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]

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?

Can you provide any support for this incorrect statement, or are you going to just leave it as a bald, unsupported assertion?

I'm sorry, but I don't think pointing out that your statement is false is an ad hominem attack.

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."
Elaine Ecklund, Science vs. Religion

"Methodological Naturalism is not a dogmatic ideology that simply is tacked on to the principles of the scientific method; it is essential for the basic standards of empirical evidence. "
Robert T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as methodological naturalism and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a ground rule of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).
Kitzmiller v. Dover

[Starboard Tack]

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.

Perhaps, however I know that some cyanobacteria have not changed in the slightest, and one could hardly argue that the bacteria who have not changed have not been exposed to adverse pressure over 3.5 BILLION years that one would think, given the huge populations involved, have produced a useful adaptation. You actually highlight the basis for my skepticism - evolution produces change and under identical circumstances evolution produces no change. Whatever the effect, the cause is supposed to be evolution. That's just not particularly compelling an argument. And by the way, how have the cyanobacteria that you say have changed actually changed? How are they different from the fossils we have that are billions of years old.

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.

Yet above, you state "those bacteria found one way to succeed", suggesting that those cyanobacteria had a goal and responded to environmental pressure by adapting, while glossing over the fact that other such critters faced extinction level pressure without changing at all. Natural selection acting on genomic changes results in living entities adapting to pressure, or empowering the exploitation of ecological niches. That is why, according to the evolutionary model we find life everywhere from deep sea thermal vents to the top of Mt. Everest. However, half the human race is just waiting to be infected by malaria, and the parasite just sits there wasting quintillions of chances to adapt and conquer the world. What gives? I recognize that this is an unguided process, purely random and so on, but if this is the case, why does random mutation produce useful adaptations in one place and nothing in another? I acknowledge that my knowledge of genetics must be less than yours, but this isn't magic, is it? Surely logic is a feature of truth, wouldn't you agree?

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)

What natural disaster would you point to that killed off our immediate ancestors and didn't touch homo sapiens sapiens? Not that long ago, so some evidence must be available to point to. The Ice Age may have killed off Neanderthals, but didn't touch Africa, where Homo s. s. originated. Just wondering what you would point to that could account for what is observed.

[Starboard Tack]

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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe.

That all depends on what you mean when you say, "the universe was caused." It also depends on what you mean when you say that, "whatever exists, has a cause." I bring these up because there are some things that have never been observed, matter and energy coming into existence. Saying these have causes or even saying that they seem to have causes would be fallacious.

Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

The nature of these causes is completely unknown though, positing anything about them would be illogical especially the notion of "creation"

[nygreenguy]

Perhaps, however I know that some cyanobacteria have not changed in the slightest, and one could hardly argue that the bacteria who have not changed have not been exposed to adverse pressure over 3.5 BILLION years that one would think, given the huge populations involved, have produced a useful adaptation. You actually highlight the basis for my skepticism - evolution produces change and under identical circumstances evolution produces no change. Whatever the effect, the cause is supposed to be evolution. That's just not particularly compelling an argument. And by the way, how have the cyanobacteria that you say have changed actually changed? How are they different from the fossils we have that are billions of years old.

The evolutionary diversification of cyanobacteria: Molecular"phylogenetic and paleontological perspectives. Tomitani et al. PNAS April 4, 2006 vol. 103 no. 14 5442-5447

Yet above, you state "those bacteria found one way to succeed", suggesting that those cyanobacteria had a goal and responded to environmental pressure by adapting, while glossing over the fact that other such critters faced extinction level pressure without changing at all.

No, I didnt suggest they had a goal. their differences allowed them to increase their fitness. As for extinction level pressures, this is too broad a statement.

Natural selection acting on genomic changes results in living entities adapting to pressure, or empowering the exploitation of ecological niches. That is why, according to the evolutionary model we find life everywhere from deep sea thermal vents to the top of Mt. Everest. However, half the human race is just waiting to be infected by malaria, and the parasite just sits there wasting quintillions of chances to adapt and conquer the world. What gives?

You are once again assigning a goal to evolution. Is there any pressure to spread? Are there available traits? What are the mechanisms preventing the spread?

I recognize that this is an unguided process, purely random and so on, but if this is the case, why does random mutation produce useful adaptations in one place and nothing in another? I acknowledge that my knowledge of genetics must be less than yours, but this isn't magic, is it? Surely logic is a feature of truth, wouldn't you agree?

Logic only validates statements. If you dont have knowledge of a subject, you cant try to validate many of the statements. In fact, you sentences answers itself.

why does random mutation produce useful adaptations in one place and nothing in another

What natural disaster would you point to that killed off our immediate ancestors and didn't touch homo sapiens sapiens? Not that long ago, so some evidence must be available to point to. The Ice Age may have killed off Neanderthals, but didn't touch Africa, where Homo s. s. originated. Just wondering what you would point to that could account for what is observed.

We originated there, but rapidly spread out, including other homo species. There was a large volcanic event some 70,000 years ago that wiped out even a lot of modern humans would could have done it and it could also have been competition. I am not as familiar with human evolution as plant evolution.

[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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

Even if I go so far as to accept that the cause of our universe was external to it, why does this mean that it was supernatural/non-natural? Can you show that it wasn't an accident caused by a scientist in a parallel universe or some other natural cause? that it necessarily was supernatural?

[Starboard Tack]

Perhaps, however I know that some cyanobacteria have not changed in the slightest, and one could hardly argue that the bacteria who have not changed have not been exposed to adverse pressure over 3.5 BILLION years that one would think, given the huge populations involved, have produced a useful adaptation. You actually highlight the basis for my skepticism - evolution produces change and under identical circumstances evolution produces no change. Whatever the effect, the cause is supposed to be evolution. That's just not particularly compelling an argument. And by the way, how have the cyanobacteria that you say have changed actually changed? How are they different from the fossils we have that are billions of years old.

The evolutionary diversification of cyanobacteria: Molecular"phylogenetic and paleontological perspectives. Tomitani et al. PNAS April 4, 2006 vol. 103 no. 14 5442-5447

Thank you. I don't pretend to have the expertise to fully grok all aspects of this paper, but it appears that the paper is about the diversification of cyanobacteria, evolutionarily speaking, which happened on average about 2.5 billion years ago. In other words, it seems to confirm the validity of my question on what mechanism is in place that would cause this bacteria to evolve in the past, then cause it to stop evolving and sit in stasis every since. Perhaps I am reading the paper wrong, and if so, please correct this impression. But it appears from the paper that cyanobacteria hasn't changed very much over millenia, even though the environment the critters lived in certainly has.

Yet above, you state "those bacteria found one way to succeed", suggesting that those cyanobacteria had a goal and responded to environmental pressure by adapting, while glossing over the fact that other such critters faced extinction level pressure without changing at all.

No, I didnt suggest they had a goal. their differences allowed them to increase their fitness. As for extinction level pressures, this is too broad a statement.

The LTEE created conditions where the food source for e coli was in short supply, while another food source was abundant. It's true that they didn't kill off the e coli by starving it absolutely, so perhaps my term was inappropriate. However, the conditions of the experiment created pinpoint stress on the population that would reward the first individual to develop a solution. That solution took quadrillions of individuals to come about, which calls into question the power of evolution to produce the level of change alleged to it in countless other species.

Natural selection acting on genomic changes results in living entities adapting to pressure, or empowering the exploitation of ecological niches. That is why, according to the evolutionary model we find life everywhere from deep sea thermal vents to the top of Mt. Everest. However, half the human race is just waiting to be infected by malaria, and the parasite just sits there wasting quintillions of chances to adapt and conquer the world. What gives?

You are once again assigning a goal to evolution. Is there any pressure to spread? Are there available traits? What are the mechanisms preventing the spread?

I am not attributing consciousness to an unconscious process. I am merely noting that the exploitation of life of a huge variety of possible niches on the planet is explained by evolutionary theory, while in this case the lack of exploitation of an obvious niche is also explained by evolutionary theory. Just goes to my point that when something happens, it's because of evolution and when it doesn't it's because of evolution. I am sure you can understand why some would find this explanation improbable, especially given its inability to demonstrate mechanism for what it purports to describe, like the Cambrian explosion.

I recognize that this is an unguided process, purely random and so on, but if this is the case, why does random mutation produce useful adaptations in one place and nothing in another? I acknowledge that my knowledge of genetics must be less than yours, but this isn't magic, is it? Surely logic is a feature of truth, wouldn't you agree?

Logic only validates statements. If you dont have knowledge of a subject, you cant try to validate many of the statements. In fact, you sentences answers itself.

If you believe that an appeal to superior knowledge proves your case, then I believe I can trump you with sources that you would probably grant have superior knowledge to your own. That is not the point. You assert that it is true that (taking an example) cyanobacteria have evolved, even though the fossil record shows critters identical to what we find today among variants of the bacteria that have been living on the only planet we have since life could be supported, yet haven't changed a whit. Evolutionary theory, according to you is a theory you understand and suggest that I don't. Yet I can observe that the living entities most likely to evolve - small, massive populations, short generational times - don't evolve over billions of years, while you would point to creatures least likely to evolve, like whales, as evolving over millions of years. Does this make sense? If it does, presume you are talking to children and explain it simply.

why does random mutation produce useful adaptations in one place and nothing in another

What natural disaster would you point to that killed off our immediate ancestors and didn't touch homo sapiens sapiens? Not that long ago, so some evidence must be available to point to. The Ice Age may have killed off Neanderthals, but didn't touch Africa, where Homo s. s. originated. Just wondering what you would point to that could account for what is observed.

We originated there, but rapidly spread out, including other homo species. There was a large volcanic event some 70,000 years ago that wiped out even a lot of modern humans would could have done it and it could also have been competition. I am not as familiar with human evolution as plant evolution.

Yes, the Toba super eruption was probably a humdinger of an event. However, Neanderthals survived this event, not going extinct until 25,000 - 40,000 years ago. There are other hominids who also seem to have survived this event, and the degree to which it would have had an effect on humans is somewhat in dispute. I grant that it is offered as a reason whey the predecessor species of modern humans went extinct, and our population almost did. However, this still leaves unanswered the question of where the artifacts or remains of these ancestors are to be found? 70,000 years ago is a long time, but not so long as to obliterate evidence of the transitional form for modern humans. Where is it?

[Starboard Tack]

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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

Even if I go so far as to accept that the cause of our universe was external to it, why does this mean that it was supernatural/non-natural? Can you show that it wasn't an accident caused by a scientist in a parallel universe or some other natural cause? that it necessarily was supernatural?

Perhaps, but isn't it true that if this universe was the result of a test tube experiment by a scientist in a universe outside our own, would he not represent a causation outside the natural world we know, a.k.a. a supernatural or non-natural cause?

Can you provide an example of where something comes into being in this universe without a cause, or more interestingly, where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself? For a simple example, is it possible that a 200# man jumps into a pool and causes the displacement of 500,000# of water? If not, you can begin to understand how the creation of everything from nothing is a stretch of logic.

[Starboard Tack]

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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe.

That all depends on what you mean when you say, "the universe was caused." It also depends on what you mean when you say that, "whatever exists, has a cause." I bring these up because there are some things that have never been observed, matter and energy coming into existence. Saying these have causes or even saying that they seem to have causes would be fallacious.

I think this is where I am supposed to simply demand proof of your statement and leave it at that. However, I will ask the question of whether an unobserved or measured cause means that the cause does not exist. I ask that because you imply that "some things have not been observed" and this tells us something about causality. It certainly tells us about our state of knowledge, which doesn't include understanding the cause of everything. However, what can reasonably be assumed, since it is universally true for everything we can observe is that all things that exist have a cause. Can you provide an example where something comes from nothing in this universe?

Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

The nature of these causes is completely unknown though, positing anything about them would be illogical especially the notion of "creation".

I grant that the cause of what is (our universe) is not measurable. However, it is illogical to dispute that what is, cannot be the result of it having been created. How else would you explain its existence? The universe exists, therefore is was caused. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or that it can come into existence without a cause? If the latter, again, please provide examples of effect without cause, or better yet, of effect that is greater than its cause.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe.

That all depends on what you mean when you say, "the universe was caused." It also depends on what you mean when you say that, "whatever exists, has a cause." I bring these up because there are some things that have never been observed, matter and energy coming into existence. Saying these have causes or even saying that they seem to have causes would be fallacious.

I think this is where I am supposed to simply demand proof of your statement and leave it at that.

No, I doubt it is, this has never been observed because it is impossible, it would break the first law of thermodynamics.

However, I will ask the question of whether an unobserved or measured cause means that the cause does not exist.

I think the answer to this question is quite obvious, I almost think you mean it rhetorically.

I ask that because you imply that "some things have not been observed" and this tells us something about causality. It certainly tells us about our state of knowledge, which doesn't include understanding the cause of everything.

Nothing even similar to this, nothing comparable has ever been witnessed. We have only ever seen matter and energy changing form, we have never witnessed it coming into existence and according to the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for it to come into existence.

However, what can reasonably be assumed, since it is universally true for everything we can observe is that all things that exist have a cause. Can you provide an example where something comes from nothing in this universe?

As far as I can tell, virtual particles. They only come into existence under certain conditions but they do not appear to have a cause. Even still, I don't have to provide anything, we have no idea how matter and energy came into existence or even if they did. Positing that matter and energy changing form has a cause therefore matter and energy coming into existence must have a cause is illogical, they are two completely different things.

Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

The nature of these causes is completely unknown though, positing anything about them would be illogical especially the notion of "creation".

I grant that the cause of what is (our universe) is not measurable. However, it is illogical to dispute that what is, cannot be the result of it having been created.

Did I say that? I said that positing the notion of creation is illogical, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing credible to base that on.

How else would you explain its existence?

Oh so now you're saying, "any explanation is a good explanation." This is far from scientific and has nothing to do with truth.

The universe exists, therefore is was caused. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or that it can come into existence without a cause? If the latter, again, please provide examples of effect without cause, or better yet, of effect that is greater than its cause.

I'm not arguing either, i'm just pointing out the illogical notions you've tried to put forward.