ORDER & REgularity
The very success of science in showing us how deeply orderly the natural world is, provides strong grounds for believing there is an even deeper cause for that order - Richard Swinburne
As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together for our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming - F. R. Tennant
Many people find the Strong Anthropic Principle too simplistic. Science suggests there are too many chaotic factors at work for the entire universe to be determined by the starting conditions of the Big Bang. Moreover, why is the universe so vast and empty if the only part of it that matters is our planet?
The argument strikes many people as anthropocentric - putting human beings at the centre of things. Greek, Roman and Medieval scientists thought that the Earth was, quite literally, at the centre of the universe. Scientists like Galileo proved this wrong. The Strong Anthropic Principle seems to be going back to that old mistake. |
The universe pre-Galileo, with Earth at the centre
|
A deeper criticism is that the Strong Anthropic Principle gets things the wrong way round. It claims that the laws of the universe are the way they are because of us; but surely we are the way we are because of the laws of the universe! We have evolved to "fit in" to the universe, so of course we find it suitable for us to live in.
This idea was illustrated by the writer Douglas Adams, who imagined how an intelligent puddle would feel about the hole it exists in. The puddle notices that the hole perfectly matches its own shape and wrongly concludes that the hole was made for the puddle to fill. |
Who made these beautiful changeable things, if not one who is beautiful and unchangeable? - Augustine of Hippo
Beethoven's late quartets are sublime. So are Shakespeare's sonnets. They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn't. They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Beethoven and of Shakespeare - Richard Dawkins
The Weak Anthropic Principle doesn't claim that the universe was designed for us specifically, only for creatures like us: intelligent, self-aware beings with a sense of morality and a perception of beauty and a religious need to know God. These creatures didn't have to evolve on Earth - and indeed, other creatures like us may have evolved on other planets. These creatures don't have to look like us: they could be crab-people or Wookies or Clangers. But the universe is set up so that stars will form with planets around them and some of these planets will support life; once life appears, evolution will ensure that some of this life becomes intelligent and self-aware.
|
|
This is sometimes called the Argument from Fine-Tuning. There's another analogy here: the universe is like a giant radio that must be precisely tuned to a particular frequency to "pick up" life. Only one frequency will do.
For example, if gravity was any weaker, planets would not form and the universe would be full of lifeless space dust; any stronger, and planets would be sucked into suns that would then burn themselves out too quickly. Either way: no life. The fine-tuning argument is not anthropocentric like the others. It recognises that the universe could have had any combination of characteristics - but only the particular combination it in fact makes it capable of supporting life and that requires some further explanation. |
Old-fashioned fine-tuning
|
So many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance - Cressy Morrison
YES
The fine-tuning argument makes use of the latest scientific discoveries in astronomy. This is important because another scientific theory, Evolution, was responsible for damaging previous versions of the Design Argument that focused on the apparent design in living creatures. As an a posteriori argument, Design can be strengthened as well as weakened by scientific discoveries.
It's right to be surprised at the universe's biophilic characteristics. There are so many other permutations of physical laws that would produce a lifeless universe, the fact that the universe has the exact combination needed for life requires some special explanation. A Designing wishing to bring about intelligent life is the solution.
|
NO
The universe isn't entirely biophilic. Lots of it is empty, cold, full of deadly radiation or otherwise hostile to life. Our universe seems to be "minimally biophilic" - it tolerates life but doesn't encourage it. Surely a Designer would create an "optimally biophilic" universe in which life flourishes? This links to the problem of evil & suffering and the dysteleological argument.
We shouldn't be surprised to observe a biophilic universe. We couldn't observe any other sort of universe, because only a universe that can support observers can actually be observed. This is similar to Bertrand Russell's remark that the universe is a "brute fact". We should accept that it is the way it is and not look for reasons.
|