Truth and Materialistic OOL

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not claiming it is a "Ah-HA!" moment.

You're right, and I apologize for the confusion-- the "Ah-HA moment" quip was more directed at the OP.

[seer]

You're right, and I apologize for the confusion-- the "Ah-HA moment" quip was more directed at the OP.

OK, but here is my point. Christians are always being accused of the God in the gap argument. But atheists, I think, can be just as guilty of "materialism of the gap" argument. That everything in the universe must follow a natural cause and effect model.

[rwatts]

At least there are some (albeit far too few) Materialists out there that are honest enough to speak the truth regarding the state of the Origin Of Life (OOL) field. Here are two quotes:

"The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."

Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), p. 391.



"Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight."

Franklin M. Harold, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), p. 164:


Sadly, many people have spent and will spend most of their lives seeking the Materialistic OOL only to die in failure. But not all is lost --- as they seek to find this non-existent OOL, many spinoff discoveries and techniques emerge that find useful applications in other areas.

That said, we must never lose sight of the fact that it is their FAITH in a purely Materialistic OOL that keeps them going. It can only be FAITH because they do not have a single verifiable, repeatable scientific observation to back up their OOL belief. Yet, they will deny this until their last breath.

Science and Scientism? Yeah, right!

Jorge

A bit more progress on the natural origin of life Jorge:-


The paper:-


Statistical physics of self-replication

Layperson’s writeup:-




This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists




And:-

Catalysts from synthetic genetic polymers

And:-

Origins of life: RNA made in its own mirror image


And:-

Here is the write up from New Scientist:-

Chances of first life improved by weighted dice

Here is the paper itself:-

Information-Theoretic Considerations Concerning the Origin of Life


[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, but here is my point. Christians are always being accused of the God in the gap argument. But atheists, I think, can be just as guilty of "materialism of the gap" argument. That everything in the universe must follow a natural cause and effect model.

Some atheists can be, sure. In that regard, I-- for one-- am just as quick to jump on such people's fallacies as I am to jump on God of the Gaps argumentation.

However, there is a very important distinction to note. The God of the Gaps argument is saying, "We don't know what caused this, therefore it is absolutely true that God caused it." However, the position of the scientist is not analogous. They are not saying, "We don't know what caused this, therefore it is absolutely true that it had a materialistic cause." They are saying, "Perhaps X is the cause of some event; let's see if this hypothesis is sound and can properly account for all of the data." There is no declaration of absolute truth, on the latter view, whether based upon ignorance or otherwise.

[seer]

Some atheists can be, sure. In that regard, I-- for one-- am just as quick to jump on such people's fallacies as I am to jump on God of the Gaps argumentation.

However, there is a very important distinction to note. The God of the Gaps argument is saying, "We don't know what caused this, therefore it is absolutely true that God caused it." However, the position of the scientist is not analogous. They are not saying, "We don't know what caused this, therefore it is absolutely true that it had a materialistic cause." They are saying, "Perhaps X is the cause of some event; let's see if this hypothesis is sound and can properly account for all of the data." There is no declaration of absolute truth, on the latter view, whether based upon ignorance or otherwise.

No, I never heard anyone say that it is absolutely true that God caused it. I would say that it is much more likely... And of course the atheist does presuppose a natural explanation. He may not couch it in terms of absolutes but the assumption is there nonetheless.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, I never heard anyone say that it is absolutely true that God caused it.

Having grown up in an extremely literalist Evangelical Church, I've heard literally hundreds of people say that it is absolutely true that God caused it. However, I'll agree that not every theist makes God of the Gaps arguments.

I would say that it is much more likely...

On what basis?

And of course the atheist does presuppose a natural explanation. He may not couch it in terms of absolutes but the assumption is there nonetheless.

I would highly disagree with this. Certainly some atheists have such a presupposition. However, I know some atheists who are nonetheless supernaturalists, and believe that life has a supernatural origin. Still, the vast majority of atheists with whom I've conversed simply say, "I don't know what caused the origin of life," and leave it at that.

For my own view, as we've discussed before, I don't even know how one could distinguish a "natural" cause from a cause which is not "natural."

[rwatts]

I've heard literally hundreds of people say that it is absolutely true that God caused it.

Exactly.

The whole notion of "God of the gaps" is to encapsulate the argument, either explicitly stated or insinuated, that because science cannot explain X, then God did it.

[jordanriver]

Exactly.

The whole notion of "God of the gaps" is to encapsulate the argument, either explicitly stated or insinuated, that because science cannot explain X, then God did it.

Both sides do that.
If a Bible believing Christian says Noah's Flood happened, he is challenged with 'where did the water come from and how could it come in such a short time span without burning up the planet,
...so if you don't know how 'God did it'
...if you cannot EXPLAIN how 'God did it'...

then it must not have happened the way the Bible records it.

or
if you cannot explain how God caused the Earth to stop spinning (Joshua 'the sun stopped')
...if you don't know how that could happen without tsunamis earthquakes and buildings toppling, then it couldn't have happened

[rwatts]

Both sides do that.

I'm not aware of that.


AFAICT, we simply think that nature causes things to happen in the universe and so we look to natural explanations. I'm not aware of anyone from my side of the fence arguing, either implicitly or explicitly, that if Creationists cannot explain how the Flood happened then nature must have done it. Nor do we argue that if Creationists cannot explain how God creates rain, then nature must have done it.

We simply think that nature did or does these things, e.g. cause floods and cause rain, and so we look for natural explanations.

Can you show me three or four examples of a person arguing this way?

[pancreasman]

OK, but here is my point. Christians are always being accused of the God in the gap argument. But atheists, I think, can be just as guilty of "materialism of the gap" argument. That everything in the universe must follow a natural cause and effect model.

I'm not sure what you'd have scientists do. Should they stop looking for natural causes to the origin of life?

Let's remember it took a few centuries to get a handle on electricity. It was only 100 years ago that we learned about Relativity. This science is in its infancy. Push on chaps.

[jordanriver]

I'm not aware of that.


AFAICT, we simply think that nature causes things to happen in the universe and so we look to natural explanations. I'm not aware of anyone from my side of the fence arguing, either implicitly or explicitly, that if Creationists cannot explain how the Flood happened then nature must have done it. Nor do we argue that if Creationists cannot explain how God creates rain, then nature must have done it.

We simply think that nature did or does these things, e.g. cause floods and cause rain, and so we look for natural explanations.

Can you show me three or four examples of a person arguing this way?

no.
Old TWEB disappeared and along with it Neocon_Voter 's 40 or 50 posts in a flood debate.
I finally gave up when oxmixmudd insisted that measuring the cubic feet of atmosphere had to be limited to first 10 miles high, even though most meteors burn up in the thermosphere.
By then I was exhausted and accepted
which of course wasn't enough atmosphere to spread the heat.
So I gave up on that.

it was decided that since it was 'naturally' impossible. ...
...then Bible-God couldn't flood the whole planet.

[jordanriver]

It might have been over a 100 posts
....but who's counting

[jordanriver]

Correction
mesosphere, not thermosphere

[phank]

On what basis?

Both sides here start with a default, in the sense that the default is presumed to be the case absent compelling evidence to the contrary. The scientists presumes that a material explanation exists, and failure to find one yet (especially with the single hardest problem in science) isn't particularly disturbing. The theist presumes goddidit, and failure to establish otherwise to the satisfaction of the theist simply ratifies the default.

seer presumes that a magical explanation is "much more likely" because he STARTED with that presumption, and in his opinion science has not made enough progress to worry him.

(And over the years, others here have produced extensive laundry lists of "explanations" theists have regarded as "much more likely" ALL of which have been dislodged when the gaps have been filled. In fact, many times it has been pointed out that science in its much shorter lifespan has correctly explained countless things without every once resorting to magic (the "supernatural"). There has NEVER been any need of that hypothesis. Yet despite this unbroken track record of universal failure, the theist continues to see magic as "much more likely" wherever possible. Where doctrine runs deep, "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.")

[phank]

it was decided that since it was 'naturally' impossible. ...
...then Bible-God couldn't flood the whole planet.

That's now how I recall it. Even the atheists concede that being naturally impossible is no impediment to an imaginary god, who can do whatever the imagination can dream up. The bible-god can do ANYTHING. Not only that, the bible-god can do it not only without leaving a trace of evidence, but in fact in the process leave literal mountains of evidence that he didn't do it at all.

But it's kind of fascinating that the biblical literalists work so very hard to find "natural" rationalizations for impossible myths. Why do they do this? Why not simply say "goddidit, passing as many miracles as required" and let it go at that? I mean, here we have a god who can create whole universes just by SAYING so. If he screwed up so badly he needed a rewrite, why go through all this flood trouble, requiring many thousands of miracles retail? Why not simply re-POOF?