Thread: Abiogenesis - theology doesn't work either.

One of the most propounded arguments "in favour" of god is that used to "explain" the origin of life ¹.
After all, they say, life MUST come from life.
(Admitted that's all we've actually observed - so far).
Therefore, the argument goes, life didn't "just happen" and it wasn't "dead chemicals", it must have been god.

So, that would mean that, of necessity, god is alive, no?
Does god, in any of his supposed forms match this description?

Wiki says:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Um, god sweats?
Then again, he probably has other methods of self-regulation.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that god is composed of cells, but the majority of "descriptions" do imply some sort of organisation - after all he's (she's, whatever) a coherent, structured entity.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Ah, here we fall down. The Christian god, at least, does not have a metabolism. Otherwise there'd have to have been something as well as god "before" he created the universe.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Another pitfall. If god is, as claimed, perfect then why would he grow? How would he grow? There's no "evidence" of him ingesting anything.

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Slightly trickier. Does god "adapt"? Being perfect would preclude that, adaptation would imply switching away from perfection. Presumably there's no process of evolution here, and none of his characteristics are hereditary.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Yep, he's got this one. Although, given his omniscience is it actually a response?

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Also a sticky wicket. Granted he (supposedly) did reproduce, just the once, but it wasn't with "another" god and it was, again, supposedly, for the specific purpose of creating a tool for one particular job - i.e. not reproduction as generally accepted. And also the question arises, was Jesus initiated sexually?

Hmm, problems.

Let's try a different definition: RRREGNTS.

R- Respiration
No. As mentioned.
R- Regulation
Probably.
R- Reproduction
No. As mentioned.
E- Excretion
No. As mentioned.
G- Growth
No. As mentioned.
N- Nutrition
No. As mentioned.
T- Transport
No. As mentioned.
S- Synthesis
No. As mentioned.

In short: by the "definitions" given by religion god himself isn't alive.
Which means that their own argument against abiogenesis applies equally to their argument in favour of god as the cause of life.

1 I put "explanation" in quote marks because "goddidit" is no more a useful explanation than is "Tuesday".

Hi

I agree with you. But I think the argument would be that God as a supernatural beeing is not part of the same set of rules. After all they claim that god created life, not that God is part of it (in that sense). I guess they see it as if God is a higher form of existance not bound to the laws of the universe (since religion claims he created it). In fact I don't think it's really possible to convince someone not to believe with logic if they are really devoted religious believers after seeing so many debates about it. So I've kind of given up on it.

There are a multiplicity of definitions of life and all of them owe at least something to observations of the only life-forms we currently know. I doubt any reputable scientist would insist that the current definitions would necessarily be applicable to life-forms we might encounter in the future. And that includes any possible God, or gods. Ergo, your opening argument is fatally flawed.

@ zunc
I agree, but the argument that's put forward is, in exactly these words: life only comes from life.

Originally Posted by John Galt

There are a multiplicity of definitions of life and all of them owe at least something to observations of the only life-forms we currently know. I doubt any reputable scientist would insist that the current definitions would necessarily be applicable to life-forms we might encounter in the future. And that includes any possible God, or gods. Ergo, your opening argument is fatally flawed.

I'd agree.
Except that their argument is predicated on what we call life now.
All I'm doing is showing that their application of the definition applies equally to their own "solution".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

@ zunc
I agree, but the argument that's put forward is, in exactly these words: life only comes from life.

I see, I was arguing a bit out of context then. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

One of the most propounded arguments "in favour" of god is that used to "explain" the origin of life ¹.
After all, they say, life MUST come from life.
(Admitted that's all we've actually observed - so far).
Therefore, the argument goes, life didn't "just happen" and it wasn't "dead chemicals", it must have been god.

Since when does theology explain, well... anything?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

One of the most propounded arguments "in favour" of god is that used to "explain" the origin of life ¹.
After all, they say, life MUST come from life.
(Admitted that's all we've actually observed - so far).
Therefore, the argument goes, life didn't "just happen" and it wasn't "dead chemicals", it must have been god.

Since when does theology explain, well... anything?

I agree that it doesn't really explain anything, but notice the "" signs around the word explain in the sentence? I don't think Dywyddyr means that it explains something he is talking about someone elses view (even if it would be false no matter who has the view). The thread is about disproving the argument.

I think there is wisdom to be found in theology, but not science.
I think that the myths in theology were an attempt at explaining things by making stuff up that seemed to make sense instead of an active examination. But even so, when it comes to many aspects of relations and human behavior, theologians actually did pretty well- even ignorant ones from the desert.
Scientifically, it's less accurate than the movie, "Armageddon."

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Since when does theology explain, well... anything?

It explains religious beliefs. You seem to be confusing theology with religion.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Scientifically, it's less accurate than the movie, "Armageddon."

On the other hand more people would read the bible if it had Bruce Willis in it.

Originally Posted by John Galt

It explains religious beliefs. You seem to be confusing theology with religion.

Apart from the fact that you are right about the definition,
I must state that both religion and theology have not contributed anything to the field of abiogenesis
(apart from denying that abiogenesis is possible whilst offering an explanation that has zero explanatory power).

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I must state that both religion and theology have not contributed anything to the field of abiogenesis

You are right, they are against Abiogenesis but I think that's what the thread is about? It's about showing the contradiction.

From the first post: "Which means that their own argument against abiogenesis applies equally to their argument in favour of god as the cause of life."

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I must state that both religion and theology have not contributed anything to the field of abiogenesis
(apart from denying that abiogenesis is possible whilst offering an explanation that has zero explanatory power).

Technically you appear to be incorrect again. My reasoning is this.

The possibility of contemplating the possibility of and the need for abiogenesis grew out of an understanding that living things evolved. That understanding became widespread on account of Charles Darwin's work. That work arose out the investigations of individuals who adhered to the practice of Natural Theology, the belief that discovering things about the world was a way of honouring God. Without the roving bands of beetle collecting clerics and the like Darwin would likely never have had the foundation to develop his theory.

Originally Posted by John Galt

The possibility of contemplating the possibility of and the need for abiogenesis grew out of an understanding that living things evolved. That understanding became widespread on account of Charles Darwin's work. That work arose out the investigations of individuals who adhered to the practice of Natural Theology, the belief that discovering things about the world was a way of honouring God. Without the roving bands of beetle collecting clerics and the like Darwin would likely never have had the foundation to develop his theory.

But did they arrive to the conclusions via the scientific method or via their theology?

For them there was no distinction.

Originally Posted by zunc

Hi

I agree with you. But I think the argument would be that God as a supernatural beeing is not part of the same set of rules. After all they claim that god created life, not that God is part of it (in that sense). I guess they see it as if God is a higher form of existance not bound to the laws of the universe (since religion claims he created it). In fact I don't think it's really possible to convince someone not to believe with logic if they are really devoted religious believers after seeing so many debates about it. So I've kind of given up on it.

So it's another way of saying life was started by breaking the rules. God is essentially set up as a being who can freely break all natural laws. So whenever we see something that doesn't fit our paradigm, we can just assign it to God. He's the great list of "exceptions to the rule". Or rather, his will is. Anything you think God might have decided to do can go on that list.

It provides us with an "explanation of last resort", but unfortunately it's kind of a slippery slope, because it's also the easiest explanation to invoke. (There's no real evidence requirement to be met when invoking it.)

However, to be fair, I don't think the Big Bang Theory is that much different. It's just another big list of exceptions to the rule which we can invoke any time an astronomer sees something that doesn't fit. It has a slightly higher evidence requirement, because whenever we add something to it we have to at least come up with a plausible mechanism, but that mechanism is never really going to be all that hard to devise.

You want to explain an abundance of Helium atoms? Ok. Let's just open up our nuclear physics cook book. What's the necessary pressure? How long would it need to be sustained? Ok..... so guess what?? It turns out the universe suddenly slowed down (and or sped up) its expansion just exactly when it was at the threshold where that exact temperature was present, and that's why there's so much helium!!!! (You can pick any temperature you want, because every temperature would have been present at some stage or another of the expansion.)

god...decided...
hmm
maybe these 2 do not belong together

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by zunc

Hi

I agree with you. But I think the argument would be that God as a supernatural beeing is not part of the same set of rules. After all they claim that god created life, not that God is part of it (in that sense). I guess they see it as if God is a higher form of existance not bound to the laws of the universe (since religion claims he created it). In fact I don't think it's really possible to convince someone not to believe with logic if they are really devoted religious believers after seeing so many debates about it. So I've kind of given up on it.

So it's another way of saying life was started by breaking the rules. God is essentially set up as a being who can freely break all natural laws. So whenever we see something that doesn't fit our paradigm, we can just assign it to God. He's the great list of "exceptions to the rule". Or rather, his will is. Anything you think God might have decided to do can go on that list.

It provides us with an "explanation of last resort", but unfortunately it's kind of a slippery slope, because it's also the easiest explanation to invoke. (There's no real evidence requirement to be met when invoking it.)

However, to be fair, I don't think the Big Bang Theory is that much different. It's just another big list of exceptions to the rule which we can invoke any time an astronomer sees something that doesn't fit. It has a slightly higher evidence requirement, because whenever we add something to it we have to at least come up with a plausible mechanism, but that mechanism is never really going to be all that hard to devise.

You want to explain an abundance of Helium atoms? Ok. Let's just open up our nuclear physics cook book. What's the necessary pressure? How long would it need to be sustained? Ok..... so guess what?? It turns out the universe suddenly slowed down (and or sped up) its expansion just exactly when it was at the threshold where that exact temperature was present, and that's why there's so much helium!!!! (You can pick any temperature you want, because every temperature would have been present at some stage or another of the expansion.)

I see you quoted my post but after reading your reply I don't really know what to answer because I don't see the objection. Maybe you just wanted to add that it is very complicated to find answers with science also? So I'm not sure what point you want to make in regard to my post. I don't claim that scientists know everything there is to know about the origin of the universe or the origin of life, maybe we never will, but I think it's the best explanation to why things work the way they do in the world. I think that the origin of life and the creation of the universe is something that has it's source within the laws of physics going into chemistry and then biology, in other words that there is a natural explanation for things and not a supernatural one.

Because even if the origin would be a supernatural "creator" that is outside the natural realm (which I don't think there is) we would not be able to find out anything about it through experimentation and if we can't do that whoever (or whatever) that force might be doesn't matter. If we can't know anything about it, it's useless. Who knows, we might live in a simulation. But as long as you can't prove it, it doesn't matter because it does not add to our understanding of the world. We simply have to accept that we don't know everything yet and go with the best explanation based on evidence.

Originally Posted by zunc

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by zunc

Hi

I agree with you. But I think the argument would be that God as a supernatural beeing is not part of the same set of rules. After all they claim that god created life, not that God is part of it (in that sense). I guess they see it as if God is a higher form of existance not bound to the laws of the universe (since religion claims he created it). In fact I don't think it's really possible to convince someone not to believe with logic if they are really devoted religious believers after seeing so many debates about it. So I've kind of given up on it.

So it's another way of saying life was started by breaking the rules. God is essentially set up as a being who can freely break all natural laws. So whenever we see something that doesn't fit our paradigm, we can just assign it to God. He's the great list of "exceptions to the rule". Or rather, his will is. Anything you think God might have decided to do can go on that list.

It provides us with an "explanation of last resort", but unfortunately it's kind of a slippery slope, because it's also the easiest explanation to invoke. (There's no real evidence requirement to be met when invoking it.)

However, to be fair, I don't think the Big Bang Theory is that much different. It's just another big list of exceptions to the rule which we can invoke any time an astronomer sees something that doesn't fit. It has a slightly higher evidence requirement, because whenever we add something to it we have to at least come up with a plausible mechanism, but that mechanism is never really going to be all that hard to devise.

You want to explain an abundance of Helium atoms? Ok. Let's just open up our nuclear physics cook book. What's the necessary pressure? How long would it need to be sustained? Ok..... so guess what?? It turns out the universe suddenly slowed down (and or sped up) its expansion just exactly when it was at the threshold where that exact temperature was present, and that's why there's so much helium!!!! (You can pick any temperature you want, because every temperature would have been present at some stage or another of the expansion.)

I see you quoted my post but after reading your reply I don't really know what to answer because I don't see the objection. Maybe you just wanted to add that it is very complicated to find answers with science also? So I'm not sure what point you want to make in regard to my post.

I'm trying to point out that the same temptation gripped them as grips us now. It's not so different.

If you define an explanatory mechanism that has too much freedom from constraint, so it can do whatever it wants, then two things happen:

1) - The hypotheses that involve that mechanism become harder and harder to scrutinize. (Harder to falsify)

2) - The mechanism begins to become the explanation for more and more phenomena (because it's always among the first things on the list of patterns to compare against, and flexible enough that it almost always ends up being a match.)

My extended point was, of course, that this can kill science. It's a poison, like Opium is a poison.

I don't claim that scientists know everything there is to know about the origin of the universe or the origin of life, maybe we never will, but I think it's the best explanation to why things work the way they do in the world.

Do you not see that God is usually also the "best explanation" to explain those phenomena that he is used to explain? (At least if you don't know about the other ones yet.)

I think that the origin of life and the creation of the universe is something that has it's source within the laws of physics going into chemistry and then biology, in other words that there is a natural explanation for things and not a supernatural one.

Because even if the origin would be a supernatural "creator" that is outside the natural realm (which I don't think there is) we would not be able to find out anything about it through experimentation and if we can't do that whoever (or whatever) that force might be doesn't matter. If we can't know anything about it, it's useless. Who knows, we might live in a simulation. But as long as you can't prove it, it doesn't matter because it does not add to our understanding of the world. We simply have to accept that we don't know everything yet and go with the best explanation based on evidence.

I wish more scientists would use the "is it useful?" test like how you appear to be using it. That's the best protection against this kind of poison.

Most of the overly flexible mechanisms have the disadvantage of being mostly useless, because many of them "only occurred once", and even those that are ongoing consist of things that we can't recreate by any means available to us anyway.

Originally Posted by kojax

I wish more scientists would use the "is it useful?" test like how you appear to be using it. That's the best protection against this kind of poison.

Most of the overly flexible mechanisms have the disadvantage of being mostly useless, because many of them "only occurred once", and even those that are ongoing consist of things that we can't recreate by any means available to us anyway.

Indeed. The point, surely, is that invoking supernatural causes is scientifically useless because a supernatural intervention is by definition impossible to make predictions from, as no rules or patterns govern its behaviour. Ability to make predictions, about what further repeatable observations can be expected, is a basic test of whether a theory of nature is scientific.

Of course, what we know as the scientific method - including this predictive requirement - did not spring up overnight. It developed in history, as the power of natural philosophy rooted in experiment and observation gradually became clear.

Conversely, there is no need at all in theology that religious ideas should be scientific. After all, science is only a way of understanding the objective physical world. Other (interior, subjective) aspects of human experience require different tools. The error of the creationists is to muddle the two and pretend, absurdly, that their theology is also science.

Originally Posted by exchemist

After all, science is only a way of understanding the objective physical world. Other (interior, subjective) aspects of human experience require different tools. The error of the creationists is to muddle the two and pretend, absurdly, that their theology is also science.

Science has resoundingly shown itself not only to be "a way," but the only reliable way. The other aspects are largely make believe, who's real parts are better studied through science than any other tool.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by exchemist

After all, science is only a way of understanding the objective physical world. Other (interior, subjective) aspects of human experience require different tools. The error of the creationists is to muddle the two and pretend, absurdly, that their theology is also science.

Science has resoundingly shown itself not only to be "a way," but the only reliable way. The other aspects are largely make believe, who's real parts are better studied through science than any other tool.

That sounds like Dawkinsian cant to me. I'm afraid it strikes me as an artificial scientific pose that does not bear examination.

Surely there are whole realms of human experience, traditionally the preserve of the Humanities, where science is virtually useless as a tool for understanding. When I want to appreciate a Schubert string quartet, I take my scientific hat off, just as I do when playing with my son, or kissing my wife. A Shakespeare play can give us profound insights into aspects of the human condition such as success, humour, love, death, loss, depression and so on, but do we use the scientific method to appreciate this? When we fall in love, do we use science to determine our actions?

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I suspect that most of us who have been scientifically trained, if we are truly honest with ourselves, will recognise that we put our science hats on when we want to appreciate the physical world: otherwise in our daily lives we generally have it handy, but do not wear it constantly. Unless we have Asperger's, I suppose.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by exchemist

After all, science is only a way of understanding the objective physical world. Other (interior, subjective) aspects of human experience require different tools. The error of the creationists is to muddle the two and pretend, absurdly, that their theology is also science.

Science has resoundingly shown itself not only to be "a way," but the only reliable way. The other aspects are largely make believe, who's real parts are better studied through science than any other tool.

That sounds like Dawkinsian cant to me. I'm afraid it strikes me as an artificial scientific pose that does not bear examination.

Surely there are whole realms of human experience, traditionally the preserve of the Humanities, where science is virtually useless as a tool for understanding. When I want to appreciate a Schubert string quartet, I take my scientific hat off, just as I do when playing with my son, or kissing my wife. A Shakespeare play can give us profound insights into aspects of the human condition such as success, humour, love, death, loss, depression and so on, but do we use the scientific method to appreciate this? When we fall in love, do we use science to determine our actions?

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I suspect that most of us who have been scientifically trained, if we are truly honest with ourselves, will recognise that we put our science hats on when we want to appreciate the physical world: otherwise in our daily lives we generally have it handy, but do not wear it constantly. Unless we have Asperger's, I suppose.

You are confusing "enjoyment" with having a "scientific understanding of enjoyment."
Nonsense.
If you have a scientific understanding why you enjoy something, it does not mean that you suddenly stop enjoying it. If you enjoy something, it does not mean you must have a scientific understanding of it to do so.

And none of that means that the scientific method cannot examine it- as you just claimed. It can examine it just fine. Whether you enjoy it or not.
Just because YOU, personally, may not have studied what process takes place within the human brain and body to lead to your enjoyment of music, for example, does not mean it suddenly does not exist and that the scientific method cannot examine it. Do you have some Supernatural Belief in music? It's absurd to think that if you, personally, do not fully understand something than that suddenly makes understanding of it impossible.

Such arrogance always blows me away.

When I want to appreciate a Schubert string quartet, I take my scientific hat off

But I might put my musical hat on. I sometimes find that I enjoy some performances more if I have the score in front of me. Now that's not the usual way for people to enjoy music, but it's a perfectly valid way to appreciate artistry. And a physicist who understands how musical instruments work might have a keen interest in certain obscure-to-the-rest-of-us technicalities that might escape a musician.

Originally Posted by adelady

When I want to appreciate a Schubert string quartet, I take my scientific hat off

But I might put my musical hat on. I sometimes find that I enjoy some performances more if I have the score in front of me. Now that's not the usual way for people to enjoy music, but it's a perfectly valid way to appreciate artistry. And a physicist who understands how musical instruments work might have a keen interest in certain obscure-to-the-rest-of-us technicalities that might escape a musician.

Yes indeed. Different hats for different types of experience is exactly what I think we all use, if we are honest with ourselves.

Just as, within science itself, we use different theories and models, depending on the phenomenon we are studying, even though some of the theories and models are not wholly consistent with each other.

There is this Dawkinsian myth put about nowadays that science is some sort of pure, self-consistent, faultless method of enquiry that answers everything. But that's grandiose ballocks: we are pragmatic users of of ideas that work in particular contexts.

Originally Posted by exchemist

There is this Dawkinsian myth put about nowadays that science is some sort of pure, self-consistent, faultless method of enquiry that answers everything. But that's grandiose ballocks: we are pragmatic users of of ideas that work in particular contexts.

Then you are quite welcome to show us another way.
Nobody thinks science answers everything, but it has a very reasonable take on the majority of things.
I don't know where you're getting this so called "Dawkinsian" bollocks from. Probably your imagination.

So do go ahead show us another way.

Oh and it's written "bollocks" by the way.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by exchemist

There is this Dawkinsian myth put about nowadays that science is some sort of pure, self-consistent, faultless method of enquiry that answers everything. But that's grandiose ballocks: we are pragmatic users of of ideas that work in particular contexts.

Then you are quite welcome to show us another way.
Nobody thinks science answers everything, but it has a very reasonable take on the majority of things.
I don't know where you're getting this so called "Dawkinsian" bollocks from. Probably your imagination.

So do go ahead show us another way.

Oh and it's written "bollocks" by the way.

....or ballocks: The King's English - Kingsley Amis - Google Books

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by exchemist

After all, science is only a way of understanding the objective physical world. Other (interior, subjective) aspects of human experience require different tools. The error of the creationists is to muddle the two and pretend, absurdly, that their theology is also science.

Science has resoundingly shown itself not only to be "a way," but the only reliable way. The other aspects are largely make believe, who's real parts are better studied through science than any other tool.

That sounds like Dawkinsian cant to me. I'm afraid it strikes me as an artificial scientific pose that does not bear examination.

Surely there are whole realms of human experience, traditionally the preserve of the Humanities, where science is virtually useless as a tool for understanding.

I doubt it. As your original statement said, "science is the only way of understand the objective physical world...the problem with you statement is there is NOTHING else other than the objective physical world.

As so eloquently expressed by NV, because you as an individual can enjoy something doesn't mean it can't be studied in a scientific way (happy for that since Pandora would be a lot less successful at picking tunes I like). I play flute, piano and dulcimer--I can enjoy all as well as describe how they make sound and a bit about how my brain processes--a good musician and scientist could describe why I like the music in mush more quantitative terms--and because they are all physical processes, we'll probably be able to do with much more understanding the future. Knowing all that I can still enjoy a couple refrains of Cripple Creek (until the wife yells at me...lol).

And for the record, I seldom take my science hat off--even in love it stays in my hand if only to steel a kiss under my brim.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As so eloquently expressed by NV,

I got a laugh out of that.

I sure as hell don't use science to understand how to play an audience, though I can use science to understand how I do it. It's interesting to know how I do it, but it's not necessary for my understanding.