Week three!
Let me recap what I’ve learned about atheistic faith so far:
- There is no empirical proof that life arises from non-life.
- Atheists believe life arose from non-life anyway.
- The biochemical process of life coming from non-life requires a lot of intelligence to understand.
- The biochemical process of life coming from non-life required no intelligence to actually occur.
- Belief in a supernatural reality requires extraordinary evidence.
- Atheists cannot describe what evidence would prove a supernatural reality.
The thing that has become clear to me is:
Both Theism and Atheism require a great deal of faith.
So we have some common ground!
Let’s keep going.
My next question is:
Would you agree that intelligence is always necessary for organization? If not, what example would you give to show complexity occurring out of chaos or disarray? (Please site non-living examples. For the purposes of this question I am counting all forms of life as organized systems.)
6 Responses
“Would you agree that intelligence is always necessary for organization? If not, what example would you give to show complexity occurring out of chaos or disarray? (Please site non-living examples. For the purposes of this question I am counting all forms of life as organized systems.)”
There are a few definitions that must be expanded upon to reply to this question.
What is the definition of ‘intelligence’? Are we talking about information in brains, such as chemical or electrical reactions? I would assume this is correct, but I thought that I had better confirm this.
What is the definition of ‘chaos’ or ‘disarray’? I would assume that the definition would be ‘something random and without a specific behavior or pattern’.
and third, what is the definition of ‘complexity’ or ‘organisation’? I would assume that this definition would be ‘something with structure and predictable behavior’.
It looks like you are asking for examples of abiogenesis again, but I have already made a lot of comments on the discussion about abiogenesis on another post.
Using the definitions I proposed above, there is an answer to your question that can be found in the formation of stars.
Complexity can arise from ‘chaos’ in some ways. For instance, you can have a mass of hydrogen floating around in space with no order or pattern whatsoever, but under some circumstances this hydrogen can clump together and form a star. Of course this is a very simplified version, but the formation of stars is something that has been observed, and it demonstrates how random materials can create a somewhat ‘complex’ system.
> Would you agree that intelligence is always necessary for organization?
It depends. By organised, do you mean ordered, as in with a detectable pattern? Are the following things more organised than their precursors?
Diamonds are an ordered lattice of carbon atoms made by the application of heat, pressure and time to carbon.
Galaxies seem to tend to coalesce into “armed” structures.
Hydro-phobic chemical compounds self-organise into spherical bi-layer shells (reminiscent of cell walls).
Water ice expands (compated to liquid) because its solid structure is ordered in a way that takes more space.
Snowflakes have symmetric patterns.
Emission spectra of elements are consistent enough to be considered a “fingerprint” for the existence of that element
The planets orbit the sun in an ordered way, described by GR.
The chemical elements can be grouped (by humans) in a table because they exhibit chemical patterns based on their internal structure which is further described by the Standard Model.
Basalt lava solidifies in very ordered hexagonal columns.
Distinct, persistent undersea currents (like the Gulf Stream) emerge from the action of heating and cooling, combined with the earth’s rotation and axial tilt.
Silt deposition orders the material by density or maybe buoyancy (I don’t know the actual mechanism). Large pebbles at the bottom, finer sand on that. Finest silt at the top.
Liquid water in a zero gravity environment forms perfect spheres (I think). Also, large planets and the sun have form symmetrical shapes (rather than irregular clumps)
I did not define what I meant by ‘organized’. That was my mistake.
Taking ‘organized’ to mean ‘having recognizable patterns’, your examples are all valid.
> Let me recap what I’ve learned about atheistic faith so far:
Could you pin down what you mean by “faith” here. I’m not familiar with “atheistic faith”.
> There is no empirical proof that life arises from non-life.
This is (as far as I’m aware) the current scientific position. I would include (for the sake of completeness) that the same holds for gods, There is no empirical proof that any of the thousands of gods described by humans throughout history is real. Neither is there any empirical proof that any of the world’s theists have any verifiable insights into the the nature and character of any gods that they claim.
> Atheists believe life arose from non-life anyway.
I take issue here. Some replies were (over?)confident about abiogenesis and some replies said that they don’t know. I take the latter view. I don’t know! Abiogenesis research looks promising. Interesting mechanisms for cell walls are being investigated. Some methods of chemical replication have been observed. Work is ongoing. However, due to the time-scales involved, even if someone comes up with a pathway from chemistry to biology, we may never know if it was the exact way things happened. It’s not just me saying this. The researchers say the same thing. Verifying any particular mechanism is difficult because the direct evidence is being (and has been) chewed up by natural processes like erosion, plate tectonics, and pesky modern microbes.
As a result, this atheist is saying “I don’t know”.
Also, for me anyway, atheism describes my position on the existence of gods based on the evidence for the existence of gods, weighed against evidence for gods being entirely human inventions. Based on the evidence, I consider the latter proposition to be far more likely. I view these things in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties. Again, I’m not 100% iron-clad, certain. I just consider it vastly more likely in light of the evidence.
> The biochemical process of life coming from non-life requires a lot of intelligence to understand.
Biochemistry is a specialist subject. Like any such subject, it needs a measure of intelligence and a far larger measure of diligent study and practice. Same can be said for French literature, quantum physics, game hunting, mathematics, welding, chess and tap-dancing.
> The biochemical process of life coming from non-life required no intelligence to actually occur.
Firstly, there is, as yet, no known process leading from non-life to life. I suppose it is a principle of abiogenesis research that they aim to find a process that just relies on known principles of chemistry and physics and thermodynamics. Discovering the process (within the scope of abiogenesis research) will require human intelligence and ingenuity but the process, if it is ever found, will be natural. This statement is a little tautological because the scope of the research is “natural processes”.
There is no particular reason to accept any of the (sometimes contradictory) models or mechanisms proposed by the world’s religions either.
BTW, the same could be said about the building of the H-bomb. Fusion is natural, the sun has done it for billions of years but to do it in the lab took the work of hundreds of thousands of people, including some of the most amazing human minds ever and the economic might and political will of a superpower.
> Belief in a supernatural reality requires extraordinary evidence.
I be happy to begin with ordinary evidence and then move on to the really good stuff.
> Atheists cannot describe what evidence would prove a supernatural reality.
Untrue.
I (for one) described one thing that might begin to be evidence but you changed it to something else and then dismissed that new thing. That is not the same as “cannot describe”. Just because you dismiss a different version of what I proposed does not make it disappear.
I would also add that one piece of evidence is only the very beginning. In areas like Natural Selection, or General Relativity or Germ Theory or Quantum theories, those scientific theories are supported by many interlocking lines of evidence. A new theory would have to coherently explain the existing observations and also explain areas where the existing theories have weaknesses. A new theory should make testable predictions so we can distinguish it from alternatives.
I said (in that previous post) that the following would be pretty difficult to explain…”messages written in the stars, that are simultaneously understandable in the native language of everyone on earth (regardless of whether they are using telescopes or video cameras or broadcasts or film cameras), even after the event”.
You said “I would suggest that there is already a ‘message written in the stars’ that is understandable to every tongue and tribe.’.”
You conveniently neglected the “native language” part. It is also clearly not true because many theists have contradictory beliefs about the nature of their gods, their creation stories and the nature of heavens. You also imply that other theists believe that their gods has a direct hand in creating the stars. This is not true of many faiths. Some take a deist (i.e. non-interventionist) view. Others do not equate godhood with a creator god.
If your theory is better, how do observations and predictions distinguish it from the god(s) of the Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Egyptians or Pagans or Catholics or Protestants or JWs or Mormons or Jains?
> Both Theism and Atheism require a great deal of faith.
You can assert that but it does not make it so.
I would consider that a lack of belief in the existence of Yahweh or Ra or Enlil or Lord Brahma to require no more faith than a lack of belief in the river spirits, minotaurs, fire-breathing dragons or leprechauns.
Additionally, I would consider the alternative hypothesis, that religions are a purely human creation, to have far more supporting evidence.
Didn’t mean to misconstrue your meaning of ‘native language’. I used ‘tongue and tribe’ to mean the same thing.
Truly there is no empirical proof for any of the thousands of gods proposed by religion. That’s the reason for the statement about Atheism and Theism both requiring faith.
I’ve avoided discussing religion because, as you’ve demonstrated, religion makes philosophical discussions difficult. It’s not my goal to offer yet another defense of theism. Plus, there’s no way I can defend any religious claims. Skepticism always trumps those statements.
You are correct that religion is a human creation. So is language. So is the scientific method.
I suppose I should have been clearer with the word “invention”. The meaning I intended was something closer to “fabrication” or “concoction”. As in, I think that the religions of the world (including their deities, the characteristics and preferences of those deities, writings, interpretations, rituals and traditions) are entirely made by humans without any divine or supernatural influence or intervention. I think that hypothesis has far more supporting evidence than the alternative (i.e. that gods exist, they care very specifically about the thoughts, actions and outcomes of small set of people and they inspired the foundations of the various religions).
FWIW, I do accept that language and the scientific method (and art, culture and so on.) are also human inventions (in the creation, rather than the concoction sense).
I would consider science (meaning: the body of knowledge acquired by the application of the scientific method) to be a discovery more than an invention. The pattens in nature existed before we recognised them. We didn’t invent them. We just became better at recognising them.