Abiogenesis (Origins)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 03, 2011, 11:35 (4859 days ago) @ broken_cynic

dhw: Abiogenesis... a key element in atheism-broken_cynic: Er, no. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.-Agnostics also lack belief in gods. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, which = a conviction, something much stronger than neither believing nor disbelieving, which = agnosticism (see "What do we need a deity for"). Atheism therefore expressly rejects the existence of a designer and hence the theory of design, which leaves abiogenesis as the only alternative.
 
Broken_cynic: Abiogenesis is an entirely seperate idea and it is simply the best explanation to date for the very limited evidence we have. We have a general idea what made up the earth and its environment prior to the existence of life, and we know what came after. The process that led from one state to the other is unclear. There is certainly no evidence to suggest outside intervention, either supernatural or alien. So we go with the simplest explanation that fits the available data. When more data becomes available, that explanation will be adjusted as necessary. That's how a scientific hypothesis works. We aren't assuming the lack of a designer, a designer is simply unnecessary so Occam's Razor cuts them Right Out.
 
Let us take this point by point. The process that led from life to non-life is "unclear". Agreed. There is no evidence to suggest outside intervention. Agreed. There is also no evidence to suggest that chance is capable of creating the astonishingly complex mechanisms I have described elsewhere. "We go with the simplest explanation." But if the simplest explanation (applying Ockham's razor) entails believing in something which has no scientific evidence to support it, why not withhold belief until there IS evidence? "When more data becomes available, the explanation will be adjusted as necessary." Yes indeed. "A designer is unnecessary": that is an assumption, since you have no idea how life began. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I myself cannot believe that chance is capable of creating the mechanisms of life and evolution. You evidently can, as you have closed the door on the alternative. Like you, I can't believe in a supernatural creator either. And so I leave both doors open. 
 
Broken_cynic: Science is ok with stating what is known and saying of the rest 'we don't know.' We make our hypotheses and test them out, but do not assume them to be true until they are well supported by evidence (see laws and eventually theories.)-Excellent. But science has never claimed that life was the product of chance. Science has never claimed that there is or isn't a God. That is not the province of science, whose task is to examine the material world. (I hope you do not equate science with individual scientists, who of course have their own beliefs.) And so the moment you claim that God does not exist, and opt for the claim that life is not the product of design but of chance, you leave the realm of science and enter into the realm of subjective belief. Let me ask again, why don't you wait for the evidence before you make up your mind?-****************-This was drafted before I read the exchange between yourself and Tony (balance_maintained). You say that abiogenesis is not a pillar of atheism, and that we are "just exploring" the "intellectual consequences" of atheism. Did you reach your atheist conclusions without even considering the enormous problem of how life originated? Without even considering the extraordinary mystery of consciousness? Without even considering psychic phenomena or mystic experiences which appear to extend the boundaries of consciousness beyond the range of our physical senses? Your post suggests that an atheist doesn't have to think about such things before he reaches his decision to reject the design theory. I will not insult you by taking such a suggestion seriously, as I'm sure you have thought long and hard about them. However, it really doesn't matter if you insist that abiogenesis is not a "key element" in your atheist thinking. If you prefer to think of your faith in such an unproven theory as an "intellectual consequence", let us simply discuss the intellectual consequences. -There is no need for any of us to accuse others of dishonesty. This is a frank (and very lively!) discussion between people who clearly hold strong views, and I would like to think we may learn from one another's arguments, but there is nothing to be learned from ad hominems.