More Ruminations on the Origins of Life

I have been reading the last chapter of Richard Dawkins' recent title, The Greatest Show on Earth, on the Edge website. In a section titled 'From So Simple a Beginning', he speculates on the possible origins of life.



I do note that Prof Dawkins seems more or less ready to proceed on the basis that we will never have a plausible theory of the origin of life. Perhaps he believes the details don't really matter, as far as his general understanding of life is concerned.

Now I have a question. Say if one day we worked out how life began - we unravelled 'the mystery of life' and worked out the series of bio-chemical steps which were taken by the intervening life forms.

Wouldn't that be infinitely depressing? I just think the idea that we could perfectly understand the human species by scientific means, would be the most awful nightmare. I think it is similar to the feeling I have about the scientific attitude generally, insofar as this is an attempt to understand, explain or analyse the nature of life itself. It seems to me not only a hopeless task, but a somehow unworthy one. It seems to me that the presence of the unknown is essential in our lives and it would not be psychologically feasible to operate without it.

Imagine a world where 'we had it all worked out'. We knew what had caused our existence, and what all the fundamental physical laws were. We knew that we were a biochemical-physical organism that would live for its standard number of years, and then die, and that eventually also the planet would die, and us with it. We had a complete scientific account of the nature of the cosmos and H Sapiens in it.

I find it a profoundly depressing idea. I can't help but think it would be the end for all of us. Fortunately, however, I am not too worried by it, because I don't think it will ever happen.

I have been reading the last chapter of Richard Dawkins' recent title, The Greatest Show on Earth, on the Edge website. In a section titled 'From So Simple a Beginning', he speculates on the possible origins of life.



I do note that Prof Dawkins seems more or less ready to proceed on the basis that we will never have a plausible theory of the origin of life. Perhaps he believes the details don't really matter, as far as his general understanding of life is concerned.

Now I have a question. Say if one day we worked out how life began - we unravelled 'the mystery of life' and worked out the series of bio-chemical steps which were taken by the intervening life forms.

Wouldn't that be infinitely depressing? I just think the idea that we could perfectly understand the human species by scientific means, would be the most awful nightmare. I think it is similar to the feeling I have about the scientific attitude generally, insofar as this is an attempt to understand, explain or analyse the nature of life itself. It seems to me not only a hopeless task, but a somehow unworthy one. It seems to me that the presence of the unknown is essential in our lives and it would not be psychologically feasible to operate without it.

Imagine a world where 'we had it all worked out'. We knew what had caused our existence, and what all the fundamental physical laws were. We knew that we were a biochemical-physical organism that would live for its standard number of years, and then die, and that eventually also the planet would die, and us with it. We had a complete scientific account of the nature of the cosmos and H Sapiens in it.

I find it a profoundly depressing idea. I can't help but think it would be the end for all of us. Fortunately, however, I am not too worried by it, because I don't think it will ever happen.

I just think the idea that we could perfectly understand the human species by scientific means, would be the most awful nightmare.

Understanding and knowledge overlap but are not entirely the same

I have been reading the last chapter of Richard Dawkins' recent title, The Greatest Show on Earth, on the Edge website. In a section titled 'From So Simple a Beginning', he speculates on the possible origins of life.



I do note that Prof Dawkins seems more or less ready to proceed on the basis that we will never have a plausible theory of the origin of life. Perhaps he believes the details don't really matter, as far as his general understanding of life is concerned.

Now I have a question. Say if one day we worked out how life began - we unravelled 'the mystery of life' and worked out the series of bio-chemical steps which were taken by the intervening life forms.

Wouldn't that be infinitely depressing? I just think the idea that we could perfectly understand the human species by scientific means, would be the most awful nightmare. I think it is similar to the feeling I have about the scientific attitude generally, insofar as this is an attempt to understand, explain or analyse the nature of life itself. It seems to me not only a hopeless task, but a somehow unworthy one. It seems to me that the presence of the unknown is essential in our lives and it would not be psychologically feasible to operate without it.

Imagine a world where 'we had it all worked out'. We knew what had caused our existence, and what all the fundamental physical laws were. We knew that we were a biochemical-physical organism that would live for its standard number of years, and then die, and that eventually also the planet would die, and us with it. We had a complete scientific account of the nature of the cosmos and H Sapiens in it.

I find it a profoundly depressing idea. I can't help but think it would be the end for all of us. Fortunately, however, I am not too worried by it, because I don't think it will ever happen.

..Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature, and, therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve....

We are always being brought face to face with the irrational. Else we couldn't have faith. And if we did not have faith but could solve every puzzle in life by an application of the human reason, what an unbearable burden life would be.

Wouldn't that be infinitely depressing? I just think the idea that we could perfectly understand the human species by scientific means, would be the most awful nightmare. I think it is similar to the feeling I have about the scientific attitude generally, insofar as this is an attempt to understand, explain or analyse the nature of life itself. It seems to me not only a hopeless task, but a somehow unworthy one. It seems to me that the presence of the unknown is essential in our lives and it would not be psychologically feasible to operate without it.

Imagine a world where 'we had it all worked out'. We knew what had caused our existence, and what all the fundamental physical laws were. We knew that we were a biochemical-physical organism that would live for its standard number of years, and then die, and that eventually also the planet would die, and us with it. We had a complete scientific account of the nature of the cosmos and H Sapiens in it.

I find it a profoundly depressing idea. I can't help but think it would be the end for all of us. Fortunately, however, I am not too worried by it, because I don't think it will ever happen.

The thing that bothers me is the idea that if we work out how everything fits together, everything will be OK.

You have to be a human being first, scientist (or whatever) second. There is no formula for being human, religious, scientific or otherwise. The idea that life can be explained or reduced to a formula, whether religious, philosophical or scientific, is the breeding ground of fanaticism.

Dawkins promotes the religion of anti-religion and is verging on the fanatical. He appears sane, lucid and reasonable, but underneath there are great tensions lurking.

Nice to hear from you Jack! Yes Dawkins has been here in Australia, preaching to the choir. I too was very surprised by that admission, that we may not have a 'plausible theory'. I honestly think that he believes it doesn't really matter, because, after all, he does have a plausible assumption. And that should do, anyway. Bound to be smarter than anything those religious types would think up, for sure!

The claim or promise or hope that the mystery of the OoL will be solved or deciphered in the next few decades is quite exciting.

Just contemplate what 'the explanation' would comprise, and the level of explanation that it provides us. Say, by some miracle, we were able to approximate a series of steps which showed proto-living matter appearing spontaneously in a test tube. What does it tell us, really? I think the only reason that it is believed to be significant is because of what it attempting to disprove, namely, the notion of divine creation (whatever that might mean). You are still contemplating a reality wherein dumb matter spontaneously starts to become intelligent. I can just as easily say, this can only happen, because the intelligence is already latent in the Cosmos, and here it is becoming manifest. ('What is latent, becomes patent' is a fundamental principle in Hindu spiritual philosophy.)

Why did it develop in the way that it has? Are Darwin's 'war and strife', the competition for resources, combined with apparently spontaneous mutations, a sufficient explanation? And is this a scientific view, or an historically-conditioned belief system? How could you tell the difference?

I
From a strictly Buddhist perspective, there is no philosophical issue with the theory of evolution by natural selection, unless from it is inferred the idea that the existence of life is purely fortuitous. That is definitely a wrong view. As for Dawkins, he has an axe to grind, and I don't think it is helping his own credibility in the broader community.

I do indeed come at things from a mystical perspective. I think I was born with that outlook, although I have also had to seek it out. As for proof, there is proof aplenty at a certain point in the journey, as the Sufis will no doubt affirm...

I don't wish to disparage Charles Darwin. I think there is no doubt that he was one of the greatest of all scientists, and that his discoveries are substantially correct. But the evolution of life is a far more subtle and complex issue than the nature of matter, or so you would think anyway, and we still haven't got to the bottom of that yet. Meanwhile many people on both sides of the debate have jumped to conclusions that are really not supported by the evidence.

From a strictly Buddhist perspective, there is no philosophical issue with the theory of evolution by natural selection, unless from it is inferred the idea that the existence of life is purely fortuitous. That is definitely a wrong view.