Another area that theism wields explanatory power over atheism is the origin of life. Life is not eternal, it had a beginning. At some point something living came from something that was not living. While theism holds that life was created by God (the creator), atheism has struggled to explain the origin of life, how did the first living thing come from non-living material? This question is less avoidable than the origin of the universe, the universe could be eternal, periodically having a big crunch to the point of singularity followed by a big bang, but life could not have survived this. Life definitely had to have come from non-life. Similarly, the question of life from non-life can be pressed further than the miraculously convenient conditions for life, it's theoretically possible that there are (or have been) quadrillions of universes and we just happen to be in one where the constants are tuned to support life. But life still had to have begun at some point in the history universe, how?
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
It's still not clear to me how the theistic claim is scientifically falsifiable. If abiogenesis researchers were to demonstrate life from non-life in the lab, how would this prove that there was no supernatural intervention? What methodology would the researchers have access to that could unequivocally distinguish between a purely natural effect and a supernatural one?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that an omnipotent deity would by definition obliterate any chance of falsifiability since we could never know that this deity had no influence on the results.
You're right, creating life in a test tube wouldn't "prove that there was no supernatural intervention". The theistic claim that I'm arguing is scientifically falsifiable is that the "origin of life requires supernatural intervention". I'm not saying that THE theistic claim (that God exists) is falsifiable, but that this particular theistic claim (that the origin of life requires God's existence) is.
ReplyDeleteTo demonstrate that supernatural intervention is not required you obviously have to demonstrate that no such intervention has happened. As long as an omnipotent deity is in the picture I just don't see how you can do that.
ReplyDeleteWhatever evidence the abiogenesis researchers present, an omnipotent deity could of course create the exact same evidence. There's simply no way you can claim with any certainty that no supernatural intervention has taken place.
We certainly agree that there's no way someone can claim that no supernatural intervention has taken place, but this is an argument that it had to have taken place. I think the argument works in the other direction, its not obvious that in order to demonstrate that supernatural intervention is not required you have to demonstrate that no such intervention happened (if you could repeat the process without supernatural intervention then you would have demonstrated that its not required, regardless of whether it happened), rather, in order to argue that no supernatural intervention has happened, you have to at least demonstrate that such an intervention is not required. I'm arguing that it happened by demonstrating that its required for life to have begun. This argument doesn't assume that there's an omnipotent deity in the picture and argue that you can't disprove it, it works towards disproving the assumption that there is no omnipotent deity in the picture.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
ReplyDelete"We certainly agree that there's no way someone can claim that no supernatural intervention has taken place"
but then you go on to write:
"if you could repeat the process without supernatural intervention then you would have demonstrated that its not required, regardless of whether it happened"
This doesn't make any sense. If we can't show that no supernatural intervention has taken place, we have obviously not demonstrated that a supernatural intervention is not required.
Unless you can design an experiment that ensures a supernatural intervention-free result, the claim that the origin of life requires supernatural intervention is unfalsifiable.
I don't think you can prove or disprove whether God supernaturally intervened, but if you observe something occur naturally, then past occurrences of it could have happened naturally rather than supernaturally. If it could have happened naturally, then supernatural intervention is not required for it to happen.
ReplyDeleteI think that if someone observed how life came from non-life by a natural process, then the claim that only supernatural intervention could have brought life from non-life (i.e. that its required) would be falsified. The claim that God did supernaturally intervene would not have been disproven, but if you observe it happen naturally, then you would have falsified the claim that it had to have happened supernaturally - it could have happened by the natural process that you observed.
"I don't think you can prove or disprove whether God supernaturally intervened, but if you observe something occur naturally, then past occurrences of it could have happened naturally rather than supernaturally."
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that we can't disprove that a supernatural intervention occurred but at the same time you're saying that we can determine that something happened naturally. These are contradictory statements, so clearly they can't both be true.
I'm saying that you can't prove or disprove whether God supernaturally intervened in an event that you can't observe (like the origin of life), but that some things can be explained naturally (by science), while others (i.e. miracles) require a supernatural explanation. I'm arguing that life from non-life was a miracle because science can't explain it. The fact that science could explain it makes my argument scientifically falsifiable.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter whether we can observe it or not. You could say that if you observe an event that's consistent with the laws of nature, that would demonstrate that it can happen naturally. The obvious counter-argument to that is that you can't demonstrate that these laws of nature are not upheld supernaturally.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, any claim that allows for the possibility of supernatural intervention is by definition unfalsifiable.
Your counter-argument is strictly irrefutable, just like the argument that all of us were created five minutes ago, including all our memories. In this case, however, one can hardly fault someone for working under the assumption that things are as they appear (i.e. that natural laws are naturally upheld).
ReplyDeletePeople make supernatural claims which are later falsified all the time. If your lights go out and you say "its a ghost", only to find out that a storm caused a blackout in your area, then your claim that allowed for the possibility of supernatural intervention has been falsified.
"Your counter-argument is strictly irrefutable, just like the argument that all of us were created five minutes ago, including all our memories."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, which is exactly my point. If you had worded your statement to read "non-life to life cannot be demonstrated to be consistent with the laws of nature" I would agree that it's falsifiable. As soon as you bring in the supernatural, however, all falsifiability goes out the window as supernatural claims can't be disproved.
"In this case, however, one can hardly fault someone for working under the assumption that things are as they appear (i.e. that natural laws are naturally upheld)."
Agreed, it's a very reasonable assumption - but it's still an assumption and assumptions aren't going to get you to an absolute proof or disproof.
"If your lights go out and you say "its a ghost", only to find out that a storm caused a blackout in your area, then your claim that allowed for the possibility of supernatural intervention has been falsified."
Again, it's an extremely reasonable assumption but not an absolute falsification. In this particular case it's merely a technicality as no-one in their right mind would seriously consider a ghost as the cause but in your original case it's more problematic.
The theist position pretty much assumes that the laws of nature are of supernatural origin. So, from that perspective, what does it actually mean that something happens naturally? Would it not by definition be the result of supernatural intervention?
When something happens naturally, its not attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding - its not supernatural by definition. If something can be explained by natural causes, then we call it natural, if it can't be explained by natural causes, then we call it supernatural. Miracles like the resurrection can't be explained naturally and so we require a supernatural explanation. If/when it is explained naturally, the supernatural claim has been falsified. The origin of life is squarely within this category, we can't explain it and so we require a supernatural explanation until a natural explanation is offered. The possibility of a natural explanation means that falsifiability has not gone out the window.
ReplyDeleteIf the possibility of a natural explanation is realized, it would establish that there's no compelling reason to believe that the origin of life requires supernatural intervention - but that's the best it can do. As you've agreed, we can never prove that supernatural intervention hasn't taken place, so there's just no way to falsify your original statement.
ReplyDeleteIf the object of abiogenesis research was to scientifically determine that supernatural intervention is not a factor in the process, it would require the design of an experiment that excluded the possibility of supernatural intervention and then comparing it to the results from the same experiment with supernatural intervention. I think we both agree that no such experiments are possible.
Of course, this is not the aim of abiogenesis research. I'm sure the scientists involved would be quite happy just to demonstrate a plausible pathway from non-life to life that's consistent with the laws of nature and with what we know of pre-biotic Earth.
Exactly. I'm simply trying to point out that science's failure to demonstrate a plausible pathway from non-life to life that's consistent with the laws of nature, provides a compelling reason to believe that the origin of life requires supernatural intervention.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The only way it could be compelling is if we could make a reasonable estimate of how long it should take to solve the problem. We can estimate how long it will take to build a house or even to complete a fairly complicated engineering project but something that requires completely new science is a different matter entirely.
ReplyDeleteDo other miracles need to submit a reasonable estimate of how long it should take for science to explain them before they become compelling? What about the miracles that Jesus did (John 10:38)? What about the resurrection (Acts 17:31)? Are they also only compelling if we can make a reasonable estimate of how long it should take to solve the problem? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteYou haven't established that abiogenesis requires a miracle, that's the point. I just don't find the fact that something hasn't happened yet a very compelling reason to believe it will never happen, unless we can make a reasonable estimate of how long it's supposed to take. Can you give me a particular reason to think the problem of natural abiogenesis should have been solved by now?
ReplyDeleteAbiogenesis is an assumption that it wasn't a miracle, nothing more. The last paragraph of my blog gives the reason why it should have been solved by now: science has been advancing on every single front, and this is something that scientists have been working on since the beginning of biology without getting anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAfter dismissing my argument as one that isn't falsifiable, are you now trying to dismiss it because it is falsifiable? If you don't have to wait for science to solve life out of a lifeless tomb before its compelling, why do you have to wait for science to solve life out of a lifeless universe?
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not an assumption. Hypotheses are all anybody has at this point. The failed attempts by science will never be evidence for a supernatural explanation - it will simply be evidence that we have no scientific explanation. To prove the validity of your position by pointing to failed attempts at a natural explanation, you would have to demonstrate that all natural explanations have been tested. This obviously can't be done.
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like there's been some huge effort from the scientific community to solve this problem - nothing could be further from the truth. Abiogenesis is a fledgling science with very few people involved. It's considered a difficult problem with very little reward in the form of grant money or commercial potential attached to it. In fact, one of the best known abiogenesis researchers, Nobel laureate Jack Szostak, has admitted that one of the things that attracted him to the field was that so few people were working in it - it was virgin territory.
As a comparison, vastly more time and effort has been spent on building a working fusion reactor but this has not yet been accomplished. Would you consider this evidence that a miracle is required? Or how about the fact that we still aren't able to reliably predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - does this mean it can only be achieved by a miracle?
For a hypothesis to be more than a supposition it needs to be made on the basis of evidence. Apart from the fact that life had a beginning, is there any evidence for abiogenesis beyond the assumption of philosophical naturalism? For it to be a scientific hypothesis the scientific method requires that one can test it. Can it be tested or falsified? I'm not trying to have a go at you, these are genuine questions.
ReplyDeleteI do apologise if I misconstrued its history. I don't remember saying that there's been a huge effort from the scientific community to solve it. Though my understanding is that the idea of spontaneous generation had support in Western scholarship until the 19th century, and that scientists have been doing experiments to try and confirm abiogenesis for the past 30 years without success. I don't think that fusion or the causes of earthquakes and volcano's are fair comparisons, abiogenesis is proposed to have happened on the earth's surface and so we can easily conduct experiments with the same conditions as what's being investigated.
However your position raises a bigger concern for me. When you say "The failed attempts by science will never be evidence for a supernatural explanation - it will simply be evidence that we have no scientific explanation", does that mean that miracles can never be evidence for anything except ignorance? If God existed, is there anything that he could do to convince you that he existed, or is your naturalism unfalsifiable?
Apologies in advance for the long post.
ReplyDelete"For a hypothesis to be more than a supposition it needs to be made on the basis of evidence"
Agreed.
"Apart from the fact that life had a beginning, is there any evidence for abiogenesis beyond the assumption of philosophical naturalism?"
The way I understand the term, philosophical naturalism means the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world. I think it's more correct to say that science adopts methodological naturalism, which means that the supernatural is beyond what can be studied by science.
"For it to be a scientific hypothesis the scientific method requires that one can test it. Can it be tested or falsified? I'm not trying to have a go at you, these are genuine questions."
I don't think you're having a go at me and they're fair questions. It can definitely be tested - remember that the goal is not to demonstrate how life came from non-life. This would require a time machine that could take us back to the actual event and allow us to study it in real-time. Rather, the goal is to find a plausible pathway that is consistent with what we know and that can be experimentally verified. Falsification is trickier at this point. It would basically require a demonstration that an absolutely essential step in the proposed pathway violates the laws of physics and chemistry or requires materials or environmental conditions that could not have been present at the time. I don't think the various hypotheses have solidified enough to identify those essential steps.
As for evidence for abiogenesis, I'd like to focus on the "RNA world" hypothesis, since it's the one I'm most familiar with. It suggests that before our present DNA/RNA/protein world, early life (or "proto life") relied on RNA to fill the roles of both DNA and protein enzymes. This is supported by the discovery of ribozymes (enzymatically active RNA molecules) in the 80's which offers a solution to the chicken/egg conundrum of what came first, DNA or proteins.
The hypothesis is that life started as a "protocell" which consisted only of a replicator (RNA or a chemical equivalent) encapsulated in a lipid vesicle. Such a protocell would not be considered alive by any commonly used standard but it would have the capability to evolve and so could be the start of a process that leads to life.
There is some supporting evidence for this scenario. The building blocks needed, activated nucleotides and lipids, have been shown to form spontaneously in plausible pre-biotic conditions. The activated nucleotides can form strands of RNA that can serve as a template for replication (the actual self-replication hasn't been demonstrated, though). Lipids in water will spontaneously form bilayer vesicles, which is basically what a cell membrane is. These vesicles can grow and divide by mechanical means.
"I don't remember saying that there's been a huge effort from the scientific community to solve it. Though my understanding is that the idea of spontaneous generation had support in Western scholarship until the 19th century, and that scientists have been doing experiments to try and confirm abiogenesis for the past 30 years without success."
ReplyDeleteSpontaneous generation is a medieval superstition which holds that fully-formed maggots, flies and even mice can simply appear out of nowhere in rotting food. This clearly has nothing to do with the hyothesis I just outlined. Over the last 30 years a lot of progress has been made. To say the work has been without success would be equivalent to saying cancer research has been without success as it hasn't solved the problem of cancer.
"I don't think that fusion or the causes of earthquakes and volcano's are fair comparisons, abiogenesis is proposed to have happened on the earth's surface and so we can easily conduct experiments with the same conditions as what's being investigated."
I'm not sure how the location is relevant. My argument is that unsolved does not equal unsolvable. If it did, it would by definition make all ongoing research projects hopeless.
"When you say "The failed attempts by science will never be evidence for a supernatural explanation - it will simply be evidence that we have no scientific explanation", does that mean that miracles can never be evidence for anything except ignorance? If God existed, is there anything that he could do to convince you that he existed, or is your naturalism unfalsifiable?"
Good questions. I think this goes to the heart of what science is about. If we witness something we can't explain, the scientific response is not "this is a miracle" but "I don't know what this is, let's try and find out". It's not an assumption that there's nothing beyond the physical world, just a willingness to find out if there's a natural explanation - because that's all we can test for. It's also an approach that has served us well for centuries.
As for what would convince me of God's existence, it would have to be something that completely convinced me that there could be no natural explanation, that it was something completely beyond human capability and that also excluded some unknown alien technology. I think that last part is the hardest - I'm reminded of that famous Arthur C Clarke quote: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." What would have the best chance of doing the job is probably a personal experience, something that spoke directly to me as an individual in a way I wouldn't expect from an alien. What exactly that would be, I couldn't really say.
Again, sorry for the long post, I just thought these were interesting questions.
Don't apologise for a long post, I'm glad you have the opportunity to voice your position. Thanks for distinguishing between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. I agree, science adopts methodological naturalism, but its failure to verify a natural pathway from non-life to life is precisely what gives weight to an argument for a supernatural cause of the origin of life. On the other hand, philosophical naturalism is an assumption beyond the framework for science which necessitates the assumption that life could not have had a supernatural cause, hence the presumption that life began naturally: abiogenesis.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a big difference between a hypothesis that can be tested, and a hypothesis that "can be experimentally verified". The fact that it could be proved true someday in the future does not mean that it can be tested in the present. If it can't be scientifically tested to determine whether it's true or false, then it's not a scientific hypothesis by definition. Another hypothesis (like the RNA world hypothesis) is not scientific evidence. There are way too many assumptions to suggest that abiogenesis is made on the basis of evidence. I'm unconvinced that it's anything more than an assumption required by philosophical naturalism.
In the second paragraph of my blog, I suggest that the absolutely essential step in the proposed pathway that violates the laws of nature is the step from something that doesn't grow or reproduce (non-life), to something that does (life). I agree that the necessary building blocks for life have come about naturally, but as you point out "the actual self-replication hasn't been demonstrated". This is the step that abiogenesis has been trying to demonstrate naturally "without success". If this step could be overcome you could literally create life in a test tube from non-living materials, since this step has not been overcome, I believe my argument stands.
I agree that unsolved doesn't equal unsolvable (it's what makes my argument falsifiable). I'm arguing that fusion and the causes of earthquakes and volcanoes are much harder to investigate scientifically because they occur at extreme temperatures and pressures in which we can't easily conduct scientific experiments. On the other hand, abiogenesis is proposed to have happened on the earth's surface and so we can easily conduct experiments with the same temperature and pressure as what we're trying to investigate. This is why I don’t think it's fair to compare the lack of success in abiogenesis with the lack of success in investigating fusion or the causes of earthquakes and volcanoes, we should expect fusion and the causes of earthquakes and volcanoes to be incredibly difficult to scientifically investigate on the earth's surface because of the differences in temperature and pressure, but not abiogenesis.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your scepticism of miracles, and I share your willingness to find out if there's a natural explanation, but I think that's quite different from desperately clinging to the assumption that it couldn't be a miracle. Herein lies the difference between the methodological naturalism of a sceptical agnostic (which I would like to encourage), and the unfalsifiable philosophical naturalism of an atheist bigot (which I would like to discourage). I think that the presence of life in what we would expect to be a lifeless universe should at least keep our eyes open to the possibility that God exists. As John Dickson says: "Why a lot of people think the God thing's got a lot going for it, is that the universe looks rational and set up to be known. And so you've got to ask yourself the question, is there any evidence on the world stage that this God, who we think is maybe just a mind, has touched the earth in a tangible way? Is there any tangible thing in the history of the world that looks like contact from the God we suspect might be there? The overwhelming evidence points in the direction of Jesus, his life, teaching, healings, death and resurrection, and when I come to believe that, this opens up the world to me, it's like C.S. Lewis saying 'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else'."
"I agree, science adopts methodological naturalism, but its failure to verify a natural pathway from non-life to life is precisely what gives weight to an argument for a supernatural cause of the origin of life."
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that would give weight to an argument for a supernatural cause of the origin of life would be some positive evidence in its favour. Evidence against a particular natural explanation would only be evidence for a supernatural explanation if there are no other alternatives, which you would have a difficult time demonstrating. There could be any number of other natural explanations that we're not aware of.
"I think there's a big difference between a hypothesis that can be tested, and a hypothesis that "can be experimentally verified."
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it be tested if not by experimentation?
"The fact that it could be proved true someday in the future does not mean that it can be tested in the present. If it can't be scientifically tested to determine whether it's true or false, then it's not a scientific hypothesis by definition."
I'm still not sure what you mean. It's being tested - basically through a trial-and-error process - to determine which chemistry works and which doesn't. What other way would you suggest?
"Another hypothesis (like the RNA world hypothesis) is not scientific evidence. There are way too many assumptions to suggest that abiogenesis is made on the basis of evidence. I'm unconvinced that it's anything more than an assumption required by philosophical naturalism."
Of course a hypothesis is not evidence but as I explained, the hypothesis has some evidence in its support so it's obviously not based on assumptions.
"In the second paragraph of my blog, I suggest that the absolutely essential step in the proposed pathway that violates the laws of nature is the step from something that doesn't grow or reproduce (non-life), to something that does (life)."
Then that's a claim you need to justify. What law of nature is violated and how?
"If this step could be overcome you could literally create life in a test tube from non-living materials, since this step has not been overcome, I believe my argument stands."
Your argument still seems to be that it can't happen because it hasn't happened yet, which simply doesn't make any sense.
"I'm arguing that fusion and the causes of earthquakes and volcanoes are much harder to investigate scientifically because they occur at extreme temperatures and pressures in which we can't easily conduct scientific experiments."
So you're still making the argument that natural abiogenesis should have been solved by now? Based on what? How exactly do you calculate how long it should take?
"I appreciate your scepticism of miracles, and I share your willingness to find out if there's a natural explanation, but I think that's quite different from desperately clinging to the assumption that it couldn't be a miracle."
No-one is making any assuptions. A hypothesis has been put forward and it's being tested.
"Why a lot of people think the God thing's got a lot going for it, is that the universe looks rational and set up to be known."
To my mind, this is precisely what we'd expect to see in a universe without supernatural intervention. A universe subject to the will of a supernatural deity should show at least some deviation from the rational and knowable and yet we don't see that. This would indicate that if there is a supernatural deity, it's bound by the same natural laws as the rest of us which would make it, from a scientific point of view, indistinguishable from a nonexistent deity.
I think we're arguing in circles, I feel like I've rebutted all of these comments before. I'm arguing that the failure to present a natural alternative is positive evidence of the supernatural. Life from a lifeless universe is a miracle in the same way that life from a lifeless tomb is a miracle, naturalists are just stalling for time to explain the origin of life because it's harder to deny than the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteFor abiogenesis to be a scientific hypothesis, there needs to be a scientific test that can be done (here and now) that can demonstrate its truth or falsehood. That it might be verified in the future doesn't count, it has to be able to be tested now.
My claim is self evident, the scientific definition of life is something that grows and reproduces. The origin of life violates this in that something that doesn't reproduce (non-life) has to "produce" something that does reproduce (life). How can non-life give birth to life when only life can give birth?
Based on the rapid advancements of biology, I think the past 30 years has been ample time to investigate the origin of life. Again, having dismissed my argument as one that isn't falsifiable, you're now trying to dismiss it because it is falsifiable. You can't have it both ways.
Your failure to produce any evidence further convinces me that abiogenesis is nothing more than an assumption. I think it is "obviously based on assumptions". It's not "being tested", people have been trying to verify it for 30 years without success.
If God is the God of order (Genesis 1; 1 Corinthains 14:33) then we would expect an orderly universe. However, atheist thinkers like Hume and Russell have pointed out that the regularity of nature is an assumption that naturalism has no basis for. To assume that it will happen in the future because its happened that way in the past is to assume the very thing you're trying to prove. Plantinga pushes this argument to demonstrate that the real conflict isn't between the foundations of science and theism, but between the foundations science and atheism.
Your rebuttals seem to be minor variations on the same theme: prove natural abiogenesis right now or I win by default. You're basically asking me to accept that life can only come from non-life by a supernatural intervention unless I can prove otherwise. This is the very definition of the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance".
ReplyDeleteFaulty logic will not give you a free pass from the burden of proof. If I have to demonstrate life coming from non-life by natural forces, then obviously you have to demonstrate life coming from non-life by a supernatural intervention. Until you're ready to hold up your own proposition to the same evidentiary standards you're demanding from me, we will indeed be arguing in circles.
We seem to have reached an impasse. I am sorry that you've perceived my argument that way, I'm not claiming to win by default. The limited strength of my case against abiogenesis is stated in the final sentence of my blog: "As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer."
ReplyDeleteCalling my argument "an argument from ignorance" is assuming the very thing that you're trying to establish: philosophical naturalism. You're essentially saying that because science doesn't know, there's no way anybody can know. Epistemologically, you're excluding the possibility of revelation before it can be considered as a possibility. This is the definition of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" or a "circular argument".
I'm not trying to get a free pass from the burden of proof, my blog on the origin of life is one argument out of five that attempts to meet it (of course I can't prove that God exists, I'm just trying to establish the plausibility of theism). Pretending that atheism escapes the burden of proof is the height of faulty logic trying to get a free pass from the burden of proof.
Thanks for a good discussion, I appreciate the time and effort that you've put into this, and for sharpening my thinking on this issue.
"Calling my argument "an argument from ignorance" is assuming the very thing that you're trying to establish: philosophical naturalism."
ReplyDeleteI'm neither assuming nor trying to establish any such thing. I'm mystified as to why you would think I am, as I've gone to great lengths to make the point that we can't know that there's been no supernatural intervention.
"You're essentially saying that because science doesn't know, there's no way anybody can know."
Now you seem to draw a line between your position and science. I thought your whole point was that it is part of science?
"Epistemologically, you're excluding the possibility of revelation before it can be considered as a possibility. This is the definition of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" or a "circular argument"."
I can't see that I'm excluding anything. A hypothesis has been proposed and it's being investigated. What exactly has been excluded?
"Pretending that atheism escapes the burden of proof is the height of faulty logic trying to get a free pass from the burden of proof."
I've read your blog post and I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that I disagree with your conclusions. ;)
I haven't read The God Delusion but if Dawkins claims that theism, atheism and agnosticism exist on the same scale with agnosticism in the middle, I definitely disagree with him, too. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism, as it doesn't exist on the same scale. Agnosticism goes to what can be known, whereas theism and atheism go to what is believed.
I cannot know whether or not any deity or deities exist, therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't, however, hold any belief in any deity or deities, therefore I'm an atheist. Similarly, I'm sure there are agnostic theists that believe there's a god but don't claim to know this god exists. Since I, as an agnostic atheist, don't make any claims concerning the existence or nonexistence of deities, I don't have any burden of proof. This burden belongs to the gnostics, be they theist or atheist. In my experience, gnostic atheists are very rare. Actually, I can't remember ever having met one.
By calling it "an argument from ignorance" you're excluding the possibility that God has revealed himself as the creator of life. You're saying that the only way you can know is through science, whereas I'm saying that we need to go beyond science for an explanation of the origin of life. You could very easily prove your point if you could explain how even though life from a lifeless tomb is considered a miracle, life from a lifeless universe shouldn't be.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone's saying that agnosticism is mutually exclusive with theism or atheism, they're intricately related because of the relationship between what you know and what you believe, that is, what you know is a subset of what you believe. All theists believe without claiming to know that God exists, if they knew they wouldn't have faith. Hitchens at least claimed to know when he said that if he saw a miracle he would know that it wasn't real, and Dawkins has said that he oscillates between a 6 (God is very improbable) and a 7 (I know God doesn't exist). I think we're in agreement that anyone making a claim is subject to the burden of proof, while those not making any claims (agnostics) don't have any burden of proof. (What are you supposed to prove if you're not making a claim?)
I called it an argument from ignorance as you seemed to claim that if natural abiogenesis can't be demonstrated, this proves that life had to come from non-life by supernatural intervention. If you're not making this claim, then this fallacy obviously doesn't apply.
ReplyDelete"You're saying that the only way you can know is through science, whereas I'm saying that we need to go beyond science for an explanation of the origin of life."
I don't think there's any one agreed upon definition of knowledge. For me, it's based on what can be empirically verified. If life from non-life by supernatural intervention could be verified, it wouldn't be beyond science - it would be part of science.
"You could very easily demonstrate your point if you could explain how life from a lifeless tomb would be considered a miracle but life from a lifeless universe shouldn't be."
I don't know about miracle but to my mind it would definitely be much more difficult to scientifically explain how a confirmed clinically dead person could rise from the grave than natural abiogenesis. The former would require us to completely rethink what we thought we knew about human biology - I don't even know what kind of mechanism could be hypothesized. For the latter, we have a suggested general mechanism which would be entirely consistent with organic chemistry and biophysics.
"All theists believe without claiming to know that God exists, if they knew they wouldn't have faith."
This is not my experience - just google "I know God exists" and you'll find plenty of people who claim to know. If you looked, I think you'd find people in all 4 categories: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist.
"Hitchens at least claimed to know when he said that if he saw a miracle he would know that it wasn't real, and Dawkins has said that he oscillates between a 6 (God is very improbable) and a 7 (I know God doesn't exist)."
Then this would be an instance where I disagree with Hitchens and Dawkins.
I don't remember claiming that a failure to demonstrate abiogenesis "proves" that life came from non-life by supernatural intervention, I'm saying that it gives weight to an argument for supernatural intervention. To quote my blog: "This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so."
ReplyDeleteIf knowledge has to be able to be empirically verified, does that mean that you can't know anything subjectively (i.e. you don't know what you were thinking when you read my blog, you can never know whether someone loves you, you can't even get to know someone beyond obtaining their empirical measurements)? Out of curiosity, how could the supernatural ever be verified by a science that employs methodological naturalism? Isn't the supernatural beyond scientific verification by definition?
If someone suggested a natural mechanism for the resurrection of Jesus without any evidence or scientific verification, would a dead person coming back to life no longer be a miracle? Should all Christians give up their faith if/when someone suggests a natural explanation without any evidence or scientific verification? What if scientists spent 30 years trying to verify their theory without being able to do so, and kept telling people that it's not a miracle, they just need more time to verify their theory?
When believers say "I know God exists", I think they usually mean "I'm convinced" rather than "I know for a fact". But I take you're point and I think you're right, both sides claim certainty when they shouldn't. Dawkins' spectrum strings out the 4 categories, adding a level of confidence between knowing and believing, and a neutral position sitting on the fence: gnostic theist (1), confident theist (2), agnostic theist (3), completely agnostic (4), agnostic atheist (5), confident atheist (6), gnostic atheist (7). I think we agree that (1) and (7) aren't really valid positions.
"I don't remember claiming that a failure to demonstrate abiogenesis "proves" that life came from non-life by supernatural intervention, I'm saying that it gives weight to an argument for supernatural intervention."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it gives any kind of weight to the supernatural explanation but we've been over that.
"This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so."
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities - that's it. It's not attempting to explain anything.
"If knowledge has to be able to be empirically verified, does that mean that you can't know anything subjectively (i.e. you don't know what you were thinking when you read my blog, you can never know whether someone loves you, you can't even get to know someone beyond obtaining their empirical measurements)?"
My knowledge of what I was thinking would rely on my memory (which certainly isn't always reliable) and could only be verified if I kept some record of my thoughts (like my post reacting to your post). Getting to know a person is about studying behaviour patterns. If you see a certain pattern repeated, then that's a verification of your earlier observations. People who you've been close to for a long time will still be able to surprise you, so can you ever really claim that you know them?
The same with love. If someone is consistently behaving in a loving way towards you, this will be a verification of your earlier observations and may give you a reasonably high level of confidence that they do love you but can you ever really claim to know?
"Out of curiosity, how could the supernatural ever be verified by a science that employs methodological naturalism? Isn't the supernatural beyond scientific verification by definition?"
Science can only study the natural world but if the supernatural can affect the natural, then this effect should be detectable. If the supernatural cannot affect the natural, then not only is the supernatural beyond what science can study but also irrelevant to natural beings like ourselves.
"If someone suggested a natural mechanism for the resurrection of Jesus without any evidence or scientific verification, would a dead person coming back to life no longer be a miracle? "
Suggesting a mechanism is not an explanation in itself, it's just the first step. When you have a suggested mechanism, you have something which can be tested. If the tests support the hypothesized mechanism, then you're on the way to understanding the process.
"Should all Christians give up their faith if/when someone suggests a natural explanation without any evidence or scientific verification? "
I would never presume to tell anyone what to believe, that would obviously be up to the individual.
"What if scientists spent 30 years trying to verify their theory without being able to do so, and kept telling people that it's not a miracle, they just need more time to verify their theory?"
Your question seems to assume that the motivation for abiogenesis research is to prove that it's not a miracle. I think it's simply about curiosity. How life came about is one of the big mysteries and science provides a means to find out. As long as abiogenesis research expands our knowledge (as it certainly has, especially the last decade) it would seem like a worthwhile effort. If it can ultimately provide a plausible explanation for how life started, even better.
"Dawkins' spectrum strings out the 4 categories, adding a level of confidence between knowing and believing, and a neutral position sitting on the fence: gnostic theist (1), confident theist (2), agnostic theist (3), completely agnostic (4), agnostic atheist (5), confident atheist (6), gnostic atheist (7). I think we agree that (1) and (7) aren't really valid positions."
Indeed.
I assume your answer to the existence of subjective knowledge is no, there's no way you can ever know someone, you can only ever know about them. I would have thought that you can claim to know people (to varying degrees), rather than only knowing about them. I think our use of the word "know" reflects this kind of relational knowledge (e.g. "I don't know him very well" the object of knowledge here is a person, not their behaviour).
ReplyDeleteOf course the supernatural effects the world (otherwise it would be beyond detection), but isn't it beyond science in that science limits itself to the repeatable? I would have thought the fact that science has never been able to repeat life coming from non-life makes a supernatural explanation more plausible, but as you say, we've been over that.
I think abiogenesis assumes that the origin of life couldn't be a miracle, it's certainly trying to demonstrate that it wasn't, but its failing dismally. After 30 years of tests there isn't any evidence to support the hypothesised mechanism. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain our observations and rejected when they can't. Atheism isn't attempting to explain anything, but within an atheistic worldview, there is simply no explanation for the origin of life. For me, Christian theism explains everything and explains away nothing (or as C.S. Lewis put it "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else"). Worldviews are measured by their explanatory power, but I think that the origin of life is one of five things that an atheistic worldview has to explain away.
"I assume your answer to the existence of subjective knowledge is no, there's no way you can ever know someone, you can only ever know about them. I would have thought that you can claim to know people (to varying degrees), rather than only knowing about them. I think our use of the word "know" reflects this kind of relational knowledge (e.g. "I don't know him very well" the object of knowledge here is a person, not their behaviour)."
ReplyDeleteI see this discussion quickly descending into semantics until we can agree on definitions of objective and subjective knowledge and how that relates to a person (and, indeed, what we include in the concept of person).
"Of course the supernatural effects the world (otherwise it would be beyond detection), but isn't it beyond science in that science limits itself to the repeatable? "
Are you saying that supernatural effects by definition can only happen once?
"I think abiogenesis assumes that the origin of life couldn't be a miracle, it's certainly trying to demonstrate that it wasn't, but its failing dismally. After 30 years of tests there isn't any evidence to support the hypothesised mechanism."
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not an assumption - do I really need to repeat this? I've already mentioned some of the supporting evidence for the hypothesis and new discoveries are being made, e.g. that regiospecificity (heterogeneity in the handedness of the nucleotide backbone), which was considered a big problem, actually offers a solution to other problems like high melting point of RNA duplexes. A hypothesis has failed dismally when it's been proven to be wrong, which the RNA world hypothesis clearly hasn't.
By your logic, cancer research is failing dismally as people still get cancer (and it's certainly been going on for more than 30 years).
"Atheism isn't attempting to explain anything, but within an atheistic worldview, there is simply no explanation for the origin of life."
There is no "atheistic worldview" - atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, nothing more. Atheists most definitely don't share a common view of the world. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?
"Worldviews are measured by their explanatory power, but I think that the origin of life is one of five things that an atheistic worldview has to explain away."
I'm mystified by this insistence that there's an "atheistic worldview". For explanations of the origin of life I would look to science, which is neutral towards all god claims. Science has consistently proved to be our most reliable method of explaining what was previously unexplained.
When the verb "to know" takes an object (rather than a clause) it means "to have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with". Can this type of knowledge be empirically verified or not?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying supernatural events can only happen once, I'm saying they can't always be repeated in experiments under the same conditions. Isn't this what science limits itself to?
I disagree, abiogenesis is an assumption. It can't be tested (a possible future verification does not constitute a scientific test) and its not made on the basis of evidence (another hypothesis does not constitute scientific evidence). Abiogenesis has failed dismally to explain how life originated from non-life (as its name declares: a-bio-genesis). Cancer research has successfully developed treatments for various types of cancer.
Atheists have worldviews, these worldviews are atheistic. I don't remember saying that there was only one, there's a few (e.g. naturalism, nihilism, atheistic existentialism), but they all have to explain away the origin of life (with things like abiogenesis). Science has proved to be a reliable way of obtaining knowledge, but to say its the only way to obtain knowledge is to assume a philosophical naturalism that can't be proved. Likewise, theistic worldviews can't be proved, but I think they explain a lot more than atheistic worldviews do.
"When the verb "to know" takes an object (rather than a clause) it means "to have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with". Can this type of knowledge be empirically verified or not?"
ReplyDeleteYou can certainly have a relationship and even be friendly with someone without knowing them so I'm not sure how this definition is useful. Familiarity is something which comes with recognition of repeating patterns which would serve as verification.
"I'm not saying supernatural events can only happen once, I'm saying they can't always be repeated in experiments under the same conditions. Isn't this what science limits itself to?"
I notice you're not claiming they can never be repeated under the same conditions. The definition is of course crucial. If we define a supernatural event such that it's beyond science, then obviously it is.
"I disagree, abiogenesis is an assumption. It can't be tested (a possible future verification does not constitute a scientific test) and its not made on the basis of evidence (another hypothesis does not constitute scientific evidence). Abiogenesis has failed dismally to explain how life originated from non-life (as its name declares: a-bio-genesis)."
I think this discussion has run its course. When a hypothesis is being called an assumption and is claimed not to be testable when it's obviously being tested and when it's claimed that it's not based on evidence after I've presented just such evidence, there seems little point in continuing. The assertion that a research project is a dismal failure because the hypothesis hasn't been confirmed is still as silly as saying "it can't happen because it hasn't happened yet". It would make all ongoing research projects dismal failures (including cancer research, which clearly hasn't reached its objective), which is obviously nonsense.
"Atheists have worldviews, these worldviews are atheistic."
Redheads have worldviews but I don't think "redheadistic" is a very useful term for them.
"I don't remember saying that there was only one, there's a few (e.g. naturalism, nihilism, atheistic existentialism), but they all have to explain away the origin of life (with things like abiogenesis)."
Atheism still only means the lack of belief in a deity or deities and it's still not trying to explain anything. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis within science, which is neutral to god claims. The fact that you would define a scientific explanation as "explaining away" the origin of life speaks volumes as to who is really making assumptions.
"Likewise, theistic worldviews can't be proved, but I think they explain a lot more than atheistic worldviews do."
A theistic explanation for the origin of life is a complete non-explanation until it can provide a mechanism. As it is, it's just another way of saying "we don't know". It offers us no more understanding of the process than saying it was done by magic.
According to the Oxford dictionary, empirically verified knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge. If you want to refer to "empirically verified knowledge", then calling it "knowledge" only creates confusion with those who use the English definition of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteScientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. Isn't the supernatural beyond what can be reproduced by others?
Scientific testing is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Can you name an observation that agrees with the predictions derived by abiogenesis (not the RNA world hypothesis, abiogenesis)? If not then according to the scientific method, confidence in abiogenesis should decrease over time (say, over 30 years).
What evidence have you presented for abiogenesis? Are you saying that evidence for the RNA world hypothesis has to support abiognesis (i.e. there's no other alternative)? In 30 years it's failed to verify the one thing that it set out to verify: a-bio-genesis. Cancer research set out to treat cancer (which its doing), its not a hypothesis to be tested. When did I say that the verification of abiogenesis can't happen? I've been saying that the fact that it can happen makes my argument falsifiable.
A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. If you're philosophy of life or conception of the world includes God its theistic, if it excludes God its atheisitic. Worldviews have nothing to do with hair colour. The atheistic worldview known as naturalism has to cling to abiogenesis because its committed to the assumption that there is no supernatural. Its not a "scientific explanation" that has to explain away the origin of life, its the worldview of naturalism that has to explain away the origin of life with an unfalsifiable assumption because its closed its eyes to the possibility of a supernatural explanation. The fact that you would twist my words to defining "a scientific explanation as explaining away" speaks volumes as to who is engaging with the arguments that are being presented.
Demanding that an explanation be one of mechanism rather than agency, is like dismissing the explanation that Henry Ford made the Ford Galaxy because it doesn't explain the mechanism of the Ford production line. It reminds me of the parallel between naturalists who say "what made the universe, God or the big bang? CHOOSE!" with the person who says "what made the Ford Galaxy, Henry Ford or the Ford production line? CHOOSE!" Just because an explanation for somethings agency isn't an explanation for its mechanism, doesn't mean that it isn't an explanation.
I'm tending to agree with you that our discussion has run its course. Thanks again for an interesting discussion.
"Isn't the supernatural beyond what can be reproduced by others?"
ReplyDeleteLike I said, if we define the supernatural such that it can't be studied by science, then obviously it can't.
"Can you name an observation that agrees with the predictions derived by abiogenesis (not the RNA world hypothesis, abiogenesis)?"
Abiogenesis means life from non-life by natural means. All evidence that supports the RNA world hypothesis by definition support abiogenesis.
"If not then according to the scientific method, confidence in abiogenesis should decrease over time (say, over 30 years)."
Nonsense. If anything, recent advances by e.g. the Sutherland and Szostak groups have increased confidence that a plausible pathway can be found.
"Are you saying that evidence for the RNA world hypothesis has to support abiognesis (i.e. there's no other alternative)?"
See above. Evidence supporting the RNA world hypothesis by definition supports abiogenesis.
"When did I say that the verification of abiogenesis can't happen?"
You've repeatedly stated that abiogenesis has failed. The only way a hypothesis can fail is if it's proved to be wrong.
"I've been saying that the fact that it can happen makes my argument falsifiable."
Only it isn't. As I've demonstrated, any proposition that includes an omnipotent deity is by definition unfalsifiable as such a deity can produce any evidence.
"If you're philosophy of life or conception of the world includes God its theistic, if it excludes God its atheisitic."
Since the vast majority of atheists are agnostic on the question of the existence of deities, your definition is clearly incorrect.
"Worldviews have nothing to do with hair colour."
This was exactly my rather unsubtle point, which you apparently missed.
"The atheistic worldview known as naturalism has to cling to abiogenesis because its committed to the assumption that there is no supernatural. Its not a "scientific explanation" that has to explain away the origin of life, its the worldview of naturalism that has to explain away the origin of life with an unfalsifiable assumption because its closed its eyes to the possibility of a supernatural explanation."
You're still conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Science is clearly not committed to any such assumption. Until you present someone involved with abiogenesis research that's committed to philosophical naturalism, your argument is a blatant straw man.
"The fact that you would twist my words to defining "a scientific explanation as explaining away" speaks volumes as to who is engaging with the arguments that are being presented."
Excuse me? I've engaged in every argument you've presented. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis so how exactly did I twist your words?
"Demanding that an explanation be one of mechanism rather than agency, is like dismissing the explanation that Henry Ford made the Ford Galaxy because it doesn't explain the mechanism of the Ford production line."
If you propose a theistic explanation for the origin of life as your religious belief then that's fine. If, however, you propose it as a scientific alternative to abiogenesis, you need to provide a mechanism. Simple as that.
The evidence that you've presented is "the discovery of ribozymes", and that "the building blocks needed, activated nucleotides and lipids, have been shown to form spontaneously in plausible pre-biotic conditions". Do you really think that this constitutes scientific evidence for abiogenesis?
ReplyDeleteSaying that "abiogenesis has failed dismally to explain how life originated from non-life" doesn't mean it couldn't succeed in the future. It hasn't yet succeeded i.e. so far, its failed.
Christianity hinges on the proposition that God raised Jesus from the dead. If you anyone in history could have produced Jesus' body then they would have completely falsified this "proposition that includes an omnipotent deity". How have you demonstrated that "any proposition that includes an omnipotent deity is by definition unfalsifiable"?
If you look at my categorisation of worldviews, a philosophy of life or conception of the world can be agnostic if it neither includes God nor excludes God. How is my categorisation (which is not a definition) of worldviews "clearly incorrect"? Those who write books on worldviews (see Sire, The universe next door) say that the first question a wordlview seeks to answer is the nature of ultimate reality (e.g. spiritual or material). Worldviews have a lot to do with what you believe about God, this was my rather unsubtle point which you apparently missed.
The worldview known as naturalism is philosophical naturalism, science (employing methodological naturalism) is obviously much broader. I'm not confusing the two, I'm making a comment on the former. I've discussed the origin of life with a lot of philosophical naturalists, and they've all pointed me to abiogenesis. What else could a philosophical naturalist conclude other than that life came from non-life by natural means?
I'm sorry if this offends you, but I don't think you have engaged with the arguments that I've presented. You said that I "would define a scientific explanation as "explaining away" the origin of life" in an argument ad hominem. I said no such thing. Explanations are the opposite of explaining away. I said that certain worldviews that can't explain the origin of life "have to explain away the origin of life (with things like abiogenesis)". For abiogenesis to be a scientific explanation, it has to actually explain something. Clearly it hasn't yet explained how life came from non-life, its only assumed that it happened naturally.
I think that the supernatural creation of life is an alternative to life coming from non-life by natural means, but its not a scientific alternative. I would love for science to be able to explain how life came from non-life, but until it can, I am proposing that we need to go beyond science for an explanation.
"I think that the supernatural creation of life is an alternative to life coming from non-life by natural means, but its not a scientific alternative."
ReplyDeleteI think this is the most significant point in this discussion and I'm glad we agree on it. As for the rest, there seems to be no common ground. You think divine agency is falsifiable, that abiogenesis research has failed miserably and that this strengthens the case for the theistic explanation for the origin of life. I disagree on all these points and have given my reasons why. At this point we seem to just keep going in ever diminishing circles and I don't see anything constructive coming out of it so I'm perfectly happy to just agree to disagree. Fair enough?
Fair enough. Thanks again for a good discussion. I apologise for the instances where I failed to hear your arguments. I'll try again to see it from your perspective as I re-read over your comments.
ReplyDelete