Assertions from the last post:
1. General Relativity uses the physics of the known universe to construct a model of the past.
2. The observable predictions of relativity have shown to be accurate.
3. Among these observable predictions are the expansion of the universe and cosmic radiation.
4. These observables corroborate the claim that time, space, energy, and matter began.
5. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that time, space, energy, and matter began.
6. Science based on the physics of our modern universe has correctly predicted what should be seen from the events of over 13 billion years ago.
7. As such, there is no reason to believe physical laws have changed.
8. According to physical law, every event has had a cause.
9. So, it is reasonable to believe that events in the early universe had a cause.
10. The inception of the universe was a universal event.
11. So, it is reasonable to believe that this event had a cause.
12. Because time began with the universe, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time.
13. The definition of existing outside of time is "eternal".
14. So, claiming that an eternal catalyst caused the universe is simply a restatement of point 12.
Is it possible that time had no beginning?
Yes, but nearly-universally accepted theory states otherwise and observation validates this theory.
Is it possible that the universe just came to be without an eternal catalyst?
Yes, but we have zero cause to think that all aspects of the universe were subject to cause and effect except when it was in its infancy.
Might the universal catalyst have existed in some other form of "time"?
What does that even mean? Doesn't "eternal" encompass this "other time"?
The assertions above are not the ramblings of an obstinate Christian; rather, they are a progression of reason based on grounded theory and observation. In the Comments section of the last post, we discussed the potential "different physics" of the pre-universe. If this "physics" differs/differed from our own physics, or some "other time" differs from our time, why would "eternal" not be an appropriate label? The catalyst would exist outside of physical law and outside of time as we know it. The "eternal" label simply describes the incomprehensible nature of that which exists/existed outside of the universe.
I don't mean to be dismissive of unsubstantiated theory. The atom was theorized centuries before we were able to observe it and the Greeks are looking pretty smart right now. Still, when we look at unsubstantiated theory versus that which has been corroborated time and time again, the smart money is on the latter… hmmm, should I use a gambling analogy on a Christian blog?
THE WATCHMAKER
There is an unquestionable elegance about the universe. Without even looking skyward, it is easy to marvel at the earth. When we look at the stars, it is difficult not to be amazed by the sheer size and intricacy of the universe. For some, the awesomeness of the universe is proof enough of an intelligent design. If you are among this group, I can’t fault you… it is a rather amazing display.
Still others tout the incredible amount of variables that exist to allow our earth to remain habitable for mankind:
The oxygen level is just so.
The tilt of the axis is the perfect amount.
The distance between the stars allows orbits to be maintained.
Jupiter is around to pull in all of the threatening asteroids.
The earth is the perfect distance from the sun.
The magnetic field is exactly what is needed to shield us from radiation.
The thickness of the crust is such that we’re not running from lava all the time.
…etc
I have never been a big subscriber to the earth-is-ideally-suited-for-man theory, though I cannot say it is without merit. I tend to agree that you could just as easily argue that man was made/evolved to fit the earth. When, however, you speak to the formation of matter itself, the argument begins to pique my interest.
Inflation Theory is now a standard accompaniment to the Big Bang Theory. All matter and energy is susceptible to quantum (very tiny) fluctuations inherent to matter and energy. On a macroscopic (large) scale, we don’t see these fluctuations because they tend to even one another out. But, what if all that existed was microscopic (as was the case in the early universe)? Then, these very tiny fluctuations would be comparatively huge! That is the basic idea of the inflation theory. As the universe began to expand, it experienced a quantum “hiccup” that caused fluctuations in the energy of different parts of the universe. Where the energy was dense, the universe developed matter and it was this matter that allowed galaxies to form.
The theory tries to explain how mass (specifically galaxies) came to be distributed. The quantum hiccup was perfect for galaxy formation. If the universe’s mass came together in denser clumps, the gravitational pull would have been so intense that the mass would have collapsed almost as quickly as it formed. If the mass would have been distributed more sparsely, the pull would be such that the galaxies would not have formed. The density of mass that led to our current universe is known as the “critical density”. The inflation theory, however, doesn’t explain everything…
From the American Institute of Physics:
"The problem is that the mass density of the universe at its creation was amazingly close to the critical density. Otherwise, we would not now exist. Had the initial density of the universe differed from its actual value by as little as one part in 10 to the 60th power, all matter would long ago have been crushed beyond recognition in the big crunch, or torn apart beyond recognition in the expansion of the big chill. There would have been no time for planets to form and living creatures to evolve. So there would be no intelligent life to contemplate the fact that the density is precisely what is needed to escape from oblivion."
Basically, the odds of ending up with the universe we have are somewhere in the neighborhood of the desert winds eroding the landscape into a Rolex. The assertion by the American Institute of Physics would lead us to only two possible conclusions:
Intelligent Design or Multiple Universe Theory.
The “odds” of our universe’s inception is not proof unto itself, but it is fun to talk about. I opted to post a short one this week becuase I spent a ton of time in the Comments section this week, so I didn’t want to churn out a poorly-written, last-minute, 10-page thesis and I am ready to move on to bigger things than the universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
Nice post. I too think that the "fine-tuning" of the universe is astounding and very fun (and humbling) to contemplate, but not sufficient reasoning for insisting on a creator. A creator is one (good) solution to the "problem". Physicists will try to find a reason for this fine-tuning that makes sense from a naturalistic perspective.
Some will think that science is insisting that there is no creator, but I think this is faulty reasoning. I'm sure in the past, scientists were criticized for trying to figure out why it rains. Many probably thought they were trying to explain away God. I think this is part of the false dichotomy of science versus religion.
Even if there is a creator in another existence of some sort, then science should try to explore every aspect of his process. How did God create the physical world? Did he bring about all this something out of nothing? Does he work in the realm of quantum mechanics to accomplish his will? If so, is this process predictable? If God resides outside our time and space and is not physical, is he by definition, real? Can something exist and not exist at the same time? If God exists outside of physical reality then how can we prove his existence using physical laws and knowledge?
Even if our evidence looks inconclusive from a naturalistic point of view, assuming a creator is still a matter of faith. If there is something science just can't explain using physical laws, then they will see it as a problem they haven't solved yet. That's the nature of science. It's explorative. It's not moral or immoral. It's amoral.
Does this seem a reasonable description of scientific inquiry, Randy?
A physicist should also try to find a reason for the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe. The inflationary scenario is what brought about the idea of the multiverse. While just a theory, it explains the "flatness problem" the "causality problem" and the "magnetic monopole problem" of the Big Bang Theory. I'm reading about these in an article from Astronomy magazine on inflation. Inflation suggests that a part of the early universe blew up like a bubble because of a kind of anti-gravity explosion of force. This blew up our universe by a factor of 10 to the 50th power in an instant.
This leads to the scenario of other "pocket universes" rapidly inflating out of the original universe creating a multiverse. Some would disappear almost instantly, some would stretch out too quickly. Others might be able to sustain life.
In the article Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore states, "Inflation naturally produces a multiverse. If you believe in some form of inflation, then it is almost inevitable that some form of eternal inflation will occur."
Does the multiverse idea have to be at odds with God? I see no reason why. To me science is always just seeking another level of description. By its nature it cannot seek a true explanation for anything. Science cannot point to something outside the physical universe. If it seems it is, then I submit that the observer is making a leap of faith. Once again, science will just see this as another "problem" to figure out.
Science is perhaps humankind's greatest tool, but science won't comfort you when you're afraid or grieving. Science may delight you, but is it the true source of delight? It can only seek to describe, not explain. Especially to humans who are trying to describe a universe in which we reside and of which we are a part. This certainly limits our observational ability and always leaves a door open to faith.
Good post, Randy. I agree with you that no ONE piece of evidence points conclusively to God. I do believe the fine-tuning of the universe is pretty amazing, but it is just one piece of the puzzle.
And for each piece there seem to be theories and attempts at an explanation, but can the theories explain all the other puzzle pieces as well? I think that is the question that will have to be addressed at the end of the year.
It is about taking ALL of the evidence into account and then deciding which worldview takes the most faith to believe in.
I think you both have hit upon the very reason I decided to write this blog. Steve, your blog was the forum for these discussions before, but it always felt like we were moving from argument to argument without ever piecing things together.
My thought was to lay everything out and to periodically recap the evidence so you might gain a better understanding of exactly what is was that drove me to seek a stronger relationship with God and later Christ.
None of these posts alone would have led me from Agnosticism to Christianity; however, I think you'll see that when we begin to compound evidence, the argument becomes perhaps stronger than you realize.
Sometimes I think we're quick to ascribe the label of "God of the Gaps" without fully considering the amount of faith required to not believe in God. I have found that the piling on of theories based on "thought experiments" or conjecture - none of which seem interrelated (and the "interrelated" aspect is a HUGE point, so don't let it slide by unnoticed) - requires a great deal of faith in the supremacy of man/mind and that God seems to fit into the gaps rather nicely sometimes.
There's a reason I didn't seek the domain "1 Blog to Christ"...
Hey guys!
From your posts, I am interested in your view on faith. Would you say that the best faith to you is the one which requires the least AMOUNT of faith?
I ask because you both referenced faith in your comments, but I believe it was in kind of a negative light (since we have no tone of voice in this forum I'm not totally sure!). Like you're saying that something which requires a lot of faith is a bad thing.
Perhaps you see the word faith as meaning different things? For instance, on the one hand meaning "acceptance with no proof" and on the other hand meaning "trust" or something like that?
I think defining words is really substantive, especially ones that get thrown around a lot like faith, love, freedom, etc. so I'm interested in your view.
Perhaps "blind faith" would be better terminology. In week 2, I gave the scenario of a criminal trial. There is an exampled referenced there where I spoke to the biased faith a mother has in her child's innocence, regardless of the evidence. The faith mentioned in the Comments section here is the same type of faith the grieving mother would have... unsubstantiated and believed IN SPITE OF evidence.
Kristin and I have both said in the past that faith in spite of evidence is a bit silly. We should have faith in that which has proven to be reliable (i.e. Kristin's example of faith in a spouse not to cheat). Faith is simply belief without "proof". Absolute "proof" is a near impossibility, so basicaly all belief requires faith. The more evidence you have, the less you are reliant on faith. That's all. Having faith in where the evidence points is not bad... it's reasonable.
I think your description of faith reads like it's a necessary evil. Maybe it is?
I really like these a lot:
From the book "Ghandi: A Short Introduction" by Bhikhu Parekh
"Although Gandhi nowhere stated them clearly, he often invoked the following four criteria to determine when faith was rational or justified.
First, it should relate to matters falling outside the purview of observation and reason. Whether or not elephants could fly or there was a cat in the next room was amenable to empirical verification and not a matter of faith.
Second, faith should not contradict observation and reason.
Third, since faith involved going beyond what could be observed and demonstrated, one must show that it was called for by, and had basis or warrant in, experience.
Finally, faith was a calculated gamble in situations where the available evidence was inconclusive, and was justified if it had beneficial consequences."
In some ways, faith is a "necessary evil." Where we have proof, we have no need for faith. Faith is only necessary when we lack proof. The trouble when we discuss things like the origin of the universe is that no one will accept that there is "proof", so any assertion must include some faith.
A good example of reasonable versus unreasonable faith is the science of forensics. By its very nature, forensics is a faith-based science. A forensic scientist uses physical and chemical laws to recreate events which he/she did not witness; however, when a forensic scientist tells us:
Where the killer was standing,
Whose fingerprints were on the gun,
Whose DNA matches the crime scene,
How long ago a crime occured,
...etc,
that scientist is exercising reasonable faith in asserting how the crime took place.
The defendant's mother who believes her son to be innocent has faith in her son's character in spite of incredible forensic evidence to the contray. This would be unreasonable faith. It is not faith through reason... un-reason-able.
Parekh's fourth premise - "Finally, faith was a calculated gamble in situations where the available evidence was inconclusive, and was justified if it had beneficial consequences" - sounds to me like the definition of "hope". The other three premises I agree with.
I have often thought of faith and hope as being very similar. Faith usually has a positive connotation. Few people, for instance, would say "I have faith that there is no God" or "I have faith that most people will suffer eternally" etc.
Your definition of faith is like a "faith of the gaps." It seems amoral in nature as you are defining it.
I think I would currently define faith as "hope plus trust."
Faith–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
hope–noun
1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best.
I find these two to be pretty different. Faith is believing what is most likely true (good or bad) based on evidence, and hope is desiring the best outcome (even when that outcome seems unlikely).
And no, people don't usually SAY point blank, "I have faith that there is no God." but that is the definition of atheism so obviously many do adhere to this faith. They just don't declare it in that way for whatever reason.
Faith does seem to have a positive connotation because most of us correlate it with our beliefs in a good God, but I don't believe something has to be positive in order for you to have faith in it. For example, I have faith that some people will suffer eternally in Hell. That is not a good thing but based on the definition, I have faith (I confidently trust) that it will happen.
The important thing to note is that when I use "faith" in this blog, it is as defined by Kristin. So, if you want to substitute another term like "I confidently trust" when you read, feel free to do so.
Kristin wrote:
“Faith-noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
hope–noun
1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best.
…
Faith is believing what is most likely true (good or bad) based on evidence…”
When a belief is not based on proof, ‘want’ will inevitably creep in. Absent proof, things like tradition, desire, authority... will play more prominent roles in shaping beliefs. These things are closely related to want, or at least closer to want than they are to evidence. Maybe this goes a little way to explain why faith often has a positive connotation rather than a negative one; people tend to want positive things over negative things or the absence of things.
Could you expand a bit more about faith being connected to believing what is most likely true based on evidence? If I were to believe that the Sun and Moon can (and did) stand still on command, would that not be faith? This is far from anything that could be considered evidence or most likely true, and yet it is not based on proof. If we are defining faith as Kristin defines it: “believing what is most likely true (good or bad) based on evidence” then believing things like the Sun stood still need new name because they do not fit the definition of faith.
If faith does not work here, may I propose “just plain silly” for beliefs such as this?
Skyhook- Very good point. When I said faith is believing what is most likely true based on evidence, I should have said REASONABLE faith.
Certainly not all faith is reasonable and faith that is not based on any evidence is "just plain silly" as you put it.
Kristin,
Should I take this to mean you have reasonable evidence that some people will suffer (or are suffering) eternally in Hell?
I don't really expect you to provide evidence here, I am just trying to point out some difficulties with hoping to include evidence in a definition of faith.
Cheers!
Skyhook- Yes, I find the evidence for the reliability of the Bible to be undeniable, and therefore have faith that Hell is a very real place. You asked me not to give the evidence here so I won't. But, that is essentially what Randy aims to demonstrate in this blog, begining with the bigger picture of the evidence for a Creator, and then moving on to the historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus and the resurrection.
Mathew 13:50. Reliable.
Joshua 10:13. Just plain silly.
As you all know, I believe the Bible was written by imperfect men, but even within the belief system of biblical infallibility, I think it's difficult to justify the eternal suffering scenario. Most references to "hell" are within a parable or a highly symbolic passage.
I think Universalism or Annihilation are more likely the doctrinal intentions of most of the writers of the NT.
Anyway, this is totally off topic! Where'd the watchmaker go?
As to the "reliability" of the Bible, I find it a reliable source of very human belief and thinking with the possibility of pointing to truly higher things. But I know that we'll get in to this a lot more later.
Skyhook- That may be your determination but I would call both verses reliable along with the rest of the Bible.
Steven- Yes, way off topic, but that's how we always are! And you know my view on "cut and paste" Christianity. But yes, Randy will be getting to much of this later.
Kristin – not my determination. I thought it was yours, but apparently I was mistaken and you find both to be reliable.
We are off topic. I don’t know how we got to talking about views of faith… ;)
Watchmaker.
Considering we have only one event to go off of, the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is precisely in the neighborhood of 1:1. The language of odds implies multiple events, real or hypothetical. But if we are to assign a probability, how many possible universes might we consider?
On the far end of one side, we have one. If there is only one possible universe, this must be it, and the odds of a universe ending up like ours are 1:1. On the other end of the spectrum, we have an infinite (or relatively infinite) number of possible universes. The odds here are 1:infinity, and amongst a bunch of monsters, there our precious universe will be. If we are to assume the number of possible universes to be somewhere in the middle – say - “10 to the 60th power”, it would not require any luck to see a universe with initial conditions like ours.
I agree about how this is an interesting topic as food for thought. If we could add in a couple mechanisms like heredity and differential fitness for reproduction, and the probability of the seemingly improbable becomes greatly reduced. I hope observation one day yields evidence for this. Just because it would be so cool to have that much in common with the birth of our universe. But as of now, this much is just an untested hypothesis.
Paley’s watchmaker argument has been one of my favorite arguments. It made so much sense intuitively and begged for somebody to explain the rise of complexity.
Skyhook, good points.
The conditional probability of finding oneself in a universe compatible with one's existence is 1.
The idea of the post, of course, is simply to illustrate that natural law, quantum mechanics, etc would be unlikely to produce our galaxy-laden universe by sheer chance. If you believe the figure in the quote from the AIP, the probability is somewhere in the neighborhood of the you-would-be-a-complete-moron-to-think-this-wasn't-intelligent-design vacinity.
Being that I don't believe we've ever measured anything physical to sixty decimal places, I take the exact figure with a grain of salt; that being said, the figure would need to be off by 57 orders of magnitude or so before the idea of "reasonable chance" came into play... to bring back our trial analogy, fingerprint evidence generally results in a conviction.
As the chances become slimmer and slimmer that a fine-tuned universe would emerge from the Big Bang, intelligent design must become ever more likley. 1 in 1000? Whew... good thing it happened like it did! 1 in 1,000,000? Maybe there's something to this whole God thing. 1 in 10^60? See above.
Randy,
The universe is what it is. If it had evolved differently, or not at all, it would have.
Is the chance of our universe evolving the way it did 1 in infinity? Let's say yes. If the universe was completely different than what it is today what would the chances be of it evolving THAT way? Still 1 in infinity.
I see the "fine tuned" scenario a more complex version of how the catholic church viewed the universe back in the times of Copernicus - humankind must be the center of the universe. They were threatened by the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, because it took away the earth's, and consequently man's, unique status in the universe. We weren't the center. The "fine tuned" universe or "watchmaker" scenario is another way to keep man at the center of creation. "the universe must have been created especially for us."
I think it's possible, but dogmatically thinking that is just a link a little further on in a chain with a dangerous history.
Once again, the true "chances" of us being here are dependent on other possibilities. As of now, we know of no other possibilities. This is the way it happened, so the odds of this universe evolving the way it did are 1:1.
The conditional probability of finding oneself in a universe compatible with one's existence is 1.
Let’s hold off on calling names. Especially when intelligent design has not even secured a position as a serious scientific theory. Especially when we have not established the number of total possible outcomes or the number of possible opportunities. Especially when we have not explained why it is reasonable to posit a more improbable designer to explain our problem of improbability. For now, perhaps complete moron might be reserved for those who hold sillier propositions.
I have no intention of arguing from authority; however I am curious about your opinion on why the leading scientific journals, scientific theories, scientists, etc. do not champion intelligent design. You start off with observations and methods that are easily found and agreed upon throughout the scientific community, but your conclusions are most likely to be found on blogs or texts that have a conclusion that must be met, even before beginning an investigation. I am not saying that you are the only one who has this conclusion, I am sure there are many people out there who agree with you. But it seems to me that the people most dedicated to reason, logic, evidence, and all the things you placed a high value on in the first post are not publishing conclusions that require an intelligent designer.
In order to assign a probability, we need to know how many opportunities are available to us. As Steven and I have been pointing out, given infinite opportunities, every possible universe can and will happen. Given one opportunity, this universe must have happened because we are here discussing it. Either scenario gives the probability of essentially 1:1.
But let’s say we are to assign a number of opportunities that lies somewhere between 1 and infinity. Why would we consider 1x10^3, 1x10^6, 1x10^60, or 1x10^9999? We have no basis for asserting that one is closer to reality than another. The first two numbers are not just random picks, they are “round” numbers that are very familiar to us, a tiny insignificant being on an insignificant speck in an insignificant location (see this video for a reminder and for entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/v/bov9M2gEgcE&feature=related). Our value judgment of “wow” or “meh” is not valid because we have no frame of reference. We have no way to say what is reasonable.
Most importantly, the fine-tuning argument for the existence of the supernatural contains a simple fallacy. “…if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result.” (see http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html for more details)
Fingerprint evidence only works because of the relatively small number of match opportunities. Galton famously said that the odds of two individual fingerprints being the same are one in 64 billion. Since there are only 6.5 billion matching opportunities (much less if you consider geographical or other practical consideration), this works well (these numbers are highly debatable, but the intended point remains). In this instance, we have a method for determining matching opportunities. If the planet could somehow sustain, say 500 billion people, fingerprint matching would be less reliable.
Finally, at some point you will need to explain why it is reasonable to posit a more improbable designer to solve our problem of improbability. However improbable we determine the existence of our universe to be, anything that had the ability to intelligently create it must be at least as improbable. Additionally, in order to reasonably make such statements, it would be nice to see why intelligent design is the only alternative to chance.
First, I want to address something that I think was misinterpreted. When I spoke about the 1 in 10^60 figure, what I should have made more clear is that IF you believe there is a 1 in 10^60 chance of something happening naturally and that thing comes to fruition, it would be *ahem* extraordinarily unreasonable to conclude that the effect was wholly natural. In the specific case of the inception of the universe, you may believe that the universe is one of many or that 10^60 is an exaggerated number. In such a case, the “complete moron” label would not befit you. Irregardless, Skyhook is right to say that “calling names” has no place here. I apologize and I assure you that I did not mean to imply that disagreeing with Randy equals idiocy. I did mean to say that IF you accept the incredible improbability, you would be demonstrating a severe stubbornness by attributing the results to chance. Now, on with the arguments…
Steve,
From my original post:
“I have never been a big subscriber to the earth-is-ideally-suited-for-mankind theory…. When, however, you speak to the formation of matter itself, the argument begins to pique my interest.”
I want to point that I clearly stated in this week’s post that given only the anthropic tenet that the world is perfectly set up for human existence, one could argue that humans evolved/were created to fit this universe just as easily as one could argue that the universe was created for humans. The world is suited for life, yes, but it has to be. After all, life exists. Since I was explicit here, I don’t see why you would equate the argument here to the model of “catholic science” so prevalent in the time of Copernicus. My post didn’t even mention mankind except to say that mankind was not the subject of my post.
“The universe is what it is.”
“…the odds of this universe evolving the way it did are 1:1.”
Yes, and the probability that Mary Smith won the lottery after Mary Smith won the lottery is 1; but let’s say that Barack Obama addressed the union and said that he would purchase one lottery ticket and he guaranteed that he would win the $200 million multi-state powerball. Now, let’s say that he won. What would you think?
1. Neat! He staked his reputation on a 1 in 150,000,000 chance and he won!
OR
2. Um. Why did the president rig the lottery?
I argue that if you believe (1), you’re not thinking like a scientist… that your hopes/beliefs are clouding your judgment.
You accuse me of dogmatic thinking; however, I think that holding to the dogma of naturalism in the face of unreasonable probability is much more “dangerous”.
Eschewing multiverse theory for the moment…
If you subscribe to a naturalistic view of the universe, by definition you subscribe to the physical laws of the universe. Physics tells us that the world of the miniscule is governed by probability and there is a certain probability that our universe will form galaxies. So, if we go back to the inception of the universe and we freeze time at zero seconds, the probability that galaxies will form is 1 in X. 10^60 is physically an incomprehensibly large number. So, IF, X is 10^60 (as stated in the quote I provided), it would be unreasonable to think that galaxies would form. I trust we’re on the same page here.
Under the scenario above, if galaxies then were to form, you would be forced to conclude that they did not do so by chance. To continue to maintain that the universal formation was within the realm of reasonable probability would be to obstinately stick to your naturalistic guns. Could the universe have formed galaxies within the realm of probability? Yes… in the same sense that Stone Henge might have been formed by a series of earthquakes and hurricanes. So, natural, physical laws and quantum mechanical probability must lead you to the conclusion that you do not have the full picture. The funny thing is that those very same natural, physical laws predict what the universe would look like if those galactic lottery numbers were called (pockets of galaxies, light years of empty space, and cosmic background radiation patterns that fit precisely what the theory anticipated).
Now you’re in a pickle. You can’t be dismissive of the physics that governs the current universe and say that the physics then was just different, because it is current physical law applied to the past that yields a model which accords exactly to what we see today. So, it appears that you do have a complete picture of physical laws. If you don’t dismiss the physical laws, that means that the bigger the X, the greater the chance that something outside of natural law interfered at this key point in the past. Now, in Week 4, I stated that an external catalyst was reasonable. But, if the external catalyst was not intelligent, you haven’t added or detracted from the probability. Only two things can alter the probability:
1. An intelligent designer
2. More than one universe
Skyhook,
To address your statement: "I am curious about your opinion on why the leading scientific journals, scientific theories, scientists, etc. do not champion intelligent design."
There are a number of things that I should tackle to answer you fully:
1. I think one of the premises inherent in your question is erroneous. There are a great many leading scientists who have spoken openly about their belief in intelligent design. Here is a short list of 20th / 21st century notables:
a. Neil Armstrong (& Buzz Aldrin, for that matter)
b. William Henry Bragg
c. Arthur Compton
d. John Dalton
e. Albert Einstein
f. Enrico Fermi
g. John Glenn
h. Werner Heisenberg
i. James Irwin
j. Sir James Jeans (as in the Rayleigh-Jeans law)
2. Our society has taken on a sort of “science doesn’t mix with God” mindset. If your society (and therefore your readership) believes that science and religion don’t mix, you would be wise to leave intelligent design talk out of your publication. Dr. Collins (Human Genome Project) is one of the most outspoken Christians in the scientific community; yet, when the Human Genome Project was at the forefront, Dr. Collins’ articles did not conclude with “…and therefore Dr. Collins concludes that life arose from intelligent design.” He believes this statement to be true, but scientific journals are simply not the forum.
3. If you want to open your experiments and your data to undue doubt and criticism, be sure to mention God. No one wants to hear that you had an agenda when you began your research. The better practice is to publish your findings, let your data be hailed by all, and then publish a book including your conclusions.
4. Intelligent Design is a retread. It will always be a retread. You have a readership whose desire is fresh, new ideas. A kind of proof by exception is the May 4, 1992 Newsweek article “Handwriting of God” that followed the COBE findings. When new findings point to intelligent design, you’ll see a flurry of intelligent design champions make their way into scientific and popular literature.
I don’t think it is correct to conclude that leading scientists don’t accept intelligent design because you don’t read about intelligent design in scientific literature. Seek and ye shall find.
“…it would be nice to see why intelligent design is the only alternative to chance.”
Indeed it would. I will do my best…. Calling upon multiple universes doesn’t remove the chance element; rather, it changes probability. If we assume the catalyst had some sort of inherent, chance-subduing, galaxy-forming property, we’re still looking at a supernatural designer in the catalyst. If we assume that the physics changed, that brings the problem I addressed with Steve and it leaves us with the question “why did it change?” which really leads us back to the same problem.
I thought of a few alternatives, but I decided not to post them because they were pretty crazy (universe DNA, static universe theory, NASA cover-up, etc).
I want to fully address the probability article you brought to my attention and I am running out of time (Week 6 blog impending). Please check back to this Comments section in a few days.
“You accuse me of dogmatic thinking; however, I think that holding to the dogma of naturalism in the face of unreasonable probability is much more “dangerous”.
First of all, I assumed that since you reasoned about the odds of us being here, that you were promoting a human-centric history of the universe. That was the catholic comparison, which was probably not helpful in trying to point out our differences of opinion. I understand that you are more interested in the evolution of the four forces and other numbers that make matter, galaxies, etc. possible.
Let’s just throw out the anthropic principle, since that doesn’t seem to resonate.
Even if the odds are super long, why is a pre-existent creator MORE likely? Surely the watchmaker is more complex than the watch and is therefore even less likely to exist. The odds of the universe existing by chance are less than the odds of a divine, supernatural, pre-existent being creating it. I know that in some ways you agree with this, and that is why God must exist outside the universe for you. This is a cool solution to the problem but it is just as unlikely, or more so, than the other solutions. Why is the existence of God more likely than chance? I believe it seems that way because of our emotional intuition, which tells us that something like us must have created everything. And I don’t completely discount that. I still think it’s a better argument for God than one based on the probability of the only universe we know existing.
Current options
1. This is the only universe, we are wondering how it happened because it happened. The probability of us being here to wonder about the probability of our existence is 1. good old anthropic principle.
2. All those numbers and forces came into being, and matter evolved in a way to where it worked within that framework. We assume sometimes that the rules of matter were already pre-existent and the forces, etc. were fine-tuned to match that. Well, the forces came about first, so perhaps all the other rules came after the forces, not before.
3. The universe evolved out of the multiverse (required by the inflation scenario) in a way similar to biological natural selection. Skyhook pointed out this theoretical model. Natural selection is the opposite of the Watchmaker scenario. It teaches that something of greater complexity must come about after something of less complexity, through evolution. The watchmaker scenario teaches that the complexity comes first followed by lesser complexity.
4. A God, outside of the universe, created the universe. Therefore we have no hope of further describing the its origins.
Also, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. He was outspoken about it and heavily criticized for it. “God” to him was the physical laws of the universe.
Looking forward to the next post, Randy! By the way, I think your arguments are excellent. I disagree probably less than it seems, but I love playing the Devil's Advocate. I do disagree with you in several areas......hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say!
Randy,
You are missing the points we are making regarding probability/anthropic principle.
We are in Mary Smith’s position of looking back with a winner in our hands. We are not in Obama’s position of predicting a specific number before the event takes place. Consider that *every event* has a Ms. Smith side and an Obama side. Are we to say that a miracle occurred because the serial number on the dollar bill I just pulled out of my pocket has the serial number K01012647D?
The point of this is to illustrate that when this serial number is chosen by looking at this bill, just like when this universe is chosen by looking at this universe, the probability is always going to be 1. It seems to me that you get this part, but then you want to look at the situation as if we have one draw to randomly pick a dollar bill that matches a randomly chosen serial number. We are not in this position.
Once more, if we are to go back to the point just before I withdrew that dollar from my pocket and freeze time, at this point the probability that I am going to draw that bill is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^10. So, IF X is 10^10, would it be reasonable to think that I will draw a bill with serial number K01012647D? If we did not have any knowledge of the event that is about to take place - no, but unfreeze time and out comes the bill. Did a miracle just occur? Was it something other than chance that landed that bill in my hand?
Steven is correct when he comments that the anthropic principle does not seem to resonate. I am afraid more examples will not get us anywhere. But I did have a good time writing it out, if only for my own pleasure.
Albert Einstein? Honestly? As for the list of scientists you present, as well as the explanation of not publishing the final-final conclusion of intelligent designer because of catering to the readership, could it be that their refereed work requires a higher standard of evidence than their personal beliefs? For example, was it Collins’ work on the genome alone that lead him to believe or did he add a little argument from beauty and argument from personal experience (in his book, he details this in his story about the 3-in-1 trinity waterfall he encountered). In taking a reasonable, logical, grounded in evidence approach, personal revelation steps out of bounds – and therefore does not pass the peer review. Might this also explain why their published works are nearly universally agreed upon while their statements that go beyond foster doubt among the scientific readership?
Do you see any confounds with starting with a conclusion and working towards justifying it? Is there any conflict with this and using science, reason, and logic to provide the most concrete evidence?
As always this is fun. I hope if I ever forget to include the sentence or paragraph of niceties that you know that I am here in good spirit.
Skyhook,
Thanks for tackling the probability scenario of Obama's lottery pick. I tried, but erased it, because I couldn't quite get what I was trying to say.
Randy,
I love that you use these story analogies. You are a natural teacher.
I think Einstein is the best example of a scientist who embraced Intelligent Design, simply BECAUSE of the fact that he was not religious and did not believe in a personal God. Remember that the point of this one post is not to prove a Creator, but to give an argument for the Creator.
I would certainly not recommend anyone tailor their beliefs to that of someone else, brilliant scientist or not. But, it is extremely interesting that Einstein, despite his disdain for organized religion, stated many times that he believed in Intelligent Design. Here is one quote that is usually used to demonstrate:
“You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.”
By this and other quotes, we know that Einstein did believe in Intelligent Design. No, he did not become religious and no, he did not believe in the personal God that Randy and I believe in. But that’s not the question. Your question was to name leading scientists who agree with the theory of intelligent design. Einstein did. So I’m not sure why his mention warrants an exasperated, “Honestly?!”
As to Steven’s question, “Why is a pre-existing creator more likely?”
The law of causality is the basis for all of science. For every single event in the natural world, we know that that which begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, it is scientifically impossible for the universe to have come into existence out of nothing. To believe this, we would have to abandon science completely. In order to hold true to science, we have to believe that SOMETHING caused the universe to come into existence. In this particular post, Randy has not argued for a personal God exactly. He has just argued that it makes more sense to believe that something created the universe rather than nothing. To believe that the universe came into being out of nothing, by sheer chance (no matter what the likelihood is), goes against EVERYTHING that we know of science. That is why it is more likely to believe that there is some type of eternal catalyst.
David Hume- “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”
Francis Bacon- “True knowledge is knowledge by causes.”
I wonder if Einstein ever takes a moment to reflect on his choice of words, as he endures his eternity of fiery torture in Hell.
Where did that exclamation point come from?
The idea that an eternal creator exists outside the universe is a speculation. There's no proof. I think it's fine, but it is speculation. There are many different theories about how the Big Bang occurred, etc.
One again, I think the idea is cool, but saying "we don't have a known reason for the start of our universe therefore it must have been a supernatural God residing outside our universe" is not a conclusion to be dogmatic about.
The law of causality doesn't apply to God, "So he's outside the universe." I think that some inflation theories share the speculation of "outside the universe." It's the multiverse, in which this universe is one of many, many "pocket universes." I think the idea of God outside our universe is a sort of multiverse theory. Interesting to think about.
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion." - Einstein
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend on ly very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein
It just goes to show what different ideas a person can use the word "God" to represent.
What did Einstein have against mysticism? Sheesh. ;)
Steven-
“The idea that an eternal creator exists outside the universe is a speculation. There's no proof.”
“but saying "we don't have a known reason for the start of our universe therefore it must have been a supernatural God residing outside our universe" is not a conclusion to be dogmatic about.”
No one is being dogmatic about that. I was simply answering a question that you posed. I didn’t even mention God (ironically except to say that Randy has not mentioned God yet). I ended my argument with the statement, “That is why it is more likely to believe that there is some type of eternal catalyst.”
So let’s not jump ahead and make arguments against things that have not even been asserted yet.
Skyhook-
I doubt he’s getting much thinking done at all.
Skyhook,
I appreciate the kind words and I have a great deal of respect for what you bring to the table as well. I’m especially appreciative of the fact that we’re six blogs in and the discussions have maintained a respectful tone (not always the case with these discussions). When I read your first comment (Week 1), I told my wife, “This is going to be a challenge,” and I appreciate that you have not disappointed.
Back to the arguments...
I’m not so much missing the point as disagreeing with the point.
Regarding the Proposed Anthropic Principle article:
As to the “Main Theorem”, the argument is elegant, but misses the mark. The assertion that the fine-tuning argument violates probability laws is based on the fact that the probability of our current universe is 1. I’m referring to this point:
P(N|F&L) = P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L) → P(N|F&L) >= P(N|L)
Once an event has happened, there is indeed a probability of 1 that the event happened. This in no way, though, should ever be said to affect the odds of the experimental setup. The math is correct, but it is misapplied, so at first glance, you think “Wow! That’s true”.
If we go back to the lottery example:
The fact that Mary Smith won the lottery has no impact on the odds of winning the lottery (before the drawing). We marvel at Mary Smith because her chances are so low. We do not, however, marvel at the fact that the lottery was won. All lotteries are won. If we base the odds of someone winning the lottery on historical lottery data, we would conclude that the probability of someone eventually winning the lottery was 1.
If the lottery is drawn at 8:00pm, here is what the scenario looks like (obviously estimated figures, but they are not the crux of the argument):
7:00pm - Probability that Mary Smith wins the lottery: 0.00000000001
7:00pm - Probability that anyone wins the lottery: 1.0 (historical)
8:01pm - Probability that Mary Smith won the lottery: 1.0
8:01pm - Probability that anyone won the lottery: 1.0
If we apply the logic of this paper to the lottery, the paper asserts that because Mary’s probability of winning the lottery at 8:01pm is 1, her probability of winning the lottery at 7:00pm is somehow affected. In truth, the 8:01 probability has no effect on the 7:00 probability.
ELECTRON EXAMPLE
When we see electron probability experiments in physics, we can recreate the experiment time and time again, so we can get a clear picture of theory versus data. Our theory tells us that there is a probability of X that the electron will be within a certain impact radius before we run the experiment. Now let’s say that for a position outside of some ring of probable impact points, X is 10^-60 (based solely on quantum mechanical/natural/physical Heisenberg probability). We run the experiment one time, and the electron has an impact point outside of the ring. If, we ran only one experiment, we would rightly wonder whether physical law was the only factor at play. Was the experiment set correctly? Might something have interfered? If we were able to run it a second time, we would expect to get a different impact point. X is unlikely. That’s it.
Have we proven anything? No… we just know that odds are you are the only scientist who ever has or ever will get that same result. There is evidence in play (again, if this was the one and only electron experiment) that would make you question your premises. The only difference between electron experiments and the universe example (assuming we apply the same natural/physical laws) is that the universe experiment can only be observed once. If you were ABLE to reset the universe experiment and you again assumed a universe governed by physics, you would be shocked to get the same result. It’s the “shocked to get the same result” part that I’m referring to. It’s like roulette… one spin does not affect the next. One universe does not affect the odds of the great universe experiment.
ONLY ONE ARGUMENT?
You asked me whether Intelligent Design was the only alternative (even if we agree that the odds of universe formation are low). I a manner of speaking, it is (don’t get frustrated… qualifier to follow). If the universe was not formed by intelligent design (and we agree that it is not eternal), it must have been formed by physical processes and visa versa (physical processes would include any “other physics” belonging to some other unintelligent entity that may even be supernatural). The question then becomes “is there another unintelligent alternative?” (Unintelligent applies to the thing, not the idea)
Here is a quick recap of assumptions employed, theories used, and facts observed before I answer that:
1. (A) The physics of the early universe was the same as it is today.
2. (F) Galaxies exist.
3. (T) IF today’s natural forces acted on the early universe AND galaxies were formed, the current universe should have certain observable properties A, B, and C.
4. (F) The universe has certain observable properties A, B, and C.
(3) and (4) don’t prove (1), but they provide strong evidence for (1). With the existence of this strong evidence, we don’t really have cause to think that the physics of the early universe differed. My point is that it appears that something “stacked the odds”. Intuitively, I think that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that if something didn’t “want” to cause galaxies, any unintelligent phenomenon would not be apt to “stack odds” in favor of galaxy formation.
I think we could envision an alternate cause of the universe, but I don’t know why we would assume that some unintelligent universal interferer would be more likely to produce galaxies than the universe would be to produce them without interference. So, I don’t see how some alternate, unintelligent cause would affect the odds.
“…if we are able to go back to the point just before I withdrew that dollar from my pocket and freeze time, at this point the probability that I am going to draw that bill is somewhere around 10^10. So, if X is 10^10, would it be reasonable to think that I will draw a bill with serial number K01012647D? If we did not have any knowledge of the event that is about to take place – no….”
On this we agree. Future events do not affect past probability. What you leave out, though, from the remainder of this example is the fact that at the point where your hand is in your pocket, you must make a prediction. In the universe example, the prediction is that galaxies will form. If you predicted the serial number correctly before you drew the bill, I would assume that you interfered with the experiment. In much the same way, I think it reasonable to assume that something interfered with our universe experiment.
SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS
"...could it be that their refereed work requires a higher standard of evidence than their personal beliefs?"
Yes and no. The same scientific journals are more apt to publish an article pertaining to String Theory or Multiverse Theory. That being said, the majority of journal articles are more about the evidence than the conclusions and the majority do attempt to publish more "hard facts". Further, anyone who thinks he can prove God in one journal article should probably not be in a scientific field.
"Do you see any confounds with starting with a conclusion and working towards justifying it? Is there any conflict with this and using science, reason, and logic to provide the most concrete evidence?"
You mean like...
A hypothesis?
Randy,
I guess I still don't see why ADDING a pre-existent intelligent designer to the equation increases the probability of us being here. Surely the unexplained existence of a more complex entity than the universe only greatly lessens the probability of our existence. It just adds more unexplained complexity.
Is it because "We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than human causation" -J. Anderson Thomson
And the anthropic principle does not assert that the universe we live in (the lottery winner) is special. Is galaxy forming special? It is only "special" to us because it is what happened. It is just the winner, which is why we are here to speculate as to the odds of our existence. I know that's weird, but it's kind of true. As John Cage said, "No why. Just here."
I promise I'll drop the anthropic principle (maybe), because granted, it is almost mystical feeling in nature.
Thanks for making my brain hurt, Randy. I wish i had a physics degree.......sort of.
Kristen,
I wasn't trying to be personal! I was just saying in general that the idea didn't have enough proof to be dogmatic about.
Your views about Einstein. Well. That's difficult to know how to respond to.
I'll just say that Gospel is supposed to mean "good news" but according to your view of Einstein's fate, it is the worst news imaginable for him. He is MUCH MUCH better off if God doesn't exist.
If I could choose between no God and the God you describe.....well the decision is easy. I'm not saying I can choose, but still.
Steven-
The Gospel is called the gospel or good news because of the news that we are now able to be saved-- by grace; we are free from having to attempt in vain to attain salvation through works and deeds. That is such amazing news! The only catch is that you have to accept the gift—your salvation. It wouldn't be love if we didn't have a choice to reject it.
You did make a good point when you said that you don’t get to choose which God actually exists.
And just to be clear, I don’t really have a “view” on Einstein’s fate. My slightly sarcastic comment was a response to Skyhook’s sarcastic comment posted before. For all I know, Einstein did accept Jesus at some point. I’m certainly not able to know his heart or his fate.
I apologize for being sarcastic about that!
Anyway, we are WAY off topic, as usual. :) I think I’ll move on to Week 6.
I know we'll get into this more later but:
The gospel is only the "good news" if a person excepts the FAR worse news that comes before it - That man has an eternal soul in need of salvation, lest everlasting punishment be his fate.
So first the BAD news. Then the good news. Except it's still pretty bad, because most people on earth don't believe it.
I'll be tackling the idea of Christian universalism on my blog soon, so I look forward to that discussion, especially concerning your view on the ineffectiveness of God's will that all should be saved.
OK, I'll do my best not to discuss this anymore, out of respect to the subject at hand!
Let’s say you just murdered someone.
The bad news: You are sentenced to suffer in jail for the rest of your life.
The good news: Some guy offered to take your place and serve your sentence. You are free! (But only if you accept the offer, of course).
You can call it “bad news.” But it’s not like someone came and announced to you, a blameless person, that you must suffer eternally. It is that you are a sinner and punishment is a necessary consequence. You actually chose the bad news (and if you’re like the rest of us, you choose it over and over again anytime you sin)! Now… you can take the offer of someone else to serve your sentence or you can serve it yourself.
God created us to live eternally with Him. We chose not to. Now we have a chance to redeem ourselves. The bad news is entirely OUR fault. The good news is God’s grace. Take it or leave it.
Okay, I'm really done this time!
I was approaching it from the point of view of someone unfamiliar with the Christian faith.
If you were attempting to evangelize them, first you would have to convince them that they are doomed (bad news). Then you could give them the way out (good news). But first you would have to convince them of their need for a way out (bad news).
OK, done. hopefully.
"I guess I still don't see why ADDING a pre-existent intelligent designer to the equation increases the probability of us being here. Surely the unexplained existence of a more complex entity than the universe only greatly lessens the probability of our existence. It just adds more unexplained complexity."
Unless he wanted us to be here...
In accordance with my faith, I believe that I am a child of God. He made me because that's what He chose to do. I'm glad he did. I like it here.
Post a Comment