Fine-tuning full of loose logic
John Bice
Some readers have urged me to consider a popular creationist assertion called the “fine-tuning argument.”
It’s said that the laws of physics are precariously balanced. If the value of one fundamental physical constant were slightly different — such as the strength of electromagnetic and nuclear forces — life couldn’t exist. Lacking an explanation for this seemingly lucky happenstance, the inescapable conclusion, according to creationists, is the universe was “fine-tuned” by God with intelligent life in mind.
It’s worth noting that physicists, who are most capable of understanding these issues, are among the least religious people on earth. A 1998 article in Nature titled “Leading scientists still reject God” reported that a mere 7.5 percent of eminent physicists and astronomers believe in God.
I’ll offer three concise responses to the fine-tuning argument:
1) Ignorance isn’t evidence.
The fine-tuning argument, like other design assertions, tries to spin ignorance into evidence for a pre-existing belief.
In his article, “Why (almost all) cosmologists are atheists,” physicist Sean Carroll argues we couldn’t even predict life existing in our own universe based on nothing but the laws of subatomic physics — with no direct empirical knowledge. He writes, “at our current level of expertise we don’t really know what the universe would look like if the parameters of the standard model were different, nor do we know what are the necessary conditions for the formation of intelligent life,” therefore, “it seems highly presumptuous for anyone to claim that the laws of nature we observe are somehow delicately adjusted to allow for the existence of life.”
2) The universe has a bias in favor of intelligent life? Seriously?
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson wrote, “Mayhem abounds in the cosmos: monstrous gamma-ray bursts, deadly pulsars, matter-crushing gravitational fields … galaxies that collide and cannibalize each other, explosions of supermassive stars … The evidence all points to the fact that we occupy not a well-mannered clockwork universe, but a destructive, violent and hostile zoo … the universe wants to kill us all.”
The vast majority of our universe is absolutely lethal. Our planet offers a minuscule oasis from the chaotically inhospitable conditions that exist everywhere we look. If our universe was specifically designed for intelligent life, the designer was a wasteful and incompetent moron.
Physicist Peter Walker has the right perspective: “The supreme arrogance of religious thinking: that a carbon-based bag of mostly water on a speck of iron-silicate dust around a boring dwarf star in a minor galaxy … would look up at the sky and declare, ‘It was all made so that I could exist!’”
3) The multiverse.
A popular concept in modern cosmology is known as the multiverse. This idea has many forms, including one based on inflation theory that results in an infinite diversity of “pocket universes,” one of which is ours. Each pocket universe may have different underlying physical constants. Some have attributes compatible with the formation of life, while many do not. We live in one that does.
Creationists respond that physicists are “inventing” untestable multiverse possibilities in reaction to the fine-tuning argument and criticize it for violating the principle of parsimony.
However, in “Physics in the multiverse,” Aurélien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, writes, “The multiverse is not a hypothesis invented to answer a specific question,” it “appears as a consequence of some theories, and these have other predictions that can be tested within our own universe.”
The principle of parsimony, something creationists usually avoid religiously, is a preference for the most logically economical explanations. Barrau argues that the multiverse model fits that requirement best because it avoids “ad hoc assumptions that would have to be added to models to avoid the existence of other universes.”
Most scientists are entirely satisfied with a strictly materialist conception of the universe — no designer required. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg sums it up best: “We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.”
John Bice is a State News columnist. Reach him at bice@msu.edu.
Published on Thursday, March 13, 2008
Comments
Ken
03/13/08 @ 8:10pm
As a physicist I’m disgusted by your use of logic and reason in this article. Wait… no, that’s not how that works…
I’d also like to add that when “Creationists respond that physicists are “inventing” untestable multiverse possibilities in reaction to the fine-tuning argument and criticize it for violating the principle of parsimony…” that Creationists do the same thing, they just call their untestable fine-tuned hypothesis “God”.
Good article.
Steve
03/13/08 @ 11:38pm
Another well-written piece by Mr. Bice. Even though he presented it with logic and evidence that’s okay… because I have faith. That will be the typical response.
C. Alan Zoppa
03/14/08 @ 12:04am
Let us not forget that the inverse square law appears to be a direct consequence of having three spatial dimensions. If we had four spatial dimensions, light and gravity would propagate according to an inverse thirds law.
Apart from that, I consider this analogy instructive:
Suppose you live under the Khmer Rouge, and you get rounded up for a mass execution. One in ten men in the firing squad is given a blank, and they file randomly into firing squads of ten.
If there are 1,000 executions that day, probability dictates that a few people will face squads with no live rounds. Now, these survivors convince themselves that they were spared by a higher power, even though it would be more improbably for someone NOT to survive.
Thus, only those that have beaten incredible odds are even around to observe the fact that they’ve beaten the odds. Likewise, only the very few universes which are suitable for life will ever have citizens who notice the odds against them.
J-money
03/14/08 @ 3:11am
Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerer’s ways, John Bice. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Creationists’ hidden fort—
Shiva
03/14/08 @ 5:34am
Great article!
Keep up the good work! :)
MSUAlum2001
03/14/08 @ 7:44am
J-money, I needed a laugh early this morning and that was it. Love it!
Josh Caleb
03/14/08 @ 8:23am
1) Correct, KNOWLEDGE is evidence, thus the argument stands or falls on the data and statistics.
2) Insurmountable statistics against existence, and still skepticism… now WHO has more faith?
3) "Just so" stories like multiverses… all to get around a creator-God… unwarranted philosophical gymnastics anyone?
Get an education. Read some history. Sneering is not pretty.
Mike Saelim
03/14/08 @ 8:42am
“KNOWLEDGE is evidence”
Other way around.
skepticguy
03/14/08 @ 8:47am
Yeah, all those stupid godless cosmologists and particle physicists … why don’t they get an education so they can finally see the truth like Josh? If only Josh could educate these scientists, then they would understand the “Insurmountable statistics against existence” like Josh does.
BTW, did Josh even read the article? He writes, “3) “Just so” stories like multiverses… all to get around a creator-God… unwarranted philosophical gymnastics anyone?”
Right in the article there’s a response, “Aurélien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, writes, “The multiverse is not a hypothesis invented to answer a specific question,” it “appears as a consequence of some theories, and these have other predictions that can be tested within our own universe.”
Regarding the “insurmountable statistics against existence,” of which god is evidently and conveniently exempt, physicist Victor Stenger responds to the question of why there is something instead of nothing. As it turns out, our understanding of physics suggests that the answer to that question may be as simple as “nothing is unstable.”
Here’s Stenger’s article:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
Josh might not like it because there aren’t many phrases like, “and then god spake,” or “glory be to god,” or “let there be light,” or “and then god smited the naughty sinners”
mike
03/14/08 @ 10:26am
Josh: I think the more appropriate quote for you is “ignorance is bliss.” Keep a happy thought and an angelic,beaming smile on your face to weather the storm of truth descending about your head. Try an aluminium covered hat, it’s been helping me for years. Oh, gotta run, my spontaneous generation experiment just boiled over in the bathtub again. No idea what I’m going to do with all those worms I made with the horse hair. Anyone need a pet or going fishin’.
Ken
03/14/08 @ 11:43am
Josh stammered: “...unwarranted philosophical gymnastics…”
You mean like invoking “God” to explain the Universe? “God”, the untestable and completely ad hoc entity which has been slowly but assuredly replaced with testable theories and robust observations.
skepticguy
03/14/08 @ 12:17pm
If you want to see some amusing philosophical gymnastics, just ask a Christian about the “problem of evil.”
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
There has never been a satisfactory response to that question despite years of effort of the part of theologians.
Ask why a perfectly benevolent and all-powerful deity would create a world so filled with pain and suffering. They’ll blink a couple times, and respond with the “free-will defense,” god wants us to be free to make bad choices. Then politely remind them that human free will, even if it exists, can’t explain natural calamities of all kinds (floods, lightning, tsunamis, volcanoes, meteors, cancer, birth defects, chronic pain and disease, etc), or all the suffering pervasive in the animal world.
Ask why an all-loving god is depicted as a mass murder in his own book.
You’ll either get a blank stare, an offer to change the subject, or a hilarious demonstration of desperation-induced philosophical gymnastics.
Steve
03/14/08 @ 2:35pm
“KNOWLEDGE is evidence”
What the hell? Actually by that method of thinking: I know I am a bad ass. Therefore evidence exists that I am a bad ass. I like that logic.
Dan
03/14/08 @ 3:26pm
Ahh, atheism. Their deity is the human mind, which is prone to error.
amused
03/14/08 @ 3:42pm
“Ahh, atheism. Their deity is the human mind, which is prone to error.”
Two things Dan:
1) atheists have no deities, that’s kinda the point.
2) Your point about the human mind is self-sabotaging. You claim the human mind is prone to error. That assertion is itself the product of a human mind, which means your point is suspect according to your own premise. Your logic eats itself.
Ed T
03/14/08 @ 4:08pm
As a “thinking” Christian I find all the points John Bice makes here to be reasonable (and, as always, I admire the lucid way he lays them out), though I do reach a few different conclusions.
First, I don’t see much relevance to the fact that cosmologists and physicists tend to “skew” non-religious; I would assume this is because these professions tend to draw people who are inclined to a scientific worldview in the first place. It would be roughly akin to saying that the people who study religious questions the most intensely are Jesuit priests, and the vast majority of them are religious.
It’s also interesting to note that the rates of religious belief among scientists who work in the life sciences (biology, genetics, etc) are notably higher than among scientists who work with “impersonal” subject matter, such as cosmologists and physicists.
I agree that it is “supreme arrogance” for human beings to look up into the vast night sky and think “this was created for me.” But it also leads me to believe that the human mind — precisely because it exists in such stark contrast to the rest of our “chaotically inhospitable” cosmos — is perhaps the one instrument in existence (at least that we know of) that can arrive at some intimation of God. In this way, I suppose cosmologists and Christians take the same piece of evidence — the absurd exceptionalism of human life — and arrive at opposite conclusions.
Anyway, thanks to Bice for these thoughtful contributions to dialogue between science and religion. Keep ‘em coming!
mike
03/14/08 @ 4:32pm
State just beat Ohio state, now we know there really must be a god out there somewhere.
Jim R
03/14/08 @ 11:43pm
Ed T’s assertion that “the people who study religious questions most intensely are Jesuit priests” rather ignores Religious Studies programs that are quite common at universities like MSU—and ignores what I have heard: that many of the faculty and students in those programs have found that broad study of comparative religion is inconsistent with religious faith.
Anyway, Ed T and I agree in our appreciation of John Bice’s thoughtful contributions to dialogue in the State News.
jb
03/15/08 @ 8:08am
I appreciated the comments by Ed T, and have a couple points of clarification.
Ed wrote, “I don’t see much relevance to the fact that cosmologists and physicists tend to “skew” non-religious; I would assume this is because these professions tend to draw people who are inclined to a scientific worldview in the first place.”
The relevance is simply that physicists are the only group of people actually trained to comprehend all the issues involved in the “fine-tuning” argument. The fact they they, as a group, are among the most atheistic people on the planet is suggestive that the fine-tuning argument isn’t very particularly persuasive. That was a minor point in the column, though.
Regarding science drawing people who are naturally inclined to a scientific worldview, there may be some truth to that, but it neglects to fully consider the history of science. One must remember that all scientists were once religious. When science was in it’s infancy, nearly everyone was a believer in god. Galileo, Newton, etc.
So, it’s not that science simply draws people who have a scientific (and purely materialistic) worldview. It is the success of science itself that has gradually — over generations — persuaded much of the scientific community (and the vast majority of eminent scientists) that naturalism shouldn’t merely be a methodological assumption at the core of science, but that naturalism is a reasonable final conclusion.
Science has systematically offered explanations that displace gods from control, demonstrating that the appeals to the supernatural aren’t necessary to understand things like lightning, volcanoes, astronomical events, disease, etc. Now, that science can even explain the diversity of life itself, and, potentially, the cause of the big bang, it’s natural to question the need or existence of the supernatural at all. God’s were invented to explain the unexplainable, do we still need them when we have a natural explanation?
Ed also wrote, “It’s also interesting to note that the rates of religious belief among scientists who work in the life sciences (biology, genetics, etc) are notably higher than among scientists who work with “impersonal” subject matter, such as cosmologists and physicists.”
Studies vary somewhat on this point, but the Nature study cited in the column, “Leading scientists still reject God,” which surveyed eminent scientists, National Academy of Science members, found that biologists were the least religious of all scientists, followed closely by physicists and astronomers.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Here’s a quote from the study, “Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).”
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Ed
KK
03/15/08 @ 9:49pm
If you presuppose that the universe is material, use material science, and come to the conclusion that the universe is purely material… is anyone surprised? Scientific data cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity, because the testing is based solely on material sources. So no matter how much logic or reason one uses, anyone who holds the scientific “worldview” will come to the same conclusion. The funny thing is, how so many people can be ignorant of the unreasonableness of science. If you cannot use scientific data to prove that we should use scientific data, why should we give any more credit to scientific thinking than to religious thinking? The lack of evidence does not “prove” anything; I agree with the “atheists” on this. However, if one realizes the unscientific beginnings of science, science should be come just as ridiculous to our “atheists” as the metaphysical musings of believers. I tend to find the metaphysical arguments for religion more convincing than the metaphysical arguments for science, but that’s just me.
Chris
03/15/08 @ 10:08pm
He wrote: It’s worth noting that physicists, who are most capable of understanding these issues, are among the least religious people on earth. A 1998 article in Nature titled “Leading scientists still reject God” reported that a mere 7.5 percent of eminent physicists and astronomers believe in God.”
Is this not the same appeal to authority to you have come to decry? This is not evidence that God does not exists. In fact, 90% of Americans and 100% of pastors believe in a God, so therefore, as experts in dieties, God must exist. Points 2 and 3 are flawed (I cannot provide the specifics right now, but Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings wrote about it, I will try and fill in my hole)
Steve
03/16/08 @ 12:18am
Chris – Seriously? That is your evidence? 90% of Americans believe in a god, therefore one must exist. May I remind you that for a long time people believed the earth was flat. Also, more people that have lived on this earth have believed in Greek and Roman gods. Not to mention the fact that Christ (IF he existed) did so about 2000 years ago. Given that, what happened to all the people that existed before Christ?
Aside from that, physicists offer EVIDENCE. What evidence have these 90% of Americans and 100% of pastors offered? Your logical and reasoning is horrible at best.
just another fool for Jesus
03/17/08 @ 1:33pm
Thank God truth is not a democracy! I wonder what the 7.5% think? I recommend “The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity” for interested parties. Edited by Robert C. Newman and…
...written by 6 physicists. Fancy that?
P.S. I also happen to be a physicist. Probably just random chance though.
the Champ
03/18/08 @ 3:03pm
it’s John Bice roughly 50 years old?
what the heck is doing writing for a student school news paper?
bush league.
TexasSpartan
03/18/08 @ 4:34pm
“The supreme arrogance of religious thinking: that a carbon-based bag of mostly water on a speck of iron-silicate dust around a boring dwarf star in a minor galaxy … would look up at the sky and declare, ‘It was all made so that I could exist!’”
Never before has my opinion on Creation been so eloquently described. And I think the reason why so many astronomers and physicists doubt the existence of God is not based on what they know, but what they DON’T know. They have the tools to peer into the heart of existence, and they have the humility to say, “I don’t know now, but I’m working on it.”
Excellent article.