One of the commonly invoked arguments in any discussion of natural theology and the evidence for God is the Anthropic Principle - or put simply, the fact that the universe in which we live is incredibly finely tuned to support the existence of life as we know it. Karl Giberson recently posted on this at Science and the Sacred and I was asked by a reader in an e-mail if, given my rather skeptical attitude toward Intelligent Design (capital I capital D) in biology, I was equally skeptical here and thought that the anthropic principle was an expression of bad science. The short answer, simply, is no. It isn't bad science, it is one piece of evidence for the existence of God, it is not proof for the existence of God.
Stephen Hawking (a highly respected theoretical physicist and not a religious person) put it like this in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time (link is to the updated 1998 edition - I have and quote from the 1988 original):
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory - we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron hes been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier elements that are made in stars and are flung back in space when the stars explode. Never the less it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of numbers would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can either take this as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle. (p. 125)
Does the fine tuning of the universe impress you as evidence of divine purpose in Creation?
Image: Star-Birth Clouds in M16. This eerie, dark structure
is a column of cool molecular hydrogen gas and dust that is an
incubator for new stars. The color image is constructed from three
separate images. Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms,
green from hydrogen, blue from doubly- ionized oxygen atoms. Credit:
Jeff Hester and Paul Scowen (Arizona State University), and NASA
(public domain)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-astro-nebula.html
The nature of the universe alone - the fine tuning for life - will not convince anyone of purpose or design. Richard Dawkins - while admitting that the fine tuning exists - finds the evidence for creation absent:
The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed - which is indeed the premise of the whole discussion we are having. It follows that the theist's answer has utterly failed to make any headway towards solving the problem at hand. I see no alternative but to dismiss it, while at the same time marvelling at the number of people who can't see the problem and seem genuinely satisfied by the 'Divine Knob-Twiddler' argument. (p. 143 The God Delusion)
Dawkins goes on to describe how biologists have had their consciousness raised and suggests that a form of natural selection may even explain the fine tuning of the universe - taking a cue from a theoretical physicist Lee Smolin (p. 146).
Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science, Emeritus, Harvard University, in his excellent, readable little book God's Universe says:
says:To believe in a designed universe requires accepting teleology and purpose. And if that purpose includes contemplative intelligent life that can admire the universe and can search out its secrets, then the cosmos must have properties congenial to life. For me part of the coherency of the universe is that it is purposeful - though it probably takes the eyes of faith to accept that idea. But if a person accepts that understanding, the principle that our universe must be well suited to life also becomes the evidence of design. (p. 77)
John Polkinghorne (a theoretical physicist and one time Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge - he resigned to become an Anglican Priest) also comments at length on the anthropic principle and the evidence for design in the fine tuning of the universe in his book Quarks, Chaos & Christianity - another readable short book. He ends his chapter Is Anyone There? as follows:
- another readable short book. He ends his chapter Is Anyone There? as follows:Asking and answering the questions, "Why can we do science at all?" and "Why is the universe so special?" have given us a nudge in the direction of religious belief. The answers we've found do suggest that there's a Someone there. I've already agreed that it doesn't amount to proof, but I think that there aren't many really important things that can be established in this kind of logical and necessary way. (p. 47)
In The Language of God Francis Collins suggests that the fine tuning of the universe leads to one of three possibilities: (p. 74-75)
Francis Collins suggests that the fine tuning of the universe leads to one of three possibilities: (p. 74-75)
- There are many universes (essentially an infinite number) and we (of course) happen to be in the one capable of developing and supporting intelligent life.
- There is only one universe - and it just happened to be right.
- There is only one universe - but it is right because it was designed to support intelligent life and reflects the action and purpose of the creator.
He goes on to say:
One must leave the door open to the possibility that future investigation in theoretical physics will demonstrate that some of the fifteen physical constants that so far are simply determined by experimental observation may be limited in their potential numerical value by something more profound, but such a revelation is not currently on the horizon. Furthermore, as with the other arguments in this chapter and those that precede and follow it, no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof of the existence of God. But for those willing to consider a theistic perspective, the Anthropic Principle certainly provides an interesting argument in favor of a creator. (p. 78)
Polkinghorne, in response to a suggestion by Paul Davies that science can provide a surer path to God than religion can, puts it quite well:
Well I think that this really is bizarre for, although we can learn something of God from the pattern and development of creation, there are many other things we shall only learn about God if we take the risk and accept the insight of a more personal form of encounter. Meanwhile let's note that, although the scientific detail of this chapter would have surprised (and I'm sure interested) St. Paul, its general thrust would not have seemed unfamiliar to him. He once wrote, "Ever since the creation of the world God's invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20). (p. 47-48)
As I think about this - even if the constants are determined by a new unified theory to be exactly those required for the formation of life - would this "natural" explanation negate the significance of design and purpose? I don't think it would - we would still have the wonder and grandeur of a creation designed for our existence.
What do you think? Is the the fine tuning of the universe for the development of life evidence for the existence of a creator? Do you think it should be avoided as a God of the gaps type reasoning?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
RJS- We have a lot of common ground. I agree with much of your comment.
I agree that no one should bet their faith on a single design inference in nature. But taken together, they can provide helpful clues or pointers.
We disagree about whether the assumption of a natural explanation is a part of MN. I think it is not. MN involves looking for a natural explanation using natural methods.
I think the assumption is part of PN, or ontological naturalism, if you prefer that term.
You said:
"Irreducible complexity is best attacked by demonstrating that the supposed irreducibly complex systems are in fact not irreducibly complex. I think that this is rapidly being done. What more do you want me to say? I can try to structure some future posts around specific examples and we can discuss it in more detail."
That would be great. I am curious to know why you think it is rapidly being done.
As a starting point, this seems to be a key point/counter-point:
Miller attacking IC:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Dembski defending IC:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
I see serious logical errors in Miller. For example, he concludes:
"The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed."
Showing independent functionality of a component does not defeat IC. Miller still has to show that the assembly of the rotary propulsion machine could have been accomplished by Darwinian mechanisms: step by step assembly with each step providing a survival advantage. He also has to show that each step does not involve too much survival disadvantage in the loss of the previous functionality of the components.
He seems to think that speculation as to a "possible" pathway is enough. He has to show that it is plausible.
His claim that the functionality of the TTSS defeats IC is so obviously wrong. I wonder who is convinced by bad logic like this?
Do you know of a better argument than Miller's?
In case anybody is still reading this thread, I finally heard back from my semi-expert friend (who partly begged off as not being a true expert in this particular area).
It sounds like the current case is in between what Eric and I were saying, maybe closer to Eric. Paraphrasing:
1) While there is no physical confirmation of a multiverse model, the leading such models these days, meaning the ones that best agree with the evidence and also are self-consistent, etc., are models with multiple "bubble" universes having different physical constants.
2) This certainly weakens the fine-tuning anthropic argument, although it is not clear whether the variation among universes would be wide enough to completely negate it.
He also pointed me to a paper by a Christian astrophysicist who is a true expert in this field, Don Page, called "Does God so Love the Multiverse?", which can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0246
I just had time to skim it but it looks like an interesting (and accessible in large part) reflection on the issues, agreeing with those of us who are not fans of basing faith on "design" arguments.
AHH,
Interesting article, thanks. I'll have to read - and perhaps come back to this issue again.
AHH -- thanks for the link, I will check it out. Getting the perspective of a Chrisitian scientist who is familiar with this area (who may not have the same biases as an atheistic like Guth) will be interesting.
Here is a link to an article by Guth in 2007 about these issues: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702178v1.pdf
He seems to be saying that multiple bubbles are an implication of any inflation theory (at least in his view; as you pointed out earlier others disagree), although some of the language he uses sounds more like what you described as a Type 1 multiverse. I'm not sure that I understand though.
He also seems to relate this to string theory, saying that it now seems to allow for numerious values for the cosmological constant, so that different universes could have different cosmological constants (which is one of the key characteristics of our universe that appears "fine tuned").
He notes that this is a possible way to understand the anthropic point, although physicists would like to come up with a non-anthropic explanation (i.e., something other than the either/or between fine tuning and multiple universes with different characteristics). So far there aren't any good non-anthropic type explanations though (i.e., the answers are anthropic -- we either have fine tuning, or we have multiple universes).
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.