Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought (Endings)

by David Turell , Thursday, June 04, 2020, 19:18 (1415 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.

DAVID: There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me. learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).

dhw: Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?

The usual non-answer to the degree of complexity that must be explained by the design of automatic intelligent cellular responses. Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?

dhw: Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.

DAVID: Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.

dhw: If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.

Only a designing mind explains the complexity. Your only choice is chance or design.

DAVID: What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.

dhw: I have never opposed the logic of the design argument. But you have always acknowledged that belief in your sourceless, invisible, immaterial, inexplicable, unknowable, unprovable, untestable conscious mind within and without the material universe requires faith. So does belief in chance. So does belief in bottom-up pansychist intelligence. You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.

I know that, but cannot understand the choice.