Life from Non-Life?

[liamconnor]

The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?

[DanieltheDragon]

The Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a strictly naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?

It's only a dilemma for those who don't understand bio-chemistry and biology. I would then suggest studying biology and bio chemistry.

This :

naturalistic framework: life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced (i.e. from outside) into nature (i.e. a miracle).

Is not a naturalistic framework, that is the theistic position.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

My response would be:

How does theism resolve your dilemma? Are you just going to pick a religion and go with it even though there is no verifiable evidence of a god creature injecting life? Why do you feel that you need to replace "I don't know" with "I'll just pick something that sounds nice and have faith"?

We know that some of the precursor molecules that life is based on can be demonstrably produced from only basic elements and the right conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2 ... experiment

We still haven't figured out the right conditions to get even further. However, based on detailed analysis of current life, we know it is only made up of basic elements.

Are you really willing to hop on the "make it up and declare it to be true" train rather than remain in the realm of observable reality? Is not knowing that destructive to your psyche?

[Divine Insight]

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?

First Biology

I would begin by pointing out that this isn't a "dilemma". To the contrary, this is merely a misunderstanding of biology. There is no fundamental distinction between "inorganic" matter and "organic" matter. All organic matter is actually made of inorganic matter. Therefore the true distinction between living and non-living matter is really nothing more than a matter of complexity. It has nothing to do with any required additional elements or outside influences being required. So that's a false assumption or conclusion in any case.

Anyone who has a "degree" in biology and makes this claim is only revealing that they managed to obtain a degree from university without truly understanding biology or chemistry. And unfortunately, this can easily happen. A degree in biology is no guarantee that the person holding the degree actually understands that subject material. All the degree shows is that they managed to satisfy the requirements of some university which may not even be able to determine whether these graduates truly understand the subject. You can actually pass a college exam by missing some seriously key questions as long you have have answered quite a few lesser important questions to make up for the grade.

So anyone who has a degree in biology and is making this claim is only doing nothing more than displaying their own ignorance of biology actually.

Second "Theology"

This question alone is not a tie-breaker between theology in general and a purely secular materialistic worldview. In fact, some religions, (such as Buddhism, and many others) fully accept the natural evolution of life on Earth without this being problematic for their spiritual "theology".

So this question alone is not a theology versus secularism tie-breaker.

However, this question can be highly problematic for any theology that requires that their God is the creator and designer of life. See next section.

Third "Theological Problems with a Babysitting God"

Theologies that demand that only their God can create a "living soul" have many internal problems.

To begin with, if this is true, then we must ask whether animals have a "soul"? If not, why not? If a magical soul created by God is not required for "life" in general, then why should it be required for human life? Note also that this problem actually flies in the face of the very reason we're discussing this topic in this thread (i.e. that no life could have evolved from non-living matter)

A second problem with a baby-sitting God who actually places "living souls" in new born babies is that this introduces a barrage of moral problems. For example, why does this God design and place a human soul into a defective body? And we don't even need to talk about "mild birth defects". There are some pretty seriously nasty birth defects that occur. I recently saw a video where twin boys were born attached at the very tops of their heads. And they actually survived to a fairly old age. Why would a designer God have done such a hideous thing? And of course there are far worse scenarios to cite as well.

There are just huge problems with the theology of a baby-sitting God who actually designs and places a living soul into ever new born baby. I can cite many further examples, such as babies being born by rape victims and victims of parental incest, etc. Why should a God aid and abed such immoral behavior by placing a new soul in the womb of these women victims?

The list just goes on.

And there's really no way to get around these moral problem of a "Baby-sitting" God unless we ultimately relieve this God of its "Baby-sitting" duties to create life. And the moment we do that, we violate the very "dilemma" that supposedly got us here in the first place.

In Summary

The question of how complex inorganic matter managed to become so complex it became what we call "organic matter" (without any new materials or outside influence), is an extremely minor question relative to the moral questions that arise should we decide to postulate that a "baby-sitting God" creates all living things.

So I don't see where there is any "dilemma" here.

Any theology that proclaims that a creator is required to design and create every living soul is far more problematic than secular evolution to be sure.

And just as a final reminder, all spiritual philosophies and theologies do not even require that a God designs or creates life in this universe. So in the end this isn't a question of secularism versus spirituality, but it does rule out very specific theologies that require that their God is the sole creator/design of every single human soul.

Thanks for the question. I hope my reply will at least help people to realized which spiritual paradigms or theologies are more tenable and which are not, if nothing else.

[McCulloch]

life could not spring from nature but had to be introduced from outside into nature

Correction: we don't know yet how life could spring from natural causes.

How would you respond to a person vacillating between theism and naturalism because of this dilemma?

An old person ceased being comfortable with not knowing.

[Aetixintro]

My response would be:

How does theism resolve your dilemma? Are you just going to pick a religion and go with it even though there is no verifiable evidence of a god creature injecting life? Why do you feel that you need to replace "I don't know" with "I'll just pick something that sounds nice and have faith"?

We know that some of the precursor molecules that life is based on can be demonstrably produced from only basic elements and the right conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2 ... experiment

We still haven't figured out the right conditions to get even further. However, based on detailed analysis of current life, we know it is only made up of basic elements.

Are you really willing to hop on the "make it up and declare it to be true" train rather than remain in the realm of observable reality? Is not knowing that destructive to your psyche?

It's well possible to combine not knowing ("I don't know") and religious belief (in something greater, call this "God") because religious belief is exactly that which is without scientific evidence. To believe is to make the leap of faith, says Søren Kierkegaard. Besides, it's not just picking a belief either. Many religious people do ponder deeply their beliefs "for ages", so don't belittle us, please, because your "cold grave" isn't very appealing as (religious) belief in life after death or the great cosmological enigma of the place of life in the Universe.

Finally, if a (temporary, hitherto) answer from science is indeed a "cold grave" then why not play around a little, have fun and speculate, wonder and have a belief for that which lies beyond science? Some people do feel a deep, intuitive sense "of something greater, that ultimate meaning". Again, why be as limited as science is? We all know what the science is, just a click with the mouse, but not what lies (possibly) beyond science, the scientific frontier.

[benchwarmer]

It's well possible to combine not knowing ("I don't know") and religious belief (in something greater, call this "God") because religious belief is exactly that which is without scientific evidence.

That's an odd claim: "religious belief is exactly that which is without scientific evidence". So as science discovers more and more and less things are attributable to gods, religion becomes a shrinking domain? I think that is called "God of the gaps". One would think that as things are constantly figured out, one would stop attributing unknown things to gods. I guess some never learn.

To believe is to make the leap of faith, says Søren Kierkegaard.

Sure, I don't know, there's no verifiable evidence, so I'll just pretend it's true and feel better.

Besides, it's not just picking a belief either. Many religious people do ponder deeply their beliefs "for ages", so don't belittle us, please, because your "cold grave" isn't very appealing as (religious) belief in life after death or the great cosmological enigma of the place of life in the Universe.

How did I belittle anyone? Regardless of how long you ponder, at some point you have to pick one right? Keep in mind you are debating with an ex Christian who has done a fair share of 'pondering' in the religious realm. I'm familiar with the process.

Finally, if a (temporary, hitherto) answer from science is indeed a "cold grave" then why not play around a little, have fun and speculate, wonder and have a belief for that which lies beyond science?

So simply declaring I don't know is no fun, so I should spice things up and play make believe? Wow, some solid advice there.

Some people do feel a deep, intuitive sense "of something greater, that ultimate meaning". Again, why be as limited as science is? We all know what the science is, just a click with the mouse, but not what lies (possibly) beyond science, the scientific frontier.

If the only science you do is clicking the mouse, you don't know what science is. You do realize what drives science is the unknown right? The only difference is that those who choose the scientific method actually observe, collect data, verify, and continue to be open to the truth as it presents itself. Religion simply declares things to be true and asks you to "have faith". The choice is yours.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I would appeal to his sense of skepticism: how is "God did it" any better than "I don't know?"

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I would appeal to his sense of skepticism: how is "God did it" any better than "I don't know?"

For one thing it is far less honest.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by McCulloch]

Correction: we don't know yet how life could spring from natural causes.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Liam's attitude here is like someone declaring in the year 1700 that flight quite simply cannot be achieved via naturalistic means and therefore...there must be divine shenanigans going on.
Fast forward to the year 1783, and that person has egg on their face when Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent d'Arlandes performed the first hot air balloon ride.