On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 21:03:02 -0500 (EST), Gordon Simons wrote:
BH>..The reason I say the above is naive is that it assumes one can
>change one aspect of a design keeping everything else the same.
This is a curious argument. Surely the point is that in an
undirected universe, there must be many more ways to go wrong and
very few ways to go right?
GS>Steven Clark wrote:
SC>I have heard a similar argument used against the anthropic
>principle. For instance, someone invoking the AP might state
>something like, "If subatomic forces were just a fraction different,
>the universe would consist of nothing but helium atoms." The
>criticism is that if this force were changed, why assume that all
>other constants would remain the same?
[...]
GS>These are valid counterarguments against anyone who is using the
>fine-tuning argument to PROVE intelligent design in the early
>universe. While there might be such folks, I view this as knocking
>down a straw man. Suppose we posit that no argument is going to
>PROVE the existence of God. Then what should a Christian be looking
>for in nature to add apologetic strength to his/her faith? I would
>argue that these fine-tuning arguments actually do an excellent job
>of lending apologetic strength.
Agreed. Some Christian academics seem to think that the least
evidence for Christianity, the better! :-) Lay lesser mortals (like
myself) find the fine-tuning arguments marshalled by Hugh Ross and
others as compelling.
GS>Let me explain:
>
>Yes, it could be that other fine-tuning-combinations of "constants
>of nature" would make life possible. Yes, possible. But,
>presently, we have not a single shred of evidence supporting this
>possibility. Instead, what we do see clearly is that small
>perturbations cause big problems for life. While not a proof (which
>Christians should not really be looking for), this ("fine-tuning")
>does provide a strong apologetic argument for intelligent design at
>our present level of knowledge. What more should we ask for?
Again, agreed. These fine-tuning arguments are some of our best
apologetic arguments in this secular age, and I find theists
down-playing them a bit puzzling. Gingerich says that Hoyle's faith
in atheism was shaken by discovering that carbon is abundant
only because of a peculiar set of nuclear circumstances :
"I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with Willy Fowler found
this remarkable nuclear arrangement, has said that nothing has shaken
his atheism as much as this discovery. Occasionally Fred Hoyle and I
have sat down to discuss one or another astronomical or historical
point, but I never had enough nerve to ask him if his atheism had
really been shaken by finding the nuclear resonance structure of
carbon and oxygen. However, the answer came rather clearly in the
November 1981 issue of the Cal Tech alumni magazine, where he
wrote:
`Would you not say to yourself, "Some supercalculating intellect
must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the
chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature
would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would.... A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well worth speaking about in nature. The
numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming
as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'" (Hoyle F., "The
Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Engineering and Science,
November 1981, p12).
(Gingerich O., "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design", in Templeton
J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator",
Continuum: New York, 1994, pp24-25)
GS>If, as noted, fine-tuning is a necessary consequence of GUT, then
>this too smells of intelligent design.
>
>Of course, highly speculative "many-worlds arguments" have been
>suggested to "explain" the observed "fine-tuning" in "our universe,"
>but these, presently, have not a shred of evidence. Unsupported
>models are a dime a dozen.
Yes. They are all appear contrived to avoid the most obvious
conclusion, that there is a God:
"...the multiple worlds ensemble theory is not convincing. The view
appears to be contrived, made to largely to avoid theistic
conclusions. Furthermore, if one is going to entice a view of
reality that allows for bizarre entities like alternative parallel
worlds, then one should not have intellectual difficulties with the
notion of a Designer or Creator God. For example, one can no longer
reject the existent of God because God is not detectable by sensory
experience, since multiple worlds are not sense-detectable either.
Finally, there is little or no additional evidence for these parallel
universes, but there is additional evidence for God apart from the
existence of the delicately balanced precondition for life in our
world. So if one compares the relative merits of theism and the
multiple worlds ensemble view, the former wins hands down."
(Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence
for an Intelligent Designer", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1994, p30)
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:44:47 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote to Gordon
Simons:
GS>Suppose we posit that no argument is going to PROVE the existence
>of God. Then what should a Christian be looking for in nature to
>add apologetic strength to his/her faith? I would argue that these
>fine-tuning arguments actually do an excellent job of lending
>apologetic strength.
I agree with Gordon here. In an increasingly secular age (at least
in the West), the fine-tuning arguments are a powerful apologetic,
and perhaps the one most likely to shake the faith of atheists.
Gingerich points out that Hoyle's faith in atheism was shaken by his
discovery that abundant carbon (and hence life) depends on a specific
resonance in helium nuclei:
"I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with Willy Fowler found this
remarkable nuclear arrangement, has said that nothing has shaken his
atheism as much as this discovery....he wrote:
`Would you not say to yourself, "Some supercalculating intellect must
have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance
of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would
be utterly minuscule." Of course you would.... A common sense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well worth speaking about in nature. The
numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question.' (Hoyle F., "The
Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Engineering and Science,
November 1981, p12)
(Gingerich O., "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design", in Templeton
J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator",
Continuum: New York, 1994, pp24-25)
BH>I tend to go round and round with myself on this question. Most
>of the time I tend to agree with what Gordon has written here.
>Every once in a while I'll read where someone greatly abuses
>the AP principle and I start to have my doubts. Just a few days
>ago I was reading through a book that our church (Southern
>Baptist) uses in discipleship training. This book discussed the
>AP and tried to use it to prove the existence of God. There were
>many other mistakes, for example that the universe is finely
>tuned for humans specifically. My revulsion to this type of abuse
>influenced what I wrote earlier.
While I think it is overstating the case to claim that fine-tuning
"proves the existence of God", I find it difficult to understand why
Brian feels "revulsion" at it. I would have thought there are many
worse things that Christian apologists could do. Jesus tells us that
he is "revulsed" by lukewarmness (Rev 3:16), so perhaps we should be
"revulsed" by those apologists who play it safe and avoid upsetting
the materialist-naturalist science establishment? :-)
BH>Another pet peeve of mine is an apparent lack of appreciation
>for the fact that the "intelligent design" involved with the AP is
>quite different from that generally referred to by creationists
>in the design argument. Most of the fine-tuning is that required
>for life to evolve in the universe according to (finely-tuned)
>natural laws. Why would fine-tuning of natural laws be necessary
>if God was going to circumvent said laws with supernatural
>intervention?
Maybe its because fine-tuning of natural laws is necessary, but not
sufficient, to originate life and develop its major features?
BH>I don't mean to imply here that it is only Christians that
>abuse the AP. The AP is greatly abused on t.o for example
>when the weak AP is replaced by the "we're here because
>we're here" argument.
What else has an non-theist got? Multiple worlds? Biochemical
Predestination? The pickings are desperately slim! Ross summarises:
"In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and the Structure of the
Physical World, astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler review
many evidences for the design of the universe. They also review
standard versions of the anthropic principle such as WAP (weak
anthropic principle: conscious beings can only exist in an
environment with special characteristics that allow their
habitation), SAP (strong anthropic principle: nature must take on
those characteristics to admit somewhere, sometime, the existence of
conscious beings) and more radical versions including PAP
(participatory anthropic principle: observers are necessary to bring
the universe into existence, and the universe is necessary to bring
observers into existence) They conclude with a discussion of their
favorite, FAP (final anthropic principle). According to FAP, the
life that now exists in the universe (and which PAP says created the
universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a state garrow and
Tipler call the Omega Point. In a footnote they declare, "The
totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omniscient!" In other words, the universe created humankind,
humankind created the universe, and together the universe and
humankind in the end will become Almighty God. In The New York
Review of Books Martin Gardner gave this evaluation of Barrow and
Tipler's idea: "What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP,
PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle
is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle."
(Ross H., "Astronomical Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God",
in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove Ill., 1994, p159)
BH>Putting such things aside, I still generally agree that the AP
>can be used apologetically provided one is very careful not to
>distort what it says. Even so, I think it is most useful for
>building up the faith of believers rather than convincing
>nonbelievers. Just last sunday an elderly lady in our church
>mentioned to me that she had seen Hugh Ross on TV and
>was so excited she could hardly stand still. As an example
>she mentioned how Ross had proven the Trinity using science.
>Now, I wasn't going to spoil her day by saying that this isn't
>quite what Ross did :). She also mentioned to me that she had
>been teaching Youth since she was 20 years old (for 50 years!).
>Whenever she speaks to me I want to be quiet and listen
>in the hopes that I might learn something of real value.
I am glad that Brian wrote this. I couldn't agree more! :-)
BH>Along these lines, John Leslie wrote:
>
>Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument
>from Design with a grim determination that their churches
>shall not again be made to look foolish. Recalling what
>happened when churchmen opposed first Galileo and then
>Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
>science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has
>demonstrated that Design Arguments lack all force.
Unfortunately many (if not most) Christian leaders have been
"Finlandised" by the fear of being wrong, therefore they play it safe
and say little or nothing. Whatever happened to the bold spirit
of being willing to be "fools for Christ" (1Cor 4:10)?
The funny thing is they have little to fear of being foolish. If
anything, its the *non-theists* that appear foolish. If this is
doubted, watch the videotape of William Lane Craig's debate with
atheist Frank Zindler, called "Atheism v Christianity".
BH>I hope to have shown that philosophy has demonstrated
>no such thing. Our universe, which these religious
>leaders believe to be created by God, does look,
>greatly though this may dismay them, very much as if
>created by God. ...
>-- John Leslie, <Universes>, Routledge, 1989, p. 22.
Very droll! Maybe if more religious leaders and Christian scientists
had been a bit more assertive, we wouldn't have all the running being
made by the YECs?
BH>This is a nice message for believers I think. You believe God
>created the universe. Guess what, it does actually look like
>it was created. Not a proof, but certainly a strong suggestion.
Again I am really pleased with what Brian has written above. I agree
that is impossible to "prove" the existence of God, but not for any
lack of logic, but because an atheist if he/she is sufficiently
determined not to believe, nothing can storm his/her citadel.
Gould once wrote:
"In science, `fact' can only mean `confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' " (Gould S.J.,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory", Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes,
Penguin: London, 1984, p255). In view of the mounting evdidence and
the unpromising alternatives, is it not "perverse" to withhold
provisional assent to the "fact" of God's existence?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------