God cannot explain the origin of life

[lightacandle]

Oh Philosophy 101. Been there, done that. The aggravating assertion that everything must be answerable with logic. Upon creation, God did not say, “Let there be logic. And there was logic on the 8th day.” Then,consequently, Man unthought himself. :bigyikes: Philosophers are too busy thinking to come out to play. Very good responses. I especially like the robot analogy. Kudos.

:banghead: :hypno:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In science disagreements are often solved by recourse to tangible real world trial and error experiments or observations. What tangible mechanism is available to settle speculative philosophical issues?

What do you mean by tangible mechanism? What do you mean by speculative philosophy?

Sounds like you are of the opinion that science is worthwhile and philosophy is useless.

Is that your angle?

 

[Aloysium]

I disagree because if abiogenesis is possible, then it is not necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the origin of life. Further, if philosophy contradicts a scientific fact, then I would go with the scientific fact over the philosophical speculation.

Fact and speculation, which is which? A rhetorical question, but if you can provide an example of a fact that has no philosophical underpinnings, I would be interested.

I do have some questions that relate to the current status of the scientific understanding of life:

• How would you explain that the whole can be greater than the parts?
• How is it that that happened?
  It’s always good to have an example, a case study of a living organism. Perhaps you could start with you, since there is nothing you would know more intimately, it being you yourself.

 

[Tomdstone]

What do you mean by tangible mechanism? What do you mean by speculative philosophy?

Tangible mechanism means something like an agreed upon objective real world procedure for determining the answer to the question. For an example of a particular question, how do you determine whether or not it is justified to use torture to save lives in a terrorist attack. I don’t see the tangible mechanism, i.e., agreed upon objective procedure, to determine the answer to the question.
Speculative philosophy is an activity involving the critical study of principles and concepts of knowledge in an attempt to gain insight into the nature of a particular problem or issue without so much the help of tangible feedback by trial and error and experiential observation but with more emphasis on rational investigation by intuitive methodology such as asking, arguing, debating pro and con, commenting, interpreting, reasoning, meditating and speculating.

 

[Tomdstone]

Fact and speculation, which is which?

Speculation is the conjectural consideration of an issue.
Fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation.

 

[Aloysium]

Speculation is the conjectural consideration of an issue.
Fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation.

. . . like the sun rising in the east, which was a feat of which only human beings are capable And, there was a greater truth discovered by reason. The search for higher truths is founded on a faith in the orderliness of the universe. Speculation?

 

[Tomdstone]

• How would you explain that the whole can be greater than the parts?

The cooperative interaction among the various parts of a system adds value to the whole because of the interconnectedness of interrelated components working together in a harmonious relationship which thereby produces a cohesive whole which is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Aloysium]

The cooperative interactions among the various parts of a system adds value to the whole because of the interconnectedness of interrelated components working together in a harmonious relationship which thereby produces a cohesive whole which is more than the sum of its parts.

This works for groups, until a critical point is reached in an organization where meetings tend to slow things down and much less is done than could be by one individual.

Actually, you provide a description of holistic phenomena; it’s an observation and offers no explanation as to how it happens.

Why not take yourself as an example. How do the gazillion, or so, bosons come together to form a whole you? Sitting here at the lake with only a couple of lights visible in the stillness, bull frogs in the foreground and a loon’s cry in the distance, the stars beginning to appear, there’s only one answer that makes any sense in this moment.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Tangible mechanism means something like an agreed upon objective real world procedure for determining the answer to the question. For an example of a particular question, how do you determine whether or not it is justified to use torture to save lives in a terrorist attack. I don’t see the tangible mechanism, i.e., agreed upon objective procedure, to determine the answer to the question.
Speculative philosophy is an activity involving the critical study of principles and concepts of knowledge in an attempt to gain insight into the nature of a particular problem or issue without so much the help of tangible feedback by trial and error and experiential observation but with more emphasis on rational investigation by intuitive methodology such as asking, arguing, debating pro and con, commenting, interpreting, reasoning, meditating and speculating.

I pretty much agree with all this. You didn’t answer my question about setting up a dichotomy whereby it seems you think science is superior to philosophy because it has a “tangible” methodology. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

There are many areas in science that are hardly tangible yet we can speculate about them. Abiogenesis, for example, which is highly speculative and for which there is no way to know how life actually began since the circumstances of the original living organisms no longer exist.

You find many scientists (especially atheists) willing to entertain the existence of an infinite multiverse, again, a theme that must forever be speculative as there is no tangible way to demonstrate the existence of same.

It is especially as to our human nature and our destiny that philosophy must speculate often without a tangible source, because the issues are so spiritual or metaphysical that tangibility is not the logical methodology (though some of these issues can be settled by a logical methodology, some will not accept the logic for one reason or another. Indeed, the social sciences are “soft” sciences and in some cases the issues are much closer to philosophy than to science.

Suffice it to say that an atheist is adopting a philosophical position to say that God is no explanation for the origin of life. But if we put the shoe on the other foot it is equally possible to say that an atheistic science also would be no explanation for the origin of life.

 

[magnet]

“the social sciences are “soft” sciences and in some cases the issues are much closer to philosophy than to science.”

How about the study of weather and climate? Is this a soft science? Is Geology a soft science? In both cases, complex phenomena are at work. Laboratory testing of hypotheses are not usually possible such as those in the “hard” sciences.

Similarly, the social sciences focus on complex phenomena. Does describing these as “soft” sciences clarify anything?

How are these disciplines closer to philosophy than to science?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Similarly, the social sciences focus on complex phenomena. Does describing these as “soft” sciences clarify anything?

How are these disciplines closer to philosophy than to science?

Because they deal with values more so than atoms and molecules?

 

[Gorgias]

Tangible mechanism means something like an agreed upon objective real world procedure for determining the answer to the question.

If you’re going to present definitions for us, it might be more helpful if you define your terms (you know – if you were to provide definitions that were more ‘tangible’ and ‘real’… )

Seriously, though: what do you mean by ‘tangible’? What kind of ‘procedure’ – be it ‘real world’ or not (!) – is ‘tangible’? What kind of criteria establish that a given procedure ‘determine answers to questions’, and who gets to ‘agree’ on the requirements for such procedures? (Similarly, when some ‘disagree’ that the procedure is properly ‘determinative’, then do you throw out the procedure? Do you decide that a new one is necessary?)

I think you’ll find that – once the hand-waving stops and the nitty-gritty work of precisely defining your terms is complete – you’ll have defined a system that works in ways that are surprising to you. That is, you’ll find that you’ve defined a system that works not only for empirical sciences, but also for philosophy and theology…

Speculative philosophy is an activity involving the critical study of principles and concepts of knowledge in an attempt to gain insight into the nature of a particular problem or issue without so much the help of tangible feedback by trial and error and experiential observation but with more emphasis on rational investigation by intuitive methodology such as asking, arguing, debating pro and con, commenting, interpreting, reasoning, meditating and speculating.

I see. Therefore, your definition is that all of philosophy is ‘speculative philosophy’? It’s always nice to reach a conclusion through a slanted definition…

(Actually, philosophy does work via “feedback by trial and error and experiential observation”. Philosophers begin with “experiential observation” in order to propose their theories. They receive “feedback” from other philosophers, and develop their ideas over time through such “trial and error.” Your definition of what philosophy is not is closer to what philosophy really is… :hmmm)

 

[Gorgias]

So we still need a new dictionary with two parallel meanings for words.

C’mon, rossum… now you’re just being dramatic!

It’s called ‘jargon’, and all fields have it. A ‘double’ means something different at a baseball game than it does to a bartender; the ‘river’ is a completely different concept for fly-fishermen than it is for poker players. Do we lament that, in particular contexts, words take on particular meanings distinct from those they take on elsewhere? Do we suggest that, since they do have different meanings, these other contexts are somehow invalid or their definitions unreasonable? Of course not!

In effect you are saying that an English translation of the Bible is not actually written in standard English, but in a different parallel language that superficially looks like English but actually isn’t because the words have different meanings from those given in a standard English dictionary.

No. I’m saying that these words are used analogously when applied to God, and so, they’re valuable for the analogy that they provide. Yet, they cannot be said to apply univocally to God, and if we presume that they do apply exactly, we tend to misunderstand what’s being said about God – in exactly the same way that a bartender might misunderstand that a baseball player is an alcoholic if someone says “that guy over there? He’s leading all of professional ballplayers in doubles!” (See Aquinas’ thought on this notion of how one might apply human concepts to divine realities.…)

So God does not get angry at sin and God does not love humanity because “angry” and “love” don’t mean what the dictionary says when applied to God. Instead we should say, “God gets lecawi at sin,” and “God kichades humanity,” to make it clear that we are using words with non-standard meanings.

If that makes you happy, please go invent your own language.

Yet, the statements hold – if we are rigorous in what we mean by saying that an immutable deity can become ‘angry’ or can ‘love’. (Hint: if we think that God experiences emotions like humans do, we’re misunderstanding the use of the words… )

How does this differ from the Protestant approach where believers can interpret the Bible for themselves?

It differs because we’re not saying that each individual gets to make up their own definitions. What I’m asserting is not a personal argument, but one that’s held by the Church and her theologians…

Another example of the Humpty Dumpty argument: “a word means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

And now you’ve descended into absurdity. Are you saying that a watchmaker does create in exactly the same way God does? If so, then you’ve just become Humpty Dumpty, claiming that the words only mean what you want them to mean, once you’ve dug in your heels and plugged up your ears!

But, if each individual gets to make that determination of ‘meaning’, then you’d have a point. Yet, groups of people do get to determine meaning – or else language would be meaningless (or worse, would disappear into obscurity and irrelevance over time)…

And one which you have failed to meet, since you have not provided us with a new God-compatible logic.

I don’t have to: Catholic theologians have done the work for me, throughout the past two millennia. Read up on Augustine and Aquinas; take a walk through the Early Church Fathers and the writings of the various popes. You’ll find that they explain it all in ways that are logical, rigorous, and reasonable.

You have painted yourself into a corner here. You have rejected both words and logic. What do you have left?

I’ve rejected neither.

Truly, I’m at a loss: Nearer the beginning of the thread, you pointed to the reasonableness of asserting the juxtaposition of “death” and “Buddha’s existence” – and that many seemingly mutually exclusive truth values of these are equally possible! How, then, you can turn to another faith tradition and blithely exclaim, “oh, you’re just illogical and inconsistent” is quite shocking! (Perhaps the Abrahamic religions aren’t the only religions of intolerance in the world… )

 

[rossum]

I’m saying that these words are used analogously when applied to God, and so, they’re valuable for the analogy that they provide.

And different people will interpret the same analogies differently. You are introducing a huge amount of imprecision here.

Yet, the statements hold – if we are rigorous in what we mean by saying that an immutable deity can become ‘angry’ or can ‘love’.

The deity described in Genesis is not immutable. If the God of Genesis were immutable and unchanging, then Genesis would read something like:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day God said …

Being immutable is extremely restrictive because any changing action within time is impossible. The God of the Bible changes within time, hence that God is not immutable.

And now you’ve descended into absurdity. Are you saying that a watchmaker does create in exactly the same way God does?

Does a watchmaker create a watch? Does a painter create a painting? Does a builder create a house? All three create, but they create in different ways. There is more than one way to create something; even God uses different methods: “Let there be…”, “Let the earth bring forth…” All these different methods are encompassed by the word “create”.

rossum

 

[Bookcat]

God cannot explain the origin of life:

Huh?

Yes God can.

Rather well.

 

[rossum]

God cannot explain the origin of life:

Huh?

Yes God can.

Rather well.

No He cannot. Ask yourself, “Is God a living God or a dead God?”

Now, please explain how God can explain His own origin. Did He create Himself? That would make God created. Is your God created or uncreated?

You need to think a bit more about this.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

No He cannot. Ask yourself, “Is God a living God or a dead God?”

Now, please explain how God can explain His own origin. Did He create Himself? That would make God created. Is your God created or uncreated?

You need to think a bit more about this.

rossum

As a Buddhist, you would do well to think less.
You are cluttering up your mind with nonsense.

 

[Gorgias]

And different people will interpret the same analogies differently.

That’s beside the point. The issue isn’t “what do you see in this analogous language?”, it’s “what did the author (that is, either the human or divine author!) of Scripture mean through this use of analogous language?” In a post-modern context, the only meaning is found in the reader, but prior to post-modernism and its characteristic agnosticism, meaning was found in what the author intended.

You are introducing a huge amount of imprecision here.

I’m not introducing it. This might be your first introduction to this notion, but that doesn’t mean that I’m creating this idea out of thin air…

The deity described in Genesis is not immutable. If the God of Genesis were immutable and unchanging, then Genesis would read something like:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day God said …

You misunderstand what “immutable” means… or, perhaps, you’re tilting at windmills at a God of your own imagination.

In any case, Catholics aren’t required to hold to a hyperliteral interpretation of Genesis that insists on a strictly literal “six 24-hour day” creation. It’s a figurative telling of theological truths. Or… are you looking to hold us to one particular point of view, one particular use of words, one particular interpretation? If so, then you’re not asking us to defend Catholicism, but rossum’s-take-on-Catholicism. And, unfortunately, that’s not a reasonable thing to ask.

Being immutable is extremely restrictive because any changing action within time is impossible. The God of the Bible changes within time, hence that God is not immutable.

Being immutable means that God’s nature does not change; it means that He is perfection and never changes from perfection to any other state. It’s not that “the God of the Bible” changes, so much as the people describing God change – in other words, it’s the descriptions of God that change.

Does a watchmaker create a watch? Does a painter create a painting? Does a builder create a house? All three create, but they create in different ways. There is more than one way to create something; even God uses different methods: “Let there be…”, “Let the earth bring forth…” All these different methods are encompassed by the word “create”.

Precisely. And the way God creates is distinct from the way that watchmakers, builders, and artists create. I’m glad you see that this is the case – and that this doesn’t do damage to either language or logic.

 

[Gorgias]

No He cannot. Ask yourself, “Is God a living God or a dead God?”

Now, please explain how God can explain His own origin. Did He create Himself? That would make God created. Is your God created or uncreated?

You need to think a bit more about this.

Sadly, it seems that you do, too.

God is uncreated. By that standard, you could make the claim that “life is eternal.” No problems there. On the other hand, the universe is created; so, you can make the claim “there is an origin to created life,” and that’s OK, too.

However, attempting to play both ends against the middle, by picking out the createdness of creation, and attempting to apply it to the uncreatedness of God, is simply absurd. It does not prove any point you’re attempting to make, and it merely demonstrates that you’re unwilling to discuss the question reasonably.

 

[Tomdstone]

The deity described in Genesis is not immutable.

I tend to agree with that. I know that Roman Catholic philosophers say that God is immutable and unmoved. But I don’t see how that can be true in light of the way that Catholics know God:

1. God came down from heaven and became man.
2. God responds to our prayers especially when Catholics apply indulgences to the souls in purgatory. God will lighten their sentence as a result of our prayers. Why else have Masses said for the departed souls?
3. At every Mass, God becomes present as Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the miracle of the Eucharist. Before the Mass, the host was just bread. But after the Consecration in the Mass, the Host, which was bread, now becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.