Skepticism Examined, by Wes Janssen
I am terribly sorry that it has taken so long to write you. I wanted to first examine your web site and respond to specific statements and arguments within your essays. I recently perused your site (for the third time) and have concluded that the prudent thing would be to select only the most important issues discussed and offer a response on these. By doing this I hope to avoid writing something like an encyclopedia. I suspect that you know what I mean. Allow me to say that what I find to be most impressive about your site and its content is you yourself. You are obviously serious minded, well studied and sincere. We will disagree but I hope that this disagreement will be honest, respectful, sincere, and friendly. If, in my disagreement, I don't seem so friendly, I apologize in advance.
The conclusion to your poignant biography reads: "So, what's my motivation for this site? Well, some ask me, 'are you angry at God?' My best answer is, I seem to be angry with Him for (probably) not existing. I still hold some small amount of agnosticism. I don't claim to know everything. But I guess I'd have to say I think it far more likely He doesn't exist than He does." I won't pretend that I can change your mind, I believe that such things are quite out of my own hands. But I hope that the thoughts themselves, and where they lead, may be of value. I shall attempt to limit my comments to the following topics:
1. Skepticism and self-defeating arguments:
2. Probabilities of Design v. probabilities of Chance:
3. The Bible and the Big Bang:
4. Didn't the Enlightenment and Darwinism get rid of God?
5. Why we argue: (i.e., "argue" as philosophers argue)
First, I must introduce myself, it has been something like six months since you wrote and you may not remember me. You had read a review that I had posted at amazon.com (Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith) and commented on that, and other of my reviews. You invited me to examine your site and to offer a response. Thank you, on all counts. In your earlier correspondence you stated that, "As a skeptic, I don't agree with your conclusions." The statement implies that you draw different conclusions (at the least you conclude that my conclusions are disagreeable), and interests me a great deal as I also often describe myself "as a skeptic." Perhaps we understand differently what skepticism is. In discussions such as these, skepticism may be foundational, and should be the first point to examine.
1. Skepticism and self-defeating arguments:
Plato said, "It is truth which you cannot contradict; you can without any difficulty contradict Socrates." To be a little more precisely Platonic, we might say there is that which we claim to know and there is that which truly is. They are two quite different things. One object of this dichotomy is the popular idea of skepticism. Skepticism is a useful tool if carefully guarded and examined, but many people seem to find this difficult or impossible. For the human mind, perhaps it actually is impossible. Many people who claim to be skeptics bind themselves to a dogmatic, and therefore false, "skepticism". Kant said, "Absolute skepticism passes off everything as illusion. It thus distinguishes illusion from truth and therefore must yet have a characteristic of the difference, and consequently presuppose a cognition of truth -- thus it contradicts itself." Skepticism that amounts to anything beyond a philosophy of inquiry must, as a simple matter of logic, come to its own defeat. The popular "skepticism" that is brought to bear disproportionately against one 'side' of an argument is false to skepticism. In fact, it is false to both absolute and methodological skepticism. It is a self-deception that only discipline and humility can hope to avoid. Discipline and humility are not easy things for the likes of us humans. By comparison, both belief and doubt are almost 'automatic'. It is interesting that discipline and humility (as well as belief and doubt) are foundational to both religion and science. Skepticism can lead us toward conclusions, but it cannot quite reach them. Conclusions, no matter what they are, are found only within the realm of belief. The synonym here is faith. That is, we either believe (conclude, have faith) that existence is purposeful, or we believe that existence is a meaningless accident of sorts. Many people happily claim not to know, they claim to have no conclusions. Their only 'certainty' is that all is uncertain. As Pascal eloquently pointed out, this too is a conclusion, and is one that logically defeats itself. Most (but not all) people in this latter category simply don't find "the big questions" to be very interesting. They are likely to be watching "Seinfeld" reruns; they are not likely interested in discussions such as these. But I must not judge them too harshly, questions of why they exist do not bombard their senses, inane sitcom laugh-tracks, and a firestorm of other sense experiences, do.
2. Probabilities of Design v. probabilities of Chance:
So which conclusion/belief/faith -- purposefulness or meaninglessness -- does a broad and honest skeptical methodology draw us toward? It is quickly apparent that psychology plays a big role, potentially in any conclusion, and this is not unimportant. But psychology does not really relate to most probabilistic considerations. Either material mechanism can account for the universe, for life, for intelligence, for the "laws" of nature, or it cannot. The answer to Leibniz' question ("Why is there something, rather than nothing?") either must exist within "nature" or beyond nature (i.e., be "supernatural"). How you or I feel about this is another consideration. For my discussion here, I will stay very close to what can be quantified. Because this consideration is essentially a book I would like to write one day, it may be difficult to keep it brief, but I will do my best toward that end.
The first consideration must be the laws of nature. Without the "laws" of nature there can be no nature. Could we ever know that a law might exist simply as a fortuitous accident? Human laws are universally caused by willful intelligence. Could a "law of nature" be "naturally" caused? The logician will immediately see tremendous difficulty in trying to argue that it could. The probable answer is 'no' and we must note that while it is the work of science to describe what the laws of nature are, there exists no logically workable theory as to WHY the laws exists -- apart from the 'theory' of monotheism, that is, that The First Cause purposely established them. The much heralded "Theory of Everything" can ultimately have little if anything to contribute to this problem. After all, why should such a theory itself exist (rather than nothing)? And the problem is rather worse than that, although for brevity I will move on. Suffice to remind ourselves of the dazzling specificity of the laws, and I will cite only the precision of the gluon force. The characteristic range of the gluon interaction is 10 to the negative 13th power cm, and the time scale over which it operates is 10 to the negative 33rd second. Were the gluon force anything but precisely what it is, no atomic nuclei would be possible, the universe would be a cold void, you and I would not exist. Other laws of nature are similarly precise. Kant said, "All nature actually is nothing but a nexus of appearances according to rules; and there is nothing at all without rules. When we believe that we have come across an absence of rules, we can only say that the rules are unknown to us." Some philosophers might not agree, but most do. So do most theologians. So do almost all mathematicians and physicists. Science may describe the "nexus of appearances according to rules" but the rules themselves transcend science. So does the existence of the "laws of nature" better support an explanation of Design or one of Chance? The Design case is easily made (the will of the First Cause of Being); there is no case for Chance apart from psychological pre-commitments.
Probability 'score': Intelligent Design 1, Materialism 0.
Can a physical theory describe WHY the universe should exist? Does a physical theory even describe HOW? I will say no (and no), and point to a growing number of very interesting calculations. I will digress for a moment to describe the idea that a quantum fluctuation might be caught in a "bubble" of inflation and result in a stable and ordered, "flat" universe. There are several distinct and unresolved -- I would say nonresolvable -- problems with this description: what we do "know" about so-called quantum fluctuation and what has been called the 'graceful exit problem' to name the most obvious two difficulties. A third and forth difficulty: having no way of examining the "void" predating the bang of creation we cannot know whether a quantum fluctuation was itself possible and there is no means of rigorously falsifying the theory as is generally required within scientific method. This is not to say that the big bang didn't happen, I believe that it did, rather it is to point out, as many theorists have, that we don't have a theory that can be completed for why, or even how, this event occurred. A convincing number of observations, measurements, calculations, and predictions indicate that the universe sprung quite perfectly from a void. Let's accept that it did and see where this leads. How probable is it that such a thing could result in a stable, ordered, and durable ("flat") universe like the one in which we live? Stephen Hawking has calculated the probability as being no better than one in 10 to the power of 10 to the 123rd power. That is a mind-bending number. By way of comparison, the total number of particles in the universe, including the massless particles [gluons and photons] is estimated to be a number in the order of 10 to the 100th power, not even a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the inverse of the number Hawking cites. And even that is admittedly an optimistic probability. Based on a more elegant space-time geometry, Roger Penrose has cited a probability of one over infinity. And these numbers are not even the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It only gets tougher for materialism. Mathematicians Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculate the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids at no better than one in 10 to the 6900th power. Non of this yet brings us to consider the mechanical "autogenesis" of a living cell. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of DNA remain incalculably stupendous. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of photosynthetic systems, or sexual reproduction, or human intelligence, remain incalculably stupendous.
I am often curious as to how a supposed "skeptical" mind can callously, even flippantly, discount such powerful numbers. Let us apply the principle of economy here and make a comparison between the explanatory probabilities of the materialistic faith and the monotheistic faith. After all, it seems that either one or the other must be true (eastern religious traditions of eternally cycling universes do not directly address the issues discussed here). Within materialistic explanations, the probability of you and I existing and undertaking such considerations within a universe such as ours might be quite modestly stated as one over infinity raised to the power of infinity. This may sound like a fanciful statistic, but I must offer that this is the kind of number some physicists have speculated about in this regard. Within the materialistic umbrella of explanations, the odds against us are far too great for the human mind to appreciate. By contrast, if an omnipotent, extra-cosmic First Cause should will that our universe, biological life, and human intelligence should exist, then the probability that I could write these words and that you could read them would be precisely one over one. One over infinity raised to the power of infinity -- or -- one over one. Skepticism is indeed a useful tool if it is a philosophy of inquiry into which set of explanations works best. Belief in either set of explanations requires a willful choice, a step beyond skepticism.
Materialism appeals to chance and to monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare at fortuitously functional typewriters (e.g., Huxley, Dawkins). For the writings of Shakespeare, monotheism appeals to Shakespeare, and to an intelligent will. It is an interesting twist of psychology that some self-proclaimed 'skeptics' would subscribe to monkeys typing Shakespeare at fortuitously functional typewriters (which we must accept as not having been intelligently designed). I hope that my point is made.
Probability 'score': Intelligent Design 2, Materialism 0.
I'll stop keeping score and briefly consider two more points.
3. The Bible and the Big Bang:
Is the Big Bang cosmological model/theory consistent or inconsistent with the Bible? There is a bit of disagreement among theoretical physicists as to certain aspects of 'Big Bang' theory, but its general assertions are well known. I won't recount them at this point. The question of whether or not the Bible is in disagreement with the theory is to be now considered. Many have said that the Bible stands at odds with big bang theory. This is the opinion of most atheists and many theists. At the same time, many theists and agnostics find no conflict here, and I am certainly among the latter. The only central issue in this consideration is that of Biblical exegesis. Hebrews 11 (called "the Faith chapter", by the way) says "that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." As one who has studied the work of Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Smoot, and many others, I find no contradiction here. There have been many "literal" and many "allegorical" interpretations of Genesis 1 dating to the very earliest scholarly exegetic work. We know, from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, for example, that in the days that Christ taught in Judea and that the Christian church emerged, there were a variety of interpretations of Moses' creation account. Within the exegetic frameworks of Philo or Augustine, the Bible and Big Bang cosmology are highly compatible. In fact, many theoretical physicists today cite the exegetic considerations of Philo and Augustine with some admiration, particularly in regard to the nature of space-time. Some must say that the Bible and Big Bang cosmology stand in opposition, but this can be nothing more than a personal opinion, one in which psychology probably plays too large a role.
If some theists interpret Genesis "literally" while other theists interpret it as allegory, do the two views "cancel" each other? Are both, and therefore all of theism, defeated? The best way to answer these questions may be to ask more questions. Some physicists believe that particles of matter are not "particles" at all, but are rather specific behaviors of vibrating cosmic superstrings which we merely perceive as "particles" (in other words, particles are only allegories for tiny wave patterns). Other physicists doubt the string theorists, for reasons we need not discuss, and believe that particles (electrons, photons, etc) are, quite literally, particles. Do the two views now "cancel" each other? Is particle physics, as a discipline, then "wrong"? No, I don't think so. It seems that some physicists are, at least to some extent, wrong, but the discipline of particle physics remains quite legitimate.
4. Didn't the Enlightenment and Darwinism get rid of God?
Picking up the same theme, now within biological theory, we also note the contradictory claims of evolutionary biologists. The ultra-Darwinists, such as Dawkins, demand that evolution must occur through Darwinian "gradualism," or else biological evolution becomes an incoherent idea, that is, nothing rationally explains it. The 'punctuated equilibrium' version of evolution (Gould) points to the fossil record (some 3 to 4 dozen phyla of life appeared abruptly in a tiny blip of 'evolutionary time' called the Cambrian Explosion, none have appeared since), catastrophism, and mathematical problems, and concludes that gradualism is hopelessly impossible. For 50 plus billion species of life to have been gradually and mechanically produced in only 3.5 to 4 billion years, it is apparent that new species should, on average, appear every few weeks. The idea demands an ongoing orgy of genetic innovations. We simply don't find this. Classic Darwinian gradualism doesn't work. (In one of your essay you state, "I think the evidence for evolution, at least after abiogenesis speaks for itself." I agree. Yet we seem to hear it speak rather different things.) It is interesting that this well-defined discordance (gradualism v. "punk eeq") is claimed to show the "strength" of evolutionary theory. Unlike the competing particle theories we just mentioned, the arguments that each evolutionist camp makes against the other are quite convincing. It seems in this case that 'evolutionary theory' -- we continue to lump these theories, which claim mutual exclusivity, beneath one mantra -- has some genuinely serious problems. But many assume that "evolution" is a fully satisfactory explanatory base even if we don't have a workable theory for it. After all, what is the option if we are to believe that the Enlightenment and the tenants of Darwin's theory managed to get rid of that troublesome old "God" idea?
But of course they didn't.
The cornerstone and bedrock upon which contemporary Darwinian theory and the Materialist philosophy of biology rests, is the curious doctrine of abiogenesis, sometimes called autogenesis or spontaneous generation. The idea is that a living organism can spontaneously appear from a nonliving substrate. The doctrine reached its evidentiary apogee a half a century ago when Stanley Miller mechanically synthesized amino acids. Now recall, from our earlier discussion of probability, how far removed the synthesis of amino acids is from the synthesis of a single protein. And the 'leap' from a protein, or even a fortuitous "soup" of proteins, to a living cell is similarly vast. Has there been any progress toward reconciling the abiogensis idea to scientific rigor in the last half century? Precisely none. Zero. Nil. Yes, there continues to be speculation and whimsy, but as for anything that could be reconciled to scientific rigor, nothing. Research, both in terms of chemistry and mathematics, render the idea more difficult than it was thought to be 50 years ago. Don't take my word for it, there is plenty of literature on the topic. If "blind" mechanism cannot explain the existence of life, it becomes logically arbitrary to insist that it can explain all variations of life. I will again compare probabilities. The odds of life arising spontaneously might be stated as one over an incalculably huge number (assuming that it is possible at all, and we have no defensible reason to make this assumption). The odds of life arising if an omnipotent Designer wills that it should, is precisely one over one. (Were I still keeping score it would be: Intelligent Design 3. Chance 0.) The doctrine of abiogensis is not science, it is strictly ideology.
5. Why we argue:
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician/ philosopher.
Why have philosophers, theologians, and scientists engaged in such discussions as these for thousands of years? Is one general view or another ever going to "win"? Is anything really at stake?
My discussions to this point have addressed whether skeptical inquiry supports a conclusion that an Intelligent Designer / First Cause exists or whether such inquiry supports a conclusion that he does not. I conclude that skeptical inquiry renders the proposition that God does not exist to be wildly improbable. The proposition that God exists requires less faith, I will say less blind faith, than the proposition that God does not exist. What my discussion has not entailed is the question of whether or not this entity is the God of Judeo-Christian faiths. But this is the question that has most to do with why we discuss these matters. If the First Cause of Being is merely Plato's "Chief Good" or Aristotle's "Prime Mover" or Plotinus' "One", then he is an impersonal God, and is neither particularly threatening nor particularly comforting. Einstein, for example, seemed to conceive of such a god, at least in some sense. But the human mind quickly perceives the personal God of Judeo-Christian scripture as being either threatening, or comforting (or both). It would be intellectually dishonest to deny this. If God exists and his characteristic is that of a personal, and thus personally relevant, entity, we are then drawn toward conclusions regarding how we should live. Let me say that I am not terribly interested in arguments for religious doctrines. I am a Christian who tends to agree with Kierkegaard's statement that apart from belief in God's existence and his commandment of Love, Christ taught no doctrine. To argue otherwise may be to misunderstand the commandment of Love.
In your biographical information you state, "God made the rules to where you can’t win and if you lose you go to hell." You speak also of "The Rapture" and of "being handed a 'Go directly to hell' card." Ouch! No wonder you reject Christianity! It sounds like you've been hammered with the doctrines of religion, which is to say the doctrines of men, and not perhaps taught the simple theology of Christ. The popular "Rapture" doctrine is built on a questionable interpretation of a single text, while the most popular "Hell" doctrine seems to be the spawn of Greco-Roman religion. (The Bible speaks both euphemistically of 'hell', as in "the smoke of their torment", and more directly of 'hell' as being "eternal destruction," which would seem to be something quite different from eternal torture.) Plato taught that there is that which we perceive and that which truly is. Two different things. Solomon taught it 500 years earlier, stating that our perceptions are ultimately "a chasing after the wind." Christ taught that there is religion and there is truth. Two different things. If men's ideas about God are small, foolish and misdirected, it is men, not God, who are small, foolish and misdirected.
I notice that you discuss "Pascal's Wager." Many, including myself, think to much is made of this musing of Pascal. It is not one of his more powerful arguments and is almost never mentioned in other apologetic writings. He does not propose the "wager" as a means of becoming more confident in God's existence. I belief that there is a means of becoming more confident of God's existence, but it is not as easy or limp as Pascal's wager. (Nothing against Pascal, who I greatly admire.) Dostoevsky wrote, "The more you succeed in loving, the more you will be convinced of the existence of God... I am sorry that I cannot say anything more comforting, for active love... is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science." Of course he is not talking about romantic love. For the skeptic, this is probably not a quick or easy means of coming to confidence in God's existence, just as there is no quick or easy way to understand biochemistry. But given commitment and time, Dostoevsky's challenge can indeed be a means of becoming more certain of God's existence. I know this to be true from personal experience and I believe thousands of other Christians can say the same.
People argue both for and against God's existence because they feel that their position is true. Of course this is important, but it is not necessarily the whole motive in itself. For now, let us lay down the matter of 'truth claims' and turn to the workings of the human mind. Why do we argue for and against God's existence? The reasons people argue for the existence of a personal God center on the desire to change another's life (to "convert" or "save" them, if you will). This may be poorly stated in its simplicity but most theists and most adversaries of theism would agree with this generalization. The argument for a personal God is thus a positive one (if it isn't terribly tainted by narrow doctrinal baggage, as is often the case). It is a kind of saying 'here is something important and good.' So, if this is why people argue for God's existence, why do people argue against the existence of a personal God? The claim might be quickly put forward that this too is a positive argument, a kind of saying 'let go of this foolish old idea and be true to yourself instead of some gray-bearded dude in the sky that doesn't really exist.' But of course what comes with this is 'your existence is ultimately without purpose.' No, this is not a positive position to argue. So, again, why argue it? Setting aside whether or not God's existence is inferred by science and reason, neither his existence or non existence could ever be proved by the strict criteria of mathematical proof (it turns out very little can be, as any skeptic should know). If God is defined as the Cause of nature (and any possible 'nature') and therefore not a part of nature, then he has existence beyond what can be empirically examined. Therefore the only entity who could possibly know that God does not exist would be God himself, which of course, isn't possible. If the argument against God's existence is neither positive nor demonstrably true, and as a matter of pure logic this is indeed the case, then the argument is so much shadow boxing. We here cross from the bright and clear world of logic to the dark and foggy world of psychology. I have ideas about the deeper reasons for this shadow boxing, but each 'fighter' must draw his own conclusions, being as honest as he can be with himself. Skepticism, at this point, may have done all that it can. All comes down to a question of will. I won't comment further.
I will, however, offer a thought on the information you have posted in your troubling but honest and excellent biography. I won't pretend that I have anything valuable to say about your struggle with depression. I am way out of my depth when it comes to such things and fear that most professionals are as well (apparently you would agree). I am happy and thankful that you have made positive strides in this regard and I wish only better things for you. As I have said, I admire your tenacity, studiousness, industry, and sincerity. In my humble opinion, it seems that all of your internal struggles center on your admission of resistance to that which does "not sit well with my 'independence at all cost' motto."
If we are beings possessing free will, and I believe that we are, then of course we are in this sense independent. But there is no escaping our dependence either. We do not call ourselves into being and although we may search for it, we do not define truth. We must make our peace with our dependence or we must be rather unhappy. This is one of the few things that I know to be true. I mentioned earlier a difficult and selfless kind of love. It is not only a means of greater confidence in God's existence, it is also a very practical means of making peace with the interconnectedness and interdependence of all men. When I help another, for no personal gain, I come to understand the sense in which he is not independent and neither am I. To demand "independence at all cost" is to resist love and to embrace frustration. Christ's commandment of love is the most profound doctrine ever taught on planet Earth. It draws the line between misery and joy.
As much as I hope that I have spoken truthfully, I hope that I have not offended you. I recognize that strongly held beliefs are no minor things. If you wish to post this material at your site, I would be honored, so long as it appears in whole. If you do not wish to, that is certainly okay too. I will be honored if you simply examine the points that I have tried to make. You may rebut my comments if you wish, although I don't wish to become involved in protracted arguments. It is extremely difficult to alter passionately held beliefs and to attempt to do so may eventually become nothing more than bull headed vanity. So, for now at least, I fall silent.
Wes Janssen
The conclusion to your poignant biography reads: "So, what's my motivation for this site? Well, some ask me, 'are you angry at God?' My best answer is, I seem to be angry with Him for (probably) not existing. I still hold some small amount of agnosticism. I don't claim to know everything. But I guess I'd have to say I think it far more likely He doesn't exist than He does." I won't pretend that I can change your mind, I believe that such things are quite out of my own hands. But I hope that the thoughts themselves, and where they lead, may be of value. I shall attempt to limit my comments to the following topics:
1. Skepticism and self-defeating arguments:
2. Probabilities of Design v. probabilities of Chance:
3. The Bible and the Big Bang:
4. Didn't the Enlightenment and Darwinism get rid of God?
5. Why we argue: (i.e., "argue" as philosophers argue)
First, I must introduce myself, it has been something like six months since you wrote and you may not remember me. You had read a review that I had posted at amazon.com (Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith) and commented on that, and other of my reviews. You invited me to examine your site and to offer a response. Thank you, on all counts. In your earlier correspondence you stated that, "As a skeptic, I don't agree with your conclusions." The statement implies that you draw different conclusions (at the least you conclude that my conclusions are disagreeable), and interests me a great deal as I also often describe myself "as a skeptic." Perhaps we understand differently what skepticism is. In discussions such as these, skepticism may be foundational, and should be the first point to examine.
1. Skepticism and self-defeating arguments:
Plato said, "It is truth which you cannot contradict; you can without any difficulty contradict Socrates." To be a little more precisely Platonic, we might say there is that which we claim to know and there is that which truly is. They are two quite different things. One object of this dichotomy is the popular idea of skepticism. Skepticism is a useful tool if carefully guarded and examined, but many people seem to find this difficult or impossible. For the human mind, perhaps it actually is impossible. Many people who claim to be skeptics bind themselves to a dogmatic, and therefore false, "skepticism". Kant said, "Absolute skepticism passes off everything as illusion. It thus distinguishes illusion from truth and therefore must yet have a characteristic of the difference, and consequently presuppose a cognition of truth -- thus it contradicts itself." Skepticism that amounts to anything beyond a philosophy of inquiry must, as a simple matter of logic, come to its own defeat. The popular "skepticism" that is brought to bear disproportionately against one 'side' of an argument is false to skepticism. In fact, it is false to both absolute and methodological skepticism. It is a self-deception that only discipline and humility can hope to avoid. Discipline and humility are not easy things for the likes of us humans. By comparison, both belief and doubt are almost 'automatic'. It is interesting that discipline and humility (as well as belief and doubt) are foundational to both religion and science. Skepticism can lead us toward conclusions, but it cannot quite reach them. Conclusions, no matter what they are, are found only within the realm of belief. The synonym here is faith. That is, we either believe (conclude, have faith) that existence is purposeful, or we believe that existence is a meaningless accident of sorts. Many people happily claim not to know, they claim to have no conclusions. Their only 'certainty' is that all is uncertain. As Pascal eloquently pointed out, this too is a conclusion, and is one that logically defeats itself. Most (but not all) people in this latter category simply don't find "the big questions" to be very interesting. They are likely to be watching "Seinfeld" reruns; they are not likely interested in discussions such as these. But I must not judge them too harshly, questions of why they exist do not bombard their senses, inane sitcom laugh-tracks, and a firestorm of other sense experiences, do.
2. Probabilities of Design v. probabilities of Chance:
So which conclusion/belief/faith -- purposefulness or meaninglessness -- does a broad and honest skeptical methodology draw us toward? It is quickly apparent that psychology plays a big role, potentially in any conclusion, and this is not unimportant. But psychology does not really relate to most probabilistic considerations. Either material mechanism can account for the universe, for life, for intelligence, for the "laws" of nature, or it cannot. The answer to Leibniz' question ("Why is there something, rather than nothing?") either must exist within "nature" or beyond nature (i.e., be "supernatural"). How you or I feel about this is another consideration. For my discussion here, I will stay very close to what can be quantified. Because this consideration is essentially a book I would like to write one day, it may be difficult to keep it brief, but I will do my best toward that end.
The first consideration must be the laws of nature. Without the "laws" of nature there can be no nature. Could we ever know that a law might exist simply as a fortuitous accident? Human laws are universally caused by willful intelligence. Could a "law of nature" be "naturally" caused? The logician will immediately see tremendous difficulty in trying to argue that it could. The probable answer is 'no' and we must note that while it is the work of science to describe what the laws of nature are, there exists no logically workable theory as to WHY the laws exists -- apart from the 'theory' of monotheism, that is, that The First Cause purposely established them. The much heralded "Theory of Everything" can ultimately have little if anything to contribute to this problem. After all, why should such a theory itself exist (rather than nothing)? And the problem is rather worse than that, although for brevity I will move on. Suffice to remind ourselves of the dazzling specificity of the laws, and I will cite only the precision of the gluon force. The characteristic range of the gluon interaction is 10 to the negative 13th power cm, and the time scale over which it operates is 10 to the negative 33rd second. Were the gluon force anything but precisely what it is, no atomic nuclei would be possible, the universe would be a cold void, you and I would not exist. Other laws of nature are similarly precise. Kant said, "All nature actually is nothing but a nexus of appearances according to rules; and there is nothing at all without rules. When we believe that we have come across an absence of rules, we can only say that the rules are unknown to us." Some philosophers might not agree, but most do. So do most theologians. So do almost all mathematicians and physicists. Science may describe the "nexus of appearances according to rules" but the rules themselves transcend science. So does the existence of the "laws of nature" better support an explanation of Design or one of Chance? The Design case is easily made (the will of the First Cause of Being); there is no case for Chance apart from psychological pre-commitments.
Probability 'score': Intelligent Design 1, Materialism 0.
Can a physical theory describe WHY the universe should exist? Does a physical theory even describe HOW? I will say no (and no), and point to a growing number of very interesting calculations. I will digress for a moment to describe the idea that a quantum fluctuation might be caught in a "bubble" of inflation and result in a stable and ordered, "flat" universe. There are several distinct and unresolved -- I would say nonresolvable -- problems with this description: what we do "know" about so-called quantum fluctuation and what has been called the 'graceful exit problem' to name the most obvious two difficulties. A third and forth difficulty: having no way of examining the "void" predating the bang of creation we cannot know whether a quantum fluctuation was itself possible and there is no means of rigorously falsifying the theory as is generally required within scientific method. This is not to say that the big bang didn't happen, I believe that it did, rather it is to point out, as many theorists have, that we don't have a theory that can be completed for why, or even how, this event occurred. A convincing number of observations, measurements, calculations, and predictions indicate that the universe sprung quite perfectly from a void. Let's accept that it did and see where this leads. How probable is it that such a thing could result in a stable, ordered, and durable ("flat") universe like the one in which we live? Stephen Hawking has calculated the probability as being no better than one in 10 to the power of 10 to the 123rd power. That is a mind-bending number. By way of comparison, the total number of particles in the universe, including the massless particles [gluons and photons] is estimated to be a number in the order of 10 to the 100th power, not even a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the inverse of the number Hawking cites. And even that is admittedly an optimistic probability. Based on a more elegant space-time geometry, Roger Penrose has cited a probability of one over infinity. And these numbers are not even the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It only gets tougher for materialism. Mathematicians Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculate the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids at no better than one in 10 to the 6900th power. Non of this yet brings us to consider the mechanical "autogenesis" of a living cell. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of DNA remain incalculably stupendous. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of photosynthetic systems, or sexual reproduction, or human intelligence, remain incalculably stupendous.
I am often curious as to how a supposed "skeptical" mind can callously, even flippantly, discount such powerful numbers. Let us apply the principle of economy here and make a comparison between the explanatory probabilities of the materialistic faith and the monotheistic faith. After all, it seems that either one or the other must be true (eastern religious traditions of eternally cycling universes do not directly address the issues discussed here). Within materialistic explanations, the probability of you and I existing and undertaking such considerations within a universe such as ours might be quite modestly stated as one over infinity raised to the power of infinity. This may sound like a fanciful statistic, but I must offer that this is the kind of number some physicists have speculated about in this regard. Within the materialistic umbrella of explanations, the odds against us are far too great for the human mind to appreciate. By contrast, if an omnipotent, extra-cosmic First Cause should will that our universe, biological life, and human intelligence should exist, then the probability that I could write these words and that you could read them would be precisely one over one. One over infinity raised to the power of infinity -- or -- one over one. Skepticism is indeed a useful tool if it is a philosophy of inquiry into which set of explanations works best. Belief in either set of explanations requires a willful choice, a step beyond skepticism.
Materialism appeals to chance and to monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare at fortuitously functional typewriters (e.g., Huxley, Dawkins). For the writings of Shakespeare, monotheism appeals to Shakespeare, and to an intelligent will. It is an interesting twist of psychology that some self-proclaimed 'skeptics' would subscribe to monkeys typing Shakespeare at fortuitously functional typewriters (which we must accept as not having been intelligently designed). I hope that my point is made.
Probability 'score': Intelligent Design 2, Materialism 0.
I'll stop keeping score and briefly consider two more points.
3. The Bible and the Big Bang:
Is the Big Bang cosmological model/theory consistent or inconsistent with the Bible? There is a bit of disagreement among theoretical physicists as to certain aspects of 'Big Bang' theory, but its general assertions are well known. I won't recount them at this point. The question of whether or not the Bible is in disagreement with the theory is to be now considered. Many have said that the Bible stands at odds with big bang theory. This is the opinion of most atheists and many theists. At the same time, many theists and agnostics find no conflict here, and I am certainly among the latter. The only central issue in this consideration is that of Biblical exegesis. Hebrews 11 (called "the Faith chapter", by the way) says "that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." As one who has studied the work of Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Smoot, and many others, I find no contradiction here. There have been many "literal" and many "allegorical" interpretations of Genesis 1 dating to the very earliest scholarly exegetic work. We know, from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, for example, that in the days that Christ taught in Judea and that the Christian church emerged, there were a variety of interpretations of Moses' creation account. Within the exegetic frameworks of Philo or Augustine, the Bible and Big Bang cosmology are highly compatible. In fact, many theoretical physicists today cite the exegetic considerations of Philo and Augustine with some admiration, particularly in regard to the nature of space-time. Some must say that the Bible and Big Bang cosmology stand in opposition, but this can be nothing more than a personal opinion, one in which psychology probably plays too large a role.
If some theists interpret Genesis "literally" while other theists interpret it as allegory, do the two views "cancel" each other? Are both, and therefore all of theism, defeated? The best way to answer these questions may be to ask more questions. Some physicists believe that particles of matter are not "particles" at all, but are rather specific behaviors of vibrating cosmic superstrings which we merely perceive as "particles" (in other words, particles are only allegories for tiny wave patterns). Other physicists doubt the string theorists, for reasons we need not discuss, and believe that particles (electrons, photons, etc) are, quite literally, particles. Do the two views now "cancel" each other? Is particle physics, as a discipline, then "wrong"? No, I don't think so. It seems that some physicists are, at least to some extent, wrong, but the discipline of particle physics remains quite legitimate.
4. Didn't the Enlightenment and Darwinism get rid of God?
Picking up the same theme, now within biological theory, we also note the contradictory claims of evolutionary biologists. The ultra-Darwinists, such as Dawkins, demand that evolution must occur through Darwinian "gradualism," or else biological evolution becomes an incoherent idea, that is, nothing rationally explains it. The 'punctuated equilibrium' version of evolution (Gould) points to the fossil record (some 3 to 4 dozen phyla of life appeared abruptly in a tiny blip of 'evolutionary time' called the Cambrian Explosion, none have appeared since), catastrophism, and mathematical problems, and concludes that gradualism is hopelessly impossible. For 50 plus billion species of life to have been gradually and mechanically produced in only 3.5 to 4 billion years, it is apparent that new species should, on average, appear every few weeks. The idea demands an ongoing orgy of genetic innovations. We simply don't find this. Classic Darwinian gradualism doesn't work. (In one of your essay you state, "I think the evidence for evolution, at least after abiogenesis speaks for itself." I agree. Yet we seem to hear it speak rather different things.) It is interesting that this well-defined discordance (gradualism v. "punk eeq") is claimed to show the "strength" of evolutionary theory. Unlike the competing particle theories we just mentioned, the arguments that each evolutionist camp makes against the other are quite convincing. It seems in this case that 'evolutionary theory' -- we continue to lump these theories, which claim mutual exclusivity, beneath one mantra -- has some genuinely serious problems. But many assume that "evolution" is a fully satisfactory explanatory base even if we don't have a workable theory for it. After all, what is the option if we are to believe that the Enlightenment and the tenants of Darwin's theory managed to get rid of that troublesome old "God" idea?
But of course they didn't.
The cornerstone and bedrock upon which contemporary Darwinian theory and the Materialist philosophy of biology rests, is the curious doctrine of abiogenesis, sometimes called autogenesis or spontaneous generation. The idea is that a living organism can spontaneously appear from a nonliving substrate. The doctrine reached its evidentiary apogee a half a century ago when Stanley Miller mechanically synthesized amino acids. Now recall, from our earlier discussion of probability, how far removed the synthesis of amino acids is from the synthesis of a single protein. And the 'leap' from a protein, or even a fortuitous "soup" of proteins, to a living cell is similarly vast. Has there been any progress toward reconciling the abiogensis idea to scientific rigor in the last half century? Precisely none. Zero. Nil. Yes, there continues to be speculation and whimsy, but as for anything that could be reconciled to scientific rigor, nothing. Research, both in terms of chemistry and mathematics, render the idea more difficult than it was thought to be 50 years ago. Don't take my word for it, there is plenty of literature on the topic. If "blind" mechanism cannot explain the existence of life, it becomes logically arbitrary to insist that it can explain all variations of life. I will again compare probabilities. The odds of life arising spontaneously might be stated as one over an incalculably huge number (assuming that it is possible at all, and we have no defensible reason to make this assumption). The odds of life arising if an omnipotent Designer wills that it should, is precisely one over one. (Were I still keeping score it would be: Intelligent Design 3. Chance 0.) The doctrine of abiogensis is not science, it is strictly ideology.
5. Why we argue:
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician/ philosopher.
Why have philosophers, theologians, and scientists engaged in such discussions as these for thousands of years? Is one general view or another ever going to "win"? Is anything really at stake?
My discussions to this point have addressed whether skeptical inquiry supports a conclusion that an Intelligent Designer / First Cause exists or whether such inquiry supports a conclusion that he does not. I conclude that skeptical inquiry renders the proposition that God does not exist to be wildly improbable. The proposition that God exists requires less faith, I will say less blind faith, than the proposition that God does not exist. What my discussion has not entailed is the question of whether or not this entity is the God of Judeo-Christian faiths. But this is the question that has most to do with why we discuss these matters. If the First Cause of Being is merely Plato's "Chief Good" or Aristotle's "Prime Mover" or Plotinus' "One", then he is an impersonal God, and is neither particularly threatening nor particularly comforting. Einstein, for example, seemed to conceive of such a god, at least in some sense. But the human mind quickly perceives the personal God of Judeo-Christian scripture as being either threatening, or comforting (or both). It would be intellectually dishonest to deny this. If God exists and his characteristic is that of a personal, and thus personally relevant, entity, we are then drawn toward conclusions regarding how we should live. Let me say that I am not terribly interested in arguments for religious doctrines. I am a Christian who tends to agree with Kierkegaard's statement that apart from belief in God's existence and his commandment of Love, Christ taught no doctrine. To argue otherwise may be to misunderstand the commandment of Love.
In your biographical information you state, "God made the rules to where you can’t win and if you lose you go to hell." You speak also of "The Rapture" and of "being handed a 'Go directly to hell' card." Ouch! No wonder you reject Christianity! It sounds like you've been hammered with the doctrines of religion, which is to say the doctrines of men, and not perhaps taught the simple theology of Christ. The popular "Rapture" doctrine is built on a questionable interpretation of a single text, while the most popular "Hell" doctrine seems to be the spawn of Greco-Roman religion. (The Bible speaks both euphemistically of 'hell', as in "the smoke of their torment", and more directly of 'hell' as being "eternal destruction," which would seem to be something quite different from eternal torture.) Plato taught that there is that which we perceive and that which truly is. Two different things. Solomon taught it 500 years earlier, stating that our perceptions are ultimately "a chasing after the wind." Christ taught that there is religion and there is truth. Two different things. If men's ideas about God are small, foolish and misdirected, it is men, not God, who are small, foolish and misdirected.
I notice that you discuss "Pascal's Wager." Many, including myself, think to much is made of this musing of Pascal. It is not one of his more powerful arguments and is almost never mentioned in other apologetic writings. He does not propose the "wager" as a means of becoming more confident in God's existence. I belief that there is a means of becoming more confident of God's existence, but it is not as easy or limp as Pascal's wager. (Nothing against Pascal, who I greatly admire.) Dostoevsky wrote, "The more you succeed in loving, the more you will be convinced of the existence of God... I am sorry that I cannot say anything more comforting, for active love... is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science." Of course he is not talking about romantic love. For the skeptic, this is probably not a quick or easy means of coming to confidence in God's existence, just as there is no quick or easy way to understand biochemistry. But given commitment and time, Dostoevsky's challenge can indeed be a means of becoming more certain of God's existence. I know this to be true from personal experience and I believe thousands of other Christians can say the same.
People argue both for and against God's existence because they feel that their position is true. Of course this is important, but it is not necessarily the whole motive in itself. For now, let us lay down the matter of 'truth claims' and turn to the workings of the human mind. Why do we argue for and against God's existence? The reasons people argue for the existence of a personal God center on the desire to change another's life (to "convert" or "save" them, if you will). This may be poorly stated in its simplicity but most theists and most adversaries of theism would agree with this generalization. The argument for a personal God is thus a positive one (if it isn't terribly tainted by narrow doctrinal baggage, as is often the case). It is a kind of saying 'here is something important and good.' So, if this is why people argue for God's existence, why do people argue against the existence of a personal God? The claim might be quickly put forward that this too is a positive argument, a kind of saying 'let go of this foolish old idea and be true to yourself instead of some gray-bearded dude in the sky that doesn't really exist.' But of course what comes with this is 'your existence is ultimately without purpose.' No, this is not a positive position to argue. So, again, why argue it? Setting aside whether or not God's existence is inferred by science and reason, neither his existence or non existence could ever be proved by the strict criteria of mathematical proof (it turns out very little can be, as any skeptic should know). If God is defined as the Cause of nature (and any possible 'nature') and therefore not a part of nature, then he has existence beyond what can be empirically examined. Therefore the only entity who could possibly know that God does not exist would be God himself, which of course, isn't possible. If the argument against God's existence is neither positive nor demonstrably true, and as a matter of pure logic this is indeed the case, then the argument is so much shadow boxing. We here cross from the bright and clear world of logic to the dark and foggy world of psychology. I have ideas about the deeper reasons for this shadow boxing, but each 'fighter' must draw his own conclusions, being as honest as he can be with himself. Skepticism, at this point, may have done all that it can. All comes down to a question of will. I won't comment further.
I will, however, offer a thought on the information you have posted in your troubling but honest and excellent biography. I won't pretend that I have anything valuable to say about your struggle with depression. I am way out of my depth when it comes to such things and fear that most professionals are as well (apparently you would agree). I am happy and thankful that you have made positive strides in this regard and I wish only better things for you. As I have said, I admire your tenacity, studiousness, industry, and sincerity. In my humble opinion, it seems that all of your internal struggles center on your admission of resistance to that which does "not sit well with my 'independence at all cost' motto."
If we are beings possessing free will, and I believe that we are, then of course we are in this sense independent. But there is no escaping our dependence either. We do not call ourselves into being and although we may search for it, we do not define truth. We must make our peace with our dependence or we must be rather unhappy. This is one of the few things that I know to be true. I mentioned earlier a difficult and selfless kind of love. It is not only a means of greater confidence in God's existence, it is also a very practical means of making peace with the interconnectedness and interdependence of all men. When I help another, for no personal gain, I come to understand the sense in which he is not independent and neither am I. To demand "independence at all cost" is to resist love and to embrace frustration. Christ's commandment of love is the most profound doctrine ever taught on planet Earth. It draws the line between misery and joy.
As much as I hope that I have spoken truthfully, I hope that I have not offended you. I recognize that strongly held beliefs are no minor things. If you wish to post this material at your site, I would be honored, so long as it appears in whole. If you do not wish to, that is certainly okay too. I will be honored if you simply examine the points that I have tried to make. You may rebut my comments if you wish, although I don't wish to become involved in protracted arguments. It is extremely difficult to alter passionately held beliefs and to attempt to do so may eventually become nothing more than bull headed vanity. So, for now at least, I fall silent.
Wes Janssen
Rebuttal 1, by Paul Jacobsen:
Mr. Janssen says that he does not want to become involved in protracted arguments; but he says that I may rebut. Therefore, I am doing so here. He may or may not choose to comment further, but I hope he at least reads and considers my counter-points.
First, Mr. Janssen discusses the meaning of skepticism. I call myself a "skeptic" in regards to the existence of God, mainly for lack of a better term. If you search the net, you'll find a lot of variations as to what agnostic and atheist mean. I think most people that call themselves atheists say that atheism does not mean a claim that no gods exist, but rather atheism simply means that any such existence hasn't been sufficiently proven. But not everybody agrees with this definition. Personally, I consider the likelihood of the existence of God to be small, but I don't claim to be absolutely certain, so I just use the term skeptic.
Mr. Janssen makes a lot of use of probabilities in his arguments. Probability arguments always raise a proverbial red flag with me. It has been said, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I say there are lies, damn lies, statistics, and probabilities. Probability is a mathematical field where the term "garbage in, garbage out" is most apt. What is the probability of me winning the lottery if the odds are 1 in 1,000,000? Do you say, "1 in 1,000,000"? Actually, you can't calculate it until I tell you how many tickets I buy. Until I tell you how many tickets I buy, you absolutely cannot calculate the probability of my winning. If I buy 1,000,000 tickets, my probability of winning is not 1 in 1,000,000, but 1 in 1!
Now, when discussing the probability of the universe being the way it is to support life, the probability is also completely impossible to calculate. There are too many unknowns. Most theists complain that if a skeptic proposes that maybe there are infinite universes, the skeptic is proposing an unfalsifiable theory. This may be true, but for the theist to insist there isn't is also an unfalsifiable theory. We simply do not know. I can say that at least for most things there are one of, there are many of. For example, there are trillions of stars. So, if there is one universe, is it unlikely there are many? I can't prove there are, but it can't be proved there is not either. This completely invalidates any probability calculation. If someone says that only one in a billion billion billion billion billion billion universes has life--even if they are right--but if there are an infinite number of universes than there is still an infinite number with life. Therefore probability tells us nothing.
As I said, I do agree that proposing multiple universes is an unfalsifiable theory, and theists will say that therefore it is an unreasonable theory. I'd be inclined to agree, except the theist proposes an equally unfalsifiable alternative-God. So, to complain about multiple universe theories being unfalsifiable is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. We simply do not know what is "beyond" our universe, be it God, other universes, or who knows what. We simply do not know.
So to me, from a scientific standpoint, I see neither option, God nor multiple universes as being any better or worse of an answer. But to me, God is a "deus ex machina" answer. How is God able to create universes? The theist has no answer. God just can and that's that. But such an answer isn't an answer. It has no explanatory power. "God just can and that's that" doesn't explain anything.
Basically, Mr. Janssen's argument is known as the "fine-tuning" argument. I've coined a phrase to describe the "fine-tuning" argument. I call it the "astonishment index." People find the universe, well, astonishing. And rightly so. It is quite amazing that it exists. And the "fine-tuning" argument seems to argue that the more astonishing the universe is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a Creator. In other words, the "fine-tuning argument" seems to be saying that the probability of the universe existing without cause is inversely proportional to the astonishment index. But, surely no matter how high the universe rates on the astonishment index, God, if He exists, must rank even higher. So that would seem to mean that the probability of God existing without having something to create Him is even lower than the universe existing without a Creator!
Let me give one example. Dr. Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. No doubt this ranks pretty dang high on the astonishment index. To be honest, I can see how someone might conclude this points to an Intelligent Designer. Yet when one contemplates how much power and intelligence would be required of an Intelligent Designer to be able to design or control the universe to such precision, again, it seems like this Intelligent Designer must rank even higher on the astonishment index. So once again, no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. So if the probability of the universe existing ranks exceedingly low on the astonishment index, then the probability of God's existence would seem to rank even lower.
Mr. Janssen also uses probability to try to disprove evolution. Again, I think he is misusing math. I'm guessing that Janssen has read Dr. Behe's, Darwin's Black Box. In Behe's book, he makes some similar kinds of calculations. I read a critic of Behe on amazon.com. I know any idiot can write a critique on amazon.com-hey, even I do… <g> But, this particular critic, a Mr. Chris Crawford, at least to me seemed to know what he is talking about. He had some points I found interesting, and relevant to Janssen's discussion:
Mr. Janssen says that he does not want to become involved in protracted arguments; but he says that I may rebut. Therefore, I am doing so here. He may or may not choose to comment further, but I hope he at least reads and considers my counter-points.
First, Mr. Janssen discusses the meaning of skepticism. I call myself a "skeptic" in regards to the existence of God, mainly for lack of a better term. If you search the net, you'll find a lot of variations as to what agnostic and atheist mean. I think most people that call themselves atheists say that atheism does not mean a claim that no gods exist, but rather atheism simply means that any such existence hasn't been sufficiently proven. But not everybody agrees with this definition. Personally, I consider the likelihood of the existence of God to be small, but I don't claim to be absolutely certain, so I just use the term skeptic.
Mr. Janssen makes a lot of use of probabilities in his arguments. Probability arguments always raise a proverbial red flag with me. It has been said, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I say there are lies, damn lies, statistics, and probabilities. Probability is a mathematical field where the term "garbage in, garbage out" is most apt. What is the probability of me winning the lottery if the odds are 1 in 1,000,000? Do you say, "1 in 1,000,000"? Actually, you can't calculate it until I tell you how many tickets I buy. Until I tell you how many tickets I buy, you absolutely cannot calculate the probability of my winning. If I buy 1,000,000 tickets, my probability of winning is not 1 in 1,000,000, but 1 in 1!
Now, when discussing the probability of the universe being the way it is to support life, the probability is also completely impossible to calculate. There are too many unknowns. Most theists complain that if a skeptic proposes that maybe there are infinite universes, the skeptic is proposing an unfalsifiable theory. This may be true, but for the theist to insist there isn't is also an unfalsifiable theory. We simply do not know. I can say that at least for most things there are one of, there are many of. For example, there are trillions of stars. So, if there is one universe, is it unlikely there are many? I can't prove there are, but it can't be proved there is not either. This completely invalidates any probability calculation. If someone says that only one in a billion billion billion billion billion billion universes has life--even if they are right--but if there are an infinite number of universes than there is still an infinite number with life. Therefore probability tells us nothing.
As I said, I do agree that proposing multiple universes is an unfalsifiable theory, and theists will say that therefore it is an unreasonable theory. I'd be inclined to agree, except the theist proposes an equally unfalsifiable alternative-God. So, to complain about multiple universe theories being unfalsifiable is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. We simply do not know what is "beyond" our universe, be it God, other universes, or who knows what. We simply do not know.
So to me, from a scientific standpoint, I see neither option, God nor multiple universes as being any better or worse of an answer. But to me, God is a "deus ex machina" answer. How is God able to create universes? The theist has no answer. God just can and that's that. But such an answer isn't an answer. It has no explanatory power. "God just can and that's that" doesn't explain anything.
Basically, Mr. Janssen's argument is known as the "fine-tuning" argument. I've coined a phrase to describe the "fine-tuning" argument. I call it the "astonishment index." People find the universe, well, astonishing. And rightly so. It is quite amazing that it exists. And the "fine-tuning" argument seems to argue that the more astonishing the universe is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a Creator. In other words, the "fine-tuning argument" seems to be saying that the probability of the universe existing without cause is inversely proportional to the astonishment index. But, surely no matter how high the universe rates on the astonishment index, God, if He exists, must rank even higher. So that would seem to mean that the probability of God existing without having something to create Him is even lower than the universe existing without a Creator!
Let me give one example. Dr. Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. No doubt this ranks pretty dang high on the astonishment index. To be honest, I can see how someone might conclude this points to an Intelligent Designer. Yet when one contemplates how much power and intelligence would be required of an Intelligent Designer to be able to design or control the universe to such precision, again, it seems like this Intelligent Designer must rank even higher on the astonishment index. So once again, no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. So if the probability of the universe existing ranks exceedingly low on the astonishment index, then the probability of God's existence would seem to rank even lower.
Mr. Janssen also uses probability to try to disprove evolution. Again, I think he is misusing math. I'm guessing that Janssen has read Dr. Behe's, Darwin's Black Box. In Behe's book, he makes some similar kinds of calculations. I read a critic of Behe on amazon.com. I know any idiot can write a critique on amazon.com-hey, even I do… <g> But, this particular critic, a Mr. Chris Crawford, at least to me seemed to know what he is talking about. He had some points I found interesting, and relevant to Janssen's discussion:
|
The central error of Dr. Behe's reasoning, I believe, is an old problem that I call "the failure of imagination". Our minds just can't cope with the fantastic scale of nature. In Dr. Behe's case, the failure of imagination lies in the enormous number of molecules in a tiny amount of volume, and the enormous lengths of time over which natural selection operates. For example, in the only quantitative discussion I saw, Dr. Behe calculates the odds of a particular reaction product as 10**-19 (ten to the minus nineteen). He then points out that, if similar odds were applied to the Irish Sweepstakes, and a million people played every year, then it would take about a trillion years before anybody won. That's a nice number, but we must realize that we're talking about molecules, not people. A few grams of the material he's talking about would easily contain 10**19 such molecules, and if the reaction times are, say, a microsecond (most proteins can chemically react in nanoseconds), then we would expect millions of such results every second. Sure, sure, if we use lower concentrations and different temperatures, and throw in spoiler chemicals we can dramatically reduce my numbers -- but Dr. Behe's calculation is, I think, deliberately misleading.
|
The point here being that probability calculations really tell us absolutely nothing. The numbers of chemical reactions that occur on a planetary scale over, say a billion years, are just incalculable. Producing numbers like Behe or Janssen, really tells us nothing. Mr. Janssen keeps a "probability score" and scores it as: "Intelligent Design 3. Chance 0". As I have shown, he is barking up the wrong tree. Virtually 100% of the time, an argument from probability is really an argument from ignorance.
Okay, so lets move on. Janssen also references the "Cambrian explosion". Dr. Behe also discusses the Cambrian explosion, so I thought I'd include Crawford's criticisms of Behe on this topic:
Okay, so lets move on. Janssen also references the "Cambrian explosion". Dr. Behe also discusses the Cambrian explosion, so I thought I'd include Crawford's criticisms of Behe on this topic:
|
Behe describes the half-billion-years-ago 'Cambrian explosion' of new phyla ("body plans") within an interval of some 10 million years, evidenced by the sudden enrichment of the fossil record at this time (pp.27-28. Doubling the interval catches much more of the action, but let's stick with Behe's number). He portrays this geological eye-blink as "the window of time for life to go from the simple to the complex". He doesn't mention the results of studies using a BIOCHEMICAL technique that calibrates rates of molecular change in specific sets of genes, to clock the time of separation for genetically related evolutionary lineages. These studies indicate that currently existing phyla separated out over a period of some 250 million years, prior to the Cambrian. Some corroboration of this comes from extraordinarily well-preserved pre-Cambrian microfossils found at a site in China.
Part of the apparent 'explosion' in the number of fossils is attributed to the evolution of hard exoskeletons during this period. The reasons for this rapid skeletonization in multiple phyla are not clear. Increases in atmospheric oxygen, changes in the chemistry of seawater, the appearance of formidable predators, and events described in the next paragraph, all figure into various hypotheses under consideration. Behe also fails to mention 7 mass extinctions during this period, evidenced by huge oscillations in carbon-13 levels in marine sediments. These were more devastating percentage-wise than the famous extinction that eliminated the dinosaurs and 75% of then-existing animal species 65 million years ago. The correlation of the Cambrian extinctions with rapid diversification of particular fossil genera (e.g. in arthropods after the 5th extinction, echinoderms after the 6th), recalls the similar proliferation of bird and mammal genera after the dinosaur extinction. Scientists don't (and may never) have complete explanations for everything that happened during this chaotic period. Nevertheless, given these 7 pendulum swings from wanton wholesale extermination to riotous polymorphic procreation, Behe's implication that intelligent, benevolent supernatural agency was involved seems a bit improbable. |
Also, from reading Janssen, I get the impression he is a "Progressive Creationist", meaning he believes God periodically came along and created new creatures. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth, but his article seems to take this position. Assuming this is his position, such a theory is of course unfalsifiable, because no matter how many apparent acts of creation seem to have occurred, one could still say God did it. Therefore, one could say that Progressive Creationism is consistent with the evidence. However, I'm not sure if Janssen fully understands the ramifications of such a theory. Now I'd like to quote from the following article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
|
If every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now-extinct groups.
Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. |
So, although it indeed at least conceivable that Progressive Creationism is correct, however if so, God must have gone to extreme measures to make it "look like" evolution. So, I'm afraid that baring any further evidence, I must take the more simple explanation-evolution is probably true.
Finally, Mr. Janssen makes a reference to my autobiographical info, where I said that I had an "independence at all cost" motto. Theists often accuse atheists of not wanting to believe. Theists often think that skeptics want to be "masters of their own universe" and don't want to admit to being inferior. It is true that I have felt that I needed to be "independent at all cost," but my experiences in the past have led me to feel that nobody is going to take care of me but me. As near as I can tell, God didn't do a bloody thing for me for my problems with depression. God didn't save the holocaust victims, the victims of 9/11, the starving in Africa and elsewhere, the AIDS victims in Africa and elsewhere, etc. My "independence at all cost" motto seems justified.
The bottom line is no, I don't think I have any subconscious will to not believe in God. I don't want to just turn to dust when I die. I've spent a lot of time trying to believe in God, but the evidence in my view leads otherwise. But, lets say I did have some personal will to not believe, would that really be a crime worthy of eternal punishment?
Paul Jacobsen
Finally, Mr. Janssen makes a reference to my autobiographical info, where I said that I had an "independence at all cost" motto. Theists often accuse atheists of not wanting to believe. Theists often think that skeptics want to be "masters of their own universe" and don't want to admit to being inferior. It is true that I have felt that I needed to be "independent at all cost," but my experiences in the past have led me to feel that nobody is going to take care of me but me. As near as I can tell, God didn't do a bloody thing for me for my problems with depression. God didn't save the holocaust victims, the victims of 9/11, the starving in Africa and elsewhere, the AIDS victims in Africa and elsewhere, etc. My "independence at all cost" motto seems justified.
The bottom line is no, I don't think I have any subconscious will to not believe in God. I don't want to just turn to dust when I die. I've spent a lot of time trying to believe in God, but the evidence in my view leads otherwise. But, lets say I did have some personal will to not believe, would that really be a crime worthy of eternal punishment?
Paul Jacobsen
