The other pair of problems here is this claim that you can't know anything unless you observe it, and the total lack of nuance concerning knowledge and belief.
For the former, Heywood said early on that abiogenesis is an irrational thing to believe in, as it has never been observed. But direct observation isn't the only method we have for discerning the truth about reality. For example, the orbital period of Pluto is longer than the span of time that we've actually known of Pluto's existence, but we can apply our knowledge of orbital mechanics and so on to determine that orbital period without having directly observed it. Observation helps, I'm not going to devalue that, but we can have evidence beyond simple eye-watching that helps us form pictures of reality. Just saying "oh yeah? You've never seen abiogenesis happening! Ha!" is a gross oversimplification.
This also ties into the latter, where we're talking about beliefs and knowledge as though certainty- and unshaking, permanent certainty at that- are the only possibilities. This is very convenient for Heywood, since it allows him to characterize atheists as believing in irrational things, but it's not the truth, or at least it's only part of it.
When I say I believe that abiogenesis happened, and I do believe that, the reason for that is that we have evidence in support of this hypothesis. We have the Miller-Yurey experiments, John Oro's work, and so on, which demonstrate that at least a part of the process can be achieved through natural means, without the need for a god. More broadly, I believe that natural means are sufficient for life to arise because we can readily demonstrate the existence of nature, whereas we've never been able to do this for any kind of supernature or intelligent design yet proposed. Heywood keeps talking about abiogenesis as though we have nothing to go on, but that's simply untrue. We have a basis from which to proceed, and so far that basis has done nothing but confirm the validity of abiogenesis as a source of life.
Do I believe that with certainty? No. I believe it with the level of confidence appropriate for the evidence currently available. I acknowledge the reality; so far, abiogenesis is the best supported hypothesis for the origins of life on earth. But I'll change that view, if new evidence comes to light which shows something different. That's the nature of a rational outlook, it changes in accordance with the evidence. It's how I can believe in abiogenesis- tentatively! - without having observed it, while still having that be a rational belief.
For the former, Heywood said early on that abiogenesis is an irrational thing to believe in, as it has never been observed. But direct observation isn't the only method we have for discerning the truth about reality. For example, the orbital period of Pluto is longer than the span of time that we've actually known of Pluto's existence, but we can apply our knowledge of orbital mechanics and so on to determine that orbital period without having directly observed it. Observation helps, I'm not going to devalue that, but we can have evidence beyond simple eye-watching that helps us form pictures of reality. Just saying "oh yeah? You've never seen abiogenesis happening! Ha!" is a gross oversimplification.
This also ties into the latter, where we're talking about beliefs and knowledge as though certainty- and unshaking, permanent certainty at that- are the only possibilities. This is very convenient for Heywood, since it allows him to characterize atheists as believing in irrational things, but it's not the truth, or at least it's only part of it.
When I say I believe that abiogenesis happened, and I do believe that, the reason for that is that we have evidence in support of this hypothesis. We have the Miller-Yurey experiments, John Oro's work, and so on, which demonstrate that at least a part of the process can be achieved through natural means, without the need for a god. More broadly, I believe that natural means are sufficient for life to arise because we can readily demonstrate the existence of nature, whereas we've never been able to do this for any kind of supernature or intelligent design yet proposed. Heywood keeps talking about abiogenesis as though we have nothing to go on, but that's simply untrue. We have a basis from which to proceed, and so far that basis has done nothing but confirm the validity of abiogenesis as a source of life.
Do I believe that with certainty? No. I believe it with the level of confidence appropriate for the evidence currently available. I acknowledge the reality; so far, abiogenesis is the best supported hypothesis for the origins of life on earth. But I'll change that view, if new evidence comes to light which shows something different. That's the nature of a rational outlook, it changes in accordance with the evidence. It's how I can believe in abiogenesis- tentatively! - without having observed it, while still having that be a rational belief.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
