(1)the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. (2)these criteria are so exacting that hitting them all is very improbable. (3)that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed. (4) God is the most likely fixer
The argument says simply that the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. It's so exacting as to be totally improbable. Because it's so improbable that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed. This differs from the ordinary design argument because we have something to compare it to, all that is not the target level,
A. Universe Displays purposive order Max Planck (1858-1947), Nobel Prize winner and founder of modern physics. 5 "According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails--one independent of the human mind . . . this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient."
......(1)laws have simplicity and elegance.
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe, " said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986)
......(2) Universe is fine tuned for life
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent Universe ..commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie, "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."
Paul Davies, Author of God and The New Physics, and The Mind of God, skeptic turned believer due to the new evidence on design. From First Things, Tempelton Award address:
"All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."
...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever."Paul Davies, Tempelton Award Address,in First Things
"Humanity is Cosmically spoecial,: The Washington post: Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.0378288d2447 The first result — the anthropic principle — has been accepted by physicists for 43 years. The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here. The most extreme example is the big bang creation: Even an infinitesimal change to its explosive expansion value would preclude life. The frequent response from physicists offers a speculative solution: an infinite number of universes — we are just living in the one with the right value. But modern philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and pioneering quantum physicists such as John Wheeler have argued instead that intelligent beings must somehow be the directed goal of such a curiously fine-tuned cosmos.
II. Religious experience
The M scale is a survey devised by psychologist Ralph Hood to function as a control on religious experience so that we can understand weather or not a recipient has had real mystical experience. It's the main methodology used in studies today in studies on religious experience. I write about it extensively in my book.
A British philosopher reads all the mystics of the world and summarizes the things they say that mark their experiences as unique and draws up a list.
50 years latter studies all over the world ask various people chosen at random if they ever had these experiences, 32 items. all those who say "Yes I have had these" choose the very same things the msytics that Stace read said they had.
the those don't check "I have had this" don't have the same things that mystics say they had.
It would be ridiculous to assume that pest ants in Iran and India read Stace. the things they saying they experienced are unique they are not things people normally experience. Since the people can't ling, the odds of them all in six countries saying exactly what they need to say in 32 items to confirm Stace, then it's pretty obvious that Stace got it right.
there has to be a certain kind of experience that some people have that has these characteristics and marks them out as those who have experienced something most people don't experience.
now when we examine the characteristics they say they had they are all about God. the are about experiencing the divine even if they didn't believe in the divine. Moreover, those who have those experiences across the board have these amazing revitalization of their lives.
when psychologists compare the characteristics to those of mental illness, delusion, and other pathological states they find no comparison. So that is not what it is.
The M Scale is the major validating construct in social science research that demonstrates the validity of religious experience. By that I mean it shows when a person's responses coincide with the theories of W.T. Stace. Because several studies validate the scale in a half dozen different cultures from Sweden to Iran to India and Japan, we have a standard that tells us when a person has a valid mystical experience and when they do not. For example some researchers feel they have evoked religoius experience becuase they go someone with a dream about Jesus who felt something when they shocked him and they this proves he had an experience so they evoked it by shocking him. Yet Stace's theories don't include dreams so there's no way to say this is a mystical experience.
On the other hand Stace finds that all the major mystics speak of undifferentiated unity so he theorize that this is the core of mysticism.
It's threatening to a lot of atheists to think that some scientific research could validate some aspect of belief becuase you have so much vested in believing that science disproves all religion. Yet the M scale is validated and it is accepted as the standard in psychology of religion and in the research of religious experience. The modern studies using the M scale find that a significant portion of people who claim t have had an experience state that it was undifferentiated unity. When enough of the correlations stack up then we know someone has had an experience. They could not get that many people to lie about the same things in all those different cultures.
This is the lynch pin of my religious experience studies because it shows a standard by which we can validate and establish controls for knowing when a religiosity experience is really a valid one and when it's not. If you can establish that you can study it by studying the effects f the experience on the experience. If you can't determine what is a valid religious experience you can't determine the effects of having such an experience. Though M scale we can. That's why atheists are just duty bound to treat the m scale like crap.
III laws of nature
The argument: 1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against it's dependability.
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
Notice I said nothing about law implying a law giver. The rational for mind is not based upon analogies to law. This does raise the one real sticking point, premises 1-2. Can we prove that mind is the best explanation for law-like regularity? I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that (P3) universe displays like-like efficiency. Also I don't think it will be such a struggle to prove 4-5 linking a mind that orders the universe with God. Therefore I wont bother to argue those here. Thus I will concern myself primarily with P's 1-2.
All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."
...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]
sources on argument 3 Sources
[1] Bradly Bowen, Adamson's Cru [de] Arguments for God part 1, Secular Outpost, (April 25, 2016) blog URL: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/04/25/adamsons-crude-arguments-for-god-part-1/ accessed April 28, 2016
[2] Marlyn Adamson, "Is There a God," Every Student, Published by Campus Crusade for Christ On line resource, URL: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html She sites fn 11:Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter
[3] I recently posted on criteria by which to judge best explanation.
[4] Ratzsch, Del and Koperski, Jeffrey, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
[5] Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation. 1st Edition. London: Routledge (1991, 58): quoted in Ratzsch, Ibid.
[6] ."Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind o God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
Paul Davies is Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia and the twenty-fifth recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, which he received on May 3, 1995 at Westminster Abbey. His books include The Mind of God, God and New Physics, The Cosmic Blueprint, Superforce, and Other Worlds.
12 comments:
Best arguments ...
Too bad they are so easily refuted.
I.
- How is order an indication of God? Order occurs spontaneously. You would need to argue that order can only happen as a result of a conscious mind. But we know that's not true. The "laws of physics" are the product of human minds observing and abstracting the behavior of physical things, but they don't govern that behavior.
- And the universe is not fine-tuned for life. Rather, life is fine-tuned by evolution to exist in its environment. If your assertion were true, we should expect to find more of it, everywhere we look. But as far as we know life doesn't exist in most parts of the universe. Our planet is one place out of many that is an exception, because it happens to be conducive to life.
- And Paul Davies is paid to put a religious spin on science, making it sound as if his religious views were legitimate scientific conclusions, which they are not. Nagel, too, is a religious-leaning philosopher who makes his living peddling religious ideas to a religious audience. You can't put much stock in these guys as sources of unbiased information.
II.
- Religious or mystical experience is a natural function of the human brain. It occurs with a broad range of intensities and associated mental imagery. And Ralph Hood can try to categorize it as "legitimate" or not, but his position would be challenged by by millions of people who have had these kinds of experience induced by means other than what Hood would allow. In many cultures, they use drugs to induce it, but Hood can't tell them that their experience is not legitimate. In our own culture, churches use psychological manipulation to induce religious experiences. The fact is that mystical experience is pretty easy to trigger, either in your own mind, or in someone else's. There is zero real scientific evidence that God is behind it.
- The mere fact that there are common aspects to these experiences tells us nothing about where they come from, but human DNA would be a strong candidate.
- You might want to claim that atheists are threatened by science that supports a religious conclusion, but you would be wrong. Just show us legitimate science to support your religious conclusions. Despite the fact that you have written a book, we are still waiting. If your conclusions were valid, it would certainly draw attention, but that book hasn't made even a tiny ripple in the scientific community.
III.
- "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". That's pure hogwash. Order occurs as a result of thermodynamics, in scales ranging from sub-atomic to stellar. And there is no valid reason to think that there must be a mind behind it. Simple observation provides prima facie evidence that order is spontaneous.
- How is this argument distinct from the first one?
I am an ex atheist. I used to argue with you when I was 12 or 13 back in 2000 on the Internet Atheists forum. I became an agnostic after my teen years but still leaned atheist. Recently I've begun believing in God. Just want to say, you were right and I was wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. Keep up the good work.
Just on fine tuning it is estimated that a hospitable universe has odds of 10^-60. It's irrelevant whether we're the only life in it, it has to allow molecules and stars and so on, but that doesn't mean life will be everywhere, just that it's possible to begin with. It still could be exceedingly rare. Your statement that people you disagree with are being paid is an ad hominem. Later you make an argument from authority too. I thought you "skeptics" were masters of reason.
10^-60 is a wild guess. It is not a fact. Nobody knows what the odds are. And anyone who claims to know is a liar.
It is a fact that Templeton Foundation pays people like Davies to present a religious take on science. This is not ad hominem. Templeton's mission is to inject religion into science. When hearing an argument, it would be an ad hominem fallacy to reject the argument based on the man, but that's not what I do. If you read what I said, I didn't reject their arguments per se, but I did reject their input as being biased.
10^-60 may be a rough guess but whatever it is it's similarly astronomical given the range of possibilities for the constants, which even might be infinite.
It's unclear what the difference between rejecting their arguments per se and rejecting their input as biased is. Should I simply dismiss atheist scientists as they're biased? Arguments should be evaluated on their own merits.
10^-60 is not a rough guess. It's a wild guess, based on no knowledge of what the real probabilities are. We don't know how broad those ranges really are. We don't know if all the physical constants are interlocked, or the if physics of our universe is the only way it could possibly be manifested. And the people making those wild guesses are relying on assumptions they can't legitimately make, because nobody knows.
As for fallacies in my argument, I did not attempt to refute either Davies or Nagel. I criticized Joe's statement that he is presenting science that atheists are fearful of. If he wants to present science, let him bring forth the conclusions drawn from unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific sources. As it is, he doesn't evoke fear in atheists - he only evokes laughter.
Of course they laugh. It's a common, near defining, characteristic of atheists that they're arrogant (hubrisric?) and have a weird complex about their own superior intelligence despite generally being middling minds at best. Look at the new atheists, complete embarrassment. They also overwhelmingly fall for the most egregious cultish leftist nonsense, which is amusing because it's pretty much just a religion, and tend to be scientistic. There's a substantial body of evidence from science they're wrong, if someone finds this persuasive they're not terminally biased, they've simply followed the arguments and reached a conclusion that's hard to honestly deny. A more intellectually honest position would be agnosticism. You say no one can know the probabilities, then fine, admit you simply don't know whether or not a conscious designer is behind it. Also as far as I'm aware Nagel is an atheist, he just believes in some kind of cosmic principle beyond Darwinian evolution that isn't fully God as limited. I disagree and think the failure of evolution in accounting for the human mind, which he's right about, points to God.
"have a weird complex about their own superior intelligence despite generally being middling minds at best."
- I bow to your hubristic superiority.
"fall for the most egregious cultish leftist nonsense"
- And you say this while dropping a big pile of religionist buzzwords and tropes.
"There's a substantial body of evidence from science they're wrong"
- Show it.
"A more intellectually honest position would be agnosticism"
- You obviously don't know what they actually say about their own belief.
"You say no one can know the probabilities, then fine, admit you simply don't know whether or not a conscious designer is behind it"
- You're the one making the claims.
"Also as far as I'm aware Nagel is an atheist"
- He may well be. But he still takes a religion-friendly stance, marketed to a religious audience. There's money in it.
This is a kind of appeal to authority. The religionist claims to be an atheist or a former atheist. Therefore, the audience is expected to believe his theistic or religion-friendly assertions. It works for Nagel. Joe does it. You do it, too.
Tim: I am an ex atheist. I used to argue with you when I was 12 or 13 back in 2000 on the Internet Atheists forum. I became an agnostic after my teen years but still leaned atheist. Recently I've begun believing in God. Just want to say, you were right and I was wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. Keep up the good work.
What convinced you Christianity is true, rather than Islam?
I ask because the usual answer is childhood conditioning. The vast majority of Christians were raised in Christian culture, Muslims in Muslim culture, Hindus in Hindu culture. That cannot be coincidence.
Pix
thanks Tim, it's an honor.Thanks for the encouragement stick around please.
Pix read the history of Islam it's clear which is better,
"it's clear which is better"
Yes. All the Muslims who grew up in Muslim culture compared religions and decided Islam is better. All the Christians who grew up in Christian culture compared religions and decided that Christianity is better. All the Hundus ...
Post a Comment