What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?

Posted by Spocko on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 05:47 AM. Read 5064 times. Tags:
{name} pic

The guys at MemeTherapy have been running a series of interesting threads about Strange Beliefs over the last few weeks. It’s a fun read. I thought the kind folks here at the Bastard’s might like to give it a try.

Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?“

My response…

At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.

But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!“ - the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.

I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?“ No further assertion is made.

I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?“ would bring me back to the issue of faith.

The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?

This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.

I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.

What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?

Comments:

Page 8 of 9 pages « First  <  6 7 8 9 >

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 06:13 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

I should have said: “Batter to surfer an occipital misspelling then to grew stall moor dependable in the Machiavellian for your thank.“

Spellcheck signs off on it, and grammar checker says it’s just fine.

Spocko United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:35 PM

Spocko pic

Greetings, fellow Bastards!

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for responding. I have enjoyed reading everyone’s contribution. I’ve been busy the last few days and did not expect to see so many posts! Took a while to get thru the whole thread but it was a lot of fun. There sure is plenty here to think about, please continue.

Les: Good to read your words of wisdom.
Zilch: How ya been? I’ve missed your humor and slant too.
Sadie: Hiya, I find your intellect very Sexy!
KPat: Always a pleasure to see your point of view.
Decrepitoldfool: One of my fave Bastards! Missed you too!
Last Hussar: Keep up that optimism!
Shelly: Well met. I like your style.
Webs: I find your logic fascinating.
LuckyJohn: I love your sense of humor.
Lordklegg: Keep an eye on those abductors!
Patness: Hello fellow programmer. “We reach!“
Brooks: Good to hear from you again.
Consig: I see you’re still living in fantasyland.

And a special “howdy-do” to those new to me; DWangerin, Neodromos, Swordsbane, Eyesonly, JulianP, and Godless Raven (should have started your own thread!).

Live long and prosper,
  Spocko

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:49 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Foxtrot had a good take on Spellcheck some years ago. I can’t find the particular strip, but it contained this punchline: “Marry hat hey lid tell lam, ids fleas woes wide has know.“

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:53 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Double-dipping, since Spocko and I posted simultaneously:

Spocko: Sadie: Hiya, I find your intellect very Sexy!

Thank you, and thanks for the entry. It’s been one of the more interesting (and, thanks to GR, insane) ones we’ve had in a while.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Webs United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 09:10 PM

Webs pic

Spocko: thanks for giving me the outlet.  Sorry you had to read those insanely long posts from GR, apparently the guy thinks his logic and reasoning grow stronger through post length. tongue wink

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

zilch Austria Posted on 10/02/2006 at 01:21 AM

zilch pic

zilch:  Life coming from non-life is simply an observation

Consi:  But it isn’t.  Nobody has observed it.

Of course it’s been observed.  First there was no life.  Then there was life.  Do you mean: no one was there to see it, or what?  In that case, you should also say that the formation of the Solar System from a cloud of dust surrounding the young Sun was also caused by God, since no one saw it either.  No one saw the collision that knocked the Moon out of the Earth (another amazing fact), so God must have made the Moon too, just as the Bible says.  In fact, if you’re going to be consistent, if not rational, God is going to have to be very busy:

Q: Why does the Sun rise every morning?
A: Because the Earth orbits the Sun, or because God pushes the Sun around the sky.

Q: How do magicians pull ducks out of hats?
A: They learn prestidigitation, or God does it.

Q: There are no known chimp fossils.  How did they get here?
A: They evolved just as people did, but since they live in the jungle, conditions for preservation were bad.  Or God created them.

Consi: it hasn’t been reproduced.

You got me there.  Not for lack of trying:

1st Place: “Life Doesn’t Come From Non-Life”

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

(from the Creation Science Fair.  Another great entry, which won an Honorable Mention: “Rocks Can’t Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?“ - Anna Reed (grade 6))

Do you really want to give equal footing to “God did it” for everything?  If not, you’ll have to justify making a special case out of the creation of life.  Good luck.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

zilch Austria Posted on 10/02/2006 at 01:32 AM

zilch pic

Sadie: “Marry hat hey lid tell lam, ids fleas woes wide has know.”

I’ve put this up before, but it’s worth repeating: the classic of this genre is Anguish Languish by Howard L. Chace, published in 1956, and available here.  I checked it out of the library when I was about twelve and it warped me for life…  Here’s a brief sample, from “Guilty Looks Enter Tree Beers”:

Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe hat search putty yowler coils debt pimple colder Guilty Looks. Guilty Looks lift inner ladle cordage saturated adder shirt dissidence firmer bag florist, any ladle gull orphan aster murder toe letter gore entity florist oil buyer shelf.

“Guilty Looks!“ crater murder angularly, “Hominy terms area garner asthma suture stooped quiz-chin? Goiter door florist? Sordidly NUT!“

“Wire nut, murder?“ wined Guilty Looks, hoe dint peony tension tore murder’s scaldings.

Have fun!

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 03:33 AM

Consigliere pic

Of course it’s been observed.

We may have a definitional problem here.  I understand an observation to be defined as follows:

1.  an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2.  an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3.  the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4.  notice: to escape a person’s observation.
5.  an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.
6.  the information or record secured by such an act.
7.  something that is learned in the course of observing things: My observation is that such clouds mean a storm.
8.  a remark, comment, or statement based on what one has noticed or observed.
9.  the condition of being observed.
10.  Navigation.
a.  the measurement of the altitude or azimuth of a heavenly body for navigational purposes.
b.  the information obtained by such a measurement.
11.  Obsolete. observance, as of the law.

What is yours? If your definition is the same, then life coming from non-life has not been observed.

Furthermore, it is different to say first there was no life (which is different than non-life) and then there was life.  Without going into that, I shall assume you meant non-life.   

I’ve already said, and will say it again, sure it may be that life came from non-life via circumstances that we have not yet discovered. At the current time though, here is a summary of what we do know about the proposition that living beings came from non-living things:

1) There is no evidence to show that is what did happen. 

2) There was no evidence to show how it happened. 

3)There are wild guesses about when it happened, if it did, but nobody knows. 

4) There is no ability to reproduce the results and attempts to do so have failed.  So, we have no idea why it happened.

5) We have no idea where it happened or even if it happened here on earth or somewhere outside of the earth and then was transplanted here.

5) We are guessing about the life form that came forth, so we don’t even know the who it happened to.

There are absolutely no answers to the very basic questions of who, what, where, when, why or how.  Accordingly, we must call such a proposition lacking so completely in evidence, a belief without evidence.

Unless you have answers to the aforementioned questions.  If so, I’m all ears. 

So we don’t duck into rabbit holes that have appeared on the path: The only issue we are discussing is whether there is any evidence of life coming from non-life.  Absent evidence, which is the current state of affairs, we must say we don’t know.  We may hold individual beliefs about the topic, but such beliefs are not to be afforded deference in discussions as to their respective rationality to other beliefs also lacking in evidence. 

All beliefs without evidence are equally lacking. I don’t see how you could distinguish the “rationality” of one such belief to another.  One may sound more rational to you.  Nevertheless, it matters not who propounds them or how interesting they might be.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 03:44 AM

Consigliere pic

All beliefs without evidence are equally lacking

I need to revise this.

It should read: All beliefs without evidence that have not been proven to be false are equally lacking.

Seems that a belief in God, the Pink Unicorn, that life came from non-life, and string theory, at the present time, all share yet another characteristic: We can’t disprove them.  Uncanny.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 03:50 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Consi, I am puzzled that you are working so hard to discredit what the Bible says; that life came from nonlife.  Was not the dust of the Earth unalive?

The dispute, if any, is over the source of the transformation of nonlife to life.  Of your answer is “But God is alive” that only moves the question back one level.  How did God become alive?

I give more credence to beliefs without evidence if they are at least consistent with what I can observe.  I have never observed supernatural processes at work.  I see the natural universe around me all the time.  Hence explanations that invoke naturalism get moved up my probability scale a notch or three.

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 10/02/2006 at 03:57 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Zilch’s Creation Science Fair excerpt:

Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings

Prayers were answered.
Experiment failed.
Therefore there is a DOG.
I’m so glad that’s settled once and for all.  LOL

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

zilch Austria Posted on 10/02/2006 at 04:47 AM

zilch pic

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, Consi.  You seem to think, if there’s no natural explanation for something yet, any naturalistic theorizing about it is tantamount to a supernatural explanation.  Is this your viewpoint?  If so, we’ve left rationality behind and we might as well go fishing.  But I’ll go through your points one by one:

I’ve already said, and will say it again, sure it may be that life came from non-life via circumstances that we have not yet discovered.

Not “may be”, but “is the case”.  There is a no evidence that there was life on the Earth (or anywhere else) prior to about 3.8 billion years ago, and at least one compelling reason to believe that there was no life in the Universe until things cooled down a bit after the Big Bang: it was just too hot for anything orderly to form, let alone life.

At the current time though, here is a summary of what we do know about the proposition that living beings came from non-living things:

1) There is no evidence to show that is what did happen.

As I just said, there is a great deal of evidence that it must have happened somehow, and no evidence for life existing before it appeared on Earth.  Or do you have some?

2) There was no evidence to show how it happened.

True.  There’s also no evidence to show how mammals developed warm-bloodedness.  But here we are, warm-blooded as all get-out.  There are tantalizing hints about the self-organizing ability of matter in the presence of energy, starting with the formation of crystals, up through self-catalyzing reactions, but no general agreement on a model so far.

3)There are wild guesses about when it happened, if it did, but nobody knows.

Wild guesses?  It must have happened sometime after the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life 3.8 billion years ago.  A rather large span of time, but so what?

4) There is no ability to reproduce the results and attempts to do so have failed.  So, we have no idea why it happened.

True, but not really surprising.  It seems all but certain that the right combination of materials and energy is very unlikely to happen.  Most of us don’t have hundreds of millions of years to experiment.

5) We have no idea where it happened or even if it happened here on earth or somewhere outside of the earth and then was transplanted here.

True.  Amino acids have been found in meteorites.  But wherever it happened, it happened.

5) We are guessing about the life form that came forth, so we don’t even know the who it happened to.

Presumably, like all evolution, it happened gradually, so there probably was no line that could be drawn between life and nonlife.  Even now, it’s difficult: are viruses alive?  Of course, any answer tells us more about our definition than about viruses.

You conclude saying “Seems that a belief in God, the Pink Unicorn, that life came from non-life, and string theory, at the present time, all share yet another characteristic: We can’t disprove them.  Uncanny.“  Nope, just God and the Pink Unicorn are “uncanny”.  Abiogenesis and string theory are canny, that is, known or at least knowable.  Following your reasoning, we might just as well believe that Bozo the Clown Ghost pulled the duck from the hat, as believe that there must be a naturalistic explanation, even if we have no idea what it is.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 12:29 PM

Consigliere pic

DOF:

Consi, I am puzzled that you are working so hard to discredit what the Bible says; that life came from nonlife.

My conversation with zilch is not about the veracity of the Bible.  To be fair, I actually agree with him-it is my belief that life emerged from non-life.  The discussion centers not around whether I agree with him or not though.  It centers on zilch’s desire to control the terms of language and debate with theists by automatically claiming the “high ground” of “reason.“

I’m not willing to cede that tactical point to him.  Especially, when it is clearly demonstrated that he has a belief in the supernatural. 

How did God become alive?

Simply because an answer to a question raises a later question in no way diminishes the plausibility or probability that such an answer is correct.  It just raises another question.

zilch:

You answered the questions just as I did. smile  Well, with the exception of one.  The one is:

there is a great deal of evidence that it must have happened somehow

There is a great deal of evidence that something happened that started life here.  The great deal of evidence is the existence of life now.  We are here, obviously.  However, there is no evidence that it (being a transformation of life from non-life) happened.

You seem to think, if there’s no natural explanation for something yet, any naturalistic theorizing about it is tantamount to a supernatural explanation.  Is this your viewpoint?

zilch, if there is no natural explanation then by definition the event is supernatural (defined as unexplainable by natural law). The proposition of life from non-life, whether it is a scientist or theologian doing the theorizing about life from non-life, involves supernatural propositions.

The sole distinction you are attempting to make amounts to: But, but, but, science always has the high ground, so Consi, give up the high ground because we both know its mine.  To that I say: Pshaw!!

I’m not so much into fishing.  If you would like to go pheasant hunting, let me know.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

zilch Austria Posted on 10/02/2006 at 02:24 PM

zilch pic

zilch, if there is no natural explanation then by definition the event is supernatural (defined as unexplainable by natural law)

That would cover the duck out of the hat and the development of warm-bloodedness.  The only question is, did Bozo the Clown Ghost zap Frosty the Snowman and thus melt the ice in our hearts, or is there perhaps a natural explanation we don’t know yet?  Please read what I said again.  Carefully.

We are here, obviously.  However, there is no evidence that it (being a transformation of life from non-life) happened.

Uh, our being here now, and no evidence for life before 3.8 billion years ago, not to mention conditions of terrific temperatures and disorder for quite a while after the Big Bang, add up pretty simply: first there was no life, then there was.  What part of that don’t you understand?  As I said, we don’t know how the transformation happened.  But happen it must have, because as you say, we are here.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 03:48 PM

Consigliere pic

That would cover the duck out of the hat…

You know, come to think of it I’ve never seen ducks out of the hat, I’ve only seen rabbits.  Where did you see ducks? 

zilch, I’ve read what you said very carefully zilch.  I’ve even go so far as to make sure that I’m careful with my word choices.

first there was no life, then there was.  What part of that don’t you understand?

I understand that very clearly.  In fact, I would say there is no argument for that statement.  It’s not even comparable to a belief in God.  You are confusing, or intentionally mixing, I’m not sure which, that statement as as substitute for “life transformed from non-life here on earth.“  The two statements are not the same.

Life from non-life is more than just a shade different from your warm-blooded example you set forth above though as well.  The warm-blooded issue is small piece inside of a larger puzzle for which we have assembled a good chunk of the puzzle.  Life from non-life is a radical departure from that.  Life from non-life is like we don’t have any of the pieces, have no idea how the pieces fit were we too have them, and have no idea of the picture on the front of the box but claiming this is what the puzzle will look like when put together.

Simply put, a belief in God is equally rational as ‘life emerged from non-life.‘  Both share the same lack of evidence, they both have believers, their believers are adamant in their beliefs, even tenacious, those beliefs are established on faith not evidence, and neither can be proven to be false.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 04:29 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Consi, you appear to have somehow missed the third paragraph of my last comment.  Was that intentional?

Naturalism is a tool which has proven congruent with my experience.  God?  Not so much - never seen ‘im, and no verfied miracles either.

An answer that skips like a rock onto another question is less credible to me, when it depends on an epistemology that in turn rests on the invisible, unobservable.

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 05:44 PM

Consigliere pic

DOF:

Consi, you appear to have somehow missed the third paragraph of my last comment.  Was that intentional?

It was, but most certainly not as a snub, kind sir.  I thought I addressed it in my exchange with zilch.

Here is what you said:

I give more credence to beliefs without evidence if they are at least consistent with what I can observe.

I correctly pointed out that life from non-life has not been observed.  I thought that addressed what I believed to be a mistake.

Possibly I overlooked some actual observations that you have had that are, unknown to me, but yet still somehow reflect a congruence with the unsupported proposition and never seen before or since, life to non-life.  So, DOF, pray tell:

What are these observations that are consistent? And please provide the context, if you were stoned like Sadie, it doesn’t count.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 05:47 PM

Consigliere pic

Possibly I overlooked some actual observations that you have had that are, unknown to me, but yet still somehow reflect a congruence with the unsupported proposition and never seen before or since, life to non-life.

Should read:

Possibly I overlooked some actual observations that you have had that are, unknown to me, but yet still somehow reflect a congruence with the unsupported proposition and never seen before or since, non-life to life.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/02/2006 at 05:57 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Consi: Naturalistic epistemology has proven congruent with my observations in everything that is not hidden from me.  Hence it has a fine track record and is the first class of explanations that I consider when tackling something that has not been observed.  It is simply a matter of returning to the best fishing hole.

No one has observed life from non-life.  The theistic explanation is that an invisible, eternal being didit.  The naturalistic explanation is that given enough interactions between matter and energy, chemical changes occurred that resulted in self-replication.  I can’t say either one is true but am inclined to favor the one that belongs to the most effective class.  Over the years I have seen energy affect matter, and there’s a perfectly convenient and observable source of energy shining up in the sky right now.  Of course you can favor the theistic explanation for your own reasons.

zilch Austria Posted on 10/03/2006 at 01:45 AM

zilch pic

zilch said: You seem to think, if there’s no natural explanation for something yet, any naturalistic theorizing about it is tantamount to a supernatural explanation.

Consi said: zilch, if there is no natural explanation then by definition the event is supernatural (defined as unexplainable by natural law)

Consi, this is what I meant when I said you should read more carefully.  Do you see the difference now?

Life from non-life is more than just a shade different from your warm-blooded example you set forth above though as well.  The warm-blooded issue is small piece inside of a larger puzzle for which we have assembled a good chunk of the puzzle.  Life from non-life is a radical departure from that.  Life from non-life is like we don’t have any of the pieces, have no idea how the pieces fit were we too have them, and have no idea of the picture on the front of the box but claiming this is what the puzzle will look like when put together.

So, Consi, you’re saying that small puzzles that are not understood may be subsumed under “natural”, but big puzzles require a “supernatural” solution?  That’s what it sounds like.  Until you can explain why abiogenesis is a special case, for which all explanations are supernatural, I see no reason why it should be more rational to invoke God for it than to invoke the death of Frosty for warmbloodedness.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/03/2006 at 02:52 AM

Consigliere pic

DOF:

Naturalistic epistemology has proven congruent with my observations in everything that is not hidden from me.

I’m not sure what this means.

It is simply a matter of returning to the best fishing hole.

Which is part of my point. It’s a matter of faith that you will land the big one there.  Maybe you will, maybe you won’t.

zilch:

So, Consi, you’re saying that small puzzles that are not understood may be subsumed under “natural”, but big puzzles require a “supernatural” solution?  That’s what it sounds like.

You can hear what I write?  I hope that the voice you are hearing has a nice tenor to it.  That aside, I’m not saying big puzzles require anything. 

Until you can explain why abiogenesis is a special case, for which all explanations are supernatural…

And there you have hit on the crux of the matter.  Abiogenesis is a special case. 

Think of it this way.  If while having a cup of Joe, I were to read tomorrow morning that “Pig sprouts wings and flies” I would be taken aback. I might be interested in acquiring one as a new mode of transportation. The implications of how this would effect what to eat with my eggs might pop into my head as well.  Yet, I would concede that such a happening would not necessitate that God did it.  I’d damn sure be interested in hearing the explanation though.
We’ve discovered whales had feet.  So, even something so foreign to our experience as a pig sprouting wings is not outside of our frame of reference.

The same may not be said for non-life generating life.  There is no point of reference for that.  Your belief that science will be able to document and explain such a radical departure from our reality is an article of faith of your belief in science.

To be clear, I’m not saying that only God could have done it.  As I said to DOF earlier, I’m inclined to believe the same that life did emerge from non-life. 

My singular point throughout this thread has been that a belief in God by a theist, that belief and that belief only, is just as rational or as irrational (depending on one’s point of view) as your belief that life emerged from non-life. No other beliefs or opinions are implicated.  Only that life emerged from non-life.

As such, the comparison is an accurate one.  It is also why you find it to be the strangest thing that you believe.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

zilch Austria Posted on 10/03/2006 at 03:12 AM

zilch pic

Abiogenesis is a special case.

You have yet to demonstrate how it’s special.

The same may not be said for non-life generating life.  There is no point of reference for that.

There is no “point of reference” for the development of warm-bloodedness either.  We’ve never seen it happening, and don’t know what the steps are.

Your belief that science will be able to document and explain such a radical departure from our reality is an article of faith of your belief in science.

Please explain exactly what is “radical” about abiogenesis.  It’s a bigger puzzle than warmbloodedness, to be sure, but there is nothing in principle different about explaining the two cases.  As far as “faith” goes, I have “faith” that science will explain abiogenesis the same way I have “faith” that someday a machine will pass the Turing test:  that is, I believe it is theoretically possible, with nothing supernatural up its sleeve, but it may not happen any time soon, or maybe even at all.

Invoking God for the creation of life is irrational, because it simply avoids answering the question by positing unknowable supernatural forces.  Theorizing about warm puddles and silicates on clay might be premature, it might be wild, it might be unjustified- but it’s not irrational.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/03/2006 at 07:50 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Consi: “It’s a matter of faith that you will land the big one there.  Maybe you will, maybe you won’t.“

So I should go to another fishing hole where I’ve never been able to land a single fish, instead of the reliable one that has a fine track record of providing dinner?

It is not irrational to say; “That’s where you can probably catch a fish”.  Unless you are thinking of some definition of “rational” that escapes me.

Spocko United States Posted on 10/03/2006 at 11:48 PM

Spocko pic

To state that theological belief and scientific “belief” are on equal footing is absurd. The theosophic mind requires no rational evidence for its belief. The True Scientist©‘s “belief” is not the simple-minded acceptance of an idea. “Scientific Belief” is the temporary assignment of a “trueness” value to a posited statement based on the evidence at hand. Any theory put forth to explain something unobserved but perhaps self-evident perhaps not, e.g. abiogenesis, is based on many forms of evidence and with varying levels of logical deduction to fill the gaps. Science is in a constant state of self-improvement and self-correction. Science does not think in the theologian’s “black and white” terms, “truth” is gauged in percentages and probabilities. Hoaxers will pop up now and then but their lies become apparent sooner or later. Science absorbs, adapts, adjusts, and gains strength as time rolls on and evidence comes in. Theology supposes, closes, and doses the mind into a subservient state of acceptance of the “godspell”. The hocus-pocus of religious mind-control closes the door to the advancement of knowledge.

When Science seeks to explain an unknown, it does not make any assertions as to the “truthiness” of a hypothesis until such a mountain of evidence presents itself, with modification of the hypothesis where needed and verification by many, the hypothesis becomes theory. That something is a fact before we have a complete and accurate scientific theory is the normal state of affairs. Gravity is a fact but our theory to explain it is still weak. We don’t doubt that gravity is real. Those capable of seeing the evidence for evolution as easily as they see the evidence for gravity have no doubts of the fact that evolution is a fact although our theory of how it works may be weak in places.

Abiogenesis is a separate fact, than evolution, for Science to explain. What is the current state of abiogenesis theory? Surely abiogenesis occurred, I hope this much is obvious, whether you’re supernatural or super natural! There was no life then there was life. It sounds so magical doesn’t it? Did it come from space? Maybe life did originate on another planet or in space itself but you still have to explain it. Life did not exist at the beginning of the great expansion of space-time so deceptively named the “Big Bang” and it surely did not exist in the infinite singularity that came before. You must wait at the very least for the formation of the basic elements of life to be created in the furnace of a dying star; the nova. To those that have difficulty visualizing the nearly unimaginable expanse of time given pre-life to evolve, the complexity of life as we see it today can induce a type of tunnel-vision that prevents one from seeing the micro-steps involved in life’s development. Life is fairly simple when you look at the “source code”. To imagine abiogenesis one must “think small”. When you use a complex spreadsheet application or video game do you ever think about the code we programmers piece together to bring you that software. Each little thing you see on screen requires us to write supporting code, e.g. you may have a dropdown list used to select some option in the program - we need to write code that will read a list of text strings from memory or a file, load the strings into the list, select the current option, display the list, etc. If you go deeper into the code, i.e. lower than the user friendly programming language and into machine language, you must write code that supports each of these higher level functions; to read the string from memory you write a machine code or “assembler” routine to address a specific location in memory copy the byte of data from memory into a hardware register or other memory location one character at a time to build up the string of text. The simplest of things you expect in a any piece of software can take many thousands of lines machine code to achieve. But we can go lower still into the realm of the binary. Ultimately, all software breaks down to code written with nothing but zeroes and ones. The basic building blocks of digital information.

What elements do we need for life on this planet? Perhaps we should look at what life actually uses. Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen accounts for more than 95% of the elements used by all life on Earth. These four elements are also the most abundant elements in the cosmos (excluding the inert gases helium and neon). Adding calcium and phosphorus to the equation accounts for 98.6% of all life, by weight, on the planet. The remaining elements of life; chlorine, sulphur, sodium, magnesium, iodine and iron, and trace elements such as molybdenum, silicon, manganese, fluorine, copper and zinc exist in varying degrees in various organisms. It is interesting to note that the proportions of these elements in life are similar to the amount of these elements in the sea. Does this argue against “panspermia”, perhaps but life does appear to have developed in that chemical soup known as “the sea”.

Life at the “machine code” level is a simple thing, it requires a very small variety of atoms and molecules in its construction. No miracle need be summoned for the development of living molecules from non-living molecules. Non-living molecules have the ability to form complex structures and these are the building blocks of life. Carbon is particularly adept in this ability. Once the development of self-replicating molecules was reached, which took who knows how many millions of years, then the stage was set for the evolution of DNA and RNA. Simple molecules (monomers) form into more complex molecules (polymers), these combine to form amino acids. By varying the composition and structure of these molecules the information required by life may be stored and transmitted. Glycogen, the main store of energy in animals consists of a long branched chain of glucose molecules which in turn are made up of structural pattern of 22 atoms. Proteins form in a similar matter. Life builds from these simple monomers connected into more complex polymer chains. Typical polymers of life such as protein may be built from more than 100 amino acid monomers. There is a vast number of possible amino acids but only 20 are commonly found in life; Alanine, Arginine, etc. DNA is constructed of 4 simple monomers named adenine(A), guanine(G), cytosine(C) and thymine(T), you may recognize the AGCT you see in DNA tests. These monomers form together to make the backbone of the double helix. Replace thymine(T) with uracil(U) and you have RNA. The RNA sequence of codes is known as the genetic code. Even at this point we still do not have life, DNA can not replicate on its own, genetic replication occurs in the cell. Other polymers are required to form a cell and each of these molecules took a great deal of time to permutate into existence. Their eventual combination into to structure of life should be expected on any planet that provides the right conditions for development of polymers from these most basic elements of the cosmos. We may not have been there to see the software’s origin but we can read the source code.

I conclude; the “belief” of the student of science is rational, the faith of the religious is not. Science does not hold “beliefs” out of flights of fancy on equal ground with religion, but from the evaluation of fact and the true pursuit of the truth.

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 12:42 AM

Consigliere pic

Spocko:

Long on form, short on substance.

You state this:

Any theory put forth to explain something unobserved but perhaps self-evident perhaps not, e.g. abiogenesis, is based on many forms of evidence

What are the many forms of evidence that life came from non-life?  Please supply the who, what, where, when, why and most importantly, how. 

zilch:

I’ll come back to this when I’m not as tired and can post respectfully and intelligently in a response.  I think I already covered what you are talking about though.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self—well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Page 8 of 9 pages « First  <  6 7 8 9 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main