On 17 Jan 2015, at 13:29, Samiya Illias wrote:
http://m.deseretnews.com/
Michael Gerson: Modern science: Design of the divine?
By Michael Gerson, Washington Post
Published: Fri, Jan. 16 12:43 a.m.
WASHINGTON — The biographer Eric Metaxas recently made waves by
arguing that modern science increasingly "makes the case for God."
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he framed some rather weak
arguments about planetary science, claiming that the parameters for
the emergence of life are so precise and unlikely that they point to
divine design. We don't really know what physical processes drive
the development and remarkable resilience of life — which somehow
includes moss on Mount Everest and tube worms in deep-sea
hydrothermal vents — but it strikes me as likely that science will
eventually find an explanation. Further research may reveal how the
deck is stacked in favor of life by impersonal, natural forces. God
is probably not needed to fill this particular gap.
But Metaxas goes on to make a broader, sounder point about the "fine-
tuning" of physical constants that allow an observable universe to
exist in the first place. After centuries of inquiry, we have found
that everything that is — the whole shebang — balances precariously
on the head of a pin. If electrons were a little lighter, there
could be no stable stars. If protons were slightly heavier, no atoms
could form. If the weak nuclear force were weaker, there would be no
hydrogen. If the electromagnetic force were stronger, carbon would
decay away. If a variety of physical constants were off by even a
smidgen, we would not exist to engage in science or argue about God.
This, presumably, requires an explanation.
Metaxas' column brought a predictable reaction from a certain type
of atheist who sees no need for an explanation. The universe is
because it is. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be observing it.
But the belief that our precisely balanced universe is a fluke is in
tension with the scientific method. Physicist Max Tegmark, for
example, points to dark energy as a dramatic example of fine-tuning.
If dark energy had a larger density, no galaxies would have formed.
If it had a negative density, the universe would have collapsed back
on itself before life could emerge. Tegmark imagines the full range
of densities for dark energy represented on a dial. In order to get
a habitable universe, the dial needs to be rotated past the halfway
point by a precise, vanishingly minuscule amount. "The fine-tuning
appears extreme enough to be quite embarrassing," Tegmark writes.
"To me, an unexplained coincidence can be a telltale sign of a gap
in our scientific understanding. Dismissing it by saying, 'We got
lucky — now stop looking for an explanation!' is not only
unsatisfactory, but also tantamount to ignoring a potentially
crucial clue."
Tegmark is a leading advocate of the theory of the "multiverse. " He
explains fine-tuning by postulating an infinite variety of other
universes, in which physical constants have all possible values. We
happen to be located in one of the habitable versions.
This does not work. "we" are not located. Only our relative "bodies"
are located, and those "bodies" are convenient fiction. Tegmark uses
an identity thesis which does not work, unless based on very special
actual infinities in nature, for which there is no evidence.
The existence of an infinite number of universes has mind-bending
implications. There would be one, for example, in which the
dinosaurs didn't go extinct. In which Hitler died in World War I, or
won World War II. In which the column you are reading differed by
one word, or two.
The multiverse allows for fine-tuning without a divine tuner. But it
would change and lower our view of the scientific enterprise. Newton
and Einstein sought to describe the universe in terms of simple,
elegant, physical laws and mathematical equations. "If the
multiverse idea is correct," argued MIT physicist Alan Lightman in
"The Accidental Universe," "then the historic mission of physics to
explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental
principles — to explain why the properties of our universe must
necessarily be what they are — is futile, a beautiful philosophical
dream that simply isn't true. Our universe is what it is simply
because we are here."
That is correct, but only if we use the multiverse as an explanation
of everything, and stop trying to solve the intersting problem, like
God, soul, intelligibility, the mind-body problem, etc.
Believing in the multiverse also seems to involve a considerable
amount of faith.
Like 0 universe, 1 universe, 2 universe, ... aleph_0 universes,
aleph_1 universes, etc.
We need faith to believe in anything different from our own
consciousness here-and-now.
"Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are
accidental and uncalculable," says Lightman. "In addition, we must
believe in the existences of many other universes.
In some popular version only. In other version you need to believe
that 0 and the numbers have successors, and different one for each
number.
But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes
and cannot prove their existence.
But observation and personal experience never prove anything.
Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental
deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove."
There is, of course, another option that explains much but can't be
proved. About a quarter of scientists at elite American universities
believe in God.
With the definition you gave in a preceding post, and with which I
agree, everyone believe in some God. The question is always: which
one? And where it does come from, and why.
Bruno
On 17-Jan-2015, at 3:31 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Kim Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:
If you never change your mind - why have one?
Excellent saying! I might have to quote you on it. :-)
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
