[Note: This is the fourth post in the series examining the uses of theistic arguments in Christian apologetics.]
[Note: This is post four in the series, Dismantling Implausibility Structures: The Uses of Theistic Arguments.]
"The heavens tell of the glory of God," claimed the Psalmist, "The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship." The ancient musician intuited aesthetically what modern cosmology is able to show mathematically. The arrangement of natural laws and other features provides not only stirring examples of the handiwork of our Creator but provides us with a strong argument for His existence.
Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. One of the most persuasive yet least proffered arguments of this type is the argument based on the "fine-tuning" of the universe for the existence of life forms. At least two dozen demandingly exact physical constants must be in place for carbon-based life to exist (see list at end of post), The slightest variation in any of these conditions -- even to a minuscule degree -- would have rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life.
Such a remarkable set of "coincidences" surely demands an explanation. Indeed, as I hope to show, it can form the basis of one of the most sound teleological argument:
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or design.
Therefore, it is due to design.
The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. Our options, therefore, are between chance and design. While it cannot be established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that design is the most probable explanation.
There is little dispute that probability of this series of "coincidences" occurring is infinitesimally small. Still, it is often argued that since we exist then the probability must be 1. In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler contend that we ought not be surprised at observing the universe to be as it is and that therefore no explanation of its fine-tuning is needed. In other words, we can only observe the need for fine-tuning in universes that support life.
Surprisingly, this dubious argument is often used as if it were a silver bullet that destroys the fine-tuning argument. But philosopher John Leslie (as told by William Lane Craig) provides an illustration of why such reasoning is faulty:
Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that
7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.
Another problem I find with this line of thinking is that it implies that the probability of a stochastically independent event is determined by the existence of an observer. For example, imagine a universe that is exactly like ours yet contains no carbon-based life forms. We could determine the factors required for such an existence and calculate the probability of such constants appearing as they do. The result, of course, would be an infinitesimally small probability. The implication made by opponents of fine-tuning, though, is that the probability suddenly becomes 1 by the mere addition of a human observer. Such a conclusion is exceedingly absurd.
Most critics of fine-tuning have begun to recognize that this approach is insufficient. Faced with scientific evidence that undermines their agnostic assumptions, they turn to metaphysical speculation in the form of the "many worlds" theory.
Briefly stated, the many worlds theory is the hypotheses that if the universe contains an exhaustively random and infinite number of universes, then anything that can occur with non-vanishing probability will occur somewhere. True, the probability that our universe could develop in a way that supports life is incredibly small. But, these critics claim, in an infinite series of universes even the improbable is likely to happen quite often.
(It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence for this view (nor can there be since it is a metaphysical, rather than empirical, claim). and that it is merely an attempt to side-step the obvious implications of a designer by means of addition.)
Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler�s fallacy, which states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple universe do exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe would turn out as it did. Again, to use an illustration by John Leslie:
There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly. Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.
Having reduced the chance hypothesis to a virtual impossibility we are left with the obvious conclusion that the fine-tuning is not only apparent but actual. The fine-tuning implies the existence of a tuner, hence we can conclude that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that God exists.
As I have stated ad nauesum, the uses of such an argument are not to prove that God exists but to highlight the metaphysical and illogical knots that agnostically inclined will twist themselves into in order to avoid having to admit that the existence of God is more reasonable and probable than its alternative.
Sources: J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Notes: According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, more than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. Weak nuclear force constant
If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. Gravitational force constant
If larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. Electromagnetic force constant
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. Ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
If larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
If smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. Expansion rate of the universe
If larger: no galaxy formation
If smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. Entropy level of the universe
If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
10. Mass density of the universe
If larger: too much deuterium from big bang hence stars burn too rapidly
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. Velocity of light
If faster: stars would be too luminous
If slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. Age of the universe
If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
If larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
If smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun�s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
19. ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life�s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form
No comments:
Post a Comment