Atheists don't need faith

[EdithSimcox]

Atheists don't need faith

Lots of interesting things here including:

• nearly half of us are non-religious but less than a fifth are atheist...
• atheists need "simply more than can be proved by logic and science"

Any thoughts? A view I've often seen expressed on MN is that logic and science are the end of the subject.

People argue over whether these sort of concepts are actually in the realm of science though, because it would be impossible to observe the other universes.

i'd say it's a weak theory to hang your hat on.

I agree chilipepper! I wouldn't want to hang my hat on it either. But scientists don't seem to have any other suggestions at the moment.

It's a real conundrum.

It's a bit like the monkeys sitting at keyboards idea. Eventually if you leave one monkey typing page after page of stuff randomly he'll eventually produce some lines from Shakespeare - or the same effect could be achieved by having an enormous room of monkeys each typing a page.

The universe seems to be like a perfect page of Shakespeare to the cosmologists in that the values of the physical constants are compatible with a stable universe in which life can evolve.

Some cosmologists want to explain this by suggesting that there is actually a multiverse of many universes, like a massive room full of randomly typing monkeys. Eventually one of them will type a few lines of Shakespeare by chance. Similarly one of the universes in the multiverse will by chance have suitable values of the physical constants to allow a bio-friendly environment to form.

The problem is we actually only know of one monkey having one go at it.

It appears as if the monkey has sat down once and typed out some Shakespeare. Some religiously inclined scientists have seized on this and said it's too much of a coincidence - it's not a monkey, it's actually Shakespeare in a monkey suit, or in the case of the universe, God.

The big problem with the so-called "fine tuning argument" Out is one that you've inadvertently highlighted.

You said: ".....most of the resultant model universes would not be stable enough for life to develop in them".

Nobody can possibly know this. You can only say that life of the sort we are familiar with could not exist or arise in such a universe but there's simply no way to determine whether another type of life could come to be.

Clearly, we have evolved within this universe and on this planet because we can. That in no way suggests that we are the reason that the universe works the way it does.

And given that 99.9999999%+ of the known universe cannot support life as we understand it then it becomes a matter of sheer ridiculous to imagine that it was "fine-tuned" purely to support it - because it almost entirely doesn't!

If there's a reason that the universe is here, it's not us or, indeed, any form of matter at all since "stuff" actually exists in the tiniest, tiniest proportions. Planets, stars and all the stuff we see is basically dust and fluff compared to the vast expanse of "other". Honestly, it's like walking into a room, spotting and mote of dust and assuming that's why the room was constucted.

And I realise that you are not advancing a religious argument - more of a scientific query - but it's worth mentioning that when theists do attempt it they fall at the first hurdle because they are presenting a false dichotomy - either the universal constants are a staggeringly unlikely coincidence or God dun it.

And if scientists don't have many suggestions at the moment, it's not because it's a "conundrum" it's because it's not a well enough defined "problem".

Bottom line....the universal constants being perfect for us is only a staggering coincidence if you launch yourself from the position of us being the reason the universe is here. If you don't, it's basically irrelevant....and only intereting in so far as everything about how our universe came to be is interesting.

Apricot - you say that the fact that 99.999...% of the universe is not suitable for our kind of life implies that the universe hasn't been fine tuned for us. That would be convincing if we knew of model universes with larger hospitable regions. As far as I know, it's perfectly possible that this is close to the best that could be done.

I'm not claiming any definitive figure on the proportion of model universes which could support some sort of life. But clearly many could not, either because they collapse immediately or alternatively because they get too big too quickly for any sort of interesting structures to form.

It has been suggested that the universe is fine-tuned for black hole production. Is that more palatable?

Oh, yes, thanks for that contortionist. I forgot about the possibility of longer-lived universes that expand too quickly for galaxy/star formation etc.

Apricot, I agree that it's hard to be certain exactly what constitutes life because it could be that there are other possibilities that we might find difficult to imagine. But I think you would need a universe with at least pockets where conditions are relatively stable over a long period and some cosmological structures within the universe. And even that doesn't seem that easy to achieve randomly.

I wouldn't want to hang my hat on it either. But scientists don't seem to have any other suggestions at the moment.

so the best course of action then is to do what scientists do: suspend judgement. No need to make absolute pronouncements in either direction.

"if you allow the physical constants to be assigned a range of random values and plug those into cosmological models, most of the resultant model universes would not be stable enough for life to develop in them"

IF.... WOULD.... MAYBE? (Since none of this has ever been observed and is all merely a thought experiment?)

Tell that to the cosmologists Cote!

These are the terms in which scientists like Stephen Hawking talk. He and many other 'orthodox' cosmologists/particle physicists are supporters of the multiverse idea.

The idea is not satisfactory as an explanation since it does not seem to make predictions that are capable of being refuted by observation/experiment. But the same can be said for string theory! (Or the God hypothesis.)

The whole business of fundamental science is a mess.

Multiverse theory rests on other considerations, not the rather unfounded "What if?" thought experiment that is "What if constants had different values?"

"not satisfactory as an explanation since it does not seem to make predictions that are capable of being refuted by observation/experiment. But the same can be said for string theory! (Or the God hypothesis.)"

Um, no. String theory is not perfect but does make loads of testable predictions and fits loads of observable phenomena.

How you equate the Abrahamic God story to String Theory and think you know anything about physics is truly beyond me

"The whole business of fundamental science is a mess."

It seems so until you properly read up on it. You would really benefit from the book Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You.

Cote

This might shock you but I have a PhD full of quantum mechanical equations!

That would surprise me, if true. Would you care to explain how you can claim that String Theory makes no predictions that can be observed or tested for?

Since my credentials surprise you Cote I'll just offer this link in which the problems with string theory and the multiverse and experimental verification are considered.

www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

I don't work in string theory - quantum mechanics is a wide area of research.
My understanding is that the idea of the multiverse comes naturally out of string theory in addition to coming out of trying to resolve the problem of ''fine-tuning', in particular of the cosmological constant.

As to whether I am a good scientist or not, I confess you are probably right and I'm terrible but I do take an interest and try to understand.

Apricot - you say that the fact that 99.999...% of the universe is not suitable for our kind of life implies that the universe hasn't been fine tuned for us. That would be convincing if we knew of model universes with larger hospitable regions. As far as I know, it's perfectly possible that this is close to the best that could be done

Eh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever....not to mention that it's begging the question somewhat!

Close to the best that could be "done"? Done by who? Done by what?

If we knew of model universes with larger hospitable regions then we would know of models with completely different values that have produced a universe different to this one. You've ultimately destroyed the fine tuning theory completely with your "objection".

This is less a matter of cosmology and more simple logic. The whole question is a tautology to begin with. Any kind of life in any kind of universe will only exist because the universe can give rise to it.

And I find it odd, Out that you are airily dismissive of my point that we cannot know of other types of life that could exist in very different universes....since that's actually the crux of the matter. In order for anything you've said to be significant you must first assume that "life" can only be represented by the type we are and b) that any kind of life is so supremely important that wherever it exists, it must be the very reason the universe that contains it exists at all.

And the mutiverse theory, by the way, does make testable predictions...all to do with background radiation maps.

Oh - and while I can't pretend to know a lot about it, various teams of scientists have proposed ways of testing string theory.

apricot if I understand you correctly, it is wrong to say that since life having evolved as it has is staggeringly unlikely in scientific terms, it must be God who dun it, because that presupposes that where we are is the / a reason for the universe existing... Is that right?

But even if you make no assumption about what the meaning or purpose of life, or of the universe is, why do you think the physics works to make this life on Earth possible? Are you really saying it's just a cosmic accident? Despite the fact that it's staggeringly unlikely?

Apricot - your objection to the fine tuning argument was that most of the universe is inhospitable, and a truly fine-tuned universe would be much more life-friendly. But if all possible life-supporting universes are mostly inhospitable, that's not a convincing objection (as per Dr Pangloss).

There are no meaningful predictions or any realistic prospect of tests of multiverse theory or string theory, despite what some partisans of those theories would like people to believe. Peter Woit writes well about this, eg. www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8504

And I find it odd, Out that you are airily dismissive of my point that we cannot know of other types of life that could exist in very different universes....since that's actually the crux of the matter. In order for anything you've said to be significant you must first assume that "life" can only be represented by the type we are and b) that any kind of life is so supremely important that wherever it exists, it must be the very reason the universe that contains it exists at all.

There are many instances of fine-tuning. Some are specific to our kind of life, eg generation of carbon in stars. But others are very general and would surely apply to any kind of life, eg. the universe lasting long enough and getting big enough for ordinary matter to form, and not expanding so rapidly that there are no structures at all.

"There are many instances of fine-tuning. Some are specific to our kind of life, eg generation of carbon in stars"

Life has evolved within this universe, in accordance with its conditions. If there were different elements in the universe, who can say that there would not be different life forms based on those elements?

"the universe lasting long enough and getting big enough for ordinary matter to form, and not expanding so rapidly that there are no structures at all."

Even if it could have, it didn't. Does that mean there was a intelligent being control the formation of the universe? Or could it mean any number of things, including pure chance or even that universes come into being all the time and some are fertile ground for matter & life while others just aren't?

Yes, there are many possible explanations for the apparent fine-tuning. One is that there any many universes and we just happen to be in this one because it's suitable for life (anthropic multiverse). Or some form of cosmological natural selection (eg Lee Smolin's theory). Or that we are actually living in a computer-simulation. Or there's a creator. Or fundamental physics has far fewer degrees of freedom than our current theories.

Most of this is well beyond the scope of scientific investigation.

Edith No, that's not the argument I'm making.

Firstly, I am not talking about evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that relies on having to accept stunningly unlikely coincidences.

The issue at hand is how we happen to live in a universe that is, apparently, so perfect for us. Indeed, so incredibly perfect that if gravity (for example) was even minutely weaker or stronger than it is, we would not be here. There are several such values with other forces that are seemingly "fine-tuned".

It's basically argument from design's more intellectual brother. But it's no more convincing when you think about it.

The reason the universe looks exactly the way it does is because we are here to observe it.

That's not as throwaway as it seems - that's the answer. If the universe did not have the precise values it does, we would not be here. And another sentient being in another different type of universe would not be there to ask questions about it's universe unless it's universe was perfectly able to support it.

But we then have to ask....actually, how perfect is our universe for us, anyway? We only need to head a few miles up to die leaving our own planet. For all we know, there may be precisely nowhere else in the entire universe where we could settle without our eyeballs being sucked from their sockets (a la Buzz Lightyear). So, how on earth can anyone suggest that it is here just for us?

We have no idea at all whether our universe existing as it does is a "staggering coincidence". We have no idea if there were any failed attempts or how many. We don't know if ours is the only one, or whether there are an infinite number of others....in which case, nothing "coincidental" about it at all.

And even if we could somehow determine that an intelligent thought process was responsible for the universe....what on earth makes us decide it was all for us?

Finally...from the theistic point of view, the biggest problem is that the fine tuning argument is inconsistent wih their notion of an omnipotent being anyway. Why do we have to exist in a universe that is "perfect" for us when, if Yahweh made it all, he can use him omnipotence to place us in any type of universe he fancied.

The fact that we are living in a universe that needs to be the way it is in order for us to be here strongly, strongly implies a naturalistic not supernatural explanation.

Contortionist

No. My objection to the "fine tuning" argument is not that most of the universe is inhospitable.

That is my objection to the notion that the universe is "perfect" for us. Rather different.

Sorry, but I don't know who you are or why exactly I should take your word over authors of scientific articles I've read over the years. I do not have the expertise to figure out who is wrong or who is right and I don't have much time for anyone on an internet thread who posts links on the basis that "this expert thinks I'm right".

If you know anything at all about science - let me guess, a theoretical physicist who believes in the supernatural?! - then you'll know there are multiple bodies of thought on multiple things.

Apricot - my point is that more "perfect" universes may not be possible. It's of course difficult to make that notion precise.

FWIW, I have no religious or supernatural beliefs.

Yes. I know what you are saying....that perhaps the only universe that could support us is one that is largely inhospitable.

That may well be true. And in a purely scientific discussion, no doubt that would have to be a consideration.

But it's lame and nonsensical in a theistic one (which this is) since the creator being proposed is omnipotent and thus not constrained by anything.

And fine tuning is usually only addressed by real scientists when they are debunking it.

Bottom line - all things considered - it is clearly, clearly far more likely that we are fine tuned to the universe than the other way round.

"But even if you make no assumption about what the meaning or purpose of life, or of the universe is, why do you think the physics works to make this life on Earth possible? Are you really saying it's just a cosmic accident? Despite the fact that it's staggeringly unlikely?"

But it doesn't. Physics is. Life evolved to fit the prevailing conditions.