A phrase or argument which often gets tossed around in conversations regarding the existence of god is "fine-tuning" (e.g. in this article from the Discovery Institute). The phrase is typically used to state, very simply, that the Universe exhibits signs of extreme "tuning" in that if particular mathematical constants were at even a slightly different value than they currently are, then life, as we know it, would not exist. Thus, the Universe has been manipulated for the purpose of life existing as we know it, which is also why the "fine-tuning" argument has often been called the anthropic principle.
Richard Dawkins has said that, to him, this is a somewhat persuasive argument for a scientific basis for god's existence. Perhaps I'm too new at this sort of thing, but I honestly never found the argument very persuasive. Here's why...
These particular "life-enabling" mathematical constants are few in number, they number about a dozen, among hundreds of other constants. They include the speed of light, Planck's constant, Newton's gravitational constant, the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force, and a few others. Proponents of the fine-tuning argument state that if any of these figures was even slightly different, life as we know it would not exist. Positing this statement seems to beg the question of whether these numbers could be any different than they are. Proponents seem to assume that these numbers are manipulatable - by a deity, at least - and thus the fact that they are what they are is something of incredible luck for humans. It seems to me that proponents of fine-tuning have not demonstrated that these numbers are "tunable." An example here is helpful. A mathematical constant which is not included in the fine-tuning arugment is Pi, the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter. One could state that "if pi were any value other than 3.14..., circles as we know them would not exist." This, while true, seems rather silly. Could pi really be any other value? Do we have god's benevolence to thank, in that he allowed circles to be circles by making pi precisely the value it is?
That reasoning aside, Bertrand Russell was the one who put the nail in the coffin in the fine-tuning arugment for me, and he did so more than 50 years ago. He considered god handing down edicts as natural laws in Why I am Not a Christian, and in doing so stated the following...
If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others (e.g., the life-enabling mathematical constants)-- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver.
In other words, in assigning particular values to the mathematical constants, god was following laws external to himself (which stated that constants would have to be x,y, and z), when, according to proponents of the fine-tuning arugement, god supposedly is the one who made all of these laws in the first place. Chalking the mathematical constants up to god is therefore not even a superficial explanation -- it is no explanation at all.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A brief introduction...
...to a blog which, in all honestly, will be a difficult thing to sustain. I've tried to keep a livejournal in the past and have failed miserably, but I am hoping to turn things around here. I have reason to be hopeful, this time I'm writing with something of a purpose. This blog will be a place where I will collect my thoughts regarding just about anything, but especially messages from the books that I am reading - pretty heady stuff, which I typically have a hard time holding onto unless I write them down somewhere.
I also hope to use this blog to chronicle my experiece as a graduate student, just stepping into the final throwes of my formal education, which has always been something which I have considered extremely important, but admitedly, did not fully understand the process. Recently, by getting involved, by observing, and reading, I've come to see how "the game" is played - not all disciplines are created equal.
On that note, from my undergrad, to my masters, and now to my Ph.D., I have been enrolled as a student in criminal justice. One of the toughest lessons I have attempted to grasp is exactly what is CJ's identity as an academic discipline, and how does that influence the work and potential of students who enroll in such a program. I've recently come to tackle these questions head on by reading C. Wright Mills' critique of social science in The Sociological Imagination, and was struck most by this quote, describing 'research technicians' in the social sciences:
They have taken up social research as a career; they have come early to an extreme specialization, and they have acquired an indifference or contempt for 'social philosophy' -which means to them 'writing books out of books' or 'merely speculating.' Listening to their conversations, trying to gague the quality of their curiosity one finds a deadly limitation of mind. The social worlds about which so many scholars feel ignorant do not puzzle them.
I truly do not want to become a 'technician' such as this, but is this not how academics make a living these days? Is this not 'the game?' This is stuff that really interests me, and that hopefully I can understand (read: avoid for myself) as I continue my own education.
I also hope to use this blog to chronicle my experiece as a graduate student, just stepping into the final throwes of my formal education, which has always been something which I have considered extremely important, but admitedly, did not fully understand the process. Recently, by getting involved, by observing, and reading, I've come to see how "the game" is played - not all disciplines are created equal.
On that note, from my undergrad, to my masters, and now to my Ph.D., I have been enrolled as a student in criminal justice. One of the toughest lessons I have attempted to grasp is exactly what is CJ's identity as an academic discipline, and how does that influence the work and potential of students who enroll in such a program. I've recently come to tackle these questions head on by reading C. Wright Mills' critique of social science in The Sociological Imagination, and was struck most by this quote, describing 'research technicians' in the social sciences:
They have taken up social research as a career; they have come early to an extreme specialization, and they have acquired an indifference or contempt for 'social philosophy' -which means to them 'writing books out of books' or 'merely speculating.' Listening to their conversations, trying to gague the quality of their curiosity one finds a deadly limitation of mind. The social worlds about which so many scholars feel ignorant do not puzzle them.
I truly do not want to become a 'technician' such as this, but is this not how academics make a living these days? Is this not 'the game?' This is stuff that really interests me, and that hopefully I can understand (read: avoid for myself) as I continue my own education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
