.	The argument from personal incredulity: "I find it incredible that life started this way, therefore it couldn't have".
2.	The argument that says because it is unexplained, it is unexplainable. - There is also an explicit category error: science doesn't make "certain" statements. It may make statements which it would be perverse for a reasonable person, looking at the evidence, to deny but that's not the same thing: the predictions of science are not statements of metaphysical truth but merely our best guess at modeling reality. It is provisional and uncertain. And, of course, it does not arrive at a metaphysical conclusion and retro-fit "evidence" in support of it. - As you say, there could have been a number of pathways from inorganic to organic matter. We just don't know yet. But to base one's theism on such apparently narrow ground seems to offer oneself as a hostage to fortune. Imagine a scenario, entirely possible: we discover remnants of bacterial life on Mars or Europa and then recreate life in the lab. Either development, but particularly the two together, would presumably putting a serious dent in theism based solely on the implausibility of life arising. To base a metaphysic on something so contingent seems unwise, particularly as this scenario may well come to pass within the lifetimes of everyone here writing.