Abiogenesis (Origins)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 15:59 (4637 days ago) @ broken_cynic

Dhw: Atheism therefore expressly rejects the existence of a designer and hence the theory of design.
KENT: Agreed. (Wednesday 3 August at 18.21)-dhw: "If you categorically reject deliberate design..."
KENT: I do not. (Thursday 4 August at 23.29)
dhw: I hope you will understand my confusion. Are you an atheist or not?-KENT: Even as I begin to try and simplify the pages of discussion currently standing between us, this bit deserves a direct response.
1.	I am indeed an atheist.-2.	I do not see everything, even questions like this, through some kind of lens of atheism. -3.	3. If I were to be really pedantic I could say that no, atheism does not expressly reject the possibility of a design/er, only the silly/impossible/limited human formulations of gods. An intelligent being in an 'outer' universe intentionally creating this universe isn't out of the question. But that would be a discussion more about definition than (conjectural) substance and likely not worth having.-This post is a big step forward in our understanding of each other. Your main beef is clearly not against God (more in a moment) but against the "designers that the religions posit". We can't discuss them all ... that would fill several books ... but I share your scepticism. However, most religions centre on this idea of an intelligent being (or beings), not necessarily in an outer universe, but perhaps even consciously within this universe ... in my earlier post I described it as some unknown form of energy. The religions personify it and load it with all kinds of attributes which you and I object to. The key here, though, is consciousness (or intelligence), and you say it isn't out of the question.
 
That is precisely the discussion that you and I are having ... but it can't be about definition. No-one can define something they haven't a clue about, and none of us has a clue about the forces that have brought life out of non-life. We (you and I) can only say what we DON'T think it is (e.g. a loving father who will beat the hell out of us if we don't love him back). The situation as I see it is that we are here and something must have put us here. That something may be unconscious chance, or it may be some unknown form of consciousness, which humans reduce to forms and figures they can understand. The hypothetical unknown form is where I put my full stop, because I can go no further (though that doesn't stop me speculating!) Since the alternatives are equally irrational and, I think, equally unprovable, I sit on what David calls my picket fence.
 
KENT: From a scientific perspective, no hypothesis that doesn't contradict the data is off the table until one has enough evidence to cobble together a good theory (and even then, it remains happily vulnerable to an improved theory with greater accuracy and predictive power.)-Once again, we are in agreement. No-one, in my view, has yet cobbled together a convincing theory: you lean heavily towards chance , while David leans heavily towards design, and I sit but do not lean. From a scientific perspective there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate either theory, but under "What do we need a deity for?" Matt has rightly pointed out that the scientific perspective is not the only one.-The above clarification suggests to me that this discussion is definitely worth having!