No, Astrobiology Has Not Made the Case for God

[cbayer]

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god

JANUARY 24, 2015

BY LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS


The absence of known life beyond Earth can’t be used as proof of a higher being.
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY NASA/THE LIFE PICTURE COOLECTION/GETTY

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published a piece with the surprising title “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” At least it was surprising to me, because I hadn’t heard the news. The piece argued that new scientific evidence bolsters the claim that the appearance of life in the universe requires a miracle, and it received almost four hundred thousand Facebook shares and likes.

The author of the piece, Eric Metaxas, is not himself a scientist. Rather, he’s a writer and a TV host, and the article was a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to resurrect the notion of intelligent design, which gives religious arguments the veneer of science—this time in a cosmological context. Life exists only on Earth and has not been found elsewhere. Moreover, the conditions that caused life to appear here are miraculous. So doesn’t that mean we must have come from a miracle at the hand of God? “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?” Metaxas writes.

In response, I should begin by noting that the science of “astrobiology”—which, loosely stated, searches for signs of life elsewhere and explores the astrophysical and cosmological conditions that might allow for life to exist in our universe—is still in its infancy. Consensus on many issues has not yet been achieved, and the quality of work in the field varies significantly.

Still, what we have unequivocally learned over the past decade or so is, to paraphrase Hamlet, that there are many more things in Heaven and Earth than were dreamt of in our imagination. The opportunities for the development of life in various systems, and the possible forms of life we know of, have exploded. Metaxas believes that our increased understanding of our evolutionary history implies that the origin of life on Earth is increasingly inexplicable. But the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.

more at link

[bvf]

1. Interesting read.

“Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”

In a word, no.

But Krauss must be a misogynist of some sort. Perhaps a pedophile. Probably eats babies.

[rug]

2. This part is dubious:

Beyond this, two exciting scientific advances in recent decades have identified new ways in which life can evolve, and new locales where it can do so. First, we have discovered a surprisingly diverse group of new solar systems. And we now understand that, even in our solar system, there are a host of possible sites where life might have evolved that were long considered unlikely. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn may have vast oceans of liquid water, underneath ice covers, which are heated by gravitational tidal friction associated with their giant hosts. On Earth, scientists have had to revise old rules about where and how life can survive. The discovery of so-called extremophiles—life forms that can live in extreme acids, or under extreme heat or pressure—has vastly increased the set of conditions under which we can imagine life existing on this planet.

And optimism makes poor science. Not much more significant than simple hope.

My colleagues and I are optimistic that evidence for life, either elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in the universe, may be discovered in the coming decades. Of course, we can’t be certain, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. Whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is even more uncertain, but nothing we have discovered suggests that the possibility of life requires something supernatural.

[cbayer]

3. I think Metaxas's argument, which is basically an argument for

intelligent design is much more faulty and I am glad that Krauss took it apart.

I don't think Krauss tries to make the case for the lack of existence of a god, and I like what he has said here.

Optimism can drive science. Wanted to cure a disease, prepare for a natural disaster, believing that we can meet whatever challenges this earth throws at us are all driven to some degree by optimism.

[longship]

4. Well, Krauss is correct that the new evidence is optimistic about extraterrestrial life.

The extremophiles on Earth have been a bit of a shock to earlier thoughts on where biology can exist. Planetary science has likewise shown that environments for life exist in more places than previously thought. A very few decades ago, nobody would have predicted that a biology friendly environment could exist in the outer solar system, beyond Mars. Now we have at least three possibilities there, Europa, Titan, and Enceladus.

So Krauss is correct in stating his optimism.

Or, as Ian Malcolm aptly states:


IMHO, this one of those topics on which religion does not have much jurisdiction. But it is nevertheless an interesting topic to discuss on a religious basis.

on edit: Metaxas is using a God of the gaps argument, a standard fallacious creationist strategy. One promotes gaps in scientific knowledge as an argument for gods. It is a generally useless strategy, as there will always be gaps in science. It would be a straw man to suggest otherwise (another technique the creationists also seem to like).

[Leontius]

5. "God of the gaps" is a standard atheist tactic used to belittle people of faith

Believers have a faith in God not some invented "God of the gaps".

[edhopper]

6. None of that is true,

and does not state what a "God of the gaps" argument is.

[longship]

7. Well, I certainly have no intent of belittling.

But when one effectively claims that the fact that science does not know some things means science proves gods, like Metaxas does here, is pretty much the definition of a god of the gaps argument.

I have many theist friends, very few of them would ever make such an argument because they are smart enough to know how weak it truly is. And none of them would likely think I was belittling their beliefs by pointing it out when such an argument is invoked, like it is here.

If I were a believer myself I might be tempted to say to those who use such a god of the gaps arguments for god, "Your god is too small." So my pointing out the logical fallacy certainly should be no threat to a believer, unless maybe they were insecure of their beliefs.

My regards.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. I don't get his point, astrobiology may show how mundane life is, to a certain extent...

the opposite of miraculous, it may help solidify evidence that life can arise when the right conditions are met, and that those conditions can vary wildly. Perhaps the only common denominators are an abundance of energy combined with liquid water and a rich source of most of the basic elements. None of these things are rare in the universe.

Best not to get too optimistic, but I think a lot of people can safely speculate that we will find extraterrestrial life, even if its only unicellular. In addition, rather than proving a God exists, that question simply isn't related, nor relevant, God isn't involved in the universe, so isn't relevant to science.