I had a conversation the other day with some friends of mine who are atheists. We talked about the argument that the improbability of complex life suggests that it must have been deliberately created.
One friend countered by saying that, if complex life is statistically improbable, then an even-more-complex designer must be that much more improbable. Someone replied that this counter-argument was invalid because probability doesn't apply to God. While natural phenomena are goverened by the laws of the universe and are therefore subject to probability analysis, a supernatural God (assuming one exists) would not be. Probability is a function of time, and since our universe exists in time, probability applies. Assuming that God exists outside of time, probability doesn't apply to Him/Her/It. So the unlikelihood of life does not demonstrate the unlikelihood of God.
"That's a very convienent argument," my friend said. In a nutshell, she accused theists of weaselling out of the conversation, applying the laws of the universe when they suited their purposes (proving the improbability of uncreated life), but ignoring those same laws when they didn't.
At the time, I conceded that although I was arguing in good faith, the argument did look convenient and there was no way to prove otherwise. But I've reconsidered.
If I had retroactively defined God to exist outside of time, it would have been fair to accuse me of cooking the definition so as to avoid the scrutiny of probability theory. But that definition of God is biblical - it's at least 3,000 years old. Probability theory first arose in the 16th and 17th centuries, so it's safe to say that the concept of an eternal God predates any probabilistic arguments about His existence. So it's not a clever dodge to say that God's putative eternal nature nullifies any argument as to the improbability of His existence. The argument is either true, or it's an interesting coincidence. Either way, it seems to predate its rhetorical usefulness, so at the very least it's intellectually honest.
As a sidebar, I should note that physics, too, requires that if the universe was created, its creator must be eternal. Modern physicists seem to agree that there was no such thing as time before the big bang. St. Augustine said the same thing 1600 years ago in his analysis of Genesis 1. That's not a proof for the existence of God, but it does suggest that if there was a creator, current science agrees with 3,500-year-old theology on one of the creator's fundamental attributes. Since the science came thousands of years after the theology, you can't accuse theists of cooking the books.
So I retract my concession.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't quite follow your argument here.
I read an article by Carl Sagan in the early 90's (the last time I gave this question serious attention) in which he pointed out that the notion of an omniscient creator producing the vast complexity of life that functions with such "perfection" becomes less compelling when you look closely at actual natural systems. There are all sorts of inefficiencies and screw-ups; sometimes it is astonishing that things continue to run at all when the mechanism is so poor. He presumes that an omniscient creator would have tidied things up better. In my limited exposure to biology, I've run into a few good examples of random combinations trying and the ones that lead to survival past the age of procreation getting to try again in the next generation. -comingtogetyou
"While natural phenomena are goverened by the laws of the universe and are therefore subject to probability analysis, a supernatural God (assuming one exists) would not be."
You've just stated this by fiat. How do you know this? If you accept that all complex things must have even more complex designers, then this simply begs the question. The Argument from Design gets us nowhere.
"Assuming that God exists outside of time, probability doesn't apply to Him/Her/It. So the unlikelihood of life does not demonstrate the unlikelihood of God."
Life is far more probable than god's existence. For one, we KNOW that life exists. We have no evidence for the latter.
"But that definition of God is biblical - it's at least 3,000 years old. Probability theory first arose in the 16th and 17th centuries, so it's safe to say that the concept of an eternal God predates any probabilistic arguments about His existence. So it's not a clever dodge to say that God's putative eternal nature nullifies any argument as to the improbability of His existence. The argument is either true, or it's an interesting coincidence. Either way, it seems to predate its rhetorical usefulness, so at the very least it's intellectually honest."
So because the argument of his eternal existence predates probability theory, the argument is valid???
Tell me, what are your thoughts on the geocentric model of the universe?
"As a sidebar, I should note that physics, too, requires that if the universe was created, its creator must be eternal. Modern physicists seem to agree that there was no such thing as time before the big bang."
Time is a function of the universe. Time is a dimension of Einsteinian spacetime, developed in 1915 in the Theory of General Relativity. Time came into being with the universe.
What physicists say is that there is no point in discussing what came before the universe, since time did not exist before the universe. It's like asking "What were Abraham Lincoln's views of the Cuban Missle Crisis?"
This is, of course, not to say that "nothing" existed before the creation of the universe, but simply to say that it has no bearing on our existence on way or the other.
"St. Augustine said the same thing 1600 years ago in his analysis of Genesis 1...current science agrees with 3,500-year-old theology on one of the creator's fundamental attributes."
I'm sick and tired of the retroactive clairvoyance displayed by modern theists.
Modern physics is working very hard to decipher exactly what happened at the origins of our universe. It makes falsifiable claims that can be refuted with new evidence.
Tell me, what evidence would have falsified Augustine's view of creation?
Until such time as religion is prepared to make definitive, falsifiable hypotheses about future events, then this is nothing more than retroactive clairvoyance.
Psst...want to know who won the 1986 World Series???
http://propterhoc.wordpress.com
Hey C.,
Fair question. For the record, I didn't argue that the "perfection" of life suggests it was designed. As you rightly point out, life is not "perfect" in the sense of working particularly smoothly.
Rather, I think we were talking about the apparent fact that if the initial conditions at the big bang had been infinitesimally different, it would have been impossible for this universe to support life. (Apparently Roger Penrose has done the math. I'm told, although I have no written source for this at the moment, that the likelihood of having the proper initial conditions was something like 1 in 10^32.)
According to some, this blazing unlikelihood suggests that it is more likely that the universe was deliberately created.
The competing hypothesis is that our universe may be one of many (or one of an infinite number), in which case the probability of one of them supporting life becomes extremely high. While that may be a perfectly reasonable theory, it's no less speculative than the idea that our universe was deliberately created. (As I understand it, the various multiverse theories are all non-falsifiable at this point, which pretty much places them on no firmer scientific ground than theist claims.)
"although I have no written source for this at the moment, that the likelihood of having the proper initial conditions was something like 1 in 10^32.)
According to some, this blazing unlikelihood suggests that it is more likely that the universe was deliberately created."
Blatent plug warning: I've written a lengthy discussion of this fallacious notion at:
http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/flipping-our-coin/
Mike: I think you've misread me. That might be a result of my own ineloquence, but either way, let me clarify:
"If you accept that all complex things must have even more complex designers, then this simply begs the question. The Argument from Design gets us nowhere."
That wasn't the argument at issue in the conversation I posted about. Rather, the discussion centred on the argument that for the universe to support life, there had to be a specific and highly improbable set of circumstances at the time of the big bang. The extreme improbability of those circumstances having existed (so the argument goes) suggests that it is by something other than mere chance that we find ourselves with a universe capable of supporting life. (I know you don't buy that argument, and I haven't explored it enough myself to know whether I do either -- but we'll leave that argument for another post.) I agree that if the premise is that all complex things must have more complex designers, you beg the question. But that's not an argument I make.
"So because the argument of his eternal existence predates probability theory, the argument is valid???"
No. I chose my words carefully: I said that it was either true or an interesting coincidence, but that either way the argument was at least intellectually honest.
The focus of this post was to refute the specific claim that the argument of God's eternal nature was cynically designed to evade probability theory. The fact that the argument predates probability theory does prove that it couldn't have been developed post hoc for that cynical purpose. That's all I'm arguing here.
The argument's age is obviously not proof of its validity, and I didn't claim that it was.
As an aside: don't look for too much in any given post here. I don't expect to prove the existence of God from scratch. I'm not trying to prove God's existence; I'm just trying to prove that scientific knowledge leaves room for the idea that God exists. If you assume I'm trying to prove the existence of God, you'll have a very easy time refuting my arguments but you won't be addressing the arguments I actually make.
"What physicists say is that there is no point in discussing what came before the universe, since time did not exist before the universe."
I think we're in agreement here. The fact that time did not exist before the universe implies that if someone or something created the universe, that thing would not be subject to time in the same way that bodies within the universe are.
"I'm sick and tired of the retroactive clairvoyance displayed by modern theists."
How is this retroactive clairvoyance? Augustine made a claim 1500-odd years before science proved it to be true. That's not retroactive. (I wouldn't describe it as clairvoyance either: it's not like his idea came to him in a vision. He read Genesis and made a correct deduction.)
Of course, the fact that Augustine got this one right does not prove that he was right about anything else. And I don't claim otherwise. All I'm saying is this: the fact that science and theology agree on certain important claims suggests that science and theology need not be incompatible. They are not coterminous, and obviously they claim different means of knowledge. But I am aware of no proven facts that make the existence of the Christian God less likely. And I am aware of at least one mainstream version of Christian theology that does not require its followers to disregard any scientifically valid knowledge.
The point of the Augustine example was this: there are plenty of examples of scientific facts agreeing with mainstream theological claims. Where the theological claims predate the scientific analyses, you can't accuse theists of retrofitting theology to account for inconvenient scientific truths.
What I'm saying here is that I believe we can account for any valid scientific claim without discarding anything fundamental to my faith, and I can have a complete faith without discarding anything proven by science.
That's not a proof for the truth of the theology that I accept, and it's not meant to be. As I said in my first post, my basic argument is this: valid science and valid theology do not contradict one another on the facts.
(I suspect you'll ask me to define "valid theology" and accuse me of doing so by fiat. I'll disagree with you there, but that's a subject worthy of its own post. I'll cover it there.)
That wasn't the argument at issue in the conversation I posted about. Rather, the discussion centred on the argument that for the universe to support life, there had to be a specific and highly improbable set of circumstances at the time of the big bang. The extreme improbability of those circumstances having existed (so the argument goes) suggests that it is by something other than mere chance that we find ourselves with a universe capable of supporting life.
As I posted on my "Flipping our Coin" entry on my blog, this argument quickly disintegrates when you consider that we are merely one possible outcome.
Let us assume, for the sake of this discussion, that no supernatural entity exists. The universe comes into being through wholly natural processes, and a set of physical constants develops (strength of all physical forces, speed of light, etc) based on specific, natural forces existing within the newly created universe. I agree that the odds, defined a priori, of the outcome of this system resulting in the life you see all around you is very small indeed.
But...
...there had to be some outcome, didn't there?
If the conditions of the universe had, at any time, been slightly different, we would not be here. This is obvious. But this does not, in any way imply that the conditions were fixed to ensure our existence. Here's why:
Consider a lottery. The odds of choosing all 6 numbers (from 49 possible numbers) is very small; about 1 chance in 14 million. So, the odds, defined a priori of a given person winning is 1 in 14 million. But this is NOT the same as the odds of ANYONE winning; if 14 million people play, the odds of someone winning are virtually 100%. We would be shocked if we won the lottery, because the a priori odds of it are so small. But we are not shocked at all when someone else wins, despite the fact that the odds against that person winning were just as small as us winning. Why is this so? Because we artifically assign meaning to OUR win, while someone elses win means nothing to us. But as far as the "universe" is concerned, they are identical; in order to be shocked by the outcome, we must assign meaning to the outcome. But the assigning of meaning is arbitrary. If you are an outside observer of the lottery, then any particular win is the same to you; but if you're playing the lottery, only one outcome is important; the rest are useless TO YOU (but not to the person who won)
You see, the fact that the universe has a set of constants that are "tuned" for our existence implies that someone has tuned them in this way ONLY if we artifically assign meaning to our existence. If instead we look at the development of the universe as an outside observer would see it, then the set of conditions that result in us (where we win the cosmic "lottery") are just as unlikely as any other given set of conditions, which would have resulted in a different set of individuals to contemplate their own win. All outcomes are the same to an outsider observer; we are NOT an outside observer. We won the lottery, and if the conditions had been slightly different, something else would have developed (there would have been another winner).
I am unwilling to arbitrarily assign meaning to our existence. There may be a god (which one?), but reliance on artifical, unjustified assumptions about our importance and misappropriation of statistical probabilities is no proof at all.
I think we're in agreement here. The fact that time did not exist before the universe implies that if someone or something created the universe, that thing would not be subject to time in the same way that bodies within the universe are.
Fair enough, but you are still left with the question of who created the creator.
How is this retroactive clairvoyance? Augustine made a claim 1500-odd years before science proved it to be true. That's not retroactive. (I wouldn't describe it as clairvoyance either: it's not like his idea came to him in a vision. He read Genesis and made a correct deduction.
It's retroactive clairvoyance because Augustine didn't say anything about the Big Bang itself. You are the one performing the retroactive bit, because you do know about the Big Bang theory and the age of the universe.
I want religious people to make positive, definite claims about the universe. It isn't fair to let science do all the work, and then to have religion say "If you interpret the texts in this way or that, then we predicted this 1000 years ago". I want specific predictions that can be falsified.
the fact that science and theology agree on certain important claims suggests that science and theology need not be incompatible.
Science tells us that the following events are impossible: virgin births (at least of male humans), resurrections, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, global floods, lifespans extending past 125-130 years, and the list goes on. Each of these things are a specific tenet of Christianity (or of specific branches thereof). Science and "theology" (which seems a bit like studying Teletubby anatomy or the military capabilities of the Starship Enterprise) are incompatible, because the latter makes claims with which the former cannot reconcile. You can keep your Golden Rule, if you'd like (or at least share it with those who came up with it before Jesus), but you'll have to drop the miracles.
But I am aware of no proven facts that make the existence of the Christian God less likely.
Are there any that make the Christian God more likely that Zeus, or Thor, or Vishnu? And if not, I have to ask, why you disregard these other gods so easily? Why not just go one step further?
The point of the Augustine example was this: there are plenty of examples of scientific facts agreeing with mainstream theological claims. Where the theological claims predate the scientific analyses, you can't accuse theists of retrofitting theology to account for inconvenient scientific truths.
No. It is retrofitting because the claims are not specific. Science is doing all the work, and you are twisting the words of some theologian (or, even worse, of scripture itself) to fit what science has shown to be true. I will grant theology the same respect as science when it makes definite, falsifiable claims as science.
Consider the 10 commandments. It seems that god left out the most important rule of all: do not construct your toilet in close proximity to your food supply. Surely god was aware of the Germ Theory of Disease? And yet, how many countless people died because they didn't know something as simple as washing their hands before eating? Surely theologians could have discovered this years ago, and saved the world from untolled numbers of deaths from infectious disease. As it turned out, the thinking that "spirits" caused disease delayed the discovery of the Germ Theory until the 19th Century. Theology is looking pretty bad here.
If theology were making positive, falsifiable, a priori claims, then we would have a discussion here. It isn't, and we don't.
What I'm saying here is that I believe we can account for any valid scientific claim without discarding anything fundamental to my faith, and I can have a complete faith without discarding anything proven by science.
But isn't it funny how theology has never once added anything to the body of scientific knowledge??? You expect us (scientists) to do all the work, and then claim you knew it all along. Why not just save me the work? Isn't it also funny how your faith is forced to change based on what science demonstrates? What you believe today about the creator of the universe is VERY different from what you would have believed even 150 years ago (just before the publication of "On The Origin of Species"). This is also true of science, of course, but with one crucial difference: science doesn't claim to have all the answers.
If you can explain the science behind the flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, etc, etc, etc, we can begin to have a discussion. Of course, you'll also need to refute the scientific validity of the ascention of Mohammed into heaven, or of Thor's hammer, and so forth.
valid science and valid theology do not contradict one another on the facts.
Indeed, but science has done all the work. Theology just bends itself to suit. Make ONE positive, falsifiable prediction, and then test it. Once you do this, and you begin to discover new things about the world and the universe, you'll be where science was about 3000 years ago.
And you can define theology however you please; I don't need to get bogged down in symantics to show that equating theology and science is lunacy.
Post a Comment