tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post4116415761757390761..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: Discovering God the Way Sherlock Holmes WouldLenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-37171589430352060392015-09-03T15:42:14.072-07:002015-09-03T15:42:14.072-07:00Lenny,
Hey, it's your Twitter correspondent h...Lenny,<br /><br />Hey, it's your Twitter correspondent here. As promised.<br /><br />I should start by admitting that I have not gone back to read how you've dealt with this "old canard" before. If you think I really should, say so and I'll try to find some time in the future to do so. But for now...<br /><br />Some of what you say in this post is reasonable. But, I'll start with this: any abduction, any inference to the best explanation stops right there as a useful tool. It has no other credibility than being an unverified explanation (I would say, and have said, "guess") at what is really going on. Yes, it drives science in a very important way: you now have a hypothesis against which further experiments can be devised to support it or prove it wrong. But until those experiments are devised and performed, the explanation is not very useful.<br /><br />Your example of Thomson and the electron is just such a case. He had enough knowledge and experience that he happened to abduce the right hypothesis which has stood the test of time (so far!). Note that it has NOT lasted because everyone simply agreed that it sounded like the best explanation. It has lasted because it's been empirically tested and confirmed over and over. Obviously, not every hypothesis is so lucky. Many, many wrong hypotheses were the best "inferences" at the time. But further experimentation proved them wrong.<br /><br />In my Twitter conversation with you, I used induction to say two things. First, I used it informally to say that science may yet find an answer to abiogenesis precisely because science has solved so many other problems in the past. Science has worked over and over again to help us understand things and build successful models. There is no guarantee that we will find an answer but it's possible. That's all I claim. In fact, I concede your point regarding the fact that we have never seen life come from non-life, although it feels a little reversed from the normal abductive/inductive inference, making a conclusion based on a negative, rather than a positive, observation.<br /><br />Second, I used it to say that the inference to God as the best explanation for the origin of life is an extremely weak, "god of the gaps" claim. Why? Because at one time, the best explanation for thunder was God's warning to us; for sickness, that it was God's curse on us; for earthquakes, "blessings", death, famine, drought, mental illness, all were some form of God's intention in the natural universe. And every time, we've come up with a better, natural explanation that stands the test. And each time that happens, the inference to God as the best explanation rings a little more hollow. And this whole process, this iterative use of God as the best explanation giving way to a natural explanation, is inductive and textbook "god of the gaps". I see nothing in what you've said to conclude that God as the explanation for the origin of life is any different. Until you can devise experiments that confirm or deny your god as the origin of life, I have absolutely no reason to accept this explanation.<br /><br />Finally, you write "He has rejected any argument that leads to the conclusion that God exists at the outset." No, no, no. I have examined the arguments and come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I am open to hearing, considering and discussing arguments for God but it's been long time since I've heard any new ones.FriendOfKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11931368842906362815noreply@blogger.com