There are also many divergent views from within science about the overall adequacy of darwinian principles — Wayfarer

I think you're drastically over estimating the disagreement within science.

There are very few things with a stronger scientific consensus than evolution. Even the article you linked points to that:

There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact

In other words, the basics of evolution are pretty much unanimously agreed upon, and there are little tiny debates about certain details.

There is Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which attempts to include a number of other factors in explaining evolution. It focuses on genes less than the traditional model, including the effects of niche construction, feedback from the environment, behavior, etc. in selection. It's been controversial but TBH I see at least some elements of it likely becoming part of the mainstream in the future.



Intelligent design comes in many forms. In general, the ones that center on biology haven't been particularly successful at convincing biologists. Those focused on the entire universe appearing "designed" have been more successful. Physicists pay a good deal of attention to the "Fine Tuning Problem," and it's mentioned in virtually all popular science books on cosmology these days. That's not to say these arguments have convinced people of the need for God to explain the universe, but rather that "there are things we need to explain that we currently cannot."

How does one test such an argument? — Wayfarer

How do I find out if this argument holds water? I am willing to accept a conclusion either way:
It is confusing to me, on the one hand Michael Behe, a mainstream Biologist with maybe not mainstream views, and those on the other side.

Are they agreed on the facts?

Are they agreed on the conclusions?

Can I tell if they are indeed agreed on facts and how their conclusions differ?

One problem I face is that a lot of the arguments are mixed in with the fine tuning argument. To be clear, my position on the fine tuning argument is this: If the existence of God is not a settled one way or the other, then the fine tuning argument is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a God and Creator, however, it does not conclusively prove anything. Why? Because we are obviously here, despite the odds, as a sort of anthropomorphic argument, and theories could emerge in the future that make the existence of the universe inevitable. It is possible. Conclusive proof is a different thing altogether.

There are very few things with a stronger scientific consensus than evolution. — flannel jesus

Let's take this apart: evolution is: (Britannica)

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory. — Britannica

Scientific theories have to limit themselves to natural processes and observations. Is this correct? In that case, any scientific theory cannot include any supernatural actions, a 'God of the gaps' or any types of miracles. If we take that as given, then it follows that the theory of evolution, in whatever corrected modern formulations even, is the only choice scientists have when it comes to a theory of origin of biological entities. Is this correct?

It's been controversial but TBH I see at least some elements of it likely becoming part of the mainstream in the future. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, if this is the case, is it a false argument to claim that the 'failure of evolutionary theory' means it needs to be abandoned in favor of some sort of creation theory?

That's not to say these arguments have convinced people of the need for God to explain the universe, but rather that "there are things we need to explain that we currently cannot." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some people are convinced, some feel more study is needed. Each is a philosophical position, the former somewhat religious. In other words, some will believe in God the creator, whereas others will believe in future explanations that will solve all the problems with the theory, but a scientific theory can always be wrong, or proven wrong.

Intelligent design comes in many forms. In general, the ones that center on biology haven't been particularly successful at convincing biologists — Count Timothy von Icarus

Convincing biologists of what exactly? That an explanation has not been found or that it will never be found?

I see two different threads of argument here.

How do I find out if this argument holds water? I am willing to accept a conclusion either way:

It is confusing to me, on the one hand Michael Behe, a mainstream Biologist with maybe not mainstream views, and those on the other side.

Are they agreed on the facts?

Are they agreed on the conclusions?

Can I tell if they are indeed agreed on facts and how their conclusions differ?

One problem I face is that a lot of the arguments are mixed in with the fine tuning argument. To be clear, my position on the fine tuning argument is this: If the existence of God is not a settled one way or the other, then the fine tuning argument is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a God and Creator, however, it does not conclusively prove anything. Why? Because we are obviously here, despite the odds, as a sort of anthropomorphic argument, and theories could emerge in the future that make the existence of the universe inevitable. It is possible. Conclusive proof is a different thing altogether. — FreeEmotion

Ask a hard question, why don't you. It is a notoriously contentious matter.

If you haven't read Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel, it might be a useful reference. He professes atheism, has no brief for creationism, but the sub-title of the book is 'why neo-darwinian materialism is almost certainly false.' From a purely philosophical perspective he weighs up the big issues.

My own point of view is that I too am opposed to neo-darwinian materialism proposed by the likes of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. I don't think it holds water philosophically. But I find many of the ID types uncomfortably near to Protestant fundamentalism. It's instructive, for example, that their (now mothballed) site Uncommon Design is adamantly opposed to any idea of 'human-caused climate change' ( I guess because such things are supposed to be God's doing.) It's also instructive that they seem to regard both Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart's classical theological views as being tantamount to atheism - because neither subscribe to the kind of fundamentalist sky-father theology that many American Protestants do. (Hart has nothing but scorn for any kind of ID argument.)

So - very deep issues. I think some of the points Michael Behe and Alvin Plantinga make are quite compelling, but as this is a secular philosophy forum, I would not go into bat for them here. It never ends well.

Physicists pay a good deal of attention to the "Fine Tuning Problem," and it's mentioned in virtually all popular science books on cosmology these days. That's not to say these arguments have convinced people of the need for God to explain the universe, but rather that "there are things we need to explain that we currently cannot." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think is on the right track. There are a couple of Australian science writers, Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis who wrote a book The Fortunate Universe (review) which weighs those arguments. They're both mainstream and highly qualified and neither wear their religious convictions too obviously on their sleeve.

Scientific theories have to limit themselves to natural processes and observations. Is this correct? In that case, any scientific theory cannot include any supernatural actions, a 'God of the gaps' or any types of miracles. If we take that as given, then it follows that the theory of evolution, in whatever corrected modern formulations even, is the only choice scientists have when it comes to a theory of origin of biological entities. Is this correct? — FreeEmotion

No, I definitely do not think that the only reason science accepts evolution is because there's no other option.

Science accepts evolution because we have a preponderance of evidence of evolution.

If there was no fossil evidence that there were human-like species that predated humans, scientists would today not be suggesting humans evolved from previous humanoid species. If the evidence counterfactually pointed to it, scientists today would say "The fossil records show humans spontaneously appeared on the earth 6000 years ago." The evidence doesn't point to that, so scientists don't say that.

https://youtu.be/V-titT14_0M?si=3JOgnqt9tfpAlNg6

Science accepts evolution because we have a preponderance of evidence of evolution. — flannel jesus

Of course. I mean, duh. But the philosophical question is: why do we exist? Now, evolutionary biology has a clear and unambiguous answer to that question: we exist in order to propagate. There's no reason for that, other than keeping on going. Dawkins says it concisely: 'Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our (biological) existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.' So much for philosophy, eh? Pass the coconut.

Now, evolutionary biology has a clear and unambiguous answer to that question: we exist in order to propagate. — Wayfarer

I don't think that's what biology says at all. It says we exist because our ancestors did propagate. The casual reason for our existence doesn't necessarily say anything about a teleological reason for our existence.

Of course. I mean, duh. — Wayfarer

It's not a duh to the person I was responding to

No, I definitely do not think that the only reason science accepts evolution is because there's no other option. — flannel jesus

What other options are there?

I prefer to talk about 'scientists accepting' rather than 'science accepting' anything. If you describe it this way, then we can say that 'some scientists' accept that all living things came to their present state of being via a process of evolution, a natural process, not involving God. Other scientists choose to believe that God created all living things, either at 'the beginning' or somewhere along the way. We can get into the numbers game here. Unless we categorically state that religious beliefs are irrational, then we have to allow for the possibility of these beliefs being valid, or at least an philosophical stand that may be respected.

If the evidence counterfactually pointed to it, scientists today would say "The fossil records show humans spontaneously appeared on the earth 6000 years ago." The evidence doesn't point to that, so scientists don't say that — flannel jesus

The assumption that human evolution occurred preceded the evidence. That is how science works, you may say, very well. Without getting into scientific study myself, then I will have to make a guess as to whether the accepted scientific view is justified.

Rather than state that humans suddenly appeared, I think many scientists would echo Dawkins in saying that this only means that scientists have to work harder and come up with an explanation to find the evidence. There are at least some scientists who will be bound to take this view, atheists at the forefront of them.

There is no compulsion to avoid natural explanations for all phenomena, whether there be evidence or not. Scientists are still trying to come up with a theory of how life began in the first place.

My point is this: there will always exist some people, maybe scientists, who will attribute creation to a God, and there are some people, again may be scientists or not, who under no circumstances will attribute supernatural causes for the creation of the universe, and life itself. I believe this stems from the human condition, and evidence will not help.

The assumption that human evolution occurred preceded the evidence. That is how science works, you may say, very well. Without getting into scientific study myself, then I will have to make a guess as to whether the accepted scientific view is justified. — FreeEmotion

I don't know that that's how it played out in reality. What reason do you have to think that? That the majority of scientists accepted evolution without much fossil evidence of a lineage of humanoids leading to homosapiens?

Science accepts evolution because we have a preponderance of evidence of evolution.
— flannel jesus — Wayfarer

I am not interested in 'why' questions, I do not think they fit into the discussion of evolution, and in theology the 'why' has answer that are not compelling to the other side.

Scientists accept non-supernatural explanations because, in the current practice of sciences, supernatural causes have no place. Neither has the act of Creation by a God. That is simply out of bounds, and for good reason, perhaps it allows for an infinite number of variables.

If the no-God hypothesis for creation is to be assumed to be the only explanation, first one must prove the no-God exists. One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow?

I am not interested in 'why' questions — FreeEmotion

Well, I’ll bow out, then.

One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow? — FreeEmotion

Ok, what do you mean by "God"?

One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow? — FreeEmotion

Only semantically. :roll: Rather, we only have to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the universe observed is just as predicted by theory without a "creator". Deep time, deep space, initial conditions of low entropy, nucleogenesis, accelerating cosmic expansion, etc are features of cosmic self-organization which is, of course, inconsistent with "creation by divine fiat". There is no evidence of a "creator" and yet there must be (some) manifest in the observable physical universe iff the observable physical universe was "created". Also, "goddidit" doesn't explain anything. As Laplace told Napoleon when the Emperor had asked about "God":

Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

:fire:

That the majority of scientists accepted evolution without much fossil evidence of a lineage of humanoids leading to homosapiens? — flannel jesus

A few scientists started with a with a hypothesis. This hypothesis was since confirmed, but to the acceptance of this 'fact' had to depend on the assumption that this hypothesis was possibly correct, though ruled out by religious beliefs. They 'accepted evolution' based on evidence, but what compulsion should the church have for accepting it? Suppose someone came up with a natural explanation for the 'virgin birth' of Jesus? Would the church be bound to accept that 'scientific view?'.

There is great number of creation myths that date back to antiquity. There are also ancient beliefs that the universe always existed:

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1] — Wikipedia Eternity of Universe

There were always alternative and natural views to the how the universe came into being. Those who adhered to the religions of Judaism and Christianity, and possibly Islam, to which the doctrine of Creation by God, this doctrine is central, those adherents to these religions were always faced with a choice.

Assuming that the right to belief in a religion is a basic human right, then it follows that the followers of this religion have a right to believe in a Creation.

The rise of the theory of evolution, or should I say popularity of the theory of evolution in Europe, was clearly in conflict with the beliefs in creation, so was the geological theories of origins. The choice was then to reject the scientific theory of origins, which the faithful have every right to do. Evidence has to be accepted, as artifacts, but they do not disprove creationism, per se. Also, apart for the doctrines concerning origins, those religions are full of stories of miracles which are quite central to the faith. There is no scientific evidence for those miracles ever happening: for example the parting of the red sea.

Accepting evolution as fact is fine if you are scientist who does not believe in a Creator-God. If you do believe in a Creator-God, then you will have to either hold two contradictory beliefs in your head, hold to the Deistic view, or reject one and hold to the other as being the absolute truth.

My question is, are we judging if one is preferable to the other, and on what basis?

I do not think Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution. It is up to the laws of the land to rule on how the school curriculum should be made. The teaching of a purely non-God theory of origins, alongside all other views of reality, should not be something which children have to be insulated from, these conflicts will arise at some time in life, and even these religious traditions teach how to navigate the perilous seas of existence in the midst of 'false teachings', and alternate views, which in any case, are not uncommon in within the churches, for example.

Teach evolution in schools, teach religious beliefs at home. The skill of integrating religious belief with scientific theories is a valuable skill that cannot be met by altering school textbooks, I believe is futile. This approach will make faith weaker not stronger.

These are the questions I have.

Well, I’ll bow out, then. — Wayfarer

We can talk about 'why' questions, but 'why' questions are impossible for me to deal with, put it that way, I have no framework.

A few scientists started with a with a hypothesis. This hypothesis was since confirmed, but to the acceptance of this 'fact' had to depend on the assumption that this hypothesis was possibly correct, though ruled out by religious beliefs. They 'accepted evolution' based on evidence, but what compulsion should the church have for accepting it? Suppose someone came up with a natural explanation for the 'virgin birth' of Jesus? Would the church be bound to accept that 'scientific view?'. — FreeEmotion

I have no idea why you're asking these questions or how they're relevant to the conversation we had

Only semantically — 180 Proof

I thought logically? If God exists, He created the universe. That follows, right? Or does it not?

Deep time, deep space, initial conditions of low entropy, nucleogenesis, accelerating cosmic expansion, etc are features of cosmic self-organization which is, of course, inconsistent with "creation by divine fiat" — 180 Proof

You make that assertion, I do not agree. It only means that there is a plausible explanation
for how the universe could have come into being.

There is no evidence of a "creator" — 180 Proof

I am not sure what sort of form that evidence would take. Intelligent Design, perhaps? Fine tuning?

Laplace had no use for that hypothesis (God), but surely you can see that a person of faith absolutely needs that hypothesis?

I have no idea why you're asking these questions or how they're relevant to the conversation we had — flannel jesus

Creationism is linked to American Protestant Fundamentalism and is a religious ideology. — Wayfarer

What is wrong with having a religious ideology? Has some law been broken here?

The philosophical issue comes down to one word: purpose. Any ideas of purpose, and therefore meaning, were jettisoned by early modern science, associated with the dreaded scholasticism. The only admissable kinds of causes were what the scholastics would call material and effiecient causes. So, in the Aristotelian sense, nothing happens in evolutionary theory for any reason, other than to propogate. And all behaviours are subordinated to, and explained by, that requirement. — Wayfarer

Actually, there may be some purpose to life and evolution in that life as a function increases entropy as a function based on the second law of thermodynamics. An ocean with bacteria can have up to almost 700% more efficiency than a dead ocean in entropy of the sun's energy. So it may be that life in itself is a product of the universe tending towards more efficient entropy and be an essential byproduct of this universe's laws of physics.

But what about more subtle qualities that one could argue make little sense any other way. For example the human eye by physics must be a certain shape to focus light correctly. — TiredThinker

Why does this off the shelf drone fly better than the competition? Did the designers figure out the best aerodynamics and carefully invent it for that purpose?



No, this drone was created by letting an algorithm iterate thousands of versions of the drone based on initial function parameters. In essence, they needed the function to fly balanced and well in this size and shape and the algorithm iterated it until it ended up in the most optimal shape and design.

Theres no real reason that evolution didn't come up with the design we humans have by the iterative trial and error that life gets chewed through by its environment. The requirement (the necessary function needed to survive as a species) defines the direction an evolutionary trait takes. Birds who are required to move around large areas of the globe are theorized to have built in compasses based on the ability to sense the earth's magnetic fields. We do not need such a function since we don't need to travel such distances at a short notice, but instead need to find localized positions of survival (resources in an area). It may be that our senses, our eyes, have been developed by evolution through a trial and error that ended up giving us the optimal ability to function based on the requirements and needs of our species survival. We could have been given a larger range of wavelengths to see, like infrared and UV light, but why didn't we? Maybe because a large point of our species is herd behavior and the ability to dynamically interact with other members of a tribe. So our range may be tuned through trial and error just as we developed a special part in our brain only meant to process the holistic understanding of faces.

We can go on and on about the tiniest function and form that some evolutionary thing has, but it can all be boiled down to enough time testing a function until the optimal form is achieved to function in harmony with the environment.

So, evolution is a remarkable outgrowth from our universal laws. Like seeing a spectacular rock formation that seems impossible at first sight, but when looking closer you can see how the wind, the mechanics of the ocean hitting it, the sun burning its surface over millions of years would produce such a shape.

We only attribute our awe towards how we exist as a species in the now, a naive first impression of our function and shape. But if we were to include the millions of years of trial and error that have been happening on this planet since the dawn of life, I see no more magic to it than a spectacular chemical reaction producing a remarkable end result.

As for a combination of creationism/intelligent design and evolution, the only synthesis of those two would be if there was a highly advanced being outside of our reality that basically produces test inflation bubbles in order to reach some end result. Like a highly advanced species doing research with different physical constants as starting points. Many theoretical physicists and cosmologists theorize that there may be many, if not an infinite amount of inflation universes happening all the time, all with different set of constants that solidify after the initial inflation. Ours being the famous fine structure constant 1/137 (and its decimals). If it were slightly off we might not have had the foundation for anything in our universe, matter might not have been able to form as it did and so on. But that also means that we might not even be the intended outcome of such higher beings, we might just be one of the scrap inflations they don't care about, they might not even know we exist or that any life in the universe exists. So in the end, even if we were created like that, we wouldn't have a purpose as we're just a byproduct of some other intention. And we're back again to beings trying to force feed meaning into people's hearts when there is none.

Creationism and intelligent design is based on the desperation for meaning. Changing our origin story over and over just to make sure there's always some meaning somewhere. I just see it as the desperation in front of a horror of existence that is too hard on some people's hearts.

Many, if not most people, are terrified of life, what it is, our experience of it and we all seek out comfort in face of such terror. Even the most atheistic minds, the ones who deny any idea of a creator, purpose or intention of our existence, can be utterly terrified of existence anyway.

But I would argue that the defining factor for how perceptible some are towards ideas of a creator compared to the meaninglessness of life as just an entropic function of the universe, is how strong skinned they are against existential dread. Just like some are tough enough to cope with being a soldier in a warzone and others aren't. There's nothing saying that being tough in war is equivalent to being a better person, only that this is a fact. Some are more afraid than others, but more accurately, some are better at handling fear than others. The dread of existence either force people into believing a fantasy to find comfort or they find comfort in other means.

I find comfort in decoding reality, decoding everything around me. The exploration in itself is a journey that comforts me and that experience is joyful even without any underlying meaning. I feel awe in this experience of existence, my body and mind being a product of the universe able to experience itself. I can feel my eyes tear up when seeing something beautiful in nature, not because of some divine sense of its creation, but at the beauty in its very meaninglessness still being able to produce my mind and body experiencing how time and space shaped this thing that I experience.

But such perspective requires a lot more mental energy than the comfort of a creator. A comforting end point of everything, no need to dwell on it further. And once such religious belief solidify itself in someone's core belief systems, it can lead to a lifetime of trying to convince themselves that they are right and that all the conflicting knowledge out there in the world is wrong.

The hard truth is that the facts does not care about being comforting. They are what they are. Nothing points towards a creator or intelligent design with a purpose, and if there was a creator or creators, those beings would be so far dislocated from our existence that we still end up in a meaningless and purposeless universe.

We cannot apply human values, ideas or purpose onto a system of the universe that does not have a human perspective. Evolution is not a human perspective, it is a physical system and function and it does not care about our arbitrary values applied to its process or our perspective of purpose and function, since we aren't the architects of its function. And applying a sense of some other architect outside of our human perspective and reasoning would just be filled with the same meaning and purpose as the more scientific explanation for evolution as an entropic process, basically rendering any sense of meaning and purpose irrelevant and non-existent.

Ok, what do you mean by "God"?

Or which god? Even if there is a god, there's less than one half of one tenth of one percent that it is the god that an individual believes in, historically speaking.

What is wrong with having a religious ideology? Has some law been broken here?

The answer is the same as what's wrong with spending money on concert tickets? Someone who is not a fan of the artist concludes the concert goer has nothing but some positive feelings/memories after the concert is over, ie it doesn't "buy" anything (of value). Whereas another could make the observation that it buys an albeit temporary positive emotional state.

What is wrong with having a religious ideology? Has some law been broken here? — FreeEmotion

Nothing is wrong with it (although there are dubious religious ideologies.)

The consensus view of secular culture (and on this forum) is, I think, that there's nothing necessarily wrong with religious ideologies, but that they're based on articles of faith, for which neither philosophical nor scientific justifications can be given. A scientific account of a natural process can't take those principles into account as they're not scientifically verifiable.

That said, there's a huge range of views. There's Biologos.org which says 'We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.' Biologos is not fundamentalist and sees no conflict between science and religion. Their view is described as 'theistic evolution'.

There's Intelligent Design movement, represented by Evolution News. They write a lot of polemical arguments against atheist materialism. That is the homebase of Stephen C Meyer who has written some pretty influential books in that space. They're critical of Biologos which they say cedes too much ground to naturalism.

Then there's the Third Way which comprises mainly scientists and academics who question materialist explanations but try to stay within the scientific guidelines.

On a personal note I was drawn to philosophy forums, in around 2008-9, because of my hostility to Richard Dawkins and the other 'new atheist' authors, whom I thought were basically secular bigots. First up I joined the actual Richard Dawkins forum, which was hilariously anti-religious, as you might expect. Then hopped to another forum, which got absorbed by a big meta-forum, then the philosophy forum before this one. I've had many debates about origin of life and meaning of life questions in philosophy and evolution. They're often very impassioned debates.

My view is, creationists 'argue with rocks'. They literally try and question the unambiguous scientific evidence for evolution. They are lead by clowns such as Ken 'Dinosaurs in Genesis' Ham, an Australian huckster who had to relocate to Kentucky for want of rubes to convert.

Intelligent design advocates are generally of a higher caliber (not that that is difficult) but they still too often wear their fundamentalist hearts on their sleeves. That said, I think it's unarguable to Stephen C Meyer's books, and others in that genre, are having an impact on popular and scientific culture, even if by way of forcing their opponents to come up with better arguments. (I've never read any of Meyer's book, but the 'argument from information' genre is a pretty strong one in my view.)

Overall the diehard hard-core materialism of Dawkins et al is not really favoured even among a lot of scientists. I think the appopriate scientific attitude is one of circumspection - respecting life's mystery, and especially respecting the fact that all living beings are just that - beings, not just specimens or objects of analysis.

I'm also extremely dubious of the vague notion that chemical components basically ravelled themselves into DNA and thereafter the enormous variety of living forms through something like a spontaneous chemical reaction. I'm more inclined to sympathise with Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasighe's panspermia thesis, although I'll go with the Hindu aphorism for now: life comes from life.

Your laugh at what I said seem to imply that you feel what I said was nonsense, but now I can't find that response anymore? Anyway, the thing you responded to is not nonsense. It's an existing scientific hypothesis about a possible purpose for evolution as part of physics itself. And it makes sense, if the universe moves towards higher entropy and it tends to gravitate towards whatever gets there the fastest, then life and evolution in itself is such a function that would fall in line with that process. If anything, it would underscore why there is life, why a chemical process would form such forms and functions.

I'm also extremely dubious of the vague notion that chemical components basically ravelled themselves into DNA and thereafter the enormous variety of living forms through something like a spontaneous chemical reaction. I'm more inclined to sympathise with Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasighe's panspermia thesis, although I'll go with the Hindu aphorism for now: life comes from life. — Wayfarer

Panspermia does not solve anything though. It would just position life appearing somewhere else. And in the state that earth was in back when life began, what would be different on another world? It all becomes a kind of circular reasoning in which the central question remains: how did life began?

With experiments and findings of chemical reactions actually forming potential sources for self-correcting structures, abiogenesis is still the most logical solution to the question. In the context of entropy, it also makes sense.

Your laugh at what I said seem to imply that you feel what I said was nonsense, but now I can't find that response anymore? — Christoffer

that's 'cause I deleted it. I try to avoid making sarcastic remarks. But what I was parodying, was the fact that your post misunderstands confuses the existential question of purpose with the functional sense of purpose assumed by physics. What it is 'getting towards fastest' according to that account, is maximum entropy - like 'the heat death' of the Universe. So, great! We can all rejoice that we're doing our bit towards eventual total non-existence.

The existential sense of purpose I'm referring to, is the kind of question philosophers and the religious ponder - is there a purpose to existence, other than pro-creating and 'passing on our genes'.

Nothing is wrong with it (although there are dubious religious ideologies.) — Wayfarer

That is quite a summary, an a good one, I would say. I will address the various theories in due course.

For now, though there is this:

The consensus view of secular culture (and on this forum) is, I think, that there's nothing necessarily wrong with religious ideologies, but that they're based on articles of faith, for which neither philosophical nor scientific justifications can be given. A scientific account of a natural process can't take those principles into account as they're not scientifically verifiable. — Wayfarer

I think you addressed it here: are you really saying that 'articles of faith have no philosophical justification' ? But this is exactly what I wish to put forward, that beliefs that are rational defensible are philosophically justifiable.

Scientifically justifiable, no, and I think not within the current scientific framework, maybe there will be a Theory of God one day.

was the fact that your post misunderstands confuses the existential question of purpose with the functional sense of purpose assumed by physics. — Wayfarer

My point was that there is no such purpose, only the purpose as a function of the universe just as much as the purpose of electromagnetism as a function in relation to everything else.

The existential sense of purpose I'm referring to, is the kind of question philosophers and the religious ponder - is there a purpose to existence, other than pro-creating and 'passing on our genes'. — Wayfarer

And the overall conclusion I made was that there is none such thing. Because even, as I described, if there was an entity which were responsible for dice throwing the fine structure constant and other constant's from which the universe inflates into what it is, the significance of us as a species is so low it would be irrelevant to them. So there's no existential purpose to us and the only purpose that life and evolution has is by being a function as any other functions of the universe, a byproduct and result of entropic forces. A dead universal function.

That we attribute further ideas of meaning and purpose to all of this is out of existential dread and fear. We cannot cope with this sense of meaninglessness and therefor seek comfort in ideas that makes us feel special.

This is such a powerful emotion that the decline of interest in religious beliefs has instead led to people desperately trying to find meaning elsewhere. The rise of fanatical ideologies and ideas outside of religion comes from the same source of existential dread. Most people, almost all people, seem unable to grasp existence for what it is because it demands such a high level of tolerance of that existential dread.

It's like if the fire Prometheus stole was the knowledge that dismantles religious claims and that the answers that knowledge brings, tortures us as we're stuck on this rock on the coast of the black ocean. As Camus said about Sisyphus, we could apply to Prometheus.... "one must imagine Prometheus happy".

With experiments and findings of chemical reactions actually forming potential sources for self-correcting structures, abiogenesis is still the most logical solution to the question. In the context of entropy, it also makes sense. — Christoffer

In the same way that human beings became able to reproduced chemical compounds that occur naturally, by artificial means or substances such as artificial diamonds, it may be possible, at some time in the future, to create basic organisms.

It may also be possible to create a theory that will account for the creation of life from non-life, through natural processes.

However, methods that result in the creation of basic life forms and the explanations accompanying those do not preclude, out of logical necessity, the creation of life by a God.

In the next ten thousand to a million years, there is no doubt that increasingly complex and elegant theories might be proposed, however the basic human act of faith in the existence of the yet unknown, be it God or be it future explanations, the acts of blind faith may continue to be committed far into the distant future. Therefore I do not think there can be a rational argument against religious faith.

we attribute further ideas of meaning and purpose to all of this is out of existential dread and fear. We cannot cope with this sense of meaninglessness and therefor seek comfort in ideas that makes us feel special. — Christoffer

Makes me wonder what you think you have to contribute to a philosophy forum.

this is exactly what I wish to put forward, that beliefs that are rational defensible are philosophically justifiable. — FreeEmotion

Well, good luck with that, seems a worthy undertaking to me.

However, methods that result in the creation of basic life forms and the explanations accompanying those do not preclude, out of logical necessity, the creation of life by a God. — FreeEmotion

The problem is that it further pushes away the direct intervention by another being. This is the problematic nature of shifting goal posts by those defending the idea of us being God's creation. The more we've historically learned and explained by science, the further away any "God" as a concept gets from direct interaction with us. We're basically at a point in which God or a pantheon would be so dislocated from us that they exist outside of reality so far away that the mere scale of the universe renders us less impactful on the universe than a speck of dust. Our insignificance only exponentially magnifies by the concept of constants varying between different inflationary bubble universes. If we aren't more relevant than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a giant petri dish, and any Gods no more aware of us in their petri dish than we are of a single bacteria on our entire planet, then even with the existence of such beings, we still do not have any purpose or meaning outside of being just another speck of dust. Thus, applying meaning to us becomes equivalent of us giving the same level of meaning to a literal speck of dust on the floor.

The more we explain scientifically, the further away any God gets from us and the further away our existential purpose or meaning becomes. How far can we push away the concept of a God before we can finally summarize our existence as actually meaningless? It all looks like human arrogance and desperation for meaning. Like children who never grows up, who gets lost in the crowd of humanity always looking for their parents to come and fix their pain.

In the next ten thousand to a million years, there is no doubt that increasingly complex and elegant theories might be proposed, however the basic human act of faith in the existence of the yet unknown, be it God or be it future explanations, the acts of blind faith may continue to be committed far into the distant future. Therefore I do not think there can be a rational argument against religious faith. — FreeEmotion

Such faith comes from fear. We are desperate for comfort. It's part of our psychology, how we handle our experience as human beings being self aware. I cannot ignore the fact that we have these basic psychological drives for comfort in face of existential dread. When someone attributes these psychological drives to instead be about objective support for religious belief I question that conclusion as the actual conclusion is simply found in psychological processes that have no more value than any other psychological drive. We feel hunger, we eat, we feel a dread when being aware of our existence, we seek comfort from that dread.

That we invent elaborate illusions in order to convince ourself that this comfort is a real thing and not just a warm blanket, seems to be an integral part and consequence of our mind's pattern seeking biases driven by our strong emotions.

Makes me wonder what you think you have to contribute to a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

What makes you say that? Questioning religious illusions and the illusions of meaning is quite a large part of philosophy, especially the last hundred or so years. And the specific contribution here is to question the circle of reasoning that so often happen when logic goes out the window in favor of an emotional need for comforting ideas and ideologies that cannot pass basic deconstruction of the argument. I have a strong conviction that it is possible to create a framework of a non-religious experience of living that is not ending up nihilistic. To form an experience rooted in scientific thinking without becoming scientism, which seem to be the usual derogatory emotional reaction whenever arguments focusing on science and scientific approaches pop up. That I attribute religious praxis and belief to grow out of an emotional need for comfort is me deconstructing faith through psychology. That doesn't necessarily mean that faith should be shunned, it simply underscores how it's a strong process that all people seem to gravitate towards and that we cannot use as a foundation for knowledge by its very nature of acting as illusions rooted in the need for existential comfort. It's basically working off the Nietzschean ideas of what happens when God is dead. If religion is gone but we still have the need for comfort, how do we get that without turning into what we see much of today; the materialistic church where identity life-styles and radicalized consumerism reign supreme. The desperate need for comfort in a world without religion requires a framework that solves this need for comfort without inventing new illusions, and its one of the hardest question to solve for philosophers who don't buy into religious convictions.

But still, I find that questioning of my contribution to the philosophy forum to be rather awkward. Like, do people need to accept your specific philosophical ideal in order to be valued as a contributor? Is not even my questioning of certain ideas a contributing factor on a philosophy forum? Sounds a bit weird to imply a lack of contribution in that way?

But still, I find that questioning of my contribution to the philosophy forum to be rather awkward. Like, do people need to accept your specific philosophical ideal in order to be valued as a contributor? Is not even my questioning of certain ideas a contributing factor on a philosophy forum? Sounds a bit weird to imply a lack of contribution in that way? — Christoffer

:100: :up: To your whole post.

And to the quoted portion... Yeah it come across as religious bigotry, on the part of people who want philosophy to assure them of the reliability of their security blanket.