A Finely Tuned Existence: the Anthropic Principle

[Josh]

Originally posted 7/11/06:

A big science-faith related theme brought to the forefront in recent years is the Anthropic Principle- the increasing realization of scientists that for life to exist- even more so human life- a vast array of finely-tuned but often independent variables must be in place. Without these hundreds (and the list is ever increasing) of specific conditions, the earth would be as forbidding as Mars and every other planet we've ever discovered.

This finely-tuned precision of factors has led many researchers to conclude that life here on planet earth is no accident- but a divinely orchestrated plan strongly challenging the notion that it could have all come about through random processes.

That's the rub, though.

One of the hot questions about the anthropic principle is what exactly can we conclude about the "odds"? Is the probability of these factors coming together so remote that it does indeed mitigate against naturalism, or are we just one of the lucky planets in the solar system?

Should we be persuaded that our existence here is a miracle, or are we to simply conclude that since we *are* here, it *must* be naturalistically explainable?

[Josh]

Originally posted 11/24/06:

In regard to the 'miracle of life', perhaps you have frequently taken the position that even if it seems unlikely that we should be here, we are here, so it must have happened with some naturalistic explanation. Many try to argue that the 'evidence for design' is merely coincidental: "Our existence simply testifies that the extremely unlikely did, indeed, take place by chance. In other words, we would not be here to report on the characteristics of the universe unless chance produced these highly unlikely properties." (Ross)

Ross, in his rebuttal of this argument, quotes two philsophers, Craig and Swinburne:

"Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad, and the prisoner survives. The prisoner should not be surprised that he does not observe that he is dead. After all, if he were dead, he could not observe his death. Nonetheless, he should be surprised that he observes that he is alive"

Ross continues: "To extend Craig and Swinburne's argument, the prisoner could conclude, since he is alive, that all the sharpshooters missed by some extremely unlikely chance. He may wish to attribute his survival to an incredible bit of good luck, but he would be far more rational to conclude that the guns were loaded with blanks or that the sharpshooters all deliberately missed. Someone must have purposed that he should live. Likewise, the rational conclusion to draw from the incredible fine-tuning of the universe is that Someone purposed we should live"
The fact is that this analogy pales in comparison to the variables involved in the fine-tuning of the universe. 100 sharpshooters missing is much more possible than the less than 1 chance in 10 to the 144th (that's 12 trillionths) that even one such planet as planet earth exists anywhere in the universe.

For these calculations, see:

www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/20020502_life_support_body_prob.shtml

One way naturalists try to get around this is to suggest that there may have been, or may be, multiple universes, thus upping the possibility that life would occur in one of them. But, see Ross's rebuttal here:

www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#an_infinity_of_universes

[Josh]

The book I'm currently reading touches on this, and I'm curious if Moritz (upon his return to the forums) could respond to this thread.

[robin]

Jul 15, 2010 7:46:17 GMT -8 Josh said:

The book I'm currently reading touches on this, and I'm curious if Moritz (upon his return to the forums) could respond to this thread.

What are you reading?

[Josh]

Life After Death: the Evidence by Dinesh D'Souza.

[robin]

I thought that was what you were referring to, but I wanted to make sure. I have have an audio book by the same author that I have not listened to, but perhaps I will give it a try in the near future.

[Josh]

As I mentioned above, the most popular current rebuttal to the design argument in the form of the anthropic principle is that perhaps this universe isn't the only one there is. Multiverse theory, in my opinion, is a desperate and futile attempt to explain away fine-tuning.

As Alvin Plantinga illustrates, the Multiverse dodge is like

"a man dealing himself twenty straight hands of four aces in the same game of poker. As his companions reach for their six-shooters the poker player says, 'I know it look suspicious! But what if there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of poker hands there is one universe in which this possibility is realized? We just happen to find ourselves in one where I always deal myself four aces without cheating!' This argument will have no effect on the other poker players. It is technically possible that the man just happened to deal himself twenty straight hands of four aces. Though you could not prove he had cheated, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he hadn't"

[Michael]

Another good book on the subject is The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Not only does it discuss how finely tuned our existence on earth is and must be, but how we are uniquely placed to maximize our observation of the universe (transparent atmosphere, perfect solar eclipses, being positioned well in the galaxy, etc.). I also have the accompanying video, if anyone would like to borrow it.

[Josh]

I bought that DVD once for the Aletheia library but it, sadly, broke. I really enjoyed it.