Abiogenesis (Origins)

by broken_cynic , Wednesday, August 03, 2011, 18:26 (4861 days ago) @ dhw

"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.-Again, you are talking as if either I or "science"* are dealing in absolute declarations. As you say, science examines the material world and thus, with a few religiously motivated exceptions, all of the (limited) investigations into the origins of life are concerned with that material world, not supernatural intervention. They default to the chance explanation, though I agree that they (rightly) have not declared this to be an absolute certainty.-*What do you mean when you refer to science this way? Science is a method for learning, used to winnow knowledge from data, practiced by individuals and by way of very messy and very human consensus making, eventually forming a (malleable) body of knowledge. Is it fair to assume you are referring to the currently accepted body of knowledge?-> "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?"-NOMA, huh? Show me the first piece of evidence that there is anything but the material world to be accounted for and I will re-consider whether perhaps there is some realm which science cannot touch. Until that point, I will continue to follow wherever the available evidence leads. If you consider that prejudiced against some possible future revelation, well, so be it. I don't see the need to hedge my understanding of the world against every supernatural bogeyman and what-if that can possibly be imagined.-> "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."-I initially rejected the Christian faith I had grown up in, and once strongly claimed for myself, for a purely agnostic position. For several years I was an apologist for believers of all stripes and non-believers alike, determined to correct each side's misapprehension of the other. It was only as I became more of a skeptic and rationalist that I moved from that middle ground. Before, during and after that transition I have indeed considered many of these questions. Some of my conclusions have changed along with my take on religion, others have not. Just to address the items you list, consciousness is indeed extraordinary, but as with abiogenesis there is no evidence to suggest that it will require a non-material explanation. The better we understand it, the better we will also understand "psychic phenomena or mystic experiences" as those can be attributed to one of two things: the imperfect ways that our consciousness interacts with the world and with itself, or to tricks  (intentional or otherwise) played by other people upon the same.-> "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 'faith' at work any more than there is 'belief' (at least not in the sense you are using it the word.)-> "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."-If Balance is intentionally misrepresenting the state of (body of knowledge) science in order to create a straw man to beat upon, then he is being dishonest. Further, even if I misunderstand his intention or am entirely incorrect in my analysis, to so accuse him is not ad hominem! Ad hominem would be if I suggested that he were a scum-sucking bastard... and therefore his argument is wrong. It's a logical fallacy, not a get-out-of-being-called-out-on-your-shit-when-it-stinks card.-Btw, as you seem to prefer given names to screen names, I am Kent.