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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 09:10 (5602 days ago) @ John Clinch

John: David has reminded us many times 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. - This argument goes to the very heart of our whole discussion. You've extrapolated what you call two logical fallacies, the first of which is based on personal incredulity: "I find it incredible that life started this way, therefore it couldn't have." - We're dealing here with the nature and logic of belief, but ... no doubt unintentionally ... you've imposed the language of certainty. Instead of "it couldn't have", substitute "I don't believe it". Then try this: I find it incredible that life started by chance, and therefore I don't believe it. Your logical fallacy disappears. Now apply the "personal incredulity" argument to your own views: you find the concept of a transcendent God "preposterous", and NDEs and OBEs "nonsense", and therefore they can't exist. Would you accept that as a fair representation? Of course you wouldn't. But again substitute "I don't believe in them" and the argument becomes logical. Each conclusion is based on comprehensible reasons, there can't be certainty either way, and so it comes down to personal conviction. The extension of the first is: "I find it incredible that life started by chance, and so I believe it must have been designed, and so I believe there must have been a designer." Any logical fallacy there? You weigh the evidence, and you reach your personal conclusion (or in my case you don't). - As regards your second logical fallacy, I've never heard anyone say "because it is unexplained, it is unexplainable". Again I'm sure this was not your intention, but you are creating your own fallacy. Such a statement would be a rejection of the whole history of science, and I don't know of anyone on this forum who would be so blinkered as to make it. One might believe that the origin of life will never be explained because of its unique complexity, but there is no logical fallacy in that. I would add that even if eventually scientists do unravel the code that gave rise to life and evolution, they still won't be able to say whether it came about by chance or by design. - At the risk of repetition, I'd like also to consider another important statement (and I think these really are important points that you are raising): "the predictions of science are not statements of metaphysical truth but merely our best guess at modelling reality." I agree. But "best guess" is not "only guess", and there are areas of existence that science may not be able to cover. Your monist materialism is also a belief. Perhaps it's based on your personal incredulity with regard to anything beyond the material world, or perhaps it's based on the fact that you're only willing to believe in the world as you know it. If it's the latter, it's worth bearing in mind that you don't know it. Previously, you have quite rightly pointed out that we don't know what science will come up with in the future. Why, then, should anyone assume that if it does eventually crack the code of life, this will somehow favour the theory that life came about by chance? Why assume that remnants of bacterial life will be found on Mars? Why assume, as some people do, that the universe is teeming with accidental life? Speculation about possible future discoveries is no basis for present belief or for rejecting other present beliefs. I actually agree with your assessment of the consequences of such possible discoveries: if life could be recreated in the lab and was found elsewhere in the universe, along with evidence of evolution (I see that as vital because of the complexity of the mechanism that made it possible), I too would be far more inclined to believe the atheist theory of chance. I expect David would also change his line of thinking, as he has always expressed his readiness to respond to new discoveries. But why do you expect a change now, in the light/dark of our present knowledge/ignorance? Why anticipate conclusions before you even have the evidence? - I am, of course, advocating a wait-and-see agnosticism, but then ... as George might say ... I would, wouldn't I?