In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. This post is the first in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. The earlier post did not allow for comments. As I repost sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...1) the finely-tuned cosmos
There exists in our universe approximately 30 distinct physical and chemical conditions each of which must be finely tuned within very narrow parameters in order for life to develop and prosper. These conditions have been noted by many authors. Those unfamiliar with this line of evidence may wish to reveiw the Wikipedia article on fine tuning here, and further descriptions of the argument here or here.
One such condition involves the synthesis of carbon, a process which takes place inside stars. The renown English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, spent much of his career analyzing the nuclear reactions which have taken place inside stars over the course of the history of our cosmos. It is well understood that these nuclear reactions are responsible for the bountiful supply of carbon in our universe, an element that one might not expect to find in abundance, but which is absolutely essential for carbon-based life. Hoyle discovered that unique characteristics in the nucleus of the carbon atom make it possible for these atoms to be produced in such abundance; he then calculated the likelihood that these characteristics should be present, and learned that they are statistically unlikely in the extreme. He went on to make this oft-cited observation:
“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super-calculating 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 as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces 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.” ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. p 8-12)Australian biochemist Michael Denton has studied many such elements of fine tuning, and has declared, "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology – that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." (Nature’s Destiny, p. 389).
While many of these evidences of fine tuning will be studied for many years to come, and we may find natural explanations for some, I am convinced that most will continue to point back to Holye’s “superintellect”, and Denton’s “special designer”. But not conclusively; it should be noted that other explanations have been suggested which might account for fine tuning. The most common of these are various multiverse scenarios. We are told that perhaps ours is just one in a chain of billions or trillions of universes; if so, the chances that one such universe would result in conditions favorable to life ultimately rise to one in one; and voilà, here we are!
Thus, the arguments from fine-tuning, no matter how intuitively they point to a Creator, can never prove the existence of God. For me and many others, however, Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe.
It is interesting to note that fine tuning, which may be the best of all theistic arguments, is rarely invoked by Creationists, even by Intelligent Design proponents like Philip Johnson and Michael Behe. The reason is that the fine tuning argument presumes naturalistic evolution. Fine tuning thus works bests for those theists who fully embrace Darwinism, as I do. And for me, an intelligent Creator is the simplest, most intuitive, and thus most likely explanation of the life-friendly cosmos in which we find ourselves.
85 comments:
Cliff, I have to express some reservations about this:
For me and many others, however, Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe.
How can you defend the proposition that a "super intellect" is simpler than the conjectures of, say, multiverses? On what metric is it simpler to posit (out of whole cloth) the existence of a "superintellect" with the cognitive capacity to mentally (or the "super intellect's" equivalent) model the universe and that is also has the capability to do whatever actions are necessary to bring that model into existence in matter and energy? On what grounds can one call that "simpler"? You have merely traded one complexity for another (almost certainly greater) complexity (the "super intellect"), while gaining no explanatory power in the process.
I can offer no such metric that would satisfy everyone. Nor did I claim any exists. My statement was that "for me and many others" the simpler, more intuitive solution to the puzzle of a fine tuned universe is to acknowledge a "Fine Tuner".
Among those "many others" who have accepted this view as the simpler, more intuitive solution are the two scientists I cited, Fred Hoyle, and Michael Denton, both of whom are atheist/agnostic (though Hoyle readily admitted that this evidence of fine tuning "shook" his atheism.)
If the extreme rarity of conditions we find in our universe drives you to posit trillions of universes, ours having won a lottery or sorts, and if you find this belief simpler, I might never persuade you on this point.
"There exists in our universe approximately 30 distinct physical and chemical conditions each of which must be finely tuned within very narrow parameters in order for life to develop and prosper."
That is highly debatable (and is debated). At best, it is a simple appeal to ignorance. At worst, the reasoning behind the strong anthropic principle has already been falsified. take your pick.
rbh,
On Occam's razor:
It's simply a fact that most humans have (rightly or wrongly) believed that one or more such super intellect(s) existed, since long before fine tuning was ever discovered. The same is certainly not true of the various multiverse theories. That is to say, it is not the theists who are inventing entities to explain this new data (they are simply claiming that something they already believed in can explain this as well).
Like Cliff said, this is far from conclusive, but surely it is simpler (which is not necessarily to say, correct) to posit that fine tuning is explained by something people already had reasons to believe than to posit that it is caused by countless somethings that almost no one believed in before, and no one yet has any proof of.
Nevertheless, I for one think it precarious to try and prove God's existence based on fine-tuning or anything else. It may well be that we do live in a multiverse and will one day be able to prove it; my faith, at least, does not depend on this being false. In fact, I'd be fascinated to learn of such proof.
ken: on preexisting beliefs.
That is an interesting point, but holds no water rationally. The whole process of scientific discovery is that of abandoning old, incorrect models and adopting new ones that fit reality better. So just because the existence of a creating entity was taken as granted by many (but by no means all) cultures it does not follow that that concept is in any way more valid or even 'simpler" than later models. I find M-theory to be a much more acceptable entity than Yahweh, for example: it is simpler, more intuitive, has better foundations and prettier, even...;)
Jorgon,
The whole process of scientific discovery is that of abandoning old, incorrect models and adopting new ones that fit reality better.
Who could argue with that statement? Of course, it begs the question slightly. Not all "old models" are incorrect. So, a parallel statement to yours, equally accurate, would be:
The whole process of scientific discovery is that of confirming existing, correct models and disproving new ones that fail to fit reality better.
Of course neither statement describes the "whole" process, but two complementary processes.
A supernatural creator cannot be proven by natural means, and therefore does not submit to our scientific processes. But if such a being exists, he trumps science, doesn't he. And if such a being accounts for the nature of our cosmos, how then could the notion of Multiverse be simpler, more intuitive, on better foundations, or prettier?
cliff: Indeed, although disconfirmation of older theories--or, at least, the subsumption of old theories into new, wider ones--is more in line with the scientific process. After all, no scientific hypothesis can ever be "proven", only strongly supported by evidence which does not preclude the possibility of it being falsified and abandoned in the future.
And, naturally ;) God is not within the scientific purview. That's what we have philosophy for, after all. However, certain aspects of God are amenable to scientific method. That is, early beliefs on the divine origin of many phenomena have now been shown to be incorrect. Lightning is not a sign of God's wrath but, rather, a result of the action of atmospheric electrodynamics.
So, of course, we cannot use science to prove (or disprove) the existence of a generalized creating entity. What we can use it for, however, is to disprove the existence of more specific God(s), those with a narrower mandate.
As far as the Multiverse, perhaps my conviction of the essential correctness of mathematics (in particular, SET topos) is to blame, but I find the equations of M-theory to be simple--simple in a non-trivial way, granted, but still much more so than the idea of supernatural, omnipotent, pre-existing entity. We are not really even sure exactly what we are talking about in such a case: what does it mean for a being to exist outside of the Universe? How can there be existence without a physical body? How can we combine transcendence and immanence in one entity?
Notice that these problems are not scientific but rather logical, and hence, perfectly valid.
Jorgon,
The point was that, contrary to RBH's claim, God was not invented "out of whole cloth" to explain fine tuning; God wasn't invented to solve any scientific problem at all.
That said, I agree that string theory is brilliant and beautiful in concept, too good to be false, in my book. But then, I think the same about God, so there ya go...
Ken Brown wrote
Jorgon,
The point was that, contrary to RBH's claim, God was not invented "out of whole cloth" to explain fine tuning; God wasn't invented to solve any scientific problem at all.
Erm, I made no such claim, and your quotation marks are ill-used. I pointed out that invoking God to explain the universe is to invoke an entity that itself is so complex as to provide no explanation. It's merely substituting one mysterious complex thing for another. There's no useful sense of "explanation" that substitution satisfies.
Earlier Ken Brown wrote
It's simply a fact that most humans have (rightly or wrongly) believed that one or more such super intellect(s) existed, since long before fine tuning was ever discovered. The same is certainly not true of the various multiverse theories. That is to say, it is not the theists who are inventing entities to explain this new data (they are simply claiming that something they already believed in can explain this as well).
I refer to my remarks about explanation above. Further, the length of time an idea has been believed or the fervor with which it's believed has no necessary correspondence with its truth.
RBH,
Forgive me, but what then did you mean by "posit (out of whole cloth) the existence of a 'superintellect'"? No one here is positing such an entity. As far as I can see, all that is being claimed is that, if such a being does exist (as countless people have believed for other reasons, since long before fine tuning ever became a question), then this explanation requires positing nothing that was not already believed to exist. So, by that account, theism is in fact the "simplest" explanation of fine tuning (though, as I already stated, that does not guarantee it's the correct one). After all, Fred Hoyle didn't "posit (out of whole cloth)" such a being; he merely observed that his research, quite unexpectedly, seemed to point to that belief, which had long been widely held, rightly or wrongly, for other reasons.
I apologize -- you're right. I added that parenthetical phrase after I wrote the first draft offline, and was reading that draft and not my actual post when I responded to you.
However, whether it was recently posited or has been believed for a couple of thousand years, it's still the case that it is invoking a mysterious complex entity to explain a mystery about the universe. Two mysteries do not an explanation make.
Further, that the belief has existed for a long time doesn't make it simple in any useful sense of the word. On that argument it is simpler to believe that angels push the planets around rather than accept some weird warped four-dimensional space-time.
Hi Cliff,
Can I start with a question?
Oh - that isn't it ;-)
- - -
Is this evidence for theism or deism?
Thanks,
Psi
RHB,
However, whether it was recently posited or has been believed for a couple of thousand years, it's still the case that it is invoking a mysterious complex entity to explain a mystery about the universe. Two mysteries do not an explanation make.
Human intelligence is "a mysterious complex entity" as well, but I doubt you have any trouble using it to explain all manner of mysteries. The point is, you have other (and prior) reasons to believe human intelligence exists, so it is a simple matter to appeal to it to explain new experiences and data that show signs of intelligence. Similarly, theists believe in God for many reasons, and given that belief, it is a simple matter to invoke God to explain new experiences and data that show signs of design. Of course, not everything that looks designed is, and sometimes there are many layers of non-intelligent causation between the object and the one who designed it, but if you have prior reasons for thinking a designer exists, then that is the simplest explanation for complex, apparently designed objects.
Take an illustration. If you find a book filled with meaningful text, the simplest explanation is surely that a human wrote it (the complexitites of the human mind notwithstanding). But that doesn't mean there are no other possibilities; for instance the book might well have been produced by an automated printing press which required no ongoing human input. That level of automation, however, would be yet another level of design, indeed an even more impressive instance of design than the book itself. To claim the book was written entirely without intelligent input, however, not only strains credulity but would require a sequence of events vastly more complex and improbable than human intelligence (like a million monkeys with a million typewriters?).
To a theist, something very similar appears to be true of the universe itself, and its many instances of apparent design. One God, whom we already believe exists for other reasons, provides a simple explanation; trillions of previously unimagined universes (not to mention some automated means of making them, which itself just happens to exist) is decidedly more complex.
M-theory [is] much [simpler] than the idea of supernatural, omnipotent, pre-existing entity. We are not really even sure exactly what we are talking about in such a case: what does it mean for a being to exist outside of the Universe?
Jorgon, I don't mean this as a flippant comeback, but a genuine question: How are we in any way more sure of what we are talking about when trillions of universes self-generate? What does it mean for matter to create itself, for universes to recreate themselves, for all of this to happen without intelligent causation? Can you honestly say that is less mysterious than the idea of a Creator?
Psi asks, Is this evidence for theism or deism?
Good question. The evidence in this post could be construed as supporting no more than deism. But I understand deism as a subset of theism. Do you agree?
I did write in the prologue "the arguments presented here do not presume an interventionist God." I might have been more clear. In the evolution of the cosmos, and of life on earth, we are finding that natural processes can account for nearly everything we see, and those gaps which remain are likely to filled as we learn more. My view of God is that he created the cosmos to evolve along the lines of the natural laws he set into it, and the same with life. He is no less the Creator of all. But once the processes are set in place, it is not necessary for God to continually tweak it, fix it, do special creation midstream, etc. In that sense, I view God as non-intervening. This does not make him disinterested, impersonal, nor uninvolved in the affairs of people. For those who seek him, for those who choose a life of faith, He intervenes quite regularly. That is my view.
Ken wrote
Human intelligence is "a mysterious complex entity" as well, but I doubt you have any trouble using it to explain all manner of mysteries. The point is, you have other (and prior) reasons to believe human intelligence exists, so it is a simple matter to appeal to it to explain new experiences and data that show signs of intelligence.
But we don't merely know that human intelligence exists. It's not at all a complete mystery to us. We know a great deal about how it works, what its products look like, how to manipulate it, and so on. That is, it isn't a black box: it provides real explanatory power by identifying a process about which we know a good deal as a causal variable.
Ken went on
Similarly, theists believe in God for many reasons, and given that belief, it is a simple matter to invoke God to explain new experiences and data that show signs of design.
But we know nothing at all (in any intersubjectively testable sense of "know") about God. We have systematic and agreed means of resolving conflicts regarding the activities of human intelligence -- we can do research in cognitive science and examine data produced by that research. We can thus resolve questions about the role of human intelligence without appeal to internal subjective experiences or revelation.
We can't do anything of the kind with God. Unlike the case with science, we can't resolve the various conflicts about gods in any systematic and agreed way. We can't do empirical research and we have no agreed way of settling questions about god's (any god) role in producing the universe/world. If we did have such an agreed way of resolving religious conflicts there would be many fewer divisions among theists -- many fewer gods, denominations, or religious positions.
So once again, the use of "explain" is a misnomer: Since we cannot do research on God's knowledge, skills, and abilities, invoking "God did it" as a purported explanation is genuinely substituting one mystery for another. That is no explanation.
Ken concluded (referring to his example of a book)
To a theist, something very similar appears to be true of the universe itself, and its many instances of apparent design. One God, whom we already believe exists for other reasons, provides a simple explanation; trillions of previously unimagined universes (not to mention some automated means of making them, which itself just happens to exist) is decidedly more complex.
Once again, you're not taking into account the complexity of the god. If that god has the cognitive capacity to represent the whole universe 'mentally' in order to design the initial properties of matter and energy such that they will bring into being the universe as it is, and if in addition that god has the ability to then manufacture/create the initial conditions of a universe having those properties, then that entity has to be at least as complex as the universe. So explaining the mystery of the universe in terms of that entity is invoking a causal agent that is at least as complex, and even more mysterious, than the universe that is to be explained. That's why I say invoking a god to explain the universe is merely substituting one complex mystery for another. And that's no explanation.
RHB,
That we know (and can know) far more about human than divine intelligence is obvious, but a scientific understanding of the inner workings of the mind is no prerequisite for meaningfully (and rightly) appealing to intelligence to explain designed objects and circumstances. We understood and depended on the difference between intentional and unintentional causes long before we knew a lick about the inner workings of the human mind.
As for the separate question of whether God is in fact more complex than the universe, that is hardly proven. Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not, but ultimately it is irrelevant, for it is not a choice between God and our universe. Whether God exists or not, our universe is not self-existent (fine tuning is one evidence of this fact, though not the only one). It was created by something, the only question is what that something was. Thus it is not whether God is more or less simple than our universe, but whether God is more or less simple or mysterious than the multiverse that has been proposed to replace God. Do you have any evidence that it is?
Ken wrote
That we know (and can know) far more about human than divine intelligence is obvious, but a scientific understanding of the inner workings of the mind is no prerequisite for meaningfully (and rightly) appealing to intelligence to explain designed objects and circumstances. We understood and depended on the difference between intentional and unintentional causes long before we knew a lick about the inner workings of the human mind.
Sure. Note my "We know a great deal about how it (human intelligence) works, what its products look like, how to manipulate it, and so on" above. Humans have millennia of experience with human designers. We know how they work, what kinds of things they make, how they make things, why they make things, and most important, we know from independent evidence that human designers exist. We don't know any of that for a god. We have no independent evidence -- evidence that is independent of a priori belief in a god -- that any god even exists.
Ken wrote
Thus it is not whether God is more or less simple than our universe, but whether God is more or less simple or mysterious than the multiverse that has been proposed to replace God. Do you have any evidence that it is?
As to mysterious, they seem equal to me. Regarding compexity, I have no evidence either way -- it's undecidable, at least for now. And absent any clear description of the god, it will remain undecideable. Multiverse theory may become well enough developed and find enough corroboration in empirical data (though I think that's real chancy) that we can make some estimate of its complexity. But an estimate of the complexity of a god is beyond our capabilities. Cliff and you claim that invoking a god is the simpler explanation, but it's actually undecideable.
And, yet again, simply invoking "god" is not an explanation. It only labels what is to be explained. If you offer "god" as an explanation, you owe us an explanation of god. It makes no less (or no more) sense to say "God just is" as to say "the fine tuning of the universe just is." Attributing the fine tuning to god adds no information: We know no more after the attribution than we did before it. Hence it's not an explanation.
RBH,
Whether you accept it as legitimate or reject it as a delusion, we do indeed have millenia of experience of the divine. True, it is not "independent" in any absolute sense, but that cannot be helped. God, if God exists, is not an object within the universe and so not directly observable (the same is true, in fact, of the universe itself: you must reject solipsism a priori, or not at all; there is no "independent" evidence that could ever be invoked). Nevertheless, it is "independent" in the sense you mention, for the traditional reasons for believing in God are independent of fine tuning (which was only recently discovered). So we are not positing an arbitrary and meaningless "fine-tuner" for which we have no other reason to believe, but rather pointing out that an intelligence for which we already (believe we) have evidence can also explain this. That is why the otherwise undecidability of fine tuning is (currently) more simply explained by God than a multiverse. Not because God is (ontologically) more simple (which may or may not be true; we have no way of knowing), but because God was not invented to solve this problem, while the multiverse was (though this could change if independent evidence for M-theory really does come to light).
Ken wrote
Whether you accept it as legitimate or reject it as a delusion, we do indeed have millenia of experience of the divine.
Well, there are millennia of experience with various and sundry divinities with various and sundry properties. And those properties vary from deity to deity with no agreed method for resolving conflicts about their nature(s). So that's not a real satisfying prospect for an explanation.
Ken went on
That is why the otherwise undecidability of fine tuning is (currently) more simply explained by God than a multiverse. Not because God is (ontologically) more simple (which may or may not be true; we have no way of knowing), but because God was not invented to solve this problem, while the multiverse was (though this could change if independent evidence for M-theory really does come to light).
Except that's not what "simple" means in the sense of Occam's Razor, which is the sense used in the original post. I suspect you mean that invoking God is not appealing to an ad hoc explanation, rather than a simple one. However, it's the ontological complexity of a god that's relevant to deciding the Razor's cut.
Further, it's the possibility of independent evidence for M-theory that makes this argument dangerous for theists. At the moment it's a pure God of the gaps argument with the possibility of God being pushed away yet again as and if evidence for a naturalistic explanation accrues.
RBH,
First, let me thank you for your contributions. They are well thought out, rational, and very helpful to my own thinking processes. And, as usual, you present them with dignity and respect. I appreciate that. I find much in your comments I can agree with, and some I wish to challenge. Here are some quotes from your comments in italics, and my responses following:
As to mysterious, they seem equal to me.
Surely to one who professes no personal knowledge of God, he must seem mysterious indeed. But to the millions who (like myself) profess to having many very personal interactions with God, such that we “know” him, the mysteries fade. That is not to say he ceases to be mysterious. But for us, he is far less mysterious than highly complex, self-existent, self-generating, self-organizing, mindless matter. However, I will grant you your point. From a purely materialistic standpoint, one demanding empirical data for all propositions, the two explanations forwarded for fine-tuning are on equal footing.
So explaining the mystery of the universe in terms of that entity is invoking a causal agent that is at least as complex, and even more mysterious, than the universe that is to be explained. That's why I say invoking a god to explain the universe is merely substituting one complex mystery for another.... If you offer "god" as an explanation, you owe us an explanation of god.
This is a reworking of Dawkin’s tired “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God” probability scheme to which I have responded elsewhere (third paragraph)>. In short, we have no means to analyze a supernatural being. Such a being, by definition, submits neither to our laboratories nor to our laws of probability, nor to our extremely limited concepts of complexity. In a way, of course, I totally agree with you. I beleive God to be more complex than our cosmos, more complex than the proposed multi-verses, more complex than living organisms by many orders of magnitude. No argument there. But should he actually exists, and if he were to listen in on your argument or Dawkin’s on the probability of his existence, he must surely find such discussions quite silly.
Cliff and you claim that invoking a god is the simpler explanation, but it's actually undecidable.
Agreed. At least in a strictly materialistic framework. However, millions of humans (including yourself) have made decisions on this question one way or the other. Our own experience proves that again and again we make decisions lacking full empirical data. We do it every day. So making a decision about God/no god using some inconclusive empirical data, some logic, some personal experience, some testimony of trusted friends seems like a reasonable approach to me.
Further, it's the possibility of independent evidence for M-theory that makes this argument dangerous for theists. At the moment it's a pure God of the gaps argument with the possibility of God being pushed away yet again as and if evidence for a naturalistic explanation accrues.
Agreed. And that is why I consistently use tentative language, and state clearly that this evidence is ultimately inconclusive, and must always remain so. However, the D’Souza quote is apropos here: “I'm not making a god-of-the-gaps argument arguing that because evolution can't account for it, therefore God did it. But neither should we submit to the atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.” Perhaps rejecting the possibility of God in hopes of finding other explanations for phenomena could be equally dangerous for atheists??
Apropos of this thread, let me quote Blake Stacy:
"You see, if the fundamental constants or the physical laws of the Universe were even a teensy-weensy iddle-liddle bit different, then evil could not exist. Logically, therefore, the Universe was finely tuned to produce evil.
"I call it the Misanthropic Principle."
And yes, there's a smiley here somewhere.
RBH,
I too want to thank you for this thoughtful and respectful discussion; I think it has become much clearer where we actually agree and disagree.
Well, there are millennia of experience with various and sundry divinities with various and sundry properties.
Certainly true, but superior intelligence is pretty much a rule across the board.
Except that's not what "simple" means in the sense of Occam's Razor, which is the sense used in the original post. I suspect you mean that invoking God is not appealing to an ad hoc explanation, rather than a simple one. However, it's the ontological complexity of a god that's relevant to deciding the Razor's cut.
You might be right that I am arguing a somewhat different point than Cliff's post, but I disagree with your claim about Occam's Razor. Though Cliff cited the frequent paraphrase, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best," Occam's Razor actually states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The basic force of the guideline (and it's only a guideline, not an immutable law) is precisely to discourage ad hoc explanations and assumptions. Granted Occam's Razor can also be invoked where competing (more or less) ad hoc solutions are on offer, as indicated by the frequent paraphrase, but if God is not an ad hoc explanation at all (as I have been trying to argue), there's no reason to go to that next step (particularly when the ontological complexity of God verses the multiverse is, as you rightly note, undecidable).
Further, it's the possibility of independent evidence for M-theory that makes this argument dangerous for theists.
I agree. I stated as much earlier: "I for one think it precarious to try and prove God's existence based on fine-tuning or anything else. It may well be that we do live in a multiverse and will one day be able to prove it; my faith, at least, does not depend on this being false. In fact, I'd be fascinated to learn of such proof."
If I (or Cliff) were claiming fine tuning does or could provide the basis for our belief in God, that would be a precarious claim indeed, but to claim that (as far as our present knowledge is concerned) fine tuning points to the existence of God, seems entirely legitmate, though certainly debatable.
I do agree with Ken. My faith does not rest on any theistic proof stemming from fine-tuning. And, with Ken, I support efforts to find evidence of a multi-verse.
But the endless progression of increasing improbability argument (Dawkin's "Why there is almost certainly no God") applies similarly to multi-verse scenarios, in my mind. Far from solving the riddle of the origin of the universe, the multi-verse merely pushes the riddle back in time, and renders it extremely more complex ... resulting in, perhaps, an even more compelling theistic argument.
Hi Cliff,
Still trying to understand what you have said here;
"But once the processes are set in place, it is not necessary for God to continually tweak it, fix it, do special creation midstream, etc. In that sense, I view God as non-intervening. This does not make him disinterested, impersonal, nor uninvolved in the affairs of people. For those who seek him, for those who choose a life of faith, He intervenes quite regularly. That is my view."
So does god intervene or not? If so then is this intervention detectable by me or not?
Thanks,
Psi
Psi,
Good questions.
So does god intervene or not?
Yes, and No ...
Yes, I believe that God does intervene in our affairs. His intervention, according to what I’ve discerned from Scriptural teachings, personal experience, and the experience of many other people, comes at the invitation of men and women. There is much to say about this from a Biblical standpoint, and I will be posting more on this subject in the future.
No, not in the sense that many Creationists believe. The cosmos was created in such a way that its evolution (cosmic, chemical, biological) occurs according to the natural laws structured by the Creator.
If so then is this intervention detectable by me or not?
Detectable by you? probably not. Jesus made it quite clear that he was not interested in doing magic tricks simply to convince the skeptical. But this does not mean that God’s interventions are wholly undetectable. In the epilogue section of the full essay, I discuss this. In my life, and in the lives of countless believers, God’s interactions are discernible regularly, often in objective ways.
There is a principle taught throughout the Bible. George MacDonald summarizes it this way: ”Understanding is the reward of obedience. Obedience is the key to every door.” When I am living in obedience to everything I know of God’s will (certainly, this is not always the case!) doors to understanding and revelation are opened every day.
I know ... too subtle and subjective to qualify as evidence for your questioning mind. But what if God has reasons, very important reasons, for being subtle?
Hi Cliff,
(warning - winging and whining ahead) (Please insert extra smileys where required to cope with my usual insensitive bluntness)
So if you believe in god then you will think there is a god. Amazing.
. . . and then again god might be a ham sandwich or a Leprechaun, or at least by your logica we could argue that just as effectively. So go on cliff really choose to believe that god is a leprechaun - then you will know that he is one. Of course the Leprechaun won't do silly tricks to show you this is true - he is far tto subtle for that!
See what I mean - this argument works for anything at all.
This really is just a sad little con trick. Perpetrated down the ages by thousands of folks already trapped in orbit around an intellectual black hole - an orbit made possible by the circular thinking you are advocating.
*sigh*
I think I might just sense that a small part of you realises this as well.
- - -
Your Number One piece of evidence was in fact discussed by us in detail months back - at the end of that debate you ceded that taking any kind of an indication for the existence for a god from such "fine tuning arguments" was only logical if you used "a different type of logic", you also said that there was plenty of other evidence and that this was not the strongest you had.
Here it is at number one. Do you remember this? Am I conjuring it out my memory/imagination - can we find the actual text?
(My own remembered (biased) version of events; We discussed Hoyle's fallacy - the lack of data on other forms of life which might be possible and the lottery fallacy. I picked you up on your error re Occams razor as well - but you use it again- have you forgotten already? You don't address these holes in your argument at all.)
First moan - evidence number one - is old hat to our chats anyway.
Second moan - You are a theist - but here you are offering evidence for deism. They are not the same thing. Logically speaking, theism is a "subset" of deism - not the other way around.
Third whinge - Likening my genuine questions for your evidence for god to demands for cheap conjuring tricks seems pretty patronising to me. I don't think you realise it - you are just following the script you have grown into over the years. But I find it very patronising none the less. I think that if you did realise it then you wouldn't say things like that - this is because I think you are a nice chap - it's just that sometimes your belief gets in the ay of that. Of course I am just a blunt speaking ignoramus anyway - so who am I to complain?
[The same internal script had you thanking god for good medical results for your wife rather than the doctors - until I prodded you a bit. I don't think you realise how this looks either. Why thank god for this anyway as you now tell me he doesn't intervene? { Cliff - Look - ignore this line of thought if you prefer- no problem - such debate about your wife is perhaps only appropriate between close friends face to face }]
If you want to delete this comment and cut and past without it - then no problem.
Anyway . . .
Your replies seem to be saying - stop asking questions and just choose to believe.
This is not evidence by anyone's definition.
Or am I missing something?
Best regards,
Psi
Psi,
I inserted the appropriate smileys! Please do likewise ...
A lot to respond to ...
See what I mean - this argument works for anything at all.
Except that I don’t know of any serious person who contends that a ham sandwich or a Leprechaun is god. Millions believe in a transcendent, personal, Creator God who has revealed himself (as he says he will) to people who seek him. Are we imagining things? Of course that’s possible. But I don’t know of anyone imagining their ham sandwich revealing itself as god.
All this is beside the point. What about the evidence itself. Are you granting that the evidence is sound, just not specific enough? Well, that’s a healthy start. So you and I can agree that there is a Creator God. Now, we have only to choose whether that Creator God is more likely the one Jesus came to reveal, or a ham sandwich, a leprechaun (or Thor, or Buddha, etc.).
But of course, I know you are not convinced by this evidence.
I reviewed our conversations about fine tuning from a year ago on Tom’s site. I cannot find a reference to “a different kind of logic”. I do remember saying that, but as I recall, it was in an entirely different context. I could be wrong. Memory is fuzzy. Anyway, I would never appeal to any other logic than that of Fred Hoyle, or John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics and of the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University). Both of these “logical” minds, and thousands of others, see a simple logic connecting fine tuning to the likelihood of a Fine Tuner.
No, indeed, this is not the strongest evidence I have. Did you read the epilogue to the full essay?
I never conceded your point about Occam’s Razor. Your definition is technically correct, but, quoting from Wikipedia: “This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.”
It is in this sense that Occam’s Razor applies to this argument, for me. For theists, Occam’s Razor applies quite straightforwardly. When the concept of Fine Tuning comes along in the 20th Century, we find it to be expected and natural. Our prior understandings fit the new discoveries to a tee. Simple. One God (unfathomable to you, maybe) is for me far simpler than 10 to the power of 59 universes. That’s a lot of assumptions! Fine Tuning is only a “problem to solve” for those who disbelieve in a Creator.
Psi, please explain your logic when you say ”Logically speaking, theism is a ‘subset’ of deism - not the other way around”. Etymologically, the two words are equivalents, on based on the Greek, the other on Latin. By what “logic” can a 5,000 year old system of belief be a “subset” of a 250 year old system of belief? Anyway, I don’t see how it matters in our current discussion, and but the Wikipedia article on Desim states the exact opposite, that “Deism is a sub-category of theism”.
Yes, my comment about God doing magic for skeptics was unduly patronizing. And yes, I did not realize it. I apologize. However, I reviewed the comment thread following my post on Ginger’s recovery, and I fail to see how you prompted me to thank medicine. I have always been thankful to medicine. I said so in those comments. How did you “prod” me?
Your replies seem to be saying - stop asking questions and just choose to believe.
No. I believe, and I keep asking questions! All the evidence can do is give a person a rational basis for seeking. It has given that basis to many believers, many former atheists. But it will not do that for all. So, I guess it is your choice. But not your choice to believe or not. Just your choice to explore the possibility a bit more than maybe you have.
Hi Cliff,
I am mortified about my biased memory of your thankfulness re Gingers illness - I assumed you meant that you were thanking god at the time - and now it is in my memory that that is what you did.
You didn't.
I'm very sorry.
Best,
Psi
PS - will tackle the logical holes in fine tuning in a little while.
Hi Cliff,
Logical holes in the fine tuning argument detailed here;
http://cogitatute.blogspot.com/2008/10/out-of-tune-why-fine-tuning-argument.html
- - -
Re the Theism/Deism issue - I am looking at it from a category/description point of view.
Draw a big circle - this circle represents "everyone".
Draw a circle inside it and label the inside of this circle deists (meaning people who think a supernatural power created the universe) (some deists might actually argue against this I think but let's keep it simple). Outside of the second circle you can label this area agnostics/atheists etc.
Inside the deist circle draw another circle, this is for theists.
Theists agree with deists about the supernatural origin of the universe but go further and also believe in some level of continued supernatural intervention.
Hopefully my thinking is easier to grasp now - feel free to point out any errors.
Best regards,
Psi
Psi,
Okay, I follow your logic re. theism being a subset of deism. I think we could just as easily construct the case for deism being a subset of theism. I just don't see why it makes any difference. I have stipulated that the first three lines of evidence (especially the first two) support the idea of a Creator God who could be personal and engaged in the affairs of men, or not. They argue for deism and/or theism. But they argue against atheism.
They are among my reasons for belief. Other reasons help me to refine the nature of God to a personal, engaged God.
If you (or Dawkins, for that matter) would abandon atheism in favor of deism, then the whole nature of our conversation would shift, wouldn't it.
Hi Cliff,
Certainly Deists are a minority compared to theists.
The conversation would also be very different if you became agnostic.
Any response to my demonstration of why the fine tuning argument is irrational?
Psi
cliff > Hoyle discovered that unique characteristics in the nucleus of the carbon atom make it possible for these atoms to be produced in such abundance; he then calculated the likelihood that these characteristics should be present, and learned that they are statistically unlikely in the extreme.
"At first sight this may seem like a pretty close call; the energy of this radioactive state of carbon misses being too high to allow the formation of carbon (and hence of us) by only 0.05 MeV, which is less than one percent of 7.65 MeV. ...
Looked at more closely, the fine-tuning of the constants of nature here does not seem so fine. ... This energy misses being too high for the production of carbon by ... 20 percent, which is not such a close call after all."
October 21, 1999. "A Designer Universe?" Steven Weinberg, The New York Review of Books.
cliff > While many of these evidences of fine tuning will be studied for many years to come, and we may find natural explanations for some...
And this isn't "god of the gaps" because...?
Weinberg's comment is based on a paper published in 1989.
And this isn't "god of the gaps" because...?
Isaac, you cut my sentence off midstream. I went on to predict that there will ultimately be no completely natural explanation for these phenomena. As I indicate we might solve a riddle or two, but I am willing to stake my world-view on what I consider the extreme unlikelihood that this mystery will find a fully natural solution. And I am not alone in that opinion. Hoyle abandoned (or very nearly abandoned) his lifelong atheistic opinion as a result of his own findings. And other God-denying scientists have been scurrying to find a mathematical solution via the multi-verse hypothesis which I take as an indication that they, too, consider any other natural explanation unlikely. Call it "God of the Gaps" if you will. But I'll stand on this one. Have you ever considered the possibility that there may, in our universe, actually exist some gaps in our knowledge which a Creator fills? Open-mindedness considers all possibilities. Is this a possibility?
Hi Cliff,
I will take that bet.
Put "ekpyrotic" into google. Then have a general read around string theory.
Also a review of the history of predictions about scientific knowledge reveals that they are very very often wrong when they predict limits to our knowledge.
Want some examples? Just ask.
I bet on the humans.
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
How exactly does ekpyrotic help? Because it gives viability to a multi-verse scheme, should string theory play out? I think I see where you are going ... that we are still penetrating the distant past, and may yet formulate theories that explain the cosmic hospitality to life. And I will agree ... could be. I think you know that I am not one to root against scientific advancements. But on this question of fine-tuning, I would wager that no workable natural explanations will arise. But, by all means, let's keep looking. All any of these theories do is push the ultimate question of First Cause back a little further into the deeper recesses of time.
Hi Cliff,
I just meant that this is an area of very active and growing research already.
This is not something that we don't even know to start on - we are getting our teeth into as we speak.
So OK you don't think it will come to anything - I will take that bet ;-)
My soul versus what?
Regards,
Psi
cliff > you cut my sentence off midstream
Yes, when there was enough for you to tell which part of your statement I was commenting on.
cliff > Call it "God of the Gaps" if you will.
I'm trying to find out if that's what you would call it.
If you think there are differences from the things you would call "God of the Gaps" then please tell me what those differences are.
Isaac,
I'll answer your question when you answer mine from two days ago:
Have you ever considered the possibility that there may, in our universe, actually exist some gaps in our knowledge which a Creator fills? Open-mindedness considers all possibilities. Is this a possibility?
There are many gaps in our knowledge.
I don't know how we can talk about gaps being filled if all we've done is link them to another gap in our knowledge (God).
(Sadly I'm unable to remember if, when my mother asked who made the mess in my room, I ever had the wit to answer "Mr Nobody!" - I suppose I should admit I probably didn't.)
I'm not talking about any gap "being filled". I am merely asking a yes or no question. I am not contending that we ever sit back and stop pursuing natural explanations. I am just asking if it is possible, in your mind, that we might encounter a gap that forever eludes the grasp of our understanding because the explanation is supernatural? Or is there some principle that precludes even the possibility that a Super-Intellect may be responsible for something like the initiation of the Big Bang, the language of DNA, or abiogenesis?
Hi Cliff,
What is your definition of "supernatural".
Thanks,
Psi
Psi,
For the sake of this discussion I am using the term to refer to a Super-Intellect, God, or any other force that would influence our cosmos from outside of our sphere of detection. Anything above or beyond what we would call "natural". I know this is somewhat vague, and I haven't thought through the definition much.
We could just as well turn the question around: Do you believe absolutely in the power of science to ultimately explain everything?
Hi Cliff,
The definitions are important.
My answer is yes (but then again science tells us we can't get the information destroyed by a black hole so there are exceptions).
I reason like this; If your god is detectable then we can detect him. So science can go to work.
If not then we can't.
Can science detect god? (or does he confine himself to a black hole?)
Regards,
Psi
Thinking on a little . . . you definition of god would seem to include us all, from the standpoint of less advanced civilisations. Technology we haven't yet got would seem to fit your definition perfectly.
Why would any of this need any explanation other than the natural?
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
... your definition of god ...
Bear in mind that you asked me to define "supernatural", not "god". I have not offered any definition of god that I am aware of.
Can science detect god?
No. And that is the point. If God (or any other totally supernatural force) is directly responsible for any phenomenon in nature (a possibility that you are apparently willing to rule out) than two things are true: 1) We will never detect the agency or the agent, and 2) the "gap" in our understanding will never go away.
btw, I think one of the wikipedia definitions of supernatural is that it is undetectable by any natural means.
So, when you say "yes, science has the potential to explain everything" you are ruling out the possibility of any supernatural agent acting upon the cosmos. Is this correct?
cliff > I'm not talking about any gap "being filled".
Do you see that when you talk about "gaps in our knowledge which a Creator fills" I might think you are talking about a gap "being filled"?
cliff > I am just asking if it is possible, in your mind, that we might encounter a gap that forever eludes the grasp of our understanding because the explanation is supernatural?
Yes we might encounter a gap that forever eludes the grasp of our understanding.
Saying "... because the explanation is supernatural" is to suggest one mystery can somehow be explained by another mystery, the supernatural.
That isn't explanation, it's re-description - the original mystery remains a mystery, it remains unexplained - we've just used different words to say it's a mystery.
cliff > And that is the point. If God (or any other totally supernatural force) is directly responsible for any phenomenon in nature ... than two things are true: 1) We will never detect the agency or the agent, and 2) the "gap" in our understanding will never go away.
Claims that "God (or any other totally supernatural force) is directly responsible for any phenomenon in nature" can fail because the claimed phenomena can not be detected.
Isaac writes Claims that "God (or any other totally supernatural force) is directly responsible for any phenomenon in nature" can fail because the claimed phenomena can not be detected.
Of course! Such a phenomena cannot be detected. We are talking in circles here. If I conclude that a supernatural super-intellect is a highly reasonable possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that is not a "claim" that can "succeed" or "fail". It is not a scientific claim because it is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. It is a logical possibility, one that for me fits the data better than any other explanation.
You missed the earlier point about a gap being filled by God. Semantics. Not worth revisiting.
Hi Cliff,
Yes - using your versions of the various definitions then I am happy to rule out the detection by natural means by humans of something which by your definition is undetectable by natural means.
I am also happy to rule out the existence of a square circle.
Not sure where this gets you or me as this says nothing at all about whether or not such a phenomenon actually exists in it's non-detectableness.
You seem to be convinced that there will or indeed already is something which is absolutely impossible to explain or understand. We also have a liberal sprinkling of the concept of the supernatural but I'm not sure how this provides any kind of reason for your view.
By your own definition of supernatural then it would seem to be indistinguishable from the non-existent.
If it isn't then how is it different?
Why can't I claim equality of your view with that of folks who believe in an invisible pink unicorn? Where do you see the differences?
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
Do your really see no substantive difference between a claim for pink unicorns and an argument that certain aspects of nature suggests teleology? Do you really see no more logic in an argument that shook Fred Hoyle than you do in a claim for a flying spaghetti machine? You suggest my view is irrational, and in the process your own argument borders upon ridiculous! Really! Try to imagine Fred Hoyle being shaken by any argument you can imagine for the existence of pink unicorns. Tell me what you come up with?
I give you every right to arrive at a different conclusion from the data I cite in this series of posts. I grant again and again that the evidence is ultimately inconclusive. I also agree that the evidentiary power of the data could change through future discovery and workable hypotheses. But, I have reasoned (as have countless others including thousands of scientists) that theism is a rational approach to the universe based upon certain data. You make me out to be nothing more than a unicorn-obsessed schizo.
Psi:"Yes - using your versions of the various definitions then I am happy to rule out the detection by natural means by humans of something which by your definition is undetectable by natural means. I am also happy to rule out the existence of a square circle."
Psi, I never asked you if you thought God might be undetectable. Duh. What I specifically asked was whether or not you would consider an undetectable supernatural force a possibility. The whole point of defining supernatural was so that we could stipulate that such a being would in fact be undetectable. Now that we agree, do you rule out the possibility that such a being might exist? I take it from your assertion that “undetectable = nonexistent” that your answer is no.
(btw, I’d love to understand the logic that leads you to such an assertion. It is based upon an assumption of pure Materialism, is it not? Can you offer a scientific defense of Materialism? When you can show me, scientifically, that nothing but physical matter can possibly exist, I will join the ranks of the atheists!)
Isaac writes 'Claims that "God (or any other totally supernatural force) is directly responsible for any phenomenon in nature" can fail because the claimed phenomena can not be detected.'
cliff > Of course! Such a phenomena cannot be detected.
Perhaps there's some confusion here between phenomena and "God (or any other totally supernatural force)".
In the example I provided, the phenomenon would have been a difference in the rate of complications between the different patient groups - but no such phenomenon existed, so there simply was nothing to be explained.
The ordinary dictionary definition of phenomenon demands something that can be detected.
cliff > You missed the earlier point about a gap being filled by God. Semantics. Not worth revisiting.
Semantics is simply the study of what words mean, and before agreeing or disagreeing it seems no more than polite to understand what you mean by your words.
By "the explanation is supernatural" do you mean no more than taking "gaps in our knowledge" and sticking the label "the explanation is supernatural" on them, or do you mean you have a clear and detailed working out for those "gaps in our knowledge"?
Isaac,
The ordinary dictionary definition of phenomenon demands something that can be detected.
Yes, phenomena are detectable. I have not suggested that God, or any other supernatural force would be a “phenomenon”. I have only suggested that God, or some supernatural force may be the cause of certain phenomena.
By "the explanation is supernatural" do you mean no more than taking "gaps in our knowledge" and sticking the label "the explanation is supernatural" on them, or do you mean you have a clear and detailed working out for those "gaps in our knowledge"?
If I understand your question, the answer would be neither. I have never said “the explanation is supernatural.” Rather, I have suggested that whilst a gap remains (any gap, for that matter), the possibility exists that the explanation could be supernatural. When we find a natural explanation, the gap ceases to be. But if, in fact, any observable phenomenon has a supernatural cause, such a gap will never go away. And along with the gap, the possibility of a supernatural causation will also never go away.
The danger of typical “god of the gaps” arguments comes when they cut off or discourage further inquiry. That is why I oppose filling gaps with God. But to offer God, or any other supernatural force, as a possible (and perhaps even likely) explanation for any given phenomenon is an approach which is rational, and does not discourage science.
A few days ago I asked - "If you think there are differences from the things you would call "God of the Gaps" then please tell me what those differences are."
Now we seem to have come back to "God of the Gaps" and while recognizing that you don't want a "God of the Gaps" arguments to discourage further inquiry, I'd still like to know if you think what you've put forward is a "God of the Gaps" argument.
cliff > I have never said “the explanation is supernatural.”
If I put it in quotation marks it most likely is a sign that I at least think you did ;-)
March 12, 2009 11:17 AM
I'm not trying to catch you out; I'm not trying to hold you to a typing error - to me it would be perfectly ordinary for you to say you mispoke.
If we can accept the wikipedia definition of how the term is used today: "The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon", then I am not making a God-of-the-gaps argument. I assume no such thing.
This relates to your mistaken view that I ever claimed that for any particular phenomenon “the explanation is supernatural.” I do not make such claims. But neither do I rule out the possibility that the explanation for certain phenomena may be supernatural. Do you? (I've been trying to get you to answer this now for several days. Will you please do so?)
cliff > "But neither do I rule out the possibility that the explanation for certain phenomena may be supernatural. Do you?"
I think it is a logical possibility that some unknowable agency in some unknowable way is the logical cause of every known phenomena - whether or not there exist plausible detailed naturalistic explanations for those phenomena is completely irrelevant - all that matters is that the laws of logic aren't broken.
If all you wish to talk about is a logical possibility then I wouldn't consider that a "God of the Gaps" argument - nor would I consider it an explanation.
Talk about logical possibility as much as you like, I won't gainsay you.
However, my impression from your response to psi is that you wish to claim more than logical possibility ?
Isaac,
If all you wish to talk about is a logical possibility then I wouldn't consider that a "God of the Gaps" argument ... However, my impression from your response to psi is that you wish to claim more than logical possibility?
1) No, a "logical possibility" is not "all [I] wish to talk about." But it is all I have asked both you and Psi to offer a simple agree/disagree regarding. Thank you for your response.
2) You are quite right. I do see more than a mere "logical possibility". I think I was quite clear about that in the O.P. But I was equally clear that the evidence, which is powerful for me, is not conclusive; and I welcome the continuing search for natural explanations for abiogenesis, Big Bang original cause, incredible fine tuning, etc.
Hi Cliff,
Isn't is great when a thread comes back to life!
My fault for assuming that by supernatural you meant god - but I'm not sure what difference you see in these two things - please explain.
I thought you didn't go in form ghosts and contact with the dead or evil spirits and such stuff but please correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway - to answer your heartfelt questions;
Psi,
Do your really see no substantive difference between a claim for pink unicorns and an argument that certain aspects of nature suggests teleology? Do you really see no more logic in an argument that shook Fred Hoyle than you do in a claim for a flying spaghetti machine?
Yes - I explained the holes in the argument at the top of the thread. The arment does not hold any water. Hoyle himself has alogical fallacies named after him in exactly this regard. It is simply the argument from design re-phrased.
Show me where I went wrong in my explanation of this - I am happy to be shown my errors.
You suggest my view is irrational, and in the process your own argument borders upon ridiculous! Really! Try to imagine Fred Hoyle being shaken by any argument you can imagine for the existence of pink unicorns. Tell me what you come up with?
I do say that you have no rational basis for your opinion. Sorry about this. Please take my rational argument that this is so apart - I am all ears.
Let me try to re-phrase;
There is something we can't currently explain let's call it THE GAP.
I say that you have not given any reason to suppose that there is no way to explain to explain THE GAP ever. I admit that can't prove that there will be a way. But i think there will be a way as so far most other predictions have turned out to be wrong. I particularly like the ones about dating rocks, and about never being able to find out what kind of matter is in the stars.
You go on to define a possible reason why THE GAP will never be explained (still an unsupported assertion) as something you call the supernatural which by definition can never be detected by humans (you say science - this is just people carefully checking the data to make sure they are fooled - so forgive my short cut as "the humans").
Now you want me to admit the "logical" possibility that given your unsupported assertion being true and things do exist that we can never explain, will in fact turn out to be unexplainable by something which is undetectable.
I would also further point out that you and I can never know when something is not explainable unless we set some kind of deadline by which the explaining has to be done which means in effect that THE GAP is actually undetectable ;-)
I ask again what is the difference between something that can not be detected at all in any way and something which does not exist?
I give you every right to arrive at a different conclusion from the data I cite in this series of posts. I grant again and again that the evidence is ultimately inconclusive. I also agree that the evidentiary power of the data could change through future discovery and workable hypotheses. But, I have reasoned (as have countless others including thousands of scientists) that theism is a rational approach to the universe based upon certain data. You make me out to be nothing more than a unicorn-obsessed schizo.
I certainly don't think you are a "schizo", but I do think you are wrong.
I think you are a nice bloke and pretty intelligent, but I do think you are wrong.
I don't think that it is just a case that the evidence is inconclusive, I go further and point to large holes in your, and Hoyle's, and Billions of other people's arguments. Please feel free to tell me where my arguments explaining those errors are wrong.
Lots of people, in their droves, think lots of silly things are sensible all the time. Do you want some non religious examples? There are huge numbers of them.
The argument ad populum is one of the more comforting logical fallacies, but it still does not make a supportable argument.
Psi, I never asked you if you thought God might be undetectable. Duh. What I specifically asked was whether or not you would consider an undetectable supernatural force a possibility. The whole point of defining supernatural was so that we could stipulate that such a being would in fact be undetectable. Now that we agree, do you rule out the possibility that such a being might exist? I take it from your assertion that “undetectable = nonexistent” that your answer is no.
(btw, I’d love to understand the logic that leads you to such an assertion. It is based upon an assumption of pure Materialism, is it not? Can you offer a scientific defense of Materialism? When you can show me, scientifically, that nothing but physical matter can possibly exist, I will join the ranks of the atheists!)
Tell me the difference between something not existing at all (i.e. no matter how we look for it we find no evidence of it's existence or any impact on the universe in anyway) and something being "supernatural" and being undetectable and having no impact on the universe in any way.
I don't assume that the supernatural does not exist, I just point to a lack of any evidence for it at all.
Just like with a flying spaghetti monster, an invisble pink unicorn, and just as you do with Thor and Odin, Mohammed, Allah etc.
- - -
On the other hand I also look at huge piles of evidence that an approach to the world that says, "Let's see if we can figure this out using natural causes and effects?" works.
This approach as used by "the humans" has doubled our life expectancy in the UK in 100 years, it now cures most types of cancer, it can detect earthquakes and tsunamis, it get's us to the moon and planets.
It fills in gaps in so many ways.
So I think it works based on evidence, not based on an assumption.
Happy to examine evidence to the contrary of course - feel free to wheel it out.
Regards,
Psi
Hi Cliff,
Would you mind sharing with us how and when you "gained" your faith?
Thanks & Regards,
Psi
Psi,
Wow, quite a laundry list. I will pick out just a few things and respond. My personal faith journey ... the subject of your second comment ... I will perhaps tackle in a main post. Here is my response to your first comment:
Psi,
The difference between “supernatural” and “god”? “Supernatural” is a more general, inclusive term. The evidence in the first three Reasons for my Belief entries do not point to any god per se, and certainly not to the Christian God particularly. They point to an undefined supernatural force, IMO. So, for the sake of our conversation, I try not to make the evidence say more than it actually does. I do believe that the supernatural force is God, the Christian God, but that is a discussion for another day.
I explained the holes in the argument at the top of the thread. The arment does not hold any water. Hoyle himself has alogical fallacies named after him in exactly this regard. It is simply the argument from design re-phrased. Show me where I went wrong in my explanation of this - I am happy to be shown my errors.
Your argument is not errant. However, all you have done is offer alternative solutions to the mystery of fine-tuning. You may note that I acknowledged such alternative solutions in the O.P., and I think, I presented them fairly. The evidence does not point conclusively to my conclusions. I have always agreed with you. And that is all you have ever demonstrated. We agree! Where we disagree is this: I contend that an intelligent creative supernatural force who created with purpose is more likely to be the case than the alternative explanations you (and others) have offered.
I say that you have not given any reason to suppose that there is no way to explain to explain THE GAP ever.
When did I ever claim I supposed such a thing? I have over and over again agreed than any and all current gaps may go away, may find naturalistic explanations. I know you think Hoyle was mistaken, or went to far in his conclusions. That is debatable. But what I specifically asked you to do is imagine Hoyle being shaken to the core by pink unicorns. What I want you to do is explain to me how that could happen. What data is out there that would make a believer out of Hoyle? Or any intelligent thoughtful person?
Your comparison of theism based on fine tuning, etc., to belief in pink unicorns is way over the top. Can’t you really not see that?
you and I can never know when something is not explainable
True! And that is why such evidence as “Fine Tuning” is inconclusive, and will remain inconclusive. I have been saying this all along.
what is the difference between something that can not be detected at all in any way and something which does not exist?
To claim something cannot be detected is not a claim at all. It is an acknowledgment of the current limits of human knowledge. To claim something does not exist is a positive claim. Positive claims require substantiation. There is a difference between “I don’t know if God exists” and “God does not exist.” Do you agree?
Please feel free to tell me where my arguments explaining those errors are wrong.?
Perhaps I do not fully understand your arguments (though I have read them several times). You are saying that we cannot draw a conclusion about God from fine tuning, because there are other possible explanations. And I agree with you! Always have agreed with you! Are you claiming to have disproved that fine tuning could point to purpose and design? Let me turn your argument back on yourself. I believe that a Creator is a possible solution to the fine tuning mystery. Therefore (I’m using your logic!) Psi’s contention that is could be due to some multi-verse scheme is proven to be wrong! Of course, I do not buy that argument any more than I concede that you have disproved the theistic argument from fine tuning.
If I had claimed a theistic "proof" from fine tuning ... then you are right: you have proved me wrong. But I never made any theistic proof arguments.
I just point to a lack of any evidence for it at all.
No, you point to a lack of evidence that convinces you. There is plenty of evidence. Just none that you find conclusive. I have suggested in my series that there is ample evidence to make even an honest skeptic say, “Well, maybe.” Plenty have found that to be the first step toward faith. A first step that leads to more steps, and even more compelling personal, experiential evidences. Are you afraid of the first step? It seems to me that you, with something akin to religious fervor, desperately avoid saying, “Well, maybe.”
cliff The evidence in the first three Reasons for my Belief entries ... They point to an undefined supernatural force...
In what way do they show more than logical possibility ?
Do you say they show - physical possibility? practical possibility? probability?
cliff > Your comparison of theism based on fine tuning, etc., to belief in pink unicorns is way over the top. Can’t you really not see that?
I don't know anything about "pink unicorns" - do you say they are not a logical possibility ?
cliff > There is plenty of evidence. Just none that you find conclusive.
What kind of claim are you saying there is plenty of evidence for - physical possibility? practical possibility? probability?
Isaac,
In what way do they show more than logical possibility
This was the subject of the OPs. Do you need further clarification?
I don't know anything about "pink unicorns" - do you say they are not a logical possibility?
No. Pink unicorns are a logical possibility. But I find nothing in nature that suggests I should consider the possibility in any way other than as a logical possibility. There are several factors which persuade me to consider the logical possibility of cosmic teleology, design and purpose.
What kind of claim are you saying there is plenty of evidence for - physical possibility? practical possibility? probability?
I may not understand you question or your purpose in asking, but my initial response is yes, yes, and yes.
Hi Cliff,
Just one point for now;
I don't say that the evidence of fine tuning is inconclusive (it is) but that it is not even indicative.
You might as well say that the colour of socks I am wearing today is inconclusive so you can draw your own conclusion from that if you like.
Regards,
Psi
PS I spotted a commentary on fine tuning earlier today which highlighted another error ot thinking in your case to do with the maths;
You can only multiply probability if you know that events are separate and don't effect one another. Like coin tosses for example.
To claim such for various constants when we have no idea if they are separate or if one being at a certain value may mean another has to be at another value, is not a valid or true description of the situation.
cliff > The evidence in the first three Reasons for my Belief entries ... They point to an undefined supernatural force...
In what way do they show more than logical possibility ?
cliff > This was the subject of the OPs. Do you need further clarification?
Yes.
What part of this OP ("the finely-tuned cosmos") - let's be more specific - what part of the comments taken from a 25 year old article by Sir Fred Hoyle do you say show more than logical possiblity ?
Psi,
You can only multiply probability if you know that events are separate and don't effect one another. Like coin tosses for example.
I see the point. I am generally suspicious when event probabilities are compounded.
Isaac,
I do not pretend to be a physicist or a biochemist. I do not claim to understand the evidence nearly so well as Hoyle and Denton. But to an non-believer mathematician/astronmer, the evidence was “so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (Hoyle). And to a non-believing biochemist, “All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology” (Denton).
I know, you and Psi are not impressed with an appeal to authority. I could understand that objection if I were appealing to some Christian or theistic authority. But what makes the testimony of Hoyle and Denton so compelling for me is the fact that they are not Christians, and could best be described as agnostics. The fact that two agnostics would come to such powerfully stated conclusions suggests to me that the evidence supports more that a mere “logical possibility”.
If that is insufficient for you, so be it. Remember, I am offering my reasons for belief. And I am well satisfied that the nature of this evidence suggest more than just a “possibility”.
Beyond that, I do not at present have the time or energy to commit to this debate. I was asked by Psi to state some of my reasons for belief. I have done so. Those reasons still stand for me. Though I appreciate discussing those reasons with both you and Psi, I must tell you that nothing either of you have written has unsettled any of my reasons, though you have helped me to refine them somewhat. And I thank you for that.
Isn't evolution wonderful?
Look at that meme go!
Thanks Cliff,
Best regards,
Psi
cliff > The fact that two agnostics would come to such powerfully stated conclusions suggests to me that the evidence supports more than a mere “logical possibility”.
Is it correct that you don't feel able to say in what way Sir Fred Hoyle's comments support more than a mere "logical possibility"?
Is it correct that you feel the emphatic way he stated his conclusion, in itself somehow argues that it must support more than a mere “logical possibility”?
Would it be fair to say you feel Sir Fred Hoyle's comments support your own viewpoint and you have simply taken his comments as confirmation for your own viewpoint rather than check what others who are able to assess "the evidence" have said about them?
Isaac,
Is it correct that you don't feel able to say in what way Sir Fred Hoyle's comments support more than a mere "logical possibility"?
No, it is not correct to say that. But the teleological fine-tuning cosmic argument is well documented all over the internet. It is easy to find. I could rehash all that evidence for you, but that would be completely inappropriate in a comments section. I have studied those arguments from multiple sources. You are free to research the many detailed statements of this argument.
Is it correct that you feel the emphatic way he stated his conclusion, in itself somehow argues that it must support more than a mere “logical possibility”?
No, that is not correct. I chose not to rehash the details of the fine-tuning argument in the OP; Instead I let Hoyle make the case for me.
Would it be fair to say you feel Sir Fred Hoyle's comments support your own viewpoint and you have simply taken his comments as confirmation for your own viewpoint rather than check what others who are able to assess "the evidence" have said about them?
No. In fact, I am familiar with the arguments on both sides of the issue.
cliff > I know, you and Psi are not impressed with an appeal to authority. I could understand that objection if I were appealing to some Christian or theistic authority. But what makes the testimony of Hoyle and Denton so compelling for me is the fact that they are not Christians, and could best be described as agnostics.
Then I'll provide an authority to explain -
'Just as we have to examine our own assertions to make sure they square with the facts, so too we have to make sure the expert evidence we use in an argument is truly that. ... The test here is not what people say about what they know, but how they show what they know through argument.' p117
Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking
Does it give more weight to the words to know that "Being Logical" was written by someone who teaches at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary rather than a secular institution?
And on the same authority - 'The "democratic fallacy" is the assumption that the mere fact that most people believe proposition X to be true is sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that proposition X is true.' p114
Isaac,
You are really obsessed with this! I merely wrote a series of posts in which I outline several reasons for my belief. It was not a doctoral dissertation. It was not an attempt to prove anything to anyone. One of those reasons for my belief is the fine tuning of the universe ... a rather well known and understood theistic argument. It is not new with me. I didn't make it up. Everyone who has entered into the theistic question to any depth is already familiar with it. For me it carries water. For many skeptics it does not. I know that. I understand the reasons. I am not trying to prove God's existence. I am not contending that the fine-tuning data can only mean one thing. I am merely saying that this is one of the lines of reasoned evidence for the existence of a Creator which makes sense to me. It is not news to me that you don't buy the argument. I'm not trying to persuade you. The Hoyle and Denton citations are offered more as illustrative of the fine-tuning argument. I do not offer their testimony as proof of anything. You can simply take it on face value. They did say those things.
I grant you and Psi the right to read the data a different way. And I merely ask you to acknowledge that the evidence could point to purpose and design. Makes sense to me. But to suggest that it makes no more sense than pink-unicornism (Psi) or to lecture me about my logical abuses (you) both totally miss the point; and the point is ...
Fine tuning has been, and remains, one piece of what makes theism rational for me!
cliff > You are really obsessed with this! I merely wrote a series of posts in which I outline several reasons for my belief. ...
I've merely been trying to gain a clear understanding of why those reasons make sense to you.
Reading "Nature's Destiny" answered one unanswered question - there's page after page of "possibility", "suggestive", "it seems conceivable" but no attempt to provide an argument to bridge from possibility to anything more.
I won't bore you with my thoughts on Denton's book.
But if you'll humor me -
1) You seem to suggest Denton is not a Christian - what makes you say that?
2) OP > ... fine tuning ... is rarely invoked by Creationists, even by Intelligent Design proponents like Philip Johnson and Michael Behe.
afaict in 400 pages Denton never defines "directed evolution", this is as close as he gets -
'Perhaps one day organisms will be radically transformed by genetic engineering... this will only be by "Intelligent" design. In other words, it will be directed. ... But if the only way we can conceive of artificial evolution is through coordinated change brought about by intelligent direction, then surely the possibility that the process of evolution was similarly engineered can hardly be discounted.' p343
How do you think that differs from - "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" - "Intelligent Design" ?
If you don't wish to answer, don't.
(... if he had been one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 of a light-year shorter ... Michael Jordan would not have been the world’s greatest basketball player. pdf)
Isaac,
Go to http://www.godresources.org/intelligent_design5.shtml and search for Michael Denton. Everything I've ever read about Denton indicates that he is agonistic.
Your own comments trying to link I.D. proponents with the fine-tuning argument shows why they do not appeal to fine-tuning in the same way I (and many others) do. You quote the following statement:
"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"
If evolution is directed, fine tuning is fundamentally unnecessary. Fine tuning, as a theistic argument, only makes sense if you posit an "undirected process such as natural selection". That is, if evolution happens naturalistically, then at its outset the cosmos had to have all those fine-tuned characteristics in extremely tight parameters. If evolution is directed (as most I.D. authors suggest), fine tuning might be part of the picture ... but God is seen as adjusting, altering, intervening at various junctures in life history.
Isaac,
I am curious ... did you presume Denton was a Christian or a theist?
Do you automatically presume that anyone who says, "Ah, this cosmos has design written all over it!" must surely be a Christian? Do you believe that no one, except the religiously biased, could possibly notice the apparent teleological nature of things?
Hi cliff,
I'm puzzled;
I thought that believing the universe was created / designed was the very definition of deism (theists bring a sub variety of deists)
??
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
Deists might appeal to some of the same evidence to support their views; however, you definition of deism tells only half the story. A deist would deny that the Creator has ever intervened in his creation since his original acts of creation.
Many Christians see God intervening frequently, or even constantly. While my view is that God intervenes less often, and probably not in any "creation" sense. I do believe that God is both vitally interested and involved in the affairs of men.
Hi Cliff,
Ok - I was just being polite - I wasn't confused but thought you were.
The dictionary seems quite clear to me.
So I don't follow your comment to Isaac at all.
Sorry,
Psi
Psi,
If you see an inconsistency in my argument, you'll need to be more specific (I want to know if I am being inconsistent).
I am neither I.D. not deistic. I am an evolutionary creationist. I believe the God created a universe which would (at least in large measure ... there are still some mysteries out there!) quite naturally spawn life forms that would ultimately evolve into spirit beings (humans!). I believe his "hands-off" of evolving life forms is essential to his purposes. All of this is not to say that he never intervenes, or that he never enters into the dimensions of our existence ... he does! But if he constantly prodded or fixed or adjusted the evolutionary process (as most IDs insist he must) it would invalidate his larger plan and purpose.
I did not make up the bit about IDs not appealing to fine tuning. Others have noted the same thing, and offered the same rationale I did. Truth is, IDs do appeal to fine tuning to some extent. But fine tuning is not as critical to an ID or special creationist as it is to an evolutionist.
It is all just an interesting aside, anyway.
cliff > Go to http://www.godresources.org/intelligent_design5.shtml and search for Michael Denton.
There isn't a search box on that webpage - was you comment intended to be sarcastic?
cliff > Everything I've ever read about Denton indicates that he is agonistic.
Just to be clear - have you read any statement by Michael Denton where he states his personal beliefs?
cliff (later) > I am curious ... did you presume Denton was a Christian or a theist?
I didn't presume anything.
I settled for what I knew.
What I knew was that I didn't know anything about Michael Denton's personal beliefs (and web searches haven't provided anything I regard as substantive).
"The test here is not what people say about what they know, but how they show what they know through argument."
I look to the argument Denton sets forth - not to his personal beliefs, whatever they may be.
Isaac,
No sarcasm intended. Every web page has a search box on my browser (Safari). All I do is Command >F, the same way I search any thing on my Apple computer. I guess I assumed that all computers would have a way of searching web pages in the event the page does not include a search box. Sorry.
At any rate, you could read the article on that page. I was merely trying to save you some time by directing you to the statement about Denton the same way I found it myself.
I have read several articles stating that Denton is agnostic. I have never considered the question to be controversial. I've never read Denton's personal avowal of his beliefs. As I understand things, he parted ways with the Discovery Institute when its "theistic" agenda became increasingly apparent.
cliff > No sarcasm intended.
OK - I misunderstood you to mean site search, when you meant page search.
For what it's worth to you, I came across this -
'Behe: During the April 1996 meeting at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Washingon, DC, where Denton and I both spoke, he said to the whole group of journalists and other folks there that he thought God had set up the universe to produce human beings.
...
Then I said, “But there just one thing that bothers me. For a natural theology, it doesn’t mention God.” Denton seemed a bit startled by that, and he said, “Well, I certainly believe in God, and I think God did this. I was just trying to style the arguments in the fashion of the natural theologies of the early nineteenth century.” So it seems pretty clear to me that Denton in fact sees the evidence for design as pointing, ultimately, to a transcendent intelligence.'
Origins & Design 19:2 Issue 37
"A Roundtable on Nature's Destiny"
And then Michael Denton's summary of why he disagrees with special creationism perhaps provides a hint -
"... it is clear that purpose or design in nature that is the result of natural law can be safely attributed to the author of those laws - God. All purposes and designs in the cosmos that are not the result of natural law can never be safely attributed to God."
p153 Darwinism Defeated?
Post a Comment