An invitation for Al Moritz to explain fine tuning

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReapReason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReapReason

Guest
I hope that i am not being disrespectful by publicly asking you to explain why a theistic explanation of fine tuning is more reasonable; but i think it would be good for the forum to here it from a biochemist.

More importantly i would like to learn.

You seem to be quite active across the internet. I stumbled across a Blog site where an atheist is discussing fine tuning.

He agrees with a lot of what you say but ends by saying that he would like you to explain in more detail why you thin the below argument is true.

The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by chance, necessity, or theism.
The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is not explained by chance or necessity.
Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by theism.

Thanks, and apologies again if this is not appropriate.
 
I hope that i am not being disrespectful by publicly asking you to explain why a theistic explanation of fine tuning is more reasonable; but i think it would be good for the forum to here it from a biochemist.

More importantly i would like to learn.

You seem to be quite active across the internet. I stumbled across a Blog site where an atheist is discussing fine tuning.

He agrees with a lot of what you say but ends by saying that he would like you to explain in more detail why you thin the below argument is true.

The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by chance, necessity, or theism.
The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is not explained by chance or necessity.
Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by theism.

Thanks, and apologies again if this is not appropriate.
I’m with you about asking Al. 🙂

He may have explained it some time ago. However, you all know what can happen to the memory of a granny who is older than dirt.😃
 
He agrees with a lot of what you say but ends by saying that he would like you to explain in more detail why you thin the below argument is true.

The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by chance, necessity, or theism.
The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is not explained by chance or necessity.
Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe to support life is explained by theism.

Thanks, and apologies again if this is not appropriate.
Hi ReapReason,

it is my pleasure to reply. I explain the argument, basically as you laid it out above, in chapters 1.3 (scroll down to the middle) through 1.5 of my article:

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

I would, however, suggest to read the entire article. It will be clear then why chance is such a ludicrous explanation that, while it is often brought up as possibility by atheists who have not seriously studied the issue, it is fully rejected by all leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists who did study fine-tuning. There is one exception, Victor Stenger, but he is neither a leading cosmologist nor does he have the arguments on his side, as is shown in my article (with references to rebuttals by cosmologists).
 
I reason this basically to be the design argument. Something that theists have never been able to come to terms with regarding this argument is that you cannot objectively define what design even is across all the paradigm of viewership. In reality the ability to discern what is designed and more importantly what is heightened design is largely a product and function of what is familiar within a cultural context. The famous watchmaker analogy presumes that anyone who found a complex man made object would immediately conclude that it was designed. NOT SO! UNTRUE! There is the example of the notorious rebuttal wherein Melanesian tribal people attempted to hatch an airplanes “egg” by sitting it in a fire. The egg was actually ordinance - or a bomb. (Maybe they were going to eat it) regardless they had no idea of it’s design origin. So people who are familiar with such things immediately would understand it to be designed - others had simply no idea. The design argument seems to fail right out of the gate.
 
I reason this basically to be the design argument. Something that theists have never been able to come to terms with regarding this argument is that you cannot objectively define what design even is across all the paradigm of viewership. In reality the ability to discern what is designed and more importantly what is heightened design is largely a product and function of what is familiar within a cultural context. The famous watchmaker analogy presumes that anyone who found a complex man made object would immediately conclude that it was designed. NOT SO! UNTRUE! There is the example of the notorious rebuttal wherein Melanesian tribal people attempted to hatch an airplanes “egg” by sitting it in a fire. The egg was actually ordinance - or a bomb. (Maybe they were going to eat it) regardless they had no idea of it’s design origin. So people who are familiar with such things immediately would understand it to be designed - others had simply no idea. The design argument seems to fail right out of the gate.
Like you I reject the watchmaker argument, and I reject biological Intelligent Design.

The cosmological design argument has nothing to do with God being an ‘artisan’ like in the watchmaker analogy, rather it has to do with the question why the laws of nature are such that they allow for a self-development of the universe from elementary particles to biological life. God as designer of the cosmos is entirely different from God as a watchmaker ‘artisan’ constantly tweaking and tinkering here and there.

You should read my article in its entirety in order to understand better.
 
Like you I reject the watchmaker argument, and I reject biological Intelligent Design.

The cosmological design argument has nothing to do with God being an ‘artisan’ like in the watchmaker analogy, rather it has to do with the question why the laws of nature are such that they allow for a self-development of the universe from elementary particles to biological life. God as designer of the cosmos is entirely different from God as a watchmaker ‘artisan’ constantly tweaking and tinkering here and there.

You should read my article in its entirety in order to understand better.
Ive read the Important parts - I didn’t really read the arguments against it.🙂 I’m trying to understand the idea as a whole. When I think of fine tuning - I think of perfecting, making more efficient, refining …etc…etc…The laws of nature also allow for a self destruction do they not? Just looking at the animal kingdom, I would say that some things have become fine tuned, and some things have completely disappeared. I’m not sure we can argue that we have moved forward as a whole. There seems to be a time when animals were bigger stronger, and more efficient and then wiped out naturally - there also seems to be a time when we built pyramids with our bare hands. What exactly do you mean - by “fine tuned” ?..I may not be understanding I guess.
 
The cosmological design argument has nothing to do with God being an ‘artisan’ like in the watchmaker analogy, rather it has to do with the question why the laws of nature are such that they allow for a self-development of the universe from elementary particles to biological life. God as designer of the cosmos is entirely different from God as a watchmaker ‘artisan’ constantly tweaking and tinkering here and there.

You should read my article in its entirety in order to understand better.
Actually, the watchmaker argument is that God created it, then put his feet up and let it go it’s course with no interference. That’s your position, Al, from all your posts that I’ve read.

With regard to God “tinkering”…I’ve read a couple of books lately from the “revealed to us” perspective rather than the “what science tells us” perspective, and I’ve come to conclude that God not only tinkers, he involves himself with every aspect of our lives, from the very basic “keeping us in existence” to managing and arranging affairs of our daily lives, and making the course of nations and histories.

If you’re interested, the books are:
The Gift of Faith, by Fr. Tadeusz Dajczer, and
My Daily Bread (daily meditations), by Fr. Anthony Paone

Revealed truth is greater than what our limited minds (even with Science included) can discover or comprehend. I am an engineer so I have a great respect for how science can be applied to our lives. But when it comes to “God doesn’t tinker” and such, I’ll go with the revealed knowledge, not the science-du-jour.

I know this was off-topic. Sorry. 🤷

Back to … 🍿
 
…I may not be understanding I guess.
I am afraid so. When you say you “read the important parts”, I guess you mean you glanced over them. Not good enough. Try again – read, no study, the whole thing attentively.
 
Actually, the watchmaker argument is that God created it, then put his feet up and let it go it’s course with no interference. That’s your position, Al, from all your posts that I’ve read.
No, that’s not my position, and you have not read well. God cannot ‘put His feet up and walk away’, that is metaphysically impossible, according to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, which is also the underpinning of much of the theological thinking of the Catholic Church.
With regard to God “tinkering”…I’ve read a couple of books lately from the “revealed to us” perspective rather than the “what science tells us” perspective, and I’ve come to conclude that God not only tinkers, he involves himself with every aspect of our lives, from the very basic “keeping us in existence” to managing and arranging affairs of our daily lives, and making the course of nations and histories.
Of course God involves Himself intimately.

Below is a short essay that I recently wrote that should address all the points.

Intervention by God

As I see it, there is a natural and a supernatural order.

In the supernatural order, God intervenes frequently. We have divine revelation to the Jews and later the gentiles, we have God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ, we have the sacraments, above all the Holy Eucharist in which God is physically with us at all times in the most loving and selfless manner possible, and we have the special creation of an immaterial rational soul for each human individually. God interacts with the human soul and has a relationship with us. God can work physical miracles to fulfill prayers, but that happens rarely. More often, I believe, God hears prayers by moving souls, including our own. He can inspire actions in humans that they otherwise might not take. Our relationship with God in general, if we choose to have one, consists more in us being moved by His grace than in a ‘conversation’ in the sense that it occurs in human relationships. As for God helping us with physical needs, I don’t see why this cannot occur along natural channels rather than by supernatural means (even though that does happen, though very rarely). For example, upon prayer God can direct us to a doctor who can help us effectively with sickness, instead of healing us directly.

In the natural order, God appears to intervene rarely, at least in a measurable way. This is even logically necessary, otherwise we would not know what to expect from our physical world. Imagine stepping into an airplane without predictable laws of nature … Physical miracles are rare. The Catholic Church is quite explicit about that. Even in the long history of Lourdes, for example, there are only some 60+ confirmed miracle healings, even though the claims run into the thousands or even ten thousands (regardless of what you think of Lourdes and miracles in general, the point is that miracles are considered rare). By the way, as far as I know, Catholics are only required to believe in the miracles of the Bible, not in any of the miracles after that time. If miracles were not rare, how then could we distinguish them from the regularities if nature? The concept of ‘miracle’ would lose its meaning. The idea that theists believe in ‘miracles everywhere’ is an atheist caricature that simply does not hold, except perhaps for some extreme evangelical branches of Christianity.

As far as other physical intervention is concerned, God set up the universe to develop on its own – as some would say, God made the world make itself. We have a seamless line from physical evolution of the universe after the Big Bang through chemical evolution resulting in the origin of life to biological evolution resulting in higher species and our bodies and brains (again, the immaterial soul is part of the supernatural order, and by definition cannot fall within the realm of physical evolution).

Even though God appears to intervene rarely in the natural order, He is necessary as the sustainer of the created world. Study classical metaphysics (Aquinas) and you will see why that is so. It is also a ‘de fide’ article of the Catholic Church. In that sense, God is constantly active in the natural order as well, even though not in an obvious ‘interventionist’ manner. This alone excludes a deist view.

It is actually biological ID people who appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything and instead believe that God is only active when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”.

(cont.)
 
(cont.)

There is another problem with the interventionist view of biological ID. It sounds like saying God was not intelligent enough to design the process of material evolution to do everything naturally from the beginning. It gives a diminished picture of God.

God creating by special creation entirely outside a process is an unproblematic idea. Yet we have discovered that special creation is not how the development of the material world works. The alternative, God creating through a perfect process is an unproblematic idea as well, and this is what we see in the material domain.

Yet the idea of God creating through a not so great process that is simply not good enough to accomplish everything intended by Almighty Divine Providence, the idea of God creating through an imperfect process that needs some help from time to time with special creation – that is problematic.

(I am not talking about perfection in the sense of being ‘perfectly engineered’ – biological creatures are not, precisely because they evolve. I am talking about perfection in the sense of a process being able to bring about everything that it is intended to do. Again, I do not see God as an ‘engineer’.)

With regard to miracles and laws of nature, this link is a great read (the author, a physicist, also gives some good rebuttals in an exchange with Laurence Krauss in the comment section):

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/how-god-and-science-mix
 
Below is a short essay that I recently wrote that should address all the points.
If you are saying that your essay addresses what we need to know so that we understand what’s on your mind, perhaps that is true.

On the other hand, if you’re saying that because you wrote an essay, everything in it must be True, then I have to disagree with you.
 
Al's article:
The apparent extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature, necessary to allow for physical evolution of the universe and evolution of life, is reviewed.
The key-word is “apparent”.
Al's article:
Physicists know since a few decades that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for any form of life to develop, and in fact for any kind of chemistry and complexity in the universe. The fortunate apparent coincidences in the laws of nature that allow for life in the universe are called ‘anthropic coincidences’ (‘anthropic’ means related to mankind; perhaps a better term would have been the more general ‘biophilic’, life-friendly). Physicists say that the laws of nature are extremely ‘fine-tuned’.
No, they do NOT KNOW. They surmise. How many different universes have they examined to come to this conclusion?

Finally, let’s turn to Douglas Adams commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12540:

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’”

Science only works one way:
  1. Setting up a hypothesis
  2. Conducting experiments to verify it
  3. If the experiment supports the hypothesis, it gains acceptance
  4. If the experiment rejects the hypothesis, it needs to be amended or discarded.
Evenything else is empty musings - also called “philosophy”.
 
Like you I reject the watchmaker argument, and I reject biological Intelligent Design.

The cosmological design argument has nothing to do with God being an ‘artisan’ like in the watchmaker analogy, rather it has to do with the question why the laws of nature are such that they allow for a self-development of the universe from elementary particles to biological life. God as designer of the cosmos is entirely different from God as a watchmaker ‘artisan’ constantly tweaking and tinkering here and there.

You should read my article in its entirety in order to understand better.
What are your thoughts as to how the idea of God as the distant programmer of natural laws squares with the personal, involved, interested God of Classical Theism? It seems to me that a detached, deist god is all that can be inferred from the fine-tuning argument. I suddenly recall the movie Watchmen, in which it is implied that any being with power over the universe really could not have the capacity to care personally for humans, any more than we could have the capacity to care for individual ants…
 
The key-word is “apparent”.
I address the semantics in my article. But it seems obvious that you haven’t bothered reading beyond the summary.
No, they do NOT KNOW. They surmise. How many different universes have they examined to come to this conclusion?
Yes, they do know. See this article by cosmologist Luke Barnes

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/

where, among others, he examines the question:
“How do we know that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a little bit different?”

This is completely uncontroversial among physicists.
Finally, let’s turn to Douglas Adams commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12540:
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’”
I answer this incredibly uninformed ‘puddle’ argument in section 1.2 of my article. But in order to fully understand my rebuttal, you have to read the entire preceding text which explains what fine-tuning really means.
Science only works one way:
  1. Setting up a hypothesis
  2. Conducting experiments to verify it
  3. If the experiment supports the hypothesis, it gains acceptance
  4. If the experiment rejects the hypothesis, it needs to be amended or discarded.
Evenything else is empty musings - also called “philosophy”.
I specifically subtitile my article “A philosophical perspective on findings of science”. And no, I don’t agree that philosophy is ‘empty musings’. Atheism and naturalism are philosophical positions as well, not scientific ones. So if you want to claim that your position is just ‘empty musings’, be my guest.
 
What are your thoughts as to how the idea of God as the distant programmer of natural laws squares with the personal, involved, interested God of Classical Theism? It seems to me that a detached, deist god is all that can be inferred from the fine-tuning argument. I suddenly recall the movie Watchmen, in which it is implied that any being with power over the universe really could not have the capacity to care personally for humans, any more than we could have the capacity to care for individual ants…
Have you read my posts # 9 and # 10 above?
 
(cont.)

There is another problem with the interventionist view of biological ID. It sounds like saying God was not intelligent enough to design the process of material evolution to do everything naturally from the beginning. It gives a diminished picture of God.

God creating by special creation entirely outside a process is an unproblematic idea. Yet we have discovered that special creation is not how the development of the material world works. The alternative, God creating through a perfect process is an unproblematic idea as well, and this is what we see in the material domain.

Yet the idea of God creating through a not so great process that is simply not good enough to accomplish everything intended by Almighty Divine Providence, the idea of God creating through an imperfect process that needs some help from time to time with special creation – that is problematic.

(I am not talking about perfection in the sense of being ‘perfectly engineered’ – biological creatures are not, precisely because they evolve. I am talking about perfection in the sense of a process being able to bring about everything that it is intended to do. Again, I do not see God as an ‘engineer’.)

With regard to miracles and laws of nature, this link is a great read (the author, a physicist, also gives some good rebuttals in an exchange with Laurence Krauss in the comment section):

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/how-god-and-science-mix
If the ‘perfect process’ created by God in the beginning was intended to bring about everything God planned, then it has to be said that God’s plan included an immense amount of suffering on the part of innocent creatures - that doesn’t square particularly well with the image of the compassionate, loving father so often ascribed to the God of Classical Theism.
 
If the ‘perfect process’ created by God in the beginning was intended to bring about everything God planned, then it has to be said that God’s plan included an immense amount of suffering on the part of innocent creatures - that doesn’t square particularly well with the image of the compassionate, loving father so often ascribed to the God of Classical Theism.
Pain is an absolutely necessary feature of nature. If you would not be able to feel pain, even terrible pain, you would die quickly because you would not feel what might kill you. In fact, children born with the abnormality of not feeling physical pain need to constantly be protected from themselves. Thus the idea that a world without pain would be desirable lacks rational foundation.

Human suffering is one thing, animal suffering another. It appears that only primates and humans have the neural circuits to be aware of their suffering, while other animals feel pain but are not psychologically self-aware of it:

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9229

Granted, I have not looked at the primary scientific literature underlying the article, but it sounds quite plausible. Good enough for me at this point – unless you can come up with scientific evidence to the contrary. I have always suspected that we might be engaging too much in anthropomorphic projection of our own psychological experience of pain onto animals. If in fact these findings are true, then the whole issue of animal suffering becomes an entirely different ballgame.

As for the extinction of species: why would we think that species have ‘failed’? Wasn’t it ‘fun while it lasted’ for any given species? Didn’t the species outlive the life span of its individual animals by many, many times, even millions of times in some cases? Also, any individual animal has to die – what does it matter to that animal if it is the last of its species to die? How would it know anyway? No, all things must pass, but that doesn’t mean they should not have been there in the first place.
 
Pain is an absolutely necessary feature of nature. If you would not be able to feel pain, even terrible pain, you would die quickly because you would not feel what might kill you. In fact, children born with the abnormality of not feeling physical pain need to constantly be protected from themselves. Thus the idea that a world without pain would be desirable lacks rational foundation.

Human suffering is one thing, animal suffering another. It appears that only primates and humans have the neural circuits to be aware of their suffering, while other animals feel pain but are not psychologically self-aware of it:

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9229

Granted, I have not looked at the primary scientific literature underlying the article, but it sounds quite plausible. Good enough for me at this point – unless you can come up with scientific evidence to the contrary. I have always suspected that we might be engaging too much in anthropomorphic projection of our own psychological experience of pain onto animals. If in fact these findings are true, then the whole issue of animal suffering becomes an entirely different ballgame.

As for the extinction of species: why would we think that species have ‘failed’? Wasn’t it ‘fun while it lasted’ for any given species? Didn’t the species outlive the life span of its individual animals by many, many times, even millions of times in some cases? Also, any individual animal has to die – what does it matter to that animal if it is the last of its species to die? How would it know anyway? No, all things must pass, but that doesn’t mean they should not have been there in the first place.
A very interesting perspective.

I have two comments at present: Firstly, I can fully appreciate the role of pain in a purely naturalistic context, as an indication of trouble to a sentient organism that has the opportunity to act to prevent pain and any further complications that may arise from it. But this makes much less sense in a universe overseen by a fundamentally good and compassionate deity - especially when one considers the sheer extent of suffering present, as a matter of course, in the natural world.

Secondly, you mention the transitory existence of species; undoubtedly, there are those who consider extinction to be a mark of failure, but I am not one of them! The arising and extinction of species is all part of the natural progression. But if the human species is part of this natural progression - arising, flourishing and then becoming extinct in our turn - then that certainly does not square with the idea of a god who is focused upon human fulfilment, especially for those (generally theistic believers, from what I’ve seen) who claim that a lack of eternal existence renders all experience ultimately pointless.
 
No offense to Al Moritz, but anytime someone doesn’t agree him - then they are accused of not reading the article - or not understanding what they read. I wasted some time, and read the paper. I’m still not clear on what this definition of “fine-tuned” is? First off fine tuned seems to be a construct that fits his purported idea of design (others also) but it should be able to be defined in the most rudimentary terms. When I tune up an engine - I am making it perform better - when I fine tune it I am trying to make even more perfect what I previously did during the tuning. He never seems to juxtapose the fact that we aren’t sure how old the earth is - outside of fossil records, and what we have that hasn’t withered away within the annals of time. We can’t possible understand fine tuning in that way. It seems like whatever we understand as design is based on our cultural context of what we think we know about the here, and the now, how we are presuming to think it will relate to possible pasts, or possible futures.This is impossible to know. I would agree with Hawking when he says that the Universe’s initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to Moritz, it is inevitable that we find our Universe’s “fine-tuned” physical constants, as the current Universe “selects” only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the existence of the Multiverse. Going back to the engine analogy. I could easily replace huge parts of the engine, and no one would ever know when I described the way I tune it up. It would be completely apparent that the engine was always static in that regard. But I would know otherwise. The definition of fine tuning, and design in this respect seem to enter into the world of special pleading…either that or we are just creating new definitions for these words which fly in the face of known, and proven definitions. When I see a designed car - I can look at the history the process, the culmination of every little thing in real, and objective points in time, and space. We cannot possibly do this with a history of the world and earth. Way to many things we don’t know.
 
I would argue that the argument from pain and evil has even evolved lately from the argument of gratuitous pain and evil. Sure we have to have light to understand dark - but do we need ridiculous amounts of it? We didn’t need a Hitler killing millions of people to understand that murder was wrong. God the perfect all powerful, all knowing all everything could have easily changed the parameters and we would have never know the difference to begin with. The argument for pain is easy to understand in that aspect, but when you thrown in the argument from gratuitous pain it makes it a little bit more authentic in the face of this all everything god notion.
A very interesting perspective.

I have two comments at present: Firstly, I can fully appreciate the role of pain in a purely naturalistic context, as an indication of trouble to a sentient organism that has the opportunity to act to prevent pain and any further complications that may arise from it. But this makes much less sense in a universe overseen by a fundamentally good and compassionate deity - especially when one considers the sheer extent of suffering present, as a matter of course, in the natural world.

Secondly, you mention the transitory existence of species; undoubtedly, there are those who consider extinction to be a mark of failure, but I am not one of them! The arising and extinction of species is all part of the natural progression. But if the human species is part of this natural progression - arising, flourishing and then becoming extinct in our turn - then that certainly does not square with the idea of a god who is focused upon human fulfilment, especially for those (generally theistic believers, from what I’ve seen) who claim that a lack of eternal existence renders all experience ultimately pointless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top