Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[Autodidact]

Of course they don't doubt that evolution explains the discontinuity they note. If you want continued grant funding, you don't challenge the orthodox paradigm.

Again, this slander is so patently false, it exemplifies one of two things:
Either (1) you have no idea how science actually works OR (2) you are lying.

If any scientist showed, through actual evidence, that ToE was incorrect, and another hypothesis was correct, that scientist would be hailed and treated as one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived.

But what might that hypothesis be, Starboard, that science is suppressing through its evil censorship? Please state it for us.

[Autodidact]

Starboard: methodological naturalism is an important part of the scientific method. No methodological naturalism, no science. If you think that m.n. is a bad thing, or doesn't work, or limits the ability of science to work, you are rejecting and arguing against the scientific method itself.

If you referring, in your OP, to philosophical naturalism, then you simply mistaken (or dishonest). While individual scientists may argue for or against theism, the issue is not part of the subject or method of science. Science does not maintain pure materialism. It is simply only concerned with the material world.

And I think it's doing pretty well and learning about that world. What do you think?

[Starboard Tack]

Starboard: methodological naturalism is an important part of the scientific method. No methodological naturalism, no science. If you think that m.n. is a bad thing, or doesn't work, or limits the ability of science to work, you are rejecting and arguing against the scientific method itself.

If you referring, in your OP, to philosophical naturalism, then you simply mistaken (or dishonest). While individual scientists may argue for or against theism, the issue is not part of the subject or method of science. Science does not maintain pure materialism. It is simply only concerned with the material world.

And I think it's doing pretty well and learning about that world. What do you think?

As usual, you combine snarky ad hominem attacks with a lack of knowledge about the topics you pose you understand. Methodological naturalism as a term originated in 1983. Scientists for centuries have looked for natural explanations first and rightly looked askance at the tendency of some to attribute supernatural intervention to whatever they didn't understand. However, for centuries the possibilities of supernatural involvement in the affairs of the universe was presumed. So your statement that without M.N. you have no science is typically false since scientific discovery advanced quite nicely by people who, unlike you, didn't break out in hives at the mention of God. Further, the statement Science does not maintain pure materialism. It is simply only concerned with the material world. is incoherent and self contradictory. But then again, what else is new?

[100%atheist]

I see now what you mean. But again, could you show, for example, that if the proton charge is, say, twice the electron charge, the atoms can't just have twice more electrons and remain electrostatically neutral, so the universe is electrostatically the same from the macroscopic point of view?

The issue you raised is not theoretical chemistry, but the electron/proton charge ratio. Whatever chemistry you want to have, to have any chemistry will require that the ratio remain what it is observed to be - 1:1, whether that involves partially charged electrons or multiply charge protons is irrelevant.

The problem is that your statement requires some knowledge of physics in order to be demonstrated to be true. My limited knowledge of quantum physics tells me that if the value of electron charge is different from the one of the proton, then the electron orbitals of atoms will be modified. That's basically it.

By chemistry we normally understand the ability of matter to interact with another matter producing new materials. Such interactions in chemistry are often the result of electron exchange between atoms or molecules. I do not see any reason why electron exchange cannot occur between two atoms that have a non-zero charge (due to the charges of protons and electrons being unequal).

Your statement that "to have any chemistry will require that the ratio remain what it is observed to be - 1:1" is better be based on something. Right?

It is interesting that in your later response to another poster you wrote:
"As usual, you combine snarky ad hominem attacks with a lack of knowledge about the topics you pose you understand." So please enlighten us!

[Goat]

Of course they don't doubt that evolution explains the discontinuity they note. If you want continued grant funding, you don't challenge the orthodox paradigm. What you do is what they did, illustrate the huge gap that exists in the cognition of modern humans and everything else, then note that of course evolutionary theory explains it, without providing the slightest hint of exactly how the evolutionary theory would explain the extinction of all ancestral hominids who possess the characteristics that evolution says we are now rewarded for having.

A similar situation exists in origin of life research. A very few years ago, the belief commonly stated was that since chemical Darwinian evolution had the chance to unfold over 1.5 billion years, the fact that it was clearly extremely unlikely to happen wasn't a problem. Now that we know there is only 10 million years or so for the task, the standard response now is that of course Darwinian chemical evolution is responsible - it just happened very quickly. Mechanism? None known. Empirical evidence this chemistry could happen in the wild? None known. The paper says what it says. No more, no less.

Please provide evidence that ' If you want continued grant funding, you don't challenge the orthodox paradigm.' P

Please demonstrate what you mean by 'Chemical Darwinian Evolution'. Please show a peer reviewed scientific journal article that talks about 'Chemical Darwinian Evolution', or else admit you are making terms up.

[Starboard Tack]

I see now what you mean. But again, could you show, for example, that if the proton charge is, say, twice the electron charge, the atoms can't just have twice more electrons and remain electrostatically neutral, so the universe is electrostatically the same from the macroscopic point of view?

The issue you raised is not theoretical chemistry, but the electron/proton charge ratio. Whatever chemistry you want to have, to have any chemistry will require that the ratio remain what it is observed to be - 1:1, whether that involves partially charged electrons or multiply charge protons is irrelevant.

The problem is that your statement requires some knowledge of physics in order to be demonstrated to be true. My limited knowledge of quantum physics tells me that if the value of electron charge is different from the one of the proton, then the electron orbitals of atoms will be modified. That's basically it.

By chemistry we normally understand the ability of matter to interact with another matter producing new materials. Such interactions in chemistry are often the result of electron exchange between atoms or molecules. I do not see any reason why electron exchange cannot occur between two atoms that have a non-zero charge (due to the charges of protons and electrons being unequal).

Your statement that "to have any chemistry will require that the ratio remain what it is observed to be - 1:1" is better be based on something. Right?

It is interesting that in your later response to another poster you wrote:
"As usual, you combine snarky ad hominem attacks with a lack of knowledge about the topics you pose you understand." So please enlighten us!

My reference to snarky ad hominems from the poster is based on a continuing and unpleasant habit of characterizing positions the poster disagrees with or is uninformed on to be lies and distortions as opposed to disagreements requiring clarification.

The elementary electron charge in isolation is identical, within our ability to measure it, to the inverse charge of the proton. It is true that an atom can display a minor variable net charge due to distance effects on electron position (needed for many reactions), as well as slightly different effects of the strong force on electrons vs. protons. All chemistry I am aware of resulting in strong stable molecules (like those required for life as we know it) involve sharing or transfer of electrons between atoms. If there were a charge imbalance between electrons and protons, you could still theoretically share electrons to create strong bonds with the small problem that you wouldn't have any atoms to share electrons to begin with, so no meaningful chemistry required for life would occur.

I imagine you could come up with theoretical combinations of charges of electrons and protons that would result in stability for complex atoms. However, that isn't where the problem manifests itself. I believe the problem is during the first 400,000 years of creation when hydrogen, possessing a single electron and single proton came into being. Whatever the charge of the hydrogen ion is, the electrons separately created would have to be equal and opposite for stable hydrogen to be produced through the capture of those electrons. Without stable hydrogen, I don't think star formation can occur, but I have now veered in quantum areas I have limited knowledge of, so I'll leave it up to others to add, subtract or explain further.

[100%atheist]

The elementary electron charge in isolation is identical, within our ability to measure it, to the inverse charge of the proton. It is true that an atom can display a minor variable net charge due to distance effects on electron position (needed for many reactions), as well as slightly different effects of the strong force on electrons vs. protons. All chemistry I am aware of resulting in strong stable molecules (like those required for life as we know it) involve sharing or transfer of electrons between atoms. If there were a charge imbalance between electrons and protons, you could still theoretically share electrons to create strong bonds with the small problem that you wouldn't have any atoms to share electrons to begin with, so no meaningful chemistry required for life would occur.

I imagine you could come up with theoretical combinations of charges of electrons and protons that would result in stability for complex atoms. However, that isn't where the problem manifests itself. I believe the problem is during the first 400,000 years of creation when hydrogen, possessing a single electron and single proton came into being. Whatever the charge of the hydrogen ion is, the electrons separately created would have to be equal and opposite for stable hydrogen to be produced through the capture of those electrons. Without stable hydrogen, I don't think star formation can occur, but I have now veered in quantum areas I have limited knowledge of, so I'll leave it up to others to add, subtract or explain further.

I have seen no any reason so far for why atoms would not be stable to the point of nonexistence if the electron charge is different in magnitude compared to the proton charge.

So let's leave the claim that the 1-to-1 ratio of proton to electron charge is necessary for life (and for chemistry) to someone with better knowledge of the field. I will be curious to see any resolution of this question.

[nygreenguy]

Actually, I believe I did answer your question and it the answer included the qualification that it is the species of cyanobacteria forming bacterial mats and stromatolites that have remained unchanged for 3.5 billion years, while the habitat of the stromatolite has shrunk from worldwide to a very few locations on earth.

Thats the thing though, some cyanobacteria HAVE changed. Not all populations are exposed to the same selective pressures or have the same genetic flows. Thats exactly what the lenski experiment showed. Under the exact same conditions, only a certain line developed the citrate mutation. This is the part where "chance" comes in. Those bacteria found one way to succeed in their environment. The cyanobacteria have done exactly the same.

My reference to the malarial parasite is based on the observation that the limiting factor for it to populate the niche of humanity that exists in cooler regions is its transmission method through cross infection from Anopheles mosquitos. A useful adaptation would be exist in the gut of a flea, which would open up a rather large niche for the critter. Hasn't happened even though a single human infected with the parasite harbors around 1 trillion of them. The example of chloroquine resistance is a pretty good example of microevolution in action - a concept I have no objections to. It is the wholesale movement from Pakicetus to Cetaceans that I wonder about.

It would also be useful if I had a few more arms and I could fly. While I understand your argument, I think your understanding of evolution and the biology behind it is lacking. You speak of malaria being limited first, as if it is a bad thing for the organism and also as if it has a "goal". Thats not evolution.

My point is that because evolutionary theory is purported to explain everything, and much of the explanations are based on unvalidated conjectures, it seems odd that there are so many examples of very long periods of stasis in the natural record that are explained by evolution while all change, however rapid is explained by the same mechanisms. This is the basis for skepticism of the theory, with such skepticism hardly the domain of non-scientists, big haired Baptist preachers and high school drop outs, as is frequently suggested.

It is all about understanding how genetics and selective pressure works. Something I dont have the time to get into this morning.

For example this paper argues that the discontinuity between humans and non humans is far more profound than most understand. http://www.leecharleskelley.com/images/ ... istake.pdf

The paper includes opposing views, but the title "Darwin's Mistake" makes my point that far from being the solved problem many seem to argue philosophically, evolution has a hard time explaining what is observed. One of the dissenting papers notes that the reason that there may be this huge discontinuity between humans and animals in terms of their cognitive abilities is because all previous hominids possessing similar capabilities are now extinct. This is a classic example of how evolution is argued and why it sometimes seems incoherent. Modern man supposedly survived whatever bottleneck existed that shrank the population down to a few hundreds, then strove boldly forward to occupy the entire planet and has started to seriously explore space. Meanwhile all hominids who would be similar to us, well they all went extinct so aren't around any more, and not only that, left virtually no trace of every having been here at all.

I will try to read this later!

As I said, evolution explains everything. It explains why critters like us have the population and culture we have, while explaining why critters like us all died leaving barely a mark.

I disagree. Many things can account for extinction and death that have nothing to do with evolution (like natural disasters)

[Starboard Tack]

The elementary electron charge in isolation is identical, within our ability to measure it, to the inverse charge of the proton. It is true that an atom can display a minor variable net charge due to distance effects on electron position (needed for many reactions), as well as slightly different effects of the strong force on electrons vs. protons. All chemistry I am aware of resulting in strong stable molecules (like those required for life as we know it) involve sharing or transfer of electrons between atoms. If there were a charge imbalance between electrons and protons, you could still theoretically share electrons to create strong bonds with the small problem that you wouldn't have any atoms to share electrons to begin with, so no meaningful chemistry required for life would occur.

I imagine you could come up with theoretical combinations of charges of electrons and protons that would result in stability for complex atoms. However, that isn't where the problem manifests itself. I believe the problem is during the first 400,000 years of creation when hydrogen, possessing a single electron and single proton came into being. Whatever the charge of the hydrogen ion is, the electrons separately created would have to be equal and opposite for stable hydrogen to be produced through the capture of those electrons. Without stable hydrogen, I don't think star formation can occur, but I have now veered in quantum areas I have limited knowledge of, so I'll leave it up to others to add, subtract or explain further.

I have seen no any reason so far for why atoms would not be stable to the point of nonexistence if the electron charge is different in magnitude compared to the proton charge.

So let's leave the claim that the 1-to-1 ratio of proton to electron charge is necessary for life (and for chemistry) to someone with better knowledge of the field. I will be curious to see any resolution of this question.

The issue is that when the first proto atoms condensed out of the energy load of the singularity, they consisted almost exclusively of hydrogen ions, which means a single proton without an electron. The electrons condensed separately, or so says the current theory, and were "captured" by the hydrogen ions. If the charge of the electron was not opposite that of the protons in those ions, you would have no capture, and no atoms. If the charge was different than equality to the proton, my understanding (suspect based on a lack of credentials) is that the equilibrium between kinetic and potential energy that exists for the electrons in a hydrogen atom and determines their position and relative distances from the nucleus would be different. If the electron charge was less than the proton, the electron would be very, very close to the proton and so strongly bound due to the strong force that it would not interact chemically with other atoms. If it were greater, it wouldn't be captured at all.

As you say, I will defer to a quantum chemist or physicist for a definitive answer, but I think I am in the ball park with my understanding.

[FinalEnigma]

In simple answer to the OP, I believe the a priori assumption that everything has a natural explanation and not a supernatural one is fully justified. The reason for this has been perhaps best said by Tim Minchin, a Brilliant comedian.

"Throughout history, every mystery ever solver has turned out to be...not magic."


(profanity warning)