It’s no surprise that the universe is habitable

Last updated on: November 13, 2014 at 11:04 pm by Epiphenom

It’s no surprise that the universe is habitable 2014-11-13T23:04:23+01:00 Epiphenom

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s not unusual to hear the argument from incredulity (‘here’s something that’s really weird, therefore god exists’), but it is rare that you hear it coming from a Professor of Philosophy. But that’s exactly what Prof Robin Collins, at the evangelical Messiah College in Pennsylvania, is doing over at Science and Religion Today (and on the PBS series Closer to Truth: Cosmos, Consciousness, God).

His basic idea is that the universe is finely tuned to be hospitable for life. Since we don’t have a particularly good explanation yet for exactly why the universe turned out the way it did, this counts as evidence for the existence of god!

Here’s an excerpt:

I believe we can say that the fine-tuning of the universe provides significant evidence in support of divine creation over this hypothesis. The reason for this can be articulated in terms of what is often called the “likelihood principle,” but which I call the “surprise principle.” Roughly, this principle states that whenever a body of evidence is much more surprising under one hypothesis than another, it counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which it is least surprising.

… it could be argued, given the fine-tuning, that the existence of a life-permitting universe is very surprising under the brute fact hypothesis, but not under theism. Therefore, by the surprise principle, fine-tuning provides significant evidence in favor of theism over the brute fact hypothesis. Nonetheless, it does not prove theism is true, or even show it is the best explanation of the universe. So faith—understood as a special mode of knowing similar to our ethical intuitions—still plays an essential role in belief in God, but the fine-tuning offers significant confirming evidence for this belief. In any case, the fine-tuning evidence offers a significant challenge to those who claim that the findings of science undercut belief in God.

Well I have some news for Prof Collins. It isn’t a surprise that the universe we live in is suitable for people to live in – in fact it’s bleeding obvious! If the universe was not habitable, then we wouldn’t be able to live in it, and we wouldn’t be able to sit around pontificating on its origin.

This, of course, is the ‘anthropic principle’, and as explanations go it’s almost – but not quite – as unsatisfactory as the ‘god hypothesis’. But it’s perfectly plausible and, no matter how many potential universes there are out there, it’s entirely unsurprising that the one we’re is, like the little bear’s porridge, just right.

But here’s another flaw in Prof Collins’ argument. It’s an argument from ignorance – otherwise known as the ‘god of the gaps’ approach. It presumes that our current understanding is complete and entire, and that anything we don’t understand counts as evidence for the existence of god.

In fact, Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor has recently shown that all this talk of the universe being fine-tuned is based on a false, simplistic premise. Here’s how the New Scientist reported it:

Claims of fine-tuning have generally been based on what happens when you vary a single characteristic of the universe, say the strength of gravity, while holding all others constant. That, says Adams, is too artificial a scenario to tell you anything about whether there are other universes that can support life. “The right way to do the problem is to start from scratch,” he says. “You have to turn all the knobs and find out what happens.”

Adams selected a range of possible values for each of these constants, then put them into a computer model that created a multitude of universes, or a virtual “multiverse”. Each universe within the multiverse used different values for the three constants and was subject to slightly different laws of physics.

About a quarter of the resulting universes turned out to be populated by energy-generating stars. “You can change alpha or the gravitational constant by a factor of 100 and stars still form,” Adams says, suggesting that stars can exist in universes in which at least some fundamental constants are wildly different than in our universe.

And though some universes were filled with things we might not usually think of as stars – radiating black holes or bodies formed of dark matter – they all gave out enough energy to power some form of life, and lasted long enough for life to evolve.

Adams reckons his results, which will be published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, suggest that the “specialness” of our universe could well be an illusion. And this is only the very beginning of what can be probed to undermine the idea that our universe is fine-tuned for life. There are plenty more constants and processes that can be tinkered with, he says.

Adams’s approach is “extremely interesting”, says Michael Murphy of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. “I’ve long had a suspicion that this talk of fine-tuning needs constant questioning and re-examination,” he says. “It’s sometimes hard to recognise that living somewhere else in a different way might be just as easy.”

And Adams isn’t the only one working along these lines. Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog (of Denis Diderot University, Paris) have recently proposed an interpretation of string theory that cuts down the apparent improbability of our ‘inflationary’ universe by recognizing that the probability estimate needs to be weighted by volume of the universe.

Now, of course the god theory doesn’t actually predict that the universe is improbable – because the god theory doesn’t actually predict anything at all. So proving that the universe isn’t improbable won’t count as evidence against the existence of god – at least the religious won’t be persuaded. But at least it will reduce the numbers of specious ‘god of the gaps’ arguments by one!

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 28, 2008

How religion makes people vote right-wing

Next Post

November 2, 2008 A Nobel Laureate Reflects on the Universe, God and the Nature of Discovery

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Causes of religion - evolution Causes of religion - psychological Causes of religion - social Demographics Digest Effects of religion - health Effects of religion - psychological Effects of religion - social Notifications Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Jordan" (as in Jordan River) mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

To heal To anoint To descend To open