Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Is Intelligent Design Incompatible with Fine Tuning?
By way of quick review, the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) looks to the well-established scientific finding that our universe's physical parameters are astonishingly fine-tuned to allow complex life to develop. It says that the odds of this happening, apart from purposeful direction from God, are essentially nil.
So, now science has proven the existence of God, has it? I wonder if the National Academy of Science would agree with that. As I recall, their position has always been that science is silent as to the existence of a supreme being. They seem to be under the false impression that they haven't proven the existence of God at all.
Perhaps you should go set them straight.
Maybe they just forgot they proved it.
Ron, being snarky is one thing; being snarky when you haven't read the whole post--where this is straightforwardly addressed--is another. It's not helping your credibility a bit.
I must be completely misreading your argument then. Your post seems to be making the statement that it has been scientifically established that the universe had to be specifically created.
(Please re-read the original quote I supplied.) If so, you've made a baldly false statement.
It's not a question of whether or not you believe the FTA is very strong. It's whether or not professional scientists in the relevant fields (such as cosmology) make the claim that science has essentially established the existence of a Supreme Being. Although many cosmologists believe in a Creator, many others don't and no firm concensus of opinion--much less actual scientific claims--has emerged or is likely to.
Here's what--In this age of the internet, it should be easy to provide a link to a mainstream scientific society (NOT the Disco Inst. or some Christian advocacy group) that officially claims that it has established that the cosmos was created.
Can you do this?
Ron,
You should read the quote you provided yourself.
Hey Charlie--
Been awhile. How are ya?
Tom's post says that the universe was specifically set up to either allow or require life to develop, and that there is absolutely no chance that this happened without Divine Intervention, and that all these things are established scientific facts.
Isn't this what it says? Because if it is, then Tom needs to remind the National Academy of Sciences that they have already proven the existence of God, because they seem to have forgotten:
Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science p. 58
National Academies Press
Morning, Ron.
I'm great, thanks for asking.
You quoted Tom:
By way of quick review, the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) looks to the well-established scientific finding that our universe's physical parameters are astonishingly fine-tuned to allow complex life to develop. It says that the odds of this happening, apart from purposeful direction from God, are essentially nil.
And now say:
Tom's post says that the universe was specifically set up to either allow or require life to develop, and that there is absolutely no chance that this happened without Divine Intervention, and that all these things are established scientific facts.
Isn't this what it says?
Well, no, it isn't, is it?
Let's see if we can find what Tom said was an established finding.
the well-established scientific finding that our universe's physical parameters are astonishingly fine-tuned to allow complex life to develop.
There.
The fine-tuning of the physical parameters. The very thing that the multi-verse theories are designed to get around.
And where do we get the claim of Divine Intervention?
By way of quick review, the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) ... says that the odds of this happening, apart from purposeful direction from God, are essentially nil.
The argument, not the scientific finding.
ps.
By the way, leafing through my spring hardware catalogue I found hoes and hose on the same page (a gardening advert).
Thought you'd be interested,
Thanks for that help, Charlie!
Ron, the point is that Fine Tuning requires an explanation. Many Worlds is an explanation, which in my humble opinion requires you to set aside science and move into a kind of secular blind faith. There could be, someday, an actual scientific answer; for example, if a unified field theory is ever developed it might explain why these things have to be as they are. (I doubt it, since we're talking about more than physical laws here, but it's possible.)
The theistic response to the FTA has also been convincing to many. So here's how I would give a full response to your comment:
FTA lends very, very strong support to belief that there is a personal creator who intended life to come about in the universe. This is not a scientific finding per se, and in writing it as I did in the post, I was not ignorant of this. It is, rather, a theological and philosophical conclusion drawn from well established scientific facts. There are potential alternate conclusions one could draw, but because they have serious weaknesses, FTA is evidence supportive of theism.
Tom,
FTA lends very, very strong support to belief that there is a personal creator who intended life to come about in the universe.Actually, if you do the probability analysis, you find that this is not the case.
Suppose that it is meaningful to consider the probability that there is a universe with a particular set of properties (which is dubious, but will go with the supposition). So we are looking at the likelihood that a theory T is true given physical constants C, and presence of life, L, i.e.,
P(T|C,L)
This is proportional to the likelihood of the constants given the theory, P(C, L|T).
This probability is factorable:
P(T|C,L) = P(T|C) P(L|C)
When you do the analysis, you find that P(L|C) factors out of the theorem. That means that the presence of life has no bearing on the likelihood of C.
This isn't to say you can't cook up a story that relates the two, but, formally, the MN view cannot see any connection between the likelihood of our universe and the presence of life within it. IOW, you cannot rationally make the inference you want to make, because you don't know that whatever caused C to be fine tuned also aimed for L. In those universes where the cause does not create L, no observation is made.
At the very least, this means that unified field theories could fully explain FT.
BTW, if you want to propose that it is meaningful to consider the likelihood of getting our universe, you are forced to consider physical theories that extend beyond our universe (multiverses, oscillating universes, etc.). I agree with you though, that multiverse theories are not very compelling unless they make some prediction about our own universe. However, I'm still waiting for theism to do the same.
Tom--
FTA lends very, very strong support to belief that there is a personal creator who intended life to come about in the universe.
Personal creator, Tom?
Still, there should be an easy way to determine if this is likely to be true before even going into the merits of the argument. Do a reality check: What do professional cosmologists think of the idea?
Now, I haven't done a survey of that species of scientist or even done a google search. But I think I can still safely make a prediction: There will be no mainstream professional astronomical societies that officially endorse the FTA or even imply such an endorsement. Upon what do I base this? Because if the faithful had such an endorsement, they would club the rest of us mercilessly with it, and they aren't doing that.
I don't mean the above as some kind of proof, of course. Like I said--more of a 'reality check.'
Ron, the point is that Fine Tuning requires an explanation
I think this may be one of the most basic points our views diverge on FTA. You say it requires an explanation. I say it is an explanation, or purports to be: The universe allows life because it was fine-tuned.
After all, Carl Sagan didn't seem too impressed, and his scientific credentials weren't questioned too often.
I say it is an explanation, or purports to be: The universe allows life because it was fine-tuned.
I don't think it explains the question that Tom is trying to address. The question is: The universe is fine-tuned because.....?
If your response settled the matter, then I don't think you'd see any of the multi-verse theories. The multi-verse theories were specifically crafted in an attempt to answer the question. Science thinks that Tom's statement "Fine Tuning requires an explanation" is true.
doctor(logic),
Your factorization looks fishy to me--you treated the probabilities as if they were independent when they are not. (At least, I think that's where the error comes from.)
From the way I understand FTA, L is part of the definition of C, so even if it were possible to factor out L, it would be meaningless. We would still have C, conditions in the universe that are life-conducive or life-permitting.
Ron,
There will be no mainstream professional astronomical societies that officially endorse the FTA or even imply such an endorsement.
Good for them. It's not cosmology, it's a philosophical conclusion from cosmological facts. The cosmological facts are not (in my words) proof, they are strong evidence for that philosophical argument. It would be highly irresponsible for any cosmological society to go out of their field to endorse this conclusion. (There are certainly cosmologists who support it, however.)
Your last point needs further explanation, as SteveK also noticed. I said Fine Tuning needs explanation. In your answer you gave an explanation for life, not for fine tuning:
I say it is an explanation, or purports to be: The universe allows life because it was fine-tuned.
Are you referencing the Strong Anthropic Principle here?
Tom, I'm unclear as to how you distinguish between a scientific conclusion and a philosophic conclusion when you say that the idea that the FTA leads to belief in God is a philosophic, not a scientific conclusion.
Can you explain how the distinction applies in this case?
Guys,
Tom's saying that the FTA provides nearly irrefutable evidence for the existence of a personal creator.
All I'm saying in reply is that it seems to me that if the FTA really did that, then there would be a preponderance (Charlie--check the spelling) of astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists that were highly religious, and I don't think that's the case. I know there are some, but a great many are either non-believers or at most weak believers. Not a lot of on-fire Pentacostals; put it that way.
As a group, they don't seem to provide a lot of enthusiasm for your claims. A few, perhaps, but that's all.
In summation:
The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty.
Stephen Hawking doesn't seem real bowled over by FTA.
Ron,
Charlie--check the spelling
Why, is your dictionary broken?
Ron,
Do you think it all has to do with evidence? Many times people believe things that run contrary to the evidence because of the implications and consequences that follow from those beliefs. I'm sure we've all heard of the term 'cognitive dissonance'.
Many of the hard scientists I meet don't even know the term humility, and certainly are unfamiliar with implementing such a concept into their day to day life.... from my own experience, I quickly came to understand how important humility was in my life. I also learned how far away I was from ever being humble prior to accepting the existence of something infinitely greater than me.
Gatsby--
Do you think it all has to do with evidence? Many times people believe things that run contrary to the evidence because of the implications and consequences that follow from those beliefs. I'm sure we've all heard of the term 'cognitive dissonance'.
Wait a minute. Are you talking about scientists or Christians?
Many of the hard scientists I meet don't even know the term humility, and certainly are unfamiliar with implementing such a concept into their day to day life....
Oh.
This sort of suggests that you rub elbows with scientists on occasion. What's your field?
I'm what you'd properly call a science groupie. I admire great minds like Hawking, and I tend to believe Stephen Hawking would say if he deduced that the FTA led inexorably to God. He doesn't really seem to, you know?
Others do, of course. But if it led scientists to detect agency as strongly as Tom says, then a whole lot of them, not just a few would be very religious and they aren't. Sorry.
FTA fails the 'reality check.'
...from my own experience, I quickly came to understand how important humility was in my life. I also learned how far away I was from ever being humble prior to accepting the existence of something infinitely greater than me.
Here's how hard of a skeptic I am.
Believers say things like this, and I'm thinking
They say they have tapped into the power of God. Okay, put him on the line. Have him say something. Actually say something out loud. Start a dialog with us. Not thru a book. An actual conversation, like people have. He ought to be able to swing that one..
Notice: nobody's God actually talks!
I mean, if a real being is there, why isn't he talking to us? Why is he making it look like he's not there if he is? I don't mean talking thru prayer. I mean Honest-to-Zeus talking. You claim to have access to a sentient being? Prove it. Cure all cancer miraculously--and verifiably.
Rain of toads or something.
Frankly, the way YHWH acts is just what you'd expect if he wasn't really there.
Now, if all of a sudden, as Woody Allen says "We find something"...
Sorry. Italics got stuck.
Edited By Siteowner: Better now?
I mean, if a real being is there, why isn't he talking to us? Why is he making it look like he's not there if he is? I don't mean talking thru prayer. I mean Honest-to-Zeus talking.Check out Ebon Musings' argument from divine hiddenness, at http://www.ebonmusings.org/ athei...urningbush.html.
You claim to have access to a sentient being? Prove it. Cure all cancer miraculously--and verifiably.Yes, Ron, God curiously refuses to restore/cure amputees, something that natural means are utterly incapable of. A highly convenient coincidence, eh? Or, maybe the creator of time and space isn't that powerful.
Or, maybe the creator of time and space isn't that powerful.
Or, maybe the created isn't that humble .
It's just curious. God makes it appear as if he isn't actually there; He's the only sentient being that can't seem to give actual voice to his thoughts or make himself directly visible to the naked eye, which is what you'd expect if he didn't exist in the first place. And yet, if you conclude the obvious--He can't really exist, at least exist in the same verifiable sense that you and I do--He waits till after you die and are powerless to do anything about the matter and then He reveals Himself to you--just long enough to pronounce a sentence of eternity in hell.
He can't bring Himself to speak out loud to us while we're still alive and it might mean something, but has plenty to say after we're dead and helpless.
Rather than insist that He exists and try to come up with some kind of mental gymnastics to ascertain why he chooses not to reveal himself directly, I prefer to go with the obvious. The Christian God doesn't directly reveal himself for the same reason Allah doesn't, or Zeus doesn't, etc. None of them are actually there. It seems like a reasonable conclusion.
Sorry, Tom. I know I've wandered way off topic here. These threads seem to take on a life of their own.
This is fine, Ron. Paul has been wanting us for a long time to take up the divine hiddenness issue. We've done it as a side discussion before, but I ought to make it a blog entry item someday.
SteveK, the tone of my comment may not have been so humble, but the tone doesn't change its underlying logic, which I'd love to see addressed.
Tom, way to go, I can't wait to see you and evryone here address the divine hiddenness argument fully.
Tom:
The “hiddenness” of God issue is something that’s been reflected upon for over 3,500 years. (The Fathers of the Church had particularly interesting insights on this topic). To try to distill all those gems of wisdom into something “acceptable” to those who only accept MES-based or sensory-only knowledge is an affront to that wisdom. God is not someone who will perform a dog-and-pony show for someone testing Him—in fact, the “tester” runs the risk of hardening his own heart even more. Look at the very language Ron (and DL and Paul) employ: “sentient,” “voice,” “verification,” “prediction,” etc., etc. They’ve a priori shut their minds and hearts to anything beyond their senses.
One doesn’t seek God as something accessible to the senses. One seeks God like one seeks a lover—in this case, a Lover who is the untamed Lion, who steals a kiss in the dark and then teases you a bit by being so close you miss the forest for the trees... Why? So that you make the effort to chase Him, to seek Him. If you want “verification” of a kiss, well, you were never in love (or humble) in the first place.
In this respect, I strongly recommend C.S. Lewis’ Until We Have Faces. This allegory contains one of the most famous lines in modern literature: “I was with book, as a woman is with child.” If one doesn’t understand (or accept) that kind of analogical language (which is the language by which we gain small insights into what and who God is) and dismisses it as being wholly subjective, one will surely not find God.
Edited By Siteowner: Inappropriate Language
DL:
Just to drive home the point yet again, so many times you tell us you allegedly don’t believe the MESs and mathematics are the epistemlogical arbiters of all knowledge (even though I’ve referenced you doing just that, while at the same time relegating things you personally don’t like to “subjectivism”)... and yet, here you demonstrate with a perfect Kodak moment of the “invisible friend” canard that which you deny doing.
Edited By Siteowner: Response to prior deleted comment was removed
Tom:
In a rare instance of defending DL, I don’t think the “colorful” language he used was pornographic. I honestly think he was trying to make a point—it was strong, granted, but put in terms of expressing his exasperation. (His exasperation is largely self-generated based on ignorance… but this is beside my point.) I followed up with a metaphor using his colorful language because I thought the impact would be startling but not without merit… although I agree with you my follow up, perhaps, may have been less appropriate than even DL’s initial take on this. I’m not asking you to reinstate that brief exchange: I just think second guessing the intent behind why DL put it in the terms he did may have led you to miss the thinking behind and emotion animating his point.
Oh, I agree to a large extent, but I still want to try to stay family-friendly if we can.
Agreed -- you raise an obvious point I missed: we geeks aren't the only ones reading this blog.
Tom,
I'm not upset about having my witty comment removed, but I do find it very amusing. I think that anyone who can stomach our discussions about abortion, homosexuality and the holocaust, can handle a mention of something that 99% of healthy people have done behind closed doors. 
H,
I possess a model of human behavior (an imperfect one, of course), and using this model, I define what love is (e.g., caring for another person as much or more than one cares for oneself). (There are many types of love, but that's not too relevant here.)
I tune the parameters of said model to my observations of other persons, and if I perceive that a woman cares for me in the relevant degree, then I conclude she loves me. If her behavior better fits a model in which she doesn't care for me, I conclude she doesn't love me. It's straightforward and intuitive.
If she anticipates my feelings and acts to improve my happiness at her personal expense, I tend to think she loves me. If she acts in ways that will obviously hurt my feelings for her personal gain, I'm gonna go out on a limb and conclude she doesn't love me.
As with all inductive inferences, my judgments will be contingent and tentative. My model might be lacking subtlety, and I may be aware of too few circumstances, so there is always some doubt. However, there is doubt about everything, and we don't let that stop us from drawing conclusions.
It's low precision, but it's still verifiable.
I don't know whether this meets your definition of an MES, but I don't know how you can think that love isn't verifiable. If love isn't verifiable, then neither is the law of gravity.
BTW, if it does meet your definition of an MES, your claim about my philosophical position is still baseless. Believing some knowledge to be accessible to MESs doesn't mean that I regard all knowledge as being so accessible.
DL:
At some level, there’s not much I’m going to disagree with what you state. But on another, more robust—and certainly more fully human—level, I would never care to over-analyze love and reduce it to the arid, over-formulated, lifeless, procedural vision of love you propose. The problem isn’t your applying the MESs to “verify” love (or other things) as such. The problem is that you elevate it to an exclusively-objective means by which to understand these things. You do what C.S. Lewis warned about: by trying to “see through” everything you end up seeing nothing. So love is MES verifiable (maybe)… great. What’s your point? Christ having died on the Cross for you and then risen is verifiable (whether you accept the data or not)… but so what? You don’t seem to be acting on that… In fact, you appear to do quite the opposite.
Now with respect to your last statement: “Believing some knowledge to be accessible to MESs doesn't mean that I regard all knowledge as being so accessible.” That’s fine, but that’s not a complete picture of your vision of reality, is it? And I’ve caught you on this many times… with references. The problem is that you qualify your admission with further illicit claims. Take your understanding of morality, for example: it’s not fully accessible to the MESs, and you admit this. BUT, then because you can’t capture them with the MESs, you then claim they are wholly subjective. You say the same thing about theology, metaphysics, etc., etc. That is why you adhere to a scientistic vision of reality: you throw the opposition a bone by admitting not all knowledge is capture by the MES, but then you qualify that by saying (quite unscientifically) the bone is entirely subjective. Apart from being incorrect, can’t you see the inherent self-stultification? You make a philosophical claim about morality while at the same time claiming such philosophical (i.e., non-MES) knowledge is subjective (with no demonstration, of course)—which makes your statement itself subjective! Just because you claim something is subjective because your limited epistemological tools don’t permit otherwise, doesn’t make it so.
In less than 24 hours I’m outta here for 9 days of R&R in Hurghada, Egypt. Hopefully, there won’t be any Internet access there to suck me away from snorkeling, hurling my kids down waterslides, and eating Lord-knows-what in a Bedouin camp…
Have a great trip, Holopupenko!
H,
I would never care to over-analyze love and reduce it to the arid, over-formulated, lifeless, procedural vision of love you propose.I wasn't proposing anything in my comment, but if I were, I wouldn't be proposing that we formalize all these analyses. What I propose is that we accept love for what it is, and not ascribe to it some magical properties that make it unverifiable.
We were talking about the hiddenness of God. And it seems to me that in order to infer God's existence, I need a model of God (imperfect, of course) by which I can 1) identify what acts are those of God, and 2) figure out God's personality (if he has one).
Yet, apparently, there's no difference between a world with God and a world without him. And if there were a God hiding out there, he apparently acts with indifference to us. If he existed, God could change all of this. He could make himself obvious.
BTW, the free will argument doesn't work. Even if God's existence and character were obvious, I would still have the freedom to rebel.
So, I'm left in a position in which I am asked (by theists) to believe in something that's indistinguishable from the thing not being there at all. This isn't like love at all.
DL,
I wouldn't be proposing that we formalize all these analyses. What I propose is that we accept love for what it is, and not ascribe to it some magical properties that make it unverifiable.
Informal verification? Give me an example of how you would do this.
If he existed, God could change all of this. He could make himself obvious.
I think Tom and others have discussed this before in various places. I hope we can discuss it more when he blogs about this topic. God's hiddenness, to most throughout history, is not as hidden as you may think.
SteveK, DL and I aren't talking about "not as hidden," we're talking about presence that is as obvious as the presence of any person you meet walking down the street is.
Paul:
Perhaps others can comment on what you said better than I, but I think there are similarities between the obviousness of 'God detection' and the obviousness of design detection or love detection.
We know love, yet we can't quantify it or verify it as DL would like be able to do. Perhaps the obviousness of God is like that. Tom's blog post should make for interesting discussion.
Off Topic: I see Nelson and Shermer will be debating at Cal Poly tomorrow. You should go. I confess that I graduated from the ugly stepsister campus, Cal Poly, Pomona. Many of my friends went to SLO though.
SteveK,
We know love, yet we can't quantify it or verify it as DL would like be able to do.We may not quantify it, but we do verify it, and that's my point. All of us do. If we didn't, then we would be unable to distinguish between a person who loves us and a person who doesn't.
Informal verification? Give me an example of how you would do this.It's the same as formal verification, minus the mathematics, minus the detailed logging, and the written or verbal expression of the model.
So, when you open your briefcase and find your wife has packed a sweet treat for you without your having requested it, that counts as evidence that she loves you. And if she should sell your treasured sports memorabilia for $2 in a garage sale, that counts as evidence against the thesis. This is verification, even if you haven't logged every instance where you think love entered into a behavioral equation.
DL:
Maybe... but you still have not addressed the main point as contained in my second paragraph. Crudely put: if it (meaning certain philosophical, metaphysical, theological, analogical, poetic, etc. approaches) don't fit your narrow vision of "verification," it's wholly subjective. See you in ten days...
Paul:
You're as arrogant as usual. Maybe you should ask yourself why God should act the way YOU demand He does. I'm not holding my breath on this one... Why? Well, it's "it's all neurons, anyway."
SteveK wrote
I think there are similarities between the obviousness of 'God detection' and the obviousness of design detection or love detection.but this ignores my and DL's point, which is not a comparison to love or design, but to the plain, everyday presence of any physical object, animal, or person in our daily lives. God, as a being, doesn't have a presence comparable to any of us, also beings; rather, he has a presence like that if he didn't exist.
Rather than making your own point by analogizing to love or design, I'd love to hear you respond to my and DL's point, the analogy to another person, being, etc.
Tom emailed me about the debate Thursday already; I may be able to make it, or I may not be able to. If I do, I'll forward a report to Tom.
DL:
We may not quantify it, but we do verify it, and that's my point. All of us do. If we didn't, then we would be unable to distinguish between a person who loves us and a person who doesn't.
...
It's the same as formal verification, minus the mathematics, minus the detailed logging, and the written or verbal expression of the model.
Does this informal verification work for morality? Seems your statement "If we didn't, then we would be unable to distinguish between a person who loves us and a person who doesn't." would also apply to good and evil.
SteveK,
Does this informal verification work for morality?Oh, sure. And, as in the case of 'love', or 'delicious', the definitions of good and evil are conventional and descriptive.
I am quite certain that we can both distinguish good and evil to some level of precision. We can both verify that a person is good or evil according to our respective definitions. Often, those definitions will agree. Sometimes they will not.
I think your natural follow-up to my answer is to ask whether love is as relative as morality. I think it is. But just because there's no absolute definition of love doesn't mean that one cannot verify a relative definition of it.
For example, suppose I ask you for the coordinates of London, and you tell me 51N by 0W. Then I ask Bruce the same question and he tells me that the coordinates are 51S by 0W. The discrepancy being due to a different convention. Both answers correctly describe the location of London. However, the sign of the latitude is not absolute because the coordinate system is not absolute. The location of London relative to, say, Antarctica is absolute, but the coordinate system is not.
If I say "London is at 51N 0W," my knowledge is useless without a specification of a convention, and no convention is absolute.
Similarly, if I say that "X loves Y," or "Z is evil," these statements are totally vague unless I declare my convention. So, if we declare a convention for morality (e.g., your view of Christian morality), we can both agree that homosexuality is evil in that convention. However, there's no reason to prefer one convention over any other except for our subjective feelings.
Okay, back to hiddenness. What I'm saying is that if you fix your convention for saying a thing exists, then you'll either conclude that God does not exist, or conclude that every paranormal claim is equally valid (alien abductions, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, the Yetti, a child's invisible friend, ghosts, Elvis, JFK, etc.).
Suppose you believe a personal God exists, then, if you fix your convention for saying that a person is good, you will either conclude God is not good, or conclude that many apparently evil or indifferent people are also good.
Finally, you might be tempted to create special conventions just for God. That way, God can "exist" in ways that don't apply to other things, and God can be "good" in ways that don't apply to other people. Of course, this doesn't work. It would be like creating a special coordinate system for London in which London has coordinates 91S 180E, and then declaring that London is the southernmost city in the world, while declaring that this convention only applies to London. In that case, the attribute "southernmost" would be meaningless. What does it really mean to be the southermost city in a map of one city?
Commenting by HaloScan
