Last week’s Saturday School featured some energetic discussion.
Thanks to all attendees and participants!
Both questions posed were effectively answered.
Question 1: Can you give an example of life arising from non-life?
Answer 1: No.
(Someone suggested ‘abiogenesis’ as an example of life arising from non-life.
Claiming abiogenesis as an example of life rising from non-life is like
…claiming ‘metamorphosis’ is an example of a complete change in form.
The definition is not an example.)
Nevertheless, the question was answered!
Kudos!
Question 2: How do you think life came to exist on Earth?
Answer 2: Abiogenesis.
Great answer!
I will accept that answer…
…for now.
Are you surprised?
Don’t be.
These questions are genuine.
I will acknowledge credible answers.
No point in discussing when I believe there’s nothing to learn.
And I still have questions!
Like:
What conditions must be met in order for you to accept information as plausible when that information cannot be obtained firsthand?
6 Responses
“What conditions must be met in order for you to accept information as plausible when that information cannot be obtained firsthand?”
This is a good question, and the specific amount of evidence I would need before believing something varies from case to case. For instance, to convince me that a religion is true, or at least possible, I would need more than personal experiences, self-fulfilling prophecies and weak philosophical arguments. To convince me that a religion is true I would need something that cannot be explained in any way without invoking the supernatural. And so far nothing of the sort has ever arisen.
To accept a scientific theory however, the evidence would not need to be as great, simply for the fact that believing something to be natural is not as ‘big’ as believing is to be supernatural. Assigning something to a God takes more faith, requires more verification, and it complicates things and questions about said God arise.
To accept a scientific theory I would need evidence, whether physical or theoretical, to prove it.
I would suspect that your would need more than “weak philosophical arguments” to convince you of any claim, not just religious claims.
Would you reject ALL personal experience claims? If Richard Dawkins wrote a book claiming to have been visited by aliens, would you write him off as a lunatic?
Can you give an example of supernatural evidence that wouldn’t have a natural explanation?
> If Richard Dawkins wrote a book claiming to have been visited by aliens, would you write him off as a lunatic?
If a book emerged, written by a Richard Dawkins claiming to have been visited by aliens, I’d need evidence for a whole pile of different things.
First I’d need evidence that the author was the will known “Richard Dawkins” and not some mischievous namesake. Kinds of evidence for that might be: an announcement on his verified twitter account, a video announcement on youtube (in a way that couldn’t be easily doctored or coerced), confirmation from respected journalists (who spoke to him in person), confirmation from respected people who know him personally (i.e. people who are putting their reputation on the line to vouch for him), personal interviews on respected TV news shows on trustworthy channels. These kinds of things would combine to increase my confidence that he was indeed the author. Multiple verifications would be better than a single form,
Next, I’d be suspicious of some kind of elaborate hoax to examine and show the lack of proper skepticism and rational inquiry in the media and the public (a-la the “Carlos” hoax by Randi). That would be in my mind all the time. I’d also be suspicious of coercion (maybe threats to his family).
As for the claims, I’d read the book. I’ve read most of his books since the Selfish Gene and I’ve generally enjoyed them and found them interesting (even if some of them belaboured the point a bit).
(BTW, he (and his wife) read most of the audiobooks, I’m fond of his voice too).
If the totality of his evidence in the book was “personal experience” and a hoax (or coercion) were ruled out, I’d be genuinely worried for his brain health (alzheimer’s, dementia, physical brain injury, drugs, tumour, psychological problems, etc.). For him to make such a claim (and to expect anyone else to accept it) without very good evidence to back it up would be extremely out of character. Brain decline would be a more likely explanation than the combination of the likelihood an actual alien experience and the likelihood of the real Dawkins writing a book about it and expecting people to just take his word for it.
I would not believe the claim (based on the kind of evidence of “personal experience”) and I’d be saddened by the turn such a great science educator had taken.
> Can you give an example of supernatural evidence that wouldn’t have a natural explanation?
Stuff like “limb regrowth” or building ” living designer organisms” is beyond us now but (say) a race of advanced aliens might have perfected the technology. Some animals can already regrow limbs, we are in the early days of genetic knowledge. That kind of thing would not necessarily be supernatural.
Examples like 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”.
Now, if a being revealed themselves (to everyone) after such an event, claimed God-hood and told a story that was completely different to any of the world’s religions. Let’s say it had different rules, conditions and outcomes. If they were convincingly omniscient and omnipotent,
Would you abandon your current faith and worship them instead?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
First, I agree that Dawkins has an extraordinarily pleasant voice. Had I known he voiced his own audio books I would have opted for those over hard copy. I’ve already learned something.
Your answer makes it clear how reluctant we are to accept personal testimony when it differs from our biases. Your skepticism of Dawkin’s (fictional) claim of alien visitation was articulated much like Dawkin’s skepticism of Antony Flew’s admission that he ‘believed there is a God’. Dawkins postulated several explanations for Flew’s ideological change. He didn’t entertain the possibility that one of the world’s most prolific atheist writers might be speaking the truth.
The point being that we have a hard time letting go of our presuppositions.
To answer your question. I would suggest that there is already a ‘message written in the stars’ that is understandable to every tongue and tribe. “The heavens declare the glory of The Lord…” Obviously, this can easily be dismissed as ‘religious superstition’.
But the existence of the stars requires an explanation. I already know the religious explanation. I’m trying to get the atheist explanation.
For me, the creation of the universe is a satisfactory display of omnipotence.
Might I caution caution.
You are not the first intelligent person to broach the “It is inconceivable because we have no answer for it at present,” thesis. In times past, such theses have been reversed once the appropriate instruments of measurement were created. Hence we now know the earth is round, and it revolves around the sun.
While we don’t have the appropriate tools to currently recreate biology from chemistry, there have been accomplishments in that direction such that I have little doubt it is only time until the achievement is complete.
How will you then postulate God if your assumption has been “creation is the source of biological life?”
I do not doubt evolution. Nor do I doubt the existence of God, and the revelation of God through Jesus Christ, as God himself and atoning sacrifice. What I doubt is the conservative, literal interpretation of the bible.
The biological processes within the body echo evolution. The spiritual depth of man, apart from the animals, echoes the creation of God. These can be reconciled.
I’ve not suggested, “It is inconceivable because we have no answer for it at present”.
Am I correct that your statement is essentially, “My theory about life’s origins is correct we’re just waiting on the tools to prove it”?
You have no doubt about evolution. What information or evidence has resulted in such unshakable faith?