[...]
>
> I think I just need to do some more reading on the AP. My only source of
>info at this point is the stuff I've read by Hugh Ross. Can you recommend
>some more books? Which books are these Sciama quotes from?
Sorry, about my delay, I've been very busy.
The Sciama paper comes from the following collection:
_The Anthropic Principle_, Proceedings
of the Second Venice Conference on Cosmology and Philosophy,
F. Bertola and U. Curi, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1993.
This is an interesting volume with articles by several "big names",
John Barrow, Brandon Carter, Hubert Reeves, Fred Hoyle.
There is also a paper by George Coyne "Some Theological
Reflections on the Anthropic Principle."
My suggestion for a starting point though is another volume
edited by John Leslie: <Physical Cosmology and Philosophy>,
Macmillan, 1990.
This volume contains a tremendous collection of articles,
many of them classics, for example the original paper
wherein Brandon Carter first introduced the Weak
Anthropic Principle. Here's a list of the authors and there
papers:
=====<Physical Cosmology and Philosophy>=============
1. Ernan McMullin: Is Philosophy Relevant to Cosmology?
2. George Gamow: Modern Cosmology
3. W. B. Bonnor: Relativistic Theories of the Universe
4. H. Bondi: The Steady-State Theory of the Uniuerse
5. Martin Rees: The 13,000,000,000 Year Bang
6. Jayant Narlikar: Was There a Big Bang?
7. Adolf Grunbaum: The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical
Cosmology
8. G.F.R. Ellis: Cosmology and Verifiability
9. R.H. Dicke: Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle
10. Brandon Carter: Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic
Principle in Cosmology
11. B.J. Carr: On the Origin, Evolution and Purpose of the
Physical Universe
12. Richard Swinburne: Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the
Universe
13. Heinz R. Pagels: A Cozy Cosmology
14. Stephen Jay Gould: Mind and Supermind
15. George Gale: Cosmological Fecundity: Theories of Multiple
Universes
16. John Archibald Wheeler: Beyond the End of Time
17. Edward P. Tryon: Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?
18. Paul Davies: What Caused the Big Bang?
19. Andrei Linde: The Universe: Inflation Out Of Chaos
20. Robert Shapiro and Gerald Feinberg: Possible Forms of Life
in Environments Very Different from Earth
21. Michael H. Hart: Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation,
and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe
===============================================
Closely related to current discussions would be #20 :-).
I would also recommend another collection:
<Evidence of Purpose>, J.M. Templeton, ed.,
Continuum, 1994.
This volume is not solely devoted to the AP. Those
articles dealing with it would be from the TE
perspective.
I would also highly recommend John Leslie's book
<Universes>, Routledge, 1989. New paper back
edition: 1996.
Leslie is a very interesting case. He is a recognized
authority on the Anthropic Principle yet, apart from
what the title of his book might suggest, he presents
an argument for the existence of God based on fine-tuning.
What makes this particularly interesting is that Leslie
is not a Christian nor is a Theist in any form that most
of us would recognize as such (he's a Neo platonist).
This just illustrates how stereotypes so often break down
when dealing with the AP. One gets the idea from some
folks that only cosmology ignorant Christian apologists
give the argument from design based on AP.
Finally, Pim mentioned a few web pages devoted to the AP.
I'll throw in a few more for balance:
"The Prerequisites of Life in Our Universe."John Leslie
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth12.html
"Design and the Anthropic Principle" by Hugh Ross
http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/design.html
"Introduction: The Resurrection of Theism" William Lane Craig
http://www.origins.org/truth/3truth01.html
"Cosmythology: Was the Universe Designed to Produce Us?"
V.J. Stenger
http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.stenger-cosmyth.html
>>
>> >Sciama:==
>> >> (b) God regards me as such a desirable product of the universe
>> >> that he has fine-tuned it so as to guarantee my development.
>> >
>>
>> Randy:==
>> > This seems like the best answer to me, although I don't know if it's the
>> >best scientific answer.
>> >
>>
>> Very good answer. I also like this answer best but am cautious
>> about the scientific merit of the explanation.
>>
> Which raises a question for me. If this is indeed the best answer, but
>it's not the best SCIENTIFIC answer, does that say anything about the need
>for an integrated approach to truth-seeking?
>
I think an "integrated approach to truth seeking" is a very good
idea. Which is the "best answer", though, is very subjective. Whatever
arguments one might think of against (c) also apply to (b) and
vice versa. By and large, I think a persons reaction to the
AP will be in keeping with their prior beliefs. A Theist
is likely to find it very convincing, an agnostic will likely find
just enough room for doubt soas to continue in their agnosticism,
an atheist will likely find overwhelming evidence for the existence of
"other worlds" :).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne