Continuing down the list of six possible explanations for the “anthropic” coincidences in nature which allow intelligent life to evolve…largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING. He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it. The Watchmaker illustration would be brought up when I look at this anyway, so I might as well get it out of the way. Actually, Paley STILL had cogent points–he was one of the ones (Kant was another) to point out that life if only possible in three dimensions, that circular orbits would decay in anything else–which ranges from planets in solar systems to electrons around the nuclei of atoms. Of course, some will say that the idea of a Designer is a priori absurd, and refuse to consider it. But it's certainly a logical possibility. The kinship that Dawkins felt for Paley's wonderment at nature, and the statement quoted, is in the first chapter of THE BLIND WATCHMAKER. When Dawkins talks about biology and evolution, few can touch him, and I always listen to him with respect. We'll address the pros and cons of the idea of an Originating Intelligence (how I wish the term “Intelligent Design” hadn't been co-opted by those who disagree with evolution) in the coming weeks. We'll address Dawkins' opinion on the anthropic coicidences–as well as other criticisms, such as David Hume's, on the whole Designer idea…a little later. Next time: THINKING CREATIVELY: APPROACHES AND LIMITS
Okay, this looks like a good point to drop in a thought I've been having. Utilising Ockham's razor, which is simpler: (a) there's an intelligence that can somehow create universes to a particular design (which we can't even begin to explain) or (b) there's a natural process spitting out vast numbers of universes with different physical laws and we live in the one that supports life (we can't explain this one either, but at least it doesn't require initial fine-tuning to create the creator to create initial fine-tuning). In short: Once you speculate the existence of something that can create universes you have no need to speculate an intelligence for it when it can achieve the observed effect by just spitting out universes en masse at random.
KimLuster: I'm going to get to some philosophical arguments, both pro and con, but first I'm going to address it on purely scientific grounds and which of the explanations fits the definition of a good hypothesis.
El Cid: Victor Stenger on the atheist side is sort of like Hugh Ross on the theist side; he stacks the desk too much for his side of the argument. There have been numerous criticisms of his "Fallacy of Fine Tuning". I know I've linked with one excellent one in the past, I'll see if I can find it.
I've found this whole comic fascinating. I've waited to see if you were going to introduce another, philosophical argument that sort of touches on the problem of consciousness and at this point I don't think you are. If you haven't read it, check out Plantinga's 'God and other Minds'. The essence of the argument is there is no way to know, logically or scientifically, that other minds exist (we can't logically prove that solipism isn't true). Nevertheless, it is considered rational to assume, based on observation and inference, that a person I'm talking to indeed has 'another' mind behind the face I'm seeing. The argument makes the analogy that believing in God, based on what we see in the universe (the hint of design, intelligence, and another mind) is similar. Not provable in a scientific way, but philosophically rational. I won't say anymore, in case you did intend to bring this up in later pages.
Sorry to come off as a grump, by the way. I really am impressed by the amount of work you've put into this and making it fun and interesting. Being willing to stick your neck out there and argue a controversial point of view like you did here is heroic, in my opinion. I just don't agree with you, as someone who's been exposed to these "mind boggling revelations" so many times before (Victor Stenger gives an excellent and comprehensive rebuttal to many of the cosmological arguments in his book 'The Fallacy of Fine Tuning,' which I highly recommend)
I've never been hugely impressed by the cosmological arguments. They all come off as sounding like "if 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4, then we'd have no arithmetic!" Things are the way they are, with a probability of 100 percent. We don't know for sure they they even *could* be any different. If you were going to put forward a designed universe argument, you'd be better off going with the "maybe the laws of physics are not constant" approach. As for cosmic "coincidences," if some higher intelligence had the power to mold everything however they wanted it, there's no reason why they would have done it in the convoluted way things are (unless they had no choice... which eliminates them from the picture anyway). And of course, the vast majority of Creation is very hostile to life, and in cosmic terms the time span during which the universe will be capable of supporting life is relatively insignificant; a tiny drop of order in a sea of endless chaos. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
interesting stuff, I consider myself an atheist but I'm not entirely against the possibility of design, but not as any religion has suggested. if there is some great creator, chances are we are pretty insignificant to it.
irrevenant at 7:35AM, Sept. 16, 2014
Okay, this looks like a good point to drop in a thought I've been having. Utilising Ockham's razor, which is simpler: (a) there's an intelligence that can somehow create universes to a particular design (which we can't even begin to explain) or (b) there's a natural process spitting out vast numbers of universes with different physical laws and we live in the one that supports life (we can't explain this one either, but at least it doesn't require initial fine-tuning to create the creator to create initial fine-tuning). In short: Once you speculate the existence of something that can create universes you have no need to speculate an intelligence for it when it can achieve the observed effect by just spitting out universes en masse at random.
KimLuster at 12:41PM, Sept. 4, 2014
Great! Looking forward to it! But no hurries - the scientific stuff is way interesting!
alschroeder at 3:54AM, Sept. 3, 2014
KimLuster: I'm going to get to some philosophical arguments, both pro and con, but first I'm going to address it on purely scientific grounds and which of the explanations fits the definition of a good hypothesis.
alschroeder at 3:33AM, Sept. 3, 2014
El Cid: Victor Stenger on the atheist side is sort of like Hugh Ross on the theist side; he stacks the desk too much for his side of the argument. There have been numerous criticisms of his "Fallacy of Fine Tuning". I know I've linked with one excellent one in the past, I'll see if I can find it.
KimLuster at 5:29AM, Sept. 1, 2014
I've found this whole comic fascinating. I've waited to see if you were going to introduce another, philosophical argument that sort of touches on the problem of consciousness and at this point I don't think you are. If you haven't read it, check out Plantinga's 'God and other Minds'. The essence of the argument is there is no way to know, logically or scientifically, that other minds exist (we can't logically prove that solipism isn't true). Nevertheless, it is considered rational to assume, based on observation and inference, that a person I'm talking to indeed has 'another' mind behind the face I'm seeing. The argument makes the analogy that believing in God, based on what we see in the universe (the hint of design, intelligence, and another mind) is similar. Not provable in a scientific way, but philosophically rational. I won't say anymore, in case you did intend to bring this up in later pages.
Nutster at 6:42PM, Aug. 31, 2014
Congratulations on the nomination for the award. This has been an exiting and interesting series.
El Cid at 5:36PM, Aug. 31, 2014
Sorry to come off as a grump, by the way. I really am impressed by the amount of work you've put into this and making it fun and interesting. Being willing to stick your neck out there and argue a controversial point of view like you did here is heroic, in my opinion. I just don't agree with you, as someone who's been exposed to these "mind boggling revelations" so many times before (Victor Stenger gives an excellent and comprehensive rebuttal to many of the cosmological arguments in his book 'The Fallacy of Fine Tuning,' which I highly recommend)
El Cid at 5:32PM, Aug. 31, 2014
I've never been hugely impressed by the cosmological arguments. They all come off as sounding like "if 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4, then we'd have no arithmetic!" Things are the way they are, with a probability of 100 percent. We don't know for sure they they even *could* be any different. If you were going to put forward a designed universe argument, you'd be better off going with the "maybe the laws of physics are not constant" approach. As for cosmic "coincidences," if some higher intelligence had the power to mold everything however they wanted it, there's no reason why they would have done it in the convoluted way things are (unless they had no choice... which eliminates them from the picture anyway). And of course, the vast majority of Creation is very hostile to life, and in cosmic terms the time span during which the universe will be capable of supporting life is relatively insignificant; a tiny drop of order in a sea of endless chaos. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Genejoke at 6:51AM, Aug. 31, 2014
interesting stuff, I consider myself an atheist but I'm not entirely against the possibility of design, but not as any religion has suggested. if there is some great creator, chances are we are pretty insignificant to it.