What I consider the strongest argument for G-D, debated:
Jerry A. Coyne;
Miller raises another argument also used by creationists and theists as proof of celestial design: the so-called "fine tuning of the universe." It turns out that the existence of a universe that permits life as we know it depends heavily on the size of certain constants in the laws of physics. If, for example, the charge of the electron were slightly different, or if the disparity in mass between a proton and a neutron were slightly larger, or if other constants varied by more than a few percent, the universe would differ in important ways. Stars would not live long enough to allow life to emerge and evolve, there would be no solar systems, and the universe would lack the elements and the complex chemistry necessary for building organisms. In other words, we inhabit what is called a "Goldilocks universe," where nature's laws are just right to allow life to evolve and to thrive. This observation is called "the anthropic principle.".........
........Also, scientists have other explanations, ones based on reason rather than on faith. Perhaps some day, when we have a "theory of everything" that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe. Alternatively, there are intriguing "multiverse" theories that invoke the appearance of many universes, each with different physical laws; and we could have evolved only in one whose laws permit life. The physicist Lee Smolin has suggested a fascinating version of multiverse theory. Drawing a parallel with natural selection among organisms, Smolin proposed that physical constants of universes actually evolve by a type of "cosmological selection" among universes. It turns out that each black hole--and there are millions in our universe--might give rise to a new universe, and these new universes could have physical constants different from those of their ancestors. (This is analogous to mutation in biological evolution.) And universes with physical constants close to the ones we see today happen to be better at producing more black holes, which in turn produce more universes. (This resembles natural selection.) Eventually this process yields a population of universes enriched in those having just the right properties to produce stars (the source of black holes), planets, and life. Smolin's theory immensely raises the odds that life could appear.
KENNETH R. MILLER Responds:
For someone so insistent on empirical evidence, Coyne is remarkably quick to invoke faith when it suits his purposes. Realizing that the anthropic principle could indeed be seen as friendly to religion, he knows he just doesn't have enough evidence to reject it. So Coyne dreams that "perhaps some day, when we have a ‘theory of everything' that unifies all the forces of physics, we will see that this theory requires our universe to have the physical constants that we observe." Indeed. Perhaps we will. But even if we achieve that theory, we will still have to ask where the laws and principles of that theory come from, something that even Coyne at his speculative and hopeful best does not seem to appreciate............
.....Coyne's entire critique, then, is based upon an unspoken assumption he expects his readers to share, namely, that science is the only legitimate form of knowledge. To Coyne, any deviation from that view is an adulterous contradiction of the sacred scientific vow to exclude any possibility of the spiritual, not just from one's scientific work, but from the entirety of one's philosophical world view.
With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, that is nonsense. One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask a deeper question, one in which Coyne seems to have no interest. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and if existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering........
Miller
Coyne
Showing posts with label G-D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G-D. Show all posts
In your head
Thursday, February 5, 2009
If I had to answer why I believe in a supreme being it would be conundrum. We don’t choose to believe in something from a purely rational perspective, nor from a purely emotional perspective. I think it all comes together. Some of it is biological, our hard wired neurological system that demands a cause for all events better known as the principle of sufficient reason, Some of it is sociological, some of it is pure rational reason, some of it is because we fear change unless an equal or greater force pushes us to the other side, some of it is because it gives us emotional support, and I think there are countless other reasons why we believe. Sure in economic form there is a utility factor, what we prize, which the majority of it is comprised by material or emotional advantages. I still think there is a rational factor in it too in that there are questions in one’s head that are difficult to answer. I am not advocating in G-D of the gaps, but nevertheless there are deep riveting philosophical questions that every man faces, and he feels the need to sooth it with religion.
I will be stating famous philosophical reasons as well as quoting from a book I do appreciate called “G-D, rationality and mysticism” by Irving Block.
To preface we need to gather some understanding of what is rational and what is meant by “proof”.
Rational in it simple meaning means;” A justification for something existing or happening” Plainly speaking with have a database of empirically proven causes that cause certain effects; when we see the cause we can/do predict the effect. There are causes that are not empirically proven and/or the effects have many variables. What makes those that accept those cause/effect rational or irrational?
G-D is not a mathematical theorem nor can he be empirically proven. He is like the black hole. So we collect a few arguments, put them together and there seems to be a convincing argument for the belief in G-D. No one argument is sufficient. We humans think with collective proof. How does a pretty girl know she is pretty, because one person told her? She collects over time what a sense of pretty is; and she collects statements from many different walks of life. She then comes to the conclusion she is attractive. Now that might change, and the standards might change, but she assumes it to be true based on inductive reasoning. The value is there until there is information to dispute it.
Which comes to the philosophical question of inductive reasoning; how do we know that the future will be like the past? How do we know tomorrow that the fork is not the food but that the eggs are?
Hume said this cannot be solved. So is it rational or irrational? How about the principle of sufficient reason? Hume replied that we have rational intuition. We have to accept certain a priori arguments, for negating it seems irrational. Now does that apply to the rational of G-D ,Does denying it make one irrational I don’t think so.
I do think that atheism is rational, so is the belief in a supreme being. Why do I choose in one versus the other? Like I said in the beginning it is a very hard question to answer. Maybe the argument for G-D seems more rational. Are certain people more susceptible to “confirmation bias” then others?
On to proof, what I mean by proof is that all I try to prove to myself is that belief In G-D is rational. Denying the rationality is being irrational. One can choose atheism due to it being more rational in their mind, but you cannot deny that a belief in a G-D is rational.
I am not a positivist. I am not a pure empiricist, because I don’t think G-D can be proven as such. I don’t think it rational to deny all metaphysical propositions like the “Vienna circle”. Biology would never have been studied if we accepted only the empirically proven and only universal laws. There are many soft sciences.
Next up; the arguments for and against.
I will be stating famous philosophical reasons as well as quoting from a book I do appreciate called “G-D, rationality and mysticism” by Irving Block.
To preface we need to gather some understanding of what is rational and what is meant by “proof”.
Rational in it simple meaning means;” A justification for something existing or happening” Plainly speaking with have a database of empirically proven causes that cause certain effects; when we see the cause we can/do predict the effect. There are causes that are not empirically proven and/or the effects have many variables. What makes those that accept those cause/effect rational or irrational?
G-D is not a mathematical theorem nor can he be empirically proven. He is like the black hole. So we collect a few arguments, put them together and there seems to be a convincing argument for the belief in G-D. No one argument is sufficient. We humans think with collective proof. How does a pretty girl know she is pretty, because one person told her? She collects over time what a sense of pretty is; and she collects statements from many different walks of life. She then comes to the conclusion she is attractive. Now that might change, and the standards might change, but she assumes it to be true based on inductive reasoning. The value is there until there is information to dispute it.
Which comes to the philosophical question of inductive reasoning; how do we know that the future will be like the past? How do we know tomorrow that the fork is not the food but that the eggs are?
Hume said this cannot be solved. So is it rational or irrational? How about the principle of sufficient reason? Hume replied that we have rational intuition. We have to accept certain a priori arguments, for negating it seems irrational. Now does that apply to the rational of G-D ,Does denying it make one irrational I don’t think so.
I do think that atheism is rational, so is the belief in a supreme being. Why do I choose in one versus the other? Like I said in the beginning it is a very hard question to answer. Maybe the argument for G-D seems more rational. Are certain people more susceptible to “confirmation bias” then others?
On to proof, what I mean by proof is that all I try to prove to myself is that belief In G-D is rational. Denying the rationality is being irrational. One can choose atheism due to it being more rational in their mind, but you cannot deny that a belief in a G-D is rational.
I am not a positivist. I am not a pure empiricist, because I don’t think G-D can be proven as such. I don’t think it rational to deny all metaphysical propositions like the “Vienna circle”. Biology would never have been studied if we accepted only the empirically proven and only universal laws. There are many soft sciences.
Next up; the arguments for and against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
