Reading: Betty and Cordell, “The Anthropic Teleological Argument”, pp. 222-230
Reading Guide: Last class, a few of you pointed out that the teleological argument becomes more powerful if it is applied at a different level, the level of explaining how evolution could have even gotten started. In this article, Betty and Cordell focus on the origins of a universe like ours; they pay special attention to the origins of intelligent life. They give 4 different arguments, but only 2 are included in your text.
The first type of argument included in your text is that from cosmology (pp. 222-226). Here, they look at 3 different theories that address the universe’s beginnings – The Big Bang, the grand unification theory and superstrings. They regard the Big Bang argument as the most “intuitive” and thus weakest because “it does not lend itself to … a probability calculus” (223). After briefly describing each of these 3 theories, they introduce the Anthropic Principle: “if the universe were in fact different in any significant way from the way it is, we wouldn’t be here to wonder why it is the way it is” (Schwartzenburg, quoted in B & C, p. 224). Had any of “the values of a few basic physical constants” been much different than they are, this would have precluded “the possibility of life evolving later” (p. 224). The probability of each of these constants simultaneously being exactly as they are is miniscule. By comparison, “the odds against a Cosmic Designer” may be significantly lower.
Betty and Cordell then consider three objections to the view that a Cosmic Designer is more probable than randomness. According to B & C, the first two objections, although not decisive, are at least “not intrinsically implausible”; the third objection, is, however, “intrinsically implausible” (226). The first objection is that our vision is too narrow; “intelligent life might have evolved out of a very different kind of universe, and not just the one we know” (225). The second objection postulates that this is but one of many universes; “given enough universes, it is not unlikely that one would come along which had the right ingredients for life” (225). B & C view the possibilities referenced by these two objections as unlikely; however, since these possibilities can’t be ruled out, they turn to what they consider to be an even more powerful argument for a Cosmic Designer, namely, the argument from Biochemical Complexity (pp. 226-229). Here, they focus on the difficulties associated with explaining “the earliest, simplest life forms on Earth” (227). Based on the work of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, they conclude that the odds of the biochemical ingredients of life all coming together at once are infinitesimal. They also cite the failure of thousands of experiments to “simulate earth’s primitive geological condition … and atmosphere” (228). Finally, they cite the work of Sidney Fox. I’ll have to look to be sure, but I’m guessing that they cite Fox because the scientific community might dispute Thaxton’s neutrality. The last section, “What God Might Be”, is rather speculative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
While the reading was very "cut and dry" it appears as though the authors seem to assume that if something is unexplainable then it must have been the work of The Creator. Almost every argument they make truly has no backing considering that when they are trying to make a point, their claim is that science cannot prove it or create the conditions for which something would have been created and thus it must have been created by the Designer. Continuously they ask whether it's easier to believe in the scientific processes or simply that the conditions for things such as proteins are so astronomical that it's much easier just to believe that there it was set into motion by a Designer. I agree that the authors bring up several important theories and claims made by the scientific community; however, they have no real sustinance to their own arguments towards a Creator.
What kills me about Betty and Cordell's arguments are they keep coming back to this appeal to chance and probability. They keep saying "is it not more likely that there is an ordering, creating intelligence attached to the strings?" (224). NO! 'Likely' is not even remotely applicable to this problem. 'Likely' would entail a game of chance, as in there is a chance of one roll of the dice coming up snake-eyes. As far as we know there is only one universe. An how could you even begin to imagine what the world would be like with a few different constants? And yes, the chances of the precisely correct circumstances needed for life are remote. Just like the chances of winning the state lottery and the powerball in the same day. When scaled properly though, the chances become quite large. 1.5 billion years on earth alone, several million galaxies visible, tens of hundreds of billions of stars per galaxy, and you're telling me NONE of them would develop life without some design? I remain skeptical.
Those odds are tough to argue against. Considering the vast size of the universe, surely one planet, amid billions of stars, was capable of sustaining life without the aid of divine influence. Many of the preceeding arguments we have read have suggested some sort of void that can "only" be explained by entering a deity into the equation. This is no different and therefore doesn't persuade me to believe in God. Yes, odds are that a god exists based on the numbers presented, but I must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. And due to the amount of time (the universe has existed) and the number of planets out there, life was sure to take hold one way or another. A deity is just a convenient placeholder for a lack of full understanding.
I very much agree with the first two posters. First, the jump to "Oh, well it must have been a creator," kept frustrating me in their arguments, and then they kept saying that it was more likely. Since there were no numbers giving the probability of an intelligent creator, just the probabilities of certain things happening or not happening, you can't compare the two. I for one have an easier time believing in the infinitessimal odds than a creator that we know nothing about and cannot even begin to postulate about, given all of the possibilities they have at the end of the article. We at the very least know what has to happen for life to begin, but know nothing about the God they keep jumping to.
Is it good that they tried to look at common ideas and scientific theories? Yes. But in my opinion, if you're going to throw out numbers on one side, you have to do it for the other, too. So what are those chances for the existence of God, eh?
What a fun read! As a physics major I have returned to my familiar element (although I confess its one a sought to escape). I should probably state that while I immensely enjoyed this reading I fundamentally disagree with it and think it falls short, that being said, I also find it odd that as a theist I have now disagreed with several arguments for the existence of God (although I guess of all the arguments in the world I only need to buy in to one). First I need to get off my chest that I find it laughable that Betty and Cordell have mentioned the beauty of QCD and Superstrings, even mentioning T.O.E. as evidence that the universe is fundamentally beautiful and simple. While these theories are interesting there is such a long ways to go before they could possibly resemble reality. None of them have even put forth a single testable result! They are thus rather unscientific. That being said it is accepted that GUT likely exists whether super strings, super symmetry, QCD, quantum loop gravity, or the other half a page of proposals I could find actually yield any fruitful results.
Betty and Cordell begin to get into hot water when they talk about other alternative explanations. This is the problem, while you can show that the universe as we know it is immensely improbable based on scientific observation, and it is easy to see that should God exist the universe would also be more probable, this is not equivalent to saying the universe exist although its existence is improbable, therefore it is probable God created it. Logically that does not follow, in fact, any number of explanations are equally valid, including, but not limited to, the three proposed in the text. It is not enough to just refute the three; a firmer argument in general is required.
I also grit my teeth when I read Betty and Cordell use the “God of the gaps” approached openly. I see what they are saying about more questions being raised each time we answer one, but the “God of the gaps” approach has really blown up in the face of Christians repeatedly. Over and over creationists say how can you explain X? You can’t because God just made it that way. To which scientists eventually come up with really great explanation Y that does not include God and creationists yet again have egg on their face.
What a fun read! As a physics major I have returned to my familiar element (although I confess its one a sought to escape). I should probably state that while I immensely enjoyed this reading I fundamentally disagree with it and think it falls short, that being said, I also find it odd that as a theist I have now disagreed with several arguments for the existence of God (although I guess of all the arguments in the world I only need to buy in to one). First I need to get off my chest that I find it laughable that Betty and Cordell have mentioned the beauty of QCD and Superstrings, even mentioning T.O.E. as evidence that the universe is fundamentally beautiful and simple. While these theories are interesting there is such a long ways to go before they could possibly resemble reality. None of them have even put forth a single testable result! They are thus rather unscientific. That being said it is accepted that GUT likely exists whether super strings, super symmetry, QCD, quantum loop gravity, or the other half a page of proposals I could find actually yield any fruitful results.
Betty and Cordell begin to get into hot water when they talk about other alternative explanations. This is the problem, while you can show that the universe as we know it is immensely improbable based on scientific observation, and it is easy to see that should God exist the universe would also be more probable, this is not equivalent to saying the universe exist although its existence is improbable, therefore it is probable God created it. Logically that does not follow, in fact, any number of explanations are equally valid, including, but not limited to, the three proposed in the text. It is not enough to just refute the three; a firmer argument in general is required.
I also grit my teeth when I read Betty and Cordell use the “God of the gaps” approached openly. I see what they are saying about more questions being raised each time we answer one, but the “God of the gaps” approach has really blown up in the face of Christians repeatedly. Over and over creationists say how can you explain X? You can’t because God just made it that way. To which scientists eventually come up with really great explanation Y that does not include God and creationists yet again have egg on their face.
I really liked the cosmology argument. If our universe has a 1: 6000000000^124 chance of existing, how can you not see anything other than a devine hand. The chances are far too great and not to mention the precision in the allignment of the planets as well as the order which if by chance would be a very large number that we exist. I do think the argument was presented well. It seemed to be unbiased in the sense that other objections were explained and then shown to have their faults.
Although Betty and Cordell take a highly systematic and mathematical approach to the possibility of intelligent design, there are still fundamentally weak portions of their argument. An inquisitive audience would have to question the source of the probability calculations mentioned throughout the article. Limited background knowledge in biology or quantum physics may limit the individual from fully understanding the source of these statistics, but quantifiable estimation of such abstractions is nearly impossible. The article does not reach any definite conclusions, but rather claims that intelligent design is a more probable alternative to random formulation. I, personally, do not find their argument to be conclusive enough for such a statement. By expounding on the "Everett Hypothesis" mentioned as a second objection to their cosmological exploration of the issue, one would have to explore the infinite number of possibilities that COULD be. If we can humble ourselves to admit the severe limitations of human knowledge and observation, an infinite creation beyond our imagination is entirely possible. The formation of life in any area of this possible infinity is therefore much more probable than they admit. Intelligent design may indeed be an effort to claim a "God of the gaps" until our human knowledge and understanding of reality can advance beyond our current limitations. Each new discovery raises new questions, but this seemingly endless pursuit is of vital importance. In order to find truth, humanity must be willing to continue searching regardless of the inherent impossibilities and frustrations.
In my opinion, it does not necessarily follow that from slim odds of our existence there must have been a divine creator. If our universe had developed differently at some point in the past, perhaps conditions for the human race may not have been present, but that does not eliminate the chances of some other species coming into dominance. The argument boils itself down to - since we exist the way we do, there must be a divine creator. This is too farfethced a comparison for me to embrace.
I like the argument because they present the different ways that the universe could have existed. Although they do say that the probability is low for the scientific explanations, they do not write it off without first looking into it. Throughout reading this, it seems to me that people who do not believe in a divine creator believe in something that is just as far fetched. No, human kind cannot explain a divine creator, but I do not find any of the other arguments compelling either. More than one in a billion odds against the formation of our universe? That doesn't seem very convincing. Although we may have SOME bit of science to prove against the existance of God, I would say we have more or at least an equal amount of things we can't explain scientifically, which leaves it where? Maybe not a divine creator, but there has to be something else.
Okay, so science has assumptions and fallacies, but so does faith. Actually faith is based purely on assumptions, while at least science has some cold hard facts to back it up. I think the authors do no leave enough room for idea that there could be multiple planets capable of supporting life. I don't think that B & C really have a strong enough background to talk to scientific issues with such credibility.
I wish the reading would have included their take on the “fossil record” because the rest of the argument did not seem very convincing to me. They included a lot of scientific information but it seemed to me all to boiling down to the point that it is more likely that God does exist. For some reason I don’t find this very convincing. Just because something may be more likely does not make it a sound argument.
Post a Comment