THE ATHEIST'S MAGICAL, MIRACULOUS FAITH BELIEF IN LIFE FROM NONLIFE

THE ATHEIST'S MAGICAL, MIRACULOUS FAITH BELIEF IN LIFE FROM NONLIFE

The more I reflect on the origin of life, the more I realize that abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is no less "magical" or "miraculous" than belief that a dead body can come back to life. The same basic degradative processes are at work. This is backed by a tremendous amount of empirical data (like the "Asphalt Paradox" for example). Take for example the "simplest" cell, or an even simpler hypothetical 'minimal life' cell with say 100 genes and 100 proteins, and thousands of copies of each of those 100 proteins for ~1 million molecules total crammed into an approximately ~1 cubic micrometer space (roughly the size of a bacterium or smaller). If we kill that cell by say puncturing the cell membrane, no one expects the cell to come back to life despite the fact that it still has all the necessary parts (and even if we provide enough energy, and all the right conditions, and a controlled environment, and all the time in the world). We can predict empirically time and time again that nothing will happen, and can predict the inevitable decomposition of the cell back into its component parts. It would be "magic" and a miracle for the cell to come back to life.

And yet for some reason many think that if we start with far less than our 100 genes, 100 proteins, and ~1 million total molecules enclosed in a lipid membrane... that if we start with only a small handful of amino acids, and sugars, and fatty acids (a few "nails" and "boards," so to speak, as opposed to an entire "house" that we've knocked out a wall of) that these will spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. And this despite the fact that this is simply the working assumption in science. An unproven assumption that has not only not been empirically demonstrated, but that the weight of empirical evidence is against, and that we don't know how it could happen even in theory on paper...

And lest you think this is just the opinion of a non expert, even experts like origin of life researcher Pier Luisi have said as much that we "don't have the slightest idea how life originated from non-life"; and that "we do not have a conceivable theoretical scheme on paper, on how the origin of life may have come about"; and that even the popular "RNA World" hypothesis for the origin of life is "equivalent to invok[ing] a miracle, and then there are other theories based on miracles, which are much more accredited" (See, Dr. Luisi's "The Prebiotic Experiment").

Many agnostics and atheists will often deride, mock, and ridicule theists for their "irrational" beliefs, and invoking "magic" and miracles and silly beliefs like a dead man coming back to life. They have somehow convinced themselves that they hold a "rational," "respectable," "superior" position. And yet I see little difference between the two. Atheism has to appeal to "magic" and miracles, too. Invoking a supernatural agent to originate life is no less magical or miraculous than the atheist's magical, miraculous faith belief that life can spontaneously emerge from non-life.

Specialists in the field other than Pier Luisi clearly do hold out hope that a naturalistic explanation might yet be found, so claiming emphatically that it's a fool's errand might be a little premature?

And to counter the 'well scientists can only pursue naturalistic explanations' argument before it's stated, any field of research that requires funding in a world of strictly limited resources must justify itself by showing the possibility of success, however remote.

But we've been here before! 😉

Yes, we have been here before. And the answers haven't changed. Science has no other working hypothesis so research must continue (and academic institutions support and fund it). It is driven by the same hope, faith belief. But again, let's no confuse that with actual empirical verification.

The new point is my rare venture out into metaphysics by noting that the atheism has to invoke magic and miracles too.

"the atheism [or atheist?] has to invoke magic and miracles too." - only by your definition.

In reality OOL researchers don't make any such claim and quite properly keep open minds as to how life originally formed. And should they ever discover some aspect of life that forces the conclusion that it could not have come about 'spontaneously' (even after much time), then I'd hope they'd admit it to the world.

Reread the OP which includes a quote from an origin of life researcher who says as much

I'm an atheist. I mean a proper atheist and not one of these New Atheists. I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be an atheist, for instance. He's clearly an agnostic although he leans very much towards disbelief in deities but he cannot bring himself to state, out and out, that according to him, a deity definitely does not exist. Hence the term "agnostic atheist" or whatever.

He seems inconsistent because he seems to claim that magic definitely doesn't exist. Weird. Probably a good biologist but not a particularly good mind that can explore its own inconsistencies.

I do believe in magic. That is, that things happen outside what are normally considered the "laws of science", which are clearly limited to what science (meaning everyday, not-particularly-clever scientists) can detect and verify.

Magic can be thought of as "stuff which seems to occur outside the current realms of science", including or remembering the fact that scientific experiments on the paranormal have strongly tended to be incorrectly designed. Conducting an experiment to detect and measure something that the experimental method itself prevents is somewhat ludicrous, which is the reason for the "everyday, not-particularly-clever scientists" typification.

Also, I'd like to point out that like people in any field, including stamp collecting, there will be good OOL researchers as well as those who may be little more than data-collectors and who cannot think accurately on a critical matter. Why assume that all scientists are magnificently perfect, when they're only human?

It is quite clear that life can originate spontaneously .... simply because it's the only way it could have originated, barring everything being created a week last Tuesday, by an all powerful but definitely dishonest deity. And it's not too difficult either to imagine how it occurred and the mechanisms that were necessary.

I ssemed to have missed this probably because of the site's creaking alerts system!

But I think you're referring to this paragraph....

"And lest you think this is just the opinion of a non expert, even experts like origin of life researcher Pier Luisi have said as much that we "don't have the slightest idea how life originated from non-life"; and that "we do not have a conceivable theoretical scheme on paper, on how the origin of life may have come about"; and that even the popular "RNA World" hypothesis for the origin of life is "equivalent to invok[ing] a miracle, and then there are other theories based on miracles, which are much more accredited" (See, Dr. Luisi's "The Prebiotic Experiment")"

Well we have to be cautious about thinking the professional opinion of one researcher reflects the general opinion of many? But in what way is Dr. Luisi 'saying as much'?

Where does he say that current understanding of abiogenesis "forces the conclusion that it could not have come about 'spontaneously' "?

I don't see that in his statement anywhere.

Yes but this Dr Luisi is obviously and massively wrong, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned that all people working in a particular field are not equal to one-another. A doctorate obviously isn't helping him make intelligent contributions.

Luisi clearly mentioned an equivalence with miracles, although he seems rather incoherent. It seems reasonable to assume that he's implying the necessity of a miracle.

The moral is to think for yourself. Don't rely on "experts", especially when they're clearly very limited in their ability to come up with reasonable and rational mechanisms for abiogenesis. tbwp10 was justified in taking the necessity of a miracle as a conclusion, since the choice was clear: either "I haven't a clue" or "a miracle". It seemed that the only clue involved a miracle.

In a nutshell, the more I think of it, the more I understand that it can happen. I've nothing against magic but it isn't needed. But would it be a problem if it WAS needed?

Oh I think I commented previously and explained that the so-called expert is wrong, so he isn't an expert.

Once again, you're asking for evidence of a negative assertion. Asking for definitive evidence to show that something (abiogenesis) is impossible and that we should not discount abiogenesis until it is so demonstrated. But it is the other way around: the proponents of a hypothesis have the burden to demonstrate it and scientists have yet to empirically demonstrate abiogenesis. Many scientists *believe* it must somehow be true (and they're entitled to their faith belief) but there is a difference between belief and 'proof.' We lack sufficient empirical evidence to warrant belief in the proposition of abiogenesis.

Luisi is a well known expert in the field who has chaired several international conferences on the origin of life. His Emergence of Life is used as a textbook in some universities.

Luisi (a respected ool researcher) is himself a believer in abiogenesis and still thinks that's how life originated. He recognizes the lack of evidence though and how various prebiotic scenarios are tantamount to invoking miracles by requiring miraculous happenstance and unrealistic concentration thresholds for RNA self-replication that we don't observe in nature (and that can't be accomplished via a *single* self-replicating molecule; you can't do mass action chemistry with a single molecule; even *single* self-replicator scenarios use *trillions* of copies of the *single* molecule in 'proof of concept' experiments in the lab to attain minimum concentration thresholds needed to initiate chemical reactions; we can't just wish these problems away, yet that is what is often done--- that's one among many reasons why such scenarios are akin to invoking miracles).

No, no, no. This is not some god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance but based on substantial amount of evidence from physics and chemistry about what we *do* know: and we do not know inanimate matter to self organize and animate. Everything we currently know about physics and chemistry suggests it can't happen. Science is always a statement of current knowledge. If future study changes our understanding and empirically confirms abiogenesis then we change our conclusions accordingly. But at the moment we have no empirical confirmation that life can spontaneously originate from non-life. Many scientists believe that it can. Many scientists assume that it is true. But there is a difference between assumptions & faith belief in abiogenesis vs actual empirical confirmation. Until we have more evidence, abiogenesis is little different from alchemy.

It's not uncommon in science to start with the hypothesis that's least unreasonable, least inconsistent and least improbable. Isn't that the best way of describing abiogenesis at this moment in time?

When trouble shooting in R&D CPU testing the very first thing you need to know is what is good, are the CPU under test supposed to be failing, is the software Rev. and Step a known good, are all the mechanical features in spec, if you don’t have a baseline for what is good you will never know what is wrong if anything.

What we think is true now, likely to be untrue later, or earlier could it be false. Assuming conditions are constant is one thing, it assumes what is being observed and measured is not affected by unknown circumstances. This means what we measure today assumes we have all the variables understood and accounted for.