Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

BarefootServant

Hi Caedes, you said
Then there is no evidence of artificiality, which makes your scenario completely different to the one that you outlined.
Not at all. My scenario was that you find an incredibly advanced technology of replicating nanotechnology on the moon which definitely does not have a human origin but in all respects appears like it was designed. I also said that scientists claim this wonderful complexity and order is the result of natural selection, and that (they say) no alien intelligence is required to explain it, even though no good theories exist as to how it got started in the first place. I then asked whether it is fair to say that there is not the smidgen of evidence for an intelligent (alien) designer for these things, and also whether you would consider this alien 'lifeform' as admissable evidence for little green men.
Now, whether these things are 'artificial' or not, is the whole point of the story. What do expect me to tell you? If I tell you they are artificial then there is nothing to discuss - they must have been designed by an alien intelligence. If I tell you they are not artificial, there is also nothing to discuss - there is no evidence for little green men. The only possible interesting aspect of this story is where we have two opposing claims and a degree of dispute over the question of artificiality. On one side the scientists who claim there is sufficient evidence for artificiality and that all can be explained using Darwinian principles, and on the other those who claim that those are just theories and it is more likely that an alien intelligence designed them.
Also, you seem to believe there is an absolute way to define whether something is artificial or not. Take a complex motor. You look at that and proclaim it artificial. Now, use some different materials to construct it, then miniaturise it, making it small enough to fit on the end of a bateria. Et voila! You now proclaim it 'natural'. What changed? Well, you say, now it's made out of 'organic' molecules instead of 'in-organic' ones. But molecules are just molecules, arrangements of atoms. It just so happens that life-as-we-know uses a bunch of molecules with carbon-hydrogen links (not all of them though).
Now, what if next week (or the week after, it'll be soon anyway) a scientist pops up and announces that he has cobbled together some proteins and created synthetic life? Would you call that artificial or natural? Does the material used in the life-form determine whether it is natural or not? No, it doesn't. My point is, you cannot state with absolute certainty that something is 'natural' or 'artificial'. And therefore there is no such thing as an 'artificial' material. Organic life is full of apparently 'artificial' materials, it is only by our own artificial circular defintions that we make them otherwise.
Science takes nothing on faith, science is merely unaware of the mechanism of abiogenesis since there is no empirical evidence so far on which to base any theory.
Faith, trust, call it what you will, science makes many assumptions, such as things physical laws are universal, the universe is comprehendable to humans and behaves consistently. In the specific field we are discussing, there is an implicit faith that, sooner or later, abiogenesis will be explicable. We currently have no explanation, nor even a respectable theory, for how this spontaneous generation of life could possible have happened given the fantastic odds against. All we have is 'well, it must have happened otherwise we wouldn't be here'. That's the faith, but that is not the only possibility.
Yes, it is evidence because of your use of the moon (a place entirely inhospitable to any kind of life) and your incorrect use of evolution. If you wish to you could re-phrase your scenario in terms consistant with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and the reality of scientific enquiry.
I thought we'd got past these unsupported assertions. Look, all I'm saying is that there are reproducing nanobots that have been discovered on the moon, which happens to be an ideal environment for them. Are you stating, as a fact, that such a scenario is not consistent with the laws of physics, chemistry, and the reality of scientific enquiry?
As I'm sure you know ye canna change the laws of physics cap'n!
Yeah yeah, you always say that but stop moaning and give me warp factor ten.
BarefootServant

Welcome back Gladring, we've missed you.
I think you are answering your own question here. If they evolved, were not designed and were not created, then I'd have to say that that is not evidence for alien intelligence.
Perhaps my response to Caedes will address this. Or not.
I think that you need to redefine your scenario. Could you tell me whether it fits my scenario 1 or 2 in my previous post:
1- We dig down through the layers of moon rock and find more and more simple "nanobots" and also differing, distinct living and fossilised machines that fit in to a tree of life. Further examination shows that the nanobots are related to all other machines on the planet. It looks like these evolved. The more we study, the more we find out.
2- We search the moon and find that the nanobots arrived suddenly, more or less as we find them now - complex, fully functioning. Then we may conclude that they were left behind by some intelligent beings or try to find some explanation for them.
Yup, number 1 of course. Scientists aren't totally stupid, they've done the research and whilst there are big gaps the evidence is consistent with their theories. Otherwise, why would they be saying there's not a smidgen of evidence for little green men?
Are you ready to answer the question now?
Caedes

Now, whether these things are 'artificial' or not, is the whole point of the story. What do expect me to tell you? If I tell you they are artificial then there is nothing to discuss - they must have been designed by an alien intelligence. If I tell you they are not artificial, there is also nothing to discuss - there is no evidence for little green men. The only possible interesting aspect of this story is where we have two opposing claims and a degree of dispute over the question of artificiality. On one side the scientists who claim there is sufficient evidence for artificiality and that all can be explained using Darwinian principles, and on the other those who claim that those are just theories and it is more likely that an alien intelligence designed them.
Congratulations, I knew you would get there eventually! You have a fundamental problem in your scenario if you wish to present it to naturalists, which you are well aware of given your unwillingness to present your scenario in more plausible terms. By the way, no scientist refers to theories as 'just theories' you really need to look up the scientific definition of the word theory and the word hypothesis.
Also, you seem to believe there is an absolute way to define whether something is artificial or not. Take a complex motor. You look at that and proclaim it artificial. Now, use some different materials to construct it, then miniaturise it, making it small enough to fit on the end of a bateria. Et voila! You now proclaim it 'natural'. What changed? Well, you say, now it's made out of 'organic' molecules instead of 'in-organic' ones. But molecules are just molecules, arrangements of atoms. It just so happens that life-as-we-know uses a bunch of molecules with carbon-hydrogen links (not all of them though).
I don't seem to believe it, I know what the definition is and I am quite happy with the distinction between the two. No, I would only claim your organic motor to be natural if it was the result of natural processes, if the organic motor was made by humans (or even little green men) then it is artificial by definition. The use of organic or in-organic materials is im-material! (ooops, sorry about that one!)
Now, what if next week (or the week after, it'll be soon anyway) a scientist pops up and announces that he has cobbled together some proteins and created synthetic life? Would you call that artificial or natural? Does the material used in the life-form determine whether it is natural or not? No, it doesn't. My point is, you cannot state with absolute certainty that something is 'natural' or 'artificial'. And therefore there is no such thing as an 'artificial' material. Organic life is full of apparently 'artificial' materials, it is only by our own artificial circular defintions that we make them otherwise.
Artificial by definition, with absolute certainty. No such thing as an artificial material? Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the nearest Nylon tree or some brass or steel bearing ore or even the nearest buckyball mine? None of these materials appear in nature and are thus artificial, we create them.
Science takes nothing on faith, science is merely unaware of the mechanism of abiogenesis since there is no empirical evidence so far on which to base any theory.
Faith, trust, call it what you will, science makes many assumptions, such as things physical laws are universal, the universe is comprehendable to humans and behaves consistently. In the specific field we are discussing, there is an implicit faith that, sooner or later, abiogenesis will be explicable. We currently have no explanation, nor even a respectable theory, for how this spontaneous generation of life could possible have happened given the fantastic odds against. All we have is 'well, it must have happened otherwise we wouldn't be here'. That's the faith, but that is not the only possibility.
Science may make the assumption (as we all do) that the world is as we perceive it but then you are quite happy to accept all these presumptions when you drive your car, fly in a plane. If you wish you could put your money where your mouth is and walk off the nearest cliff (after all according to you we should not be assuming the world is as we perceive it, obviously I am not avocating you try this!) in order to test this hypothesis. All other areas are up for grabs in the scientific world, as long as you can produce empirical evidence to back up a claim then any scientific law or theory can be altered as long as all the existing evidence fits.
From my viewpoint we may not have an acceptable hypothesis for abiogenesis for the moment but I see no reason to add a supernatural sky daddy as the cause since this can only mean we have to look for a cause for the abiogenesis of our sky daddy, it only shifts the problem elsewhere and makes it an even larger problem.
Yes, it is evidence because of your use of the moon (a place entirely inhospitable to any kind of life) and your incorrect use of evolution. If you wish to you could re-phrase your scenario in terms consistant with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and the reality of scientific enquiry.
I thought we'd got past these unsupported assertions. Look, all I'm saying is that there are reproducing nanobots that have been discovered on the moon, which happens to be an ideal environment for them. Are you stating, as a fact, that such a scenario is not consistent with the laws of physics, chemistry, and the reality of scientific enquiry?
No, my assertion is supported by the fact that the moon is entirely inhospitable to life, I have conceded the existance of artificial life would be evidence of little green men. I am stating your scenario is inconsistant with the reality of mainstream scientific enquiry.
I am sure you could purchase the services of a 'scientist' with a purchased degree from some dodgy religious university would make whatever wild claim you wanted.
Caedes

As I'm sure you know ye canna change the laws of physics cap'n!
Yeah yeah, you always say that but stop moaning and give me warp factor ten.
The reality of engineers always doubling their job time estimates not-withstanding, I would say that is already your velocity in the direction of atheism.
BarefootServant

Hi Caedes,
Congratulations, I knew you would get there eventually! You have a fundamental problem in your scenario if you wish to present it to naturalists, which you are well aware of given your unwillingness to present your scenario in more plausible terms.
Well, no point arguing who got where, are we agreed that my story does not have an absolute solution? There are two views and therefore there is no point in saying that the nanobots are definitely artificial nor definitely natural. This was clear from the outset, and I have no idea why you should say I've been unwilling to do anything, nor what more plausible terms you could want.
By the way, no scientist refers to theories as 'just theories' you really need to look up the scientific definition of the word theory and the word hypothesis.
If you'd read a bit more carefully, it wasn't me saying "just theories", I was putting this in the mouths of one of the parties of the debate and you ought to know that this is indeed what they say.
I don't seem to believe it, I know what the definition is and I am quite happy with the distinction between the two. No, I would only claim your organic motor to be natural if it was the result of natural processes, if the organic motor was made by humans (or even little green men) then it is artificial by definition. The use of organic or in-organic materials is im-material!
You're sticking to your story even though it is self contradictory? You say if an organic motor was made by humans then it is artificial. Yet, if you had not been told it was made by humans and instead had discovered it and studied it under an electron microscope, how could you possibly know that it was artificial? It is, after all, made from organic materials, which you imply means it must be natural. Equally, a novel electronic circuit might be designed using Darwinian principles, upon examining such a circuit you would annonce that it is an artificial design. Same with nanobots. In both cases it is your assumptions that lead to your conclusions, not your observations.
All other areas are up for grabs in the scientific world, as long as you can produce empirical evidence to back up a claim then any scientific law or theory can be altered as long as all the existing evidence fits.
I've no problem with that. All I said was that even scientists take some things on faith.
From my viewpoint we may not have an acceptable hypothesis for abiogenesis for the moment but I see no reason to add a supernatural sky daddy as the cause
sigh... this is why I asked the question in the first place. In the scenario I presented, the point was whether it was rational for either side to claim certainties. It turned out that you wanted a certainty to start with before you would answer the question, and claimed that this was a problem with my scenario. The only problem is with reality: There are no certainties. As for your faith that there will, one day, be an acceptable theory for abiogenesis, that is of course a rational personal choice.
since this can only mean we have to look for a cause for the abiogenesis of our sky daddy, it only shifts the problem elsewhere and makes it an even larger problem.
This is not a valid scientific position. A conclusion that there is alien intelligence (for the origin of life, or nanobots) is not contingent on knowing the origin of that alien intelligence. That is a quite different question.
No, my assertion is supported by the fact that the moon is entirely inhospitable to life, I have conceded the existance of artificial life would be evidence of little green men.
So you're agreeing that non organic life is possible on the moon (my nanobots), and you agree evolution is possible in any form of life, but that it would have been impossible for that (nanobot) life to have started spontaneously?
I am sure you could purchase the services of a 'scientist' with a purchased degree from some dodgy religious university would make whatever wild claim you wanted.
I'm not sure what 'wild claim' you're referring to. I presented a hypothetical scenario which, whilst unlikely, is not impossible, and simply asked a coupla simple questions which have been carefully ignored. Ah well.
BarefootServant

I would say that is already your velocity in the direction of atheism.
I don't think so. I think true atheism is an unscientific belief, for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove that the universe did not have a creator, given the evidence. On the contrary, it would take a lot a faith for me to believe that the incredible co-incidences, at every level, that make life possible, have happened just by chance and we just happen to be here to observe it. And from what little I do know of biochemistry, I also find it incredible that these complicated bio-mechanical processes could have started spontaneously, even if evolution were true (and if you read Michael Behe you will see some very interesting challenges to the current theory). Which is not to say that this means that this creator has to be a personal God, one that is actually interested in us, any more than the aliens who created the nanobots. But that is where we get into the realm of religion, and that's not the point of this thread.
Gladring

Yup, number 1 of course. Scientists aren't totally stupid, they've done the research and whilst there are big gaps the evidence is consistent with their theories. Otherwise, why would they be saying there's not a smidgen of evidence for little green men?
Are you ready to answer the question now?
Yes I'm ready. If my scenario 1 is what you have in mind, then no this is not evidence for ET.
I must say that, if you believe that your moon scenario has any resemblence to life on earth, you are labouring under many misconceptions. May I ask your view of evolution? Do you accept the idea of common descent? Have you looked into the genetic/DNA evidence for common descent?
In your replies to Caedes you (and he) speak of a human-engineered living thing made of organic molecules. You claim that if you looked at such a thing that one would not be able to distinguish the humanly created from the naturally evolved. I must say here that you are flat wrong about this. When looking at biological organisms which have evolved, we can see the history of changes in the anatomy and genetic make up (genetic drift, vestigial organs ...). If a human created a living biological thing, we could not help but leave our fingerprints all over it. Even if you care to imagine some distant future where we have the resources at hand to create a biological organism with its own fake backstory to make it look like it evolved, this will not help your case. Does the God you imagine create life in such a way as to remove any trace of his hand in his handiwork? Does he then abandon his handiwork to the whims of time and forget all about it? Why bother with a God like that.
I've had some family stuff to sort out, so I've been away from home for a couple of days. It's nice to be missed tho'.
Spook

Leolia is right, and this question has gotten so protracted it's a challenge to follow:
1. To be rigorous, Nanobots (as presented) could not be evidence for alien design unless it was known that aliens existed.
2. If it is unknown that aliens exist, one must say that the existence of these nanobots fits the hypothesis that there is extraterestrial life.
3. You should use the terms synthetic life and artificial intelligence. Not artificial life. It is nonsensical language. Life has specific definitions to distinguish it from non-life. Intelligence is more fuzzy in definition and is a hotly contested point in comparision to the life/non-life distinction.
Damocles

I'd like to weigh in on this subject but from a slightly different perspective.
First, a preamble. I am a scientist (physical chemist) and have been around scientists my whole adult life (I'm 58). I've known any number of physical and biological scientists, some of whom are relatively well known. I can say categorically that there is no correlation between being a scientist and believing in god. Some do some don't. I was a scientist as a dub and am a scientist now that I'm not.
The key to understanding the riddle of the dilemna IHO is that science is a process not a belief system. As a scientist, I observe nature, I formulate hypotheses, test the hypotheses, modify the hypothesis, do new tests...ad infinitum. So if you ask me what is 'proven' in science, I reply 'nothing, that's not how it works'. It is the method that counts not the beliefs. Its always a matter of probabilities.
With regard to god, at one time I believed and that was based on the evidence that I collected. I became a dub, tested the hypothesis over many years, and now I reject it (belief in god). Could that be modified? Certainly. What would modify it? I can think of quite a few things, but none have happened yet. Was my test of the hypothesis adequate? Hmmm good question, I'm not sure but it seems adequate enough for me at the moment. If I end up burning in Hell for eternity, I'll consider the case closed and reconsider my opinion.
So, would moon nanobots cause me to reconsider? Maybe, all depends on the details. Certainly, it would be new data requiring some adjustment to hypotheses and maybe some new tests.
When I start on a new research endeavor, the first thing I do is list the facts, the observations, what I truly know. Then I list the ideas, the beliefs I have about the observations. Finally, I try and list my assumptions, the unwritten ones that lie well below the surface. Once I've done that, I can begin to think about hypotheses and whether I have enough facts or whether I need to collect more before I make a hypothesis. Then I get to it. But it is absolutely imperative that I distinquish between the facts and my beliefs and frankly its always harder than I think it should be.
I've done that with god. I can state the following as the results of my tests of the hypotheses (IHO of course):
The probability that the god of the bible exists is vanishingly small.
The probability that the god of the jews, the Mormons, the gods of the Hindus or American Indians exist is vanishingly small (only ones I've studied much).
The probability that there is a god of unkown properties other than being the creator is unkown. But, belief or disbelief in such a being is of little practical effect on my life, so I am content to suspend judgment and get on with living until faced with new data. (Nanobots would be cool, though, especially if they could weed my gardens.)
Gladring

RAmen Brother Damocles, well said.

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

Share this