Tuned In
Once upon a time I threw myself into a forum debate about atheism, science, and theism, with the OP claiming that atheists can be just as irrational in their beliefs as theists. Now this can be true -- any rigid worldview can form into an ideology, and atheism is certainly not exempt from that. But that wasn't the OP's point. His explanation was that, in contrast to the God Hypothesis, a deity created the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, atheists are forced to believe that a multitude of universes exist to explain why ours is the way it is:
This cannot be attributed to dumb luck. If so, we just won the lottery a million times in a row. Nor can their [sic] by some mystical rule that we have to exist. That sort of self-congratulation is what gives atheists the heebee-jeebies about religion in the first place.
Nor can this be passed aside by claiming 'selection bias.' ... Were I arguing that it was extremely unlikely for life to evolve on our planet, one could point to the trillions of stars in the universe and say, "Yeah, but nature had billions of chances to get it right." The universe itself seems designed for us.
Ultimately it addresses the idea that the universe is finely-tuned to support life, which he called "the heart of my argument", and that an answer must exist for the evidence we can't deny.
Or... can we? Are we really forced to choose between these two ideas? Well, let's talk about what the fine-tuned concept really is and then we'll get back to the OP.
The fine-tuned concept describes how the universe is apparently constructed in such a way that life and intelligence can exist. Those constructs include the constants of nature, things like the strength of the fundamental forces or masses of elementary particles. Many scientists have argued that if just one of these constants were different, physics and chemistry would not allow life and intelligence to exist. For example, if the strong nuclear force was a little bit stronger, all of the hydrogen in the early universe would've collapsed and fused into helium long ago, and the other elements of the periodic table would never have appeared. No other elements means no carbon, and no carbon means no life. Other values like the age of the universe are also taken into account. Life couldn't have existed in the heated and heady days just following the Big Bang, nor can it live in the distant future when the universe will be far too cold and vacant. Life, especially we humans, apparently exists at a privileged time with specific conditions.
The anthropic principle, which dealt with these apparent privileges, was born from this thinking. Astrophysicist Brandon Carter developed the idea in 1973, and described two forms: the strong principle and the weak principle. The strong anthropic principle is basically the above, or that certain values of universal constants and period of time are prerequisites for life:
[T]he Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est.
The weak form narrows this view by saying that certain areas of spacetime can harbor life:
[W]e must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.
But either idea, Carter said, must be addressed by science. (There are other forms of the strong and weak anthropic principles with obvious differences from Carter's, notably those created by physicist John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler, but they aren't really relevant for this discussion.)
For me, this argument conjures the image of someone trying to listen to a radio station barely beyond the reach of their antenna. They sit in front of it, cautiously twisting the dial to that magic point on the spectrum where the signal is at maximum and noise is low, so they can listen at full volume.
However, I think thinking about it this way is misleading, and leads the issues of the forum debate's OP. Such fine-tuning can be the result of a creator, and as you may have guessed, the argument has been taken to hell and back by creationists, particularly advocates of its modified descendant intelligent design. Or all other options are exhausted in other universes (or in Carter's version other areas of the universe), leaving us in the one where the right values match up with the right place and right time. It end up being either subscribed to design or chance.
Are these the only answers though? Absolutely not. The anthropic principle does not set only two conclusions, and to present only two commits a false dichotomy.
Other conclusions to the fine-tuned universe rest on how exactly "fine-tuned" the fine-tuning is. We only have one example of life -- what exists and has existed on Earth, that leads to a bias on how we think life can ONLY exist. For a specific example, we humans required certain temperatures and environments to live in, while most of the life on this planet has the ability to live far beyond our tolerance zones, like extremeophiles bacteria. More broadly, Wwe are carbon-based, while other life may fill the universe based on other elements like silicon. That centrism may even extend to the very constants of nature. Exotic forms of life, even intelligent life, may operate on entirely foreign laws of physics -- and maybe they can't imagine how life could exist the way we understand it can.
Others address how the universe formed in the first place. The multiverse doesn't have to be a dumping ground of improbable odds, but could act more like evolution. Physicist Lee Smolin presented the idea that universes bubble out from other universes and take laws of physics along with them. After a while, a cosmic natural selection takes place, and eventually universes have the right ingredients for life. Meanwhile, the cyclic model proposes that the universe appears over and over again when two other blobs of dimensions collide with each other in a neverending dance. Only one universe ends up being created, the one we know, so the idea of fine-tuning becomes a moot issue.
In the end though, maybe the entire concept of a fine-tuned universe is an illusion based on our biases. Stephen Jay Gould compared the idea to how a hot dog seems to be fine-tuned for a hot dog bun, or how ships are fine-tuned to collect barnacles. Life simply develops in the environment it operates in, from the constants of nature to the time in the universe's lifespan. To claim from this that the universe is designed to be compatible with life is a circular argument. The idea goes that, if it wasn't, then life and us wouldn't exist, which is like saying if God didn't write the Bible, then the Bible wouldn't exist. It's bad logic.
And we're back at the OP. Atheism works just fine with any of these alternative conclusions , including one with a vast multiverse. But atheists are not required to believe such a conclusion in contrast to an ultimate designer. Theism meanwhile can coexist with any of these conclusions too, although God is pushed further and further back into the metaphysical mists beyond the goalposts.
Personally though, I think it's all an illusion. Apparent fine-tuning is just an artifact from the structure and rules of universe. Life developed because it could, and the definition of what is life probably extends far beyond our imaginations. If there's one thing science can teach about reality, it's infinitely stranger and more wonderful than anything we can ever think of.
This cannot be attributed to dumb luck. If so, we just won the lottery a million times in a row. Nor can their [sic] by some mystical rule that we have to exist. That sort of self-congratulation is what gives atheists the heebee-jeebies about religion in the first place.
Nor can this be passed aside by claiming 'selection bias.' ... Were I arguing that it was extremely unlikely for life to evolve on our planet, one could point to the trillions of stars in the universe and say, "Yeah, but nature had billions of chances to get it right." The universe itself seems designed for us.
Ultimately it addresses the idea that the universe is finely-tuned to support life, which he called "the heart of my argument", and that an answer must exist for the evidence we can't deny.
Or... can we? Are we really forced to choose between these two ideas? Well, let's talk about what the fine-tuned concept really is and then we'll get back to the OP.
The fine-tuned concept describes how the universe is apparently constructed in such a way that life and intelligence can exist. Those constructs include the constants of nature, things like the strength of the fundamental forces or masses of elementary particles. Many scientists have argued that if just one of these constants were different, physics and chemistry would not allow life and intelligence to exist. For example, if the strong nuclear force was a little bit stronger, all of the hydrogen in the early universe would've collapsed and fused into helium long ago, and the other elements of the periodic table would never have appeared. No other elements means no carbon, and no carbon means no life. Other values like the age of the universe are also taken into account. Life couldn't have existed in the heated and heady days just following the Big Bang, nor can it live in the distant future when the universe will be far too cold and vacant. Life, especially we humans, apparently exists at a privileged time with specific conditions.
The anthropic principle, which dealt with these apparent privileges, was born from this thinking. Astrophysicist Brandon Carter developed the idea in 1973, and described two forms: the strong principle and the weak principle. The strong anthropic principle is basically the above, or that certain values of universal constants and period of time are prerequisites for life:
[T]he Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est.
The weak form narrows this view by saying that certain areas of spacetime can harbor life:
[W]e must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.
But either idea, Carter said, must be addressed by science. (There are other forms of the strong and weak anthropic principles with obvious differences from Carter's, notably those created by physicist John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler, but they aren't really relevant for this discussion.)
For me, this argument conjures the image of someone trying to listen to a radio station barely beyond the reach of their antenna. They sit in front of it, cautiously twisting the dial to that magic point on the spectrum where the signal is at maximum and noise is low, so they can listen at full volume.
However, I think thinking about it this way is misleading, and leads the issues of the forum debate's OP. Such fine-tuning can be the result of a creator, and as you may have guessed, the argument has been taken to hell and back by creationists, particularly advocates of its modified descendant intelligent design. Or all other options are exhausted in other universes (or in Carter's version other areas of the universe), leaving us in the one where the right values match up with the right place and right time. It end up being either subscribed to design or chance.
Are these the only answers though? Absolutely not. The anthropic principle does not set only two conclusions, and to present only two commits a false dichotomy.
Other conclusions to the fine-tuned universe rest on how exactly "fine-tuned" the fine-tuning is. We only have one example of life -- what exists and has existed on Earth, that leads to a bias on how we think life can ONLY exist. For a specific example, we humans required certain temperatures and environments to live in, while most of the life on this planet has the ability to live far beyond our tolerance zones, like extremeophiles bacteria. More broadly, Wwe are carbon-based, while other life may fill the universe based on other elements like silicon. That centrism may even extend to the very constants of nature. Exotic forms of life, even intelligent life, may operate on entirely foreign laws of physics -- and maybe they can't imagine how life could exist the way we understand it can.
Others address how the universe formed in the first place. The multiverse doesn't have to be a dumping ground of improbable odds, but could act more like evolution. Physicist Lee Smolin presented the idea that universes bubble out from other universes and take laws of physics along with them. After a while, a cosmic natural selection takes place, and eventually universes have the right ingredients for life. Meanwhile, the cyclic model proposes that the universe appears over and over again when two other blobs of dimensions collide with each other in a neverending dance. Only one universe ends up being created, the one we know, so the idea of fine-tuning becomes a moot issue.
In the end though, maybe the entire concept of a fine-tuned universe is an illusion based on our biases. Stephen Jay Gould compared the idea to how a hot dog seems to be fine-tuned for a hot dog bun, or how ships are fine-tuned to collect barnacles. Life simply develops in the environment it operates in, from the constants of nature to the time in the universe's lifespan. To claim from this that the universe is designed to be compatible with life is a circular argument. The idea goes that, if it wasn't, then life and us wouldn't exist, which is like saying if God didn't write the Bible, then the Bible wouldn't exist. It's bad logic.
And we're back at the OP. Atheism works just fine with any of these alternative conclusions , including one with a vast multiverse. But atheists are not required to believe such a conclusion in contrast to an ultimate designer. Theism meanwhile can coexist with any of these conclusions too, although God is pushed further and further back into the metaphysical mists beyond the goalposts.
Personally though, I think it's all an illusion. Apparent fine-tuning is just an artifact from the structure and rules of universe. Life developed because it could, and the definition of what is life probably extends far beyond our imaginations. If there's one thing science can teach about reality, it's infinitely stranger and more wonderful than anything we can ever think of.