A thank you to all Non - Believers

[Al_Moritz]

I am busy at work, but I will answer the fine-tuning posts tonight.

 

[Bobber90]

I am busy at work, but I will answer the fine-tuning posts tonight.

Thanks. In spite of my teasing, adversarial attitude I would appreciate that.

 

[Bobber90]

Bobber90–I am inclined to agree with you. The strength of the teleological argument is, I believe, not what many theists think. But it is not without merit.

I studied philosophy in my undergraduate and came to adore philosophy of religion. I’ve read the influential essays and articles on the teleological argument. The “problem” is just a particular mindset, in that the theist accepts a form of the principle of sufficient reason.

You write “The probability of such features depends upon the probability of the processes which caused them (if any), and these are apparently beyond knowing.” I agree. By arguing by analogy, the theist has set himself up with weaker evidence with such a strong premise (that the processes of this design are an at least a near-omniscient designer outside of this universe). I am not claiming what Hume does, that for an analogy to have any force we need direct experience of what we are making an analogical inference about, but the analogy, it seems to me, is nonetheless stretched. Chance, for all we know, could have created this universe.

I am surprised to find agreement! What value do you think teleology has? I didn’t think it had legs at all.

 

[hiinEnkelte]

Bobber90-Agreement can definitely be hard to come by in the philosophy section!

An excellent treatment of the teleological argument (the mother of teleology, if this is what you are asking me) that influenced me was by Pete Van Inwagen of Notre Dame. Perhaps you can look into it? I agree with his conclusion, that either 1) “This is the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life” or 2) “This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life.”

In short, like in metaphysics, we do not know if the design of the universe is in fact a reality, or a mere appearance. We are probably not in a position to know?

The value I find in the teleological argument is just that I personally ascribe to 1), but I do not fault those who through reason decide to believe 2).

edit-I am interested in what Al Moritz has to say about this.

 

[tonyrey]

1. It is logically possible that any type of universe can exist.

Logical possibility refers to anything which is not logically contradictory. There could be, for example, total chaos, only one object or a universe with totally different laws.

That is the crux of the matter - how universes are made - and you propose to zip it up with the judgement that anything goes?

It is not a question of “**how **they are made” but of what they could be" - unless you believe this is the only possible universe!

I suspect this is counterfactual, and that not everything goes. But again, how would we know?

Every universe except this one is counterfactual and we cannot **know **anything about universes which don’t exist until they exist - any more than we can **know **anything about the future!

It is precisely my point that we cannot say anything a priori about the universe. There may be conditions of universe formation, there may not. Perhaps we are looking at the interactions of membranes for the origins of the universe?

We cannot say anything a priori about the universe but we are entitled to consider other possible universes. Do you believe everything in this universe has been completely determined from start to finish?

1. There is no obvious reason why this universe should satisfy the immense number of conditions necessary for rational existence over an immense period of time.

You mean no obvious teleology, or no obvious causes?

Why do you consider teleology not worth considering?!

1. The fulfilment of the immense number of conditions necessary for rational existence over an immense period of time requires explanation.

So it would not require explanation if a universe existed without life, supposing that we were able to observe it or know of it?

Of course but a universe with life requires even more explanation.

We cannot require that something has a cause.

It is a basic principle of philosophical and scientific investigation.

What if something does not have a cause?

No scientist or philosopher would abandon research on that ground. The very success of science demonstrates that it is a valid principle. The onus is on you to explain why there should be exceptions.

The Catholic church accepts evolution as the truthful account of the development of our physiology, because of the evidence for it.

The Catholic church does not accept purposeless development as the truthful account of our existence. It accepts an ultimately purposeful process of development.

Suppose there was evidence of a link/dependence between the ‘mind’ and ‘physiology’ - then there is reason to believe that the basis or nature of cognition is also a product of evolution.

If the mind is dependent on physiology it cannot be rational or autonomous.

Perhaps great values can be evolved, and have - or that the tendency to view certain as great is evolved.

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are not subjective values but facts about reality. How could truth or freedom have evolved?

It is unimaginable that creatures for whom there is a teleology would have evolved without there being a teleology to the universe as a whole. Yes. But it is not inconceivable that creatures whose thoughts can be deliberately consistent with logic might have evolved.

Rational creatures is not the same as creatures for whom there is a higher purpose. Besides, evolution is all about hindsight. Those creatures which happened to have survived pass on their genes - life can be explained backwards, not forwards.

That is a one-sided, retrogressive view of reality which reduces all purposes to physical causes implying that reasoning is purposeless! Why should the past be considered more significant than the future? Don’t you believe you have any control over what is going to happen?

Chance, necessity, free will and morality are not sealed issues. Daniel Dennett confronts most of these in light of evolution, and finds that there is a variety of free will worth wanting in evolutionary accounts of humanity.

Please explain the mechanism by which free will is possible.

The immense complexity of the human brain (“a feat of fantastic difficulty”) reveals the extreme improbability of the Chance and Necessity theory.

It has evolved.

The question is how - and why.

1. “We still seek a theory of Order in its most important form, that which is represented by the complex functional and structural integration of genetic messages.” (Medawar)

Well, good luck to them. I have no idea what that is!

Neither have they! But Nobel laureates are intelligent enough to realise the inadequacy of the “Chance and Necessity” theory.

“The supreme being remains a mere ideal, it is yet an ideal without a flaw, a concept which completes and crowns the whole of human knowledge.” (Kant)

It is all those things because it is a tautology, rather than a detectable empirical fact. Of course the Greatest Possible Being is great!

The Greatest Possible Being is not an illusion but a reality - unless you reject power and intelligence altogether…

The speculative interest of reason does not entail order in the world, nor if it did would it entail purpose, nor divine intelligence.

Do you deny the reality of order, purpose and intelligence?If not how do you explain them?

I really really do not believe in teleology.

In that case not one of your thoughts, decisions or actions is purposeful - unless you can explain how you can override the physical causes by which you assume you are controlled…

 

[Bobber90]

Logical possibility refers to anything which is not logically contradictory. There could be, for example, total chaos, only one object or a universe with totally different laws.

This is the main initial point, and a lot flows from it, so before carrying on I want to emphasise that it may be totally logically consistent to suppose the universe could have been this or could have been that. That is one thing, but I do not think we have any reason to say that these invented logical possibilities are actually empirically possible or possible in reality. We can imagine a universe pervaded by pink gas and supporting life in the form of a species of unicorns - that is logically possible, but we have no reason to suppose that there might have been such a universe simply because it can be stated in a non-contradictory (logical) way. It does not describe the real possibilities of our past.

To put it simply, we cannot say that it is logically possible that any universe could exist, because logic does not tell us about what actually exists.

Given that part of the problem of probability lies in determining the causes (if any) of the present universe, that part will always be unknowable, and the probability of the universe impossible to say. From that, the argument of fine-tuning is impossible to ground, and has no traction in any case.

 

[damian_clarke]

You may be correct as to chazcheh’s character, I cannot judge his intent. Any condescension may well have been unintentional.

If his meaning was truly innocent, then he should apologize for any misunderstanding.

For those who fail to understand the problem, it is like when a movie star accepts an award and then thanks all the “little people” who made the award possible. The star is being condescending because they are placing themselves in the position of superiority. The term “little people” carries a connotation of inferiority.

chazcheh is thanking all the “non-believers” who helped him to find the truth, as if being a believer is somehow superior to being a non-believer. Just as the term “little people” may not be intended as a derogatory term, the term “non-believer” may not have been intended as derogatory either, but it gives that impression.

The intent may not have been to be condescending, but the result was. So I thought it appropriate to point it out, especially if it was not chazcheh’s intent.

Being a believer is superior to being a non believer. If I felt otherwise there would be no point in believing. By believing in the HOly CAtholic Church it means that you have found a deep and abiding truth of inestimable value. Otherwise why go through all the trouble of being a CAtholic. I think that you are creating a problem where there is none

 

[tonyrey]

Logical possibility refers to anything which is not logically contradictory. There could be, for example, total chaos, only one object or a universe with totally different laws.

I entirely agree.

To put it simply, we cannot say that it is logically possible that any universe could exist, because logic does not tell us about what actually exists.

Logic helps us to clarify what exists…

Given that part of the problem of probability lies in determining the causes (if any) of the present universe, that part will always be unknowable…

Some scientists in search of the TOE would disagree with you!

…and the probability of the universe impossible to say.

Not more probable than a universe pervaded by pink gas and supporting life in the form of a species of unicorns?

From that, the argument of fine-tuning is impossible to ground, and has no traction in any case.

The probability of what occurs in this universe has some bearing on the probability of a universe with the characteristics of this universe as you have pointed out!

Stephen Hawking has recently argued that it is unlikely that intelligent life survives for long on any planet because intelligence is a handicap rather than an asset. That is true only if survival depends entirely on physical conditions (which I don’t believe) but it goes to show that similar considerations may well apply to other possible universes. So conclusions about fine-tuning are not entirely unfounded. We have to ask why intelligent life has survived so long on this planet in spite of the overwhelming odds in favour of extinction…

 

[Bobber90]

The probability of what occurs in this universe has some bearing on the probability of a universe with the characteristics of this universe as you have pointed out!

No! It is exactly the other way around! We can only talk about the probability of stuff in the universe if we knew about the probability of the universe as a whole. At least this is so if we come at things from a fine-tuning perspective. For example, the probability that humankind exists on an earthlike planet depends upon the probability of laws of nature which allow carbon life forms etc etc. But these probabilities we apparently cannot know, because we do not know if there are any conditions governing universe creation, or what they would be.

 

[Bobber90]

We have to ask why intelligent life has survived so long on this planet in spite of the overwhelming odds in favour of extinction…

And we have to ask quickly before there are none of us left. Think how soon it might all be over- nuclear war? Climate change/resource exploitation/conflict? If there is a Cuban Missile Crisis every 50 years now we’re doomed.

 

[LilyM]

To get back to the the actual OP, and the poster who took offense to same, as a believer it would be equally easy for me to take offense at it as well.

After all, the OP is saying that non-believers helped him/her in his/her faith journey more than us believers. Makes us look kinda inadequate

However, I choose to interpret it in the most charitable light and not to take offense.

 

[the_phoenix]

I have to tell you with all honesty, irony, and heart…that I am having the exact same experience…but in the OPPOSITE!
Reading the books and hearing the lectures and sermons by uber-believers and listening to the way some talk on this forum is so upsetting to me, it’s shoving me in the other direction.
No offense intended, natch.

I guess it can work both ways.
I imagine all here who understand and support how the OP’s journey was nudged by the non-believers would then understand, too, that it can happen the other way around.

Yes.

In fact, I was just reading today a book by G.K. Chesterton called “The Catholic Church and Conversion,” and came across this quote that may interest people on both sides of the aisle:

“For the convert’s sake, it should also be remembered that one foolish word from inside does more harm than a hundred thousand foolish words from outside. The latter he has already learned to expect, like a blind hail or rain beating upon the Ark; but the voices from within, even the most casual and accidental, he is already prepared to regard as holy or more than human; and though this is unfair to people who only profess to be human beings, it is a fact that Catholics ought to remember. There is many a convert who has reached a stage at which no word from any Protestant or pagan could any longer hold him back. Only the word of a Catholic can keep him from Catholicism.”

~~ G.K. Chesterton
The Catholic Church and Conversion

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thank you. In the spirit of helping each other, if I were you I’d find ways to answer my simple questions before a more tenacious opponent faces you with them!

O.k., here is why brute chance does not work. Let’s take just one item, the cosmological constant.

(For my writing of numbers (to avoid superscript):

For example, “10 to the power of 6”, i.e. one million, becomes 1E6, which is 1 with 6 zeros behind it, “10 to the power of -6” becomes 1E-6 which is 1/millionth. 1E9 is thus one billion (a 1 with 9 zeros behind it), 1E12 is one trillion, 1E40 is a 1 with 40 zeros behind it etc.)

Here is what physicist Stephen Barr writes about the cosmological constant:

"In the equations that govern the gravitational force (Einstein’s equations), there are two numbers. One of them is called Newton’s constant, and is conventionally presented by the symbol GN. It says how strong gravity is. The other number is called the cosmological constant and is conventionally represented by the Greek letter lambda. The cosmological constant tells how much gravitational pull is exerted by “empty space.” (This may sound absurd, but in quantum theory empty space is not as empty as it seems – it seethes and bubbles with “quantum fluctuations.”) As we saw in the chapters on the Big Bang, the value of the cosmological constant is important to how the universe as a whole behaves. In discussing the size of the cosmological constant we shall use what are “natural units” for gravity, in which Newton’s constant is exactly 1. It has long been known that the cosmological constant (when expressed in these natural units) is less than about 1E-120. In decimal form this would be written
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
This is an amazingly small number. It is so small that physicists have long assumed that the cosmological constant is really exactly zero. But it is hard to tell whether a physical quantity is exactly zero, or just too small to be measured with available techniques. Recently, there have been astrophysical measurements that seem to imply that the cosmological constant is not exactly zero, but rather is a number about 1E-120.

"In either case, whether the cosmological constant is exactly zero or just fantastically small, physicists are confronted by a very deep puzzle. In physics, if a number is either exactly zero or extremely small there is usually a physical reason for it. For example, the mass of the photon is believed to be exactly zero; that is understood to be the consequence of a fundamental symmetry of the laws of physics called “electromagnetic gauge invariance”. So far, no one has been able to find the physical reason why the cosmological constant is small or zero. This failure is the so-called “cosmological constant problem,” and is considered by many scientists to be the deepest unsolved problem in physics. …]

"It turns out to be a very fortunate thing for us that the cosmological constant is so small. If it were not, the universe would not have been able to have a nice steady existence for the billions of years required for life to evolve.

"One has to consider two cases, because the cosmological constant is allowed by mathematics to be either a positive or a negative quantity. Suppose, first, that the cosmological constant had been negative and equal to some number that was not particularly small or particularly large, say -1. Then the universe would have gone through its entire life cycle of expansion and collapse in the incredibly short time of 1E-43 seconds. That is, the universe would only have lasted a ten-millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second. This very short time is called the “Planck time,” and is a fundamental length of time in physics. In essence, the Planck time is the shortest period of time that any physical process can happen in and still be described in terms of our usual notions of space and time.

"If we suppose instead that the cosmological constant had been negative and equal to about minus one-millionth (i.e., -0.000001), then the universe would have lasted for a thousand Planck times, namely about a ten-thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second. Not a great improvement from our point of view. If the cosmological constant is negative, and the universe is to last for the several billion years required for life to appear, then the magnitude of the cosmological constant has to be less than about 1E-120, the terrifically small number mentioned earlier.

(cont.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

(cont.)

“Now suppose that the cosmological constant is a positive number. If it had been positive and not too large or small, say about + 1, then the universe would have undergone an incredible “exponential” expansion, in which it doubled in size every ten-millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second – that is, in every Planck time. The universe would have lasted forever, but always expanding ferociously. Even if the cosmological constant had been as small as +1E-48, the universe would have expanded so fast that it would have doubled in size in the time it takes an electron in an atom to orbit the atomic nucleus once. In such a situation, even atoms would be ripped apart by the expansion of the universe. Even if the cosmological constant had the much smaller value +1E-80, the universe would have expanded so fast that it would have doubled in size every thousandth of a second or so, which would be so fast that your body would be ripped apart by the expansion. If the universe was to have a sufficiently gradual expansion over billions of years to allow life to evolve, then the cosmological constant had to be less than or about + 1E-120. In order for life to be possible, then, it appears that the cosmological constant, whether it is positive or negative, must be extremely close to zero – in fact, it must be zero to at least 120 decimal places. This is one of the most precise fine-tunings in all of physics.”

From: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, p. 129 f.

(My addendum: it has now been shown that the cosmological constant, while being so small, is a positive number.)

---

The problem is that the cosmological constant is not just a small number. It is the final result of several contributions to vacuum energy that are much larger than that number, but which cancel each other out to an accuracy of 1E-120.

Atheist cosmologist Susskind explains in The Cosmic Landscape, p. 88:

“When we combine the theory of elementary particles with the theory of gravity, we discover the horror of a cosmological constant big enough to not only destroy galaxies, stars, and planets but also atoms, and even protons and neutrons – unless. Unless what? Unless the various bosons, fermions, masses, and coupling constants that go into calculating the vacuum energy conspire to cancel the first 119 decimal places [of the cosmological constant]. But what natural mechanism could ever account for such an unlikely state of affairs? Are the Laws of Physics balanced on an incredibly sharp knife-edge, and if so, why? Those are the big questions.”

The problem is that the cosmological constant is just one parameter of many that need to be correct.

A minimal summary of other relevant parameters, which is not necessarily exhaustive, is given here:

1. Extremely low entropy of the Big Bang
2. Inflation with just the right properties (fine-tuning) to solve the critical density problem
3. Ratio of electrical force to gravity
4. Strength of strong interaction
5. Relative masses of electron, proton and neutron
6. Ratio dark matter to normal matter
7. ‘Ripple constant’ Q
8. Dimensionality of space
9. Existence of quantum mechanics and Pauli exclusion principle (preventing atoms from collapse)
10. Right chemistry (carbon or equivalent in an alien chemistry)

Now, crucially, probabilities (or improbabilities) do not add up, they multiply with one another. For example, if two parameters have to be right, and each one is likely as 1 in a million, then the combined likelihood is not 1 in 2 million, but the multiplied numbers: 1 in a trillion. Now let’s assume that one of the above 10 parameters is fine-tuned to just a factor of 20. The combined probability that all are right at the same time is then 1 part of 20 to the power of 10, which is about 1 in 15 trillion. Multiply that with the probability of the cosmological constant to be right, and you end up with a probability of something as 1 in 1E135 (a 1 with 135 zeros behind it). In comparison, the entire observable universe contains about 1E80 elementary particles.

But practically all of the above parameters are fine-tuned to a much finer degree than just 1 in 20. For example, the famous mathematical physicist Roger Penrose writes as follows in The Emperor’s New Mind about the extraordinarily low entropy (i.e. extremely huge degree of order) at the Big Bang (p. 445):

"This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 1E1E123.

“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be ‘1’ followed by 1E123 successive '0’s! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the universe – and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure – we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”

So then multiply this with the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant times the fine-tuning of the ratio of electrical force to gravity times the fine-tuning of the strength of strong interaction times . . . Do you get the picture?

---

Do you now finally realize why none of the leading cosmologists who studies these issues takes the idea of brute chance seriously? It is just simply too absurd.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Your observations are spot on.

Atheists, with rare exceptions, are no better than creationists in cherry-picking what they like and don’t like about science.They are only proudly ‘pro-science’ until scientific data are not on their side. For example, debating cosmological fine-tuning with atheists is mostly just as frustrating and hopeless as debating evolution with creationists. And just like creationists often pretend that evolution is an ‘atheistic invention’, so do atheists often pretend that fine-tuning is a ‘religious’ argument – notwithstanding the fact that leading cosmologists, who are often atheists or agnostics, take fine-tuning very seriously and are troubled by it to an extent that they feel they need the multiverse as a ‘way out’.

Yep. That’s about right. As soon as science points in favour of theism suddenly it isn’t science any more. Metaphysical naturalism is a faith based ideology. There are those who mistakenly believe that its supported by science but then later become theists (or deists); people like Anthony flew…oh I am sorry atheists, I forgot about your weak excuse that he was far too senile to be a rational atheist any-more.

They have a huge planet size number of hypocritical excuses for why they reject any scientific evidence in favour of theism, but are willing nonetheless to accept scientific evidence for naturalism. But that is the nature of scientism.

 

[Al_Moritz]

T

1. We cannot say that the universe is probable/improbable because:

a) Conjunctions or coincidences of life-enabling universe conditions are not intrinsically probable or improbable, because:

b) The probability of such features depends upon the probability of the processes which caused them (if any), and these are apparently beyond knowing.

This appears to suggest that, would we know which physical processes created the universe, it might turn out that the outcome (our universe) would be one of necessity or high probability (except when it comes to the multiverse). Hardly any cosmologist will agree with you.

As for example Lee Smolin writes about a theory that requires absolute uniqueness of physical constants so that they are immutably fixed against each other (The Life of the Cosmos, p. 37, emphasis mine):

“For better or for worse, no such theory has ever been found. Nor is there any reason, besides faith, to hope that a consistent theory that was able to describe something like our world should be unique.”

On p. 76 of the book he says:

“We have so far no evidence to support the conjecture that the requirement that the laws of nature be mathematically consistent, or agree with quantum theory and relativity, constrains significantly the possible masses of the elementary particles or the strengths of the different forces.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

To continue on a supposed necessity of the laws of nature:

What if after all, against what all leading cosmologists believe (see for example Smolin above), the physical constants really are immutably fixed against one another and simply could not be any other way? Then the emergence of life is a necessary, natural outcome of how nature works, plain and simple. Yet such a strict necessity of the laws of nature cannot be logically sustained.

Yes, there might be a unique solution to all physical constants, which would have to include all the initial conditions of the universe, due to a unified basic system. Then we would know why all the constants have their specific numerical values, and they would all result from necessity. However, even if that were true – and current knowledge of the physical world makes that seem extremely unlikely – the basic system could also be founded on principles other than those of general relativity and quantum mechanics (possibly unifiable into a theory of ‘quantum gravity’) which hold for our particular universe. The laws of nature could be based on any of an infinitude of other mathematically self-consistent systems imaginable. Therefore, even if not necessarily within a framework combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, the laws of physics could, in fact, be different in infinitely many ways. This cannot be logically disputed.

Thus, there cannot be a necessity of the laws of nature – unless one suggests that “the fabric of nothing” may only allow for certain frameworks of physical laws to arise. Yet then ‘nothing’ would have to have properties, which is philosophically and logically absurd. Nothing has no properties whatsoever – nothing is, in fact, nothing. (The ‘physical nothing’ of empty space, the quantum vacuum, is not really nothing at all.)

---

So whichever way you twist and turn it, the idea:

“The probability of such features depends upon the probability of the processes which caused them (if any), and these are apparently beyond knowing”,

is simply no way out of the problem.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Chance, for all we know, could have created this universe.

Well, I hope you realize by now that brute chance (except through statistical inevitability achieved in a multiverse generator creating at least 1E200 *) to 1E300 universes that all randomly differ from one another) is not an option.

*) that is a trillion times trillion times trillion times trillion times trillion times trillion times trillion times trillion… (I give up) …universes

 

[Al_Moritz]

Bobber90-Agreement can definitely be hard to come by in the philosophy section!

An excellent treatment of the teleological argument (the mother of teleology, if this is what you are asking me) that influenced me was by Pete Van Inwagen of Notre Dame. Perhaps you can look into it? I agree with his conclusion, that either 1) “This is the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life” or 2) “This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life.”

In short, like in metaphysics, we do not know if the design of the universe is in fact a reality, or a mere appearance. We are probably not in a position to know?

The value I find in the teleological argument is just that I personally ascribe to 1), but I do not fault those who through reason decide to believe 2).

edit-I am interested in what Al Moritz has to say about this.

The problem is that 2), the multiverse, does not solve the design problem, see chapter 1.4. in my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

 

[Whadyamean]

You do realize that your post is condescending and insulting? Or perhaps you don’t.

Wow. Yes, seconded and passed!