Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis
Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!
Philo to Cleanthes, Part XI – David Hume
This whole non-debate is so ubiquitous, that I picked it from Facebook of all places. Apparently the Wall Street Journal is having slow news days, and/or completely lacking in journalistic integrity. Doesn’t anyone fact-check anymore? I know Fox News sure as fuck doesn’t, and the Republicans consistently say enough stupid shit to lump them into that mess. I’m guessing that the WSJ can be tossed into that indigestible stew.
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).
There is just so much wrong with this nonsense. Let’s take a look at the ‘against all odds’ scenario.
Have you ever placed a bet in a casino? Sure you have. And the dealer, whether it be blackjack, roulette, or poker, can give you odds. Why can they give you odds? Here’s the secret: these games have been played trillions of times, catalogued, sorted, and the odds are laid out based on actual physical parameters. Poker has been played often enough, that (factoring in the amount of cards, amount of players, etc.) the odds can be placed at a near exact percentile. Do you see where I’m going with this? All of the parameters for card games are known – they’ve been known for centuries – based on easily replicated known factors.
A person can only measure odds when certain facts are present. How often does a full house appear, as opposed to say, a couple of pairs, or a straight flush. Even flipping a coin implies that there is an either/or choice.
The creationists have no cards. They have nothing to compare this planet against, except the other planets in our solar system. Is that enough? Sadly, no. Our species would have to collate a lot more worlds, catalogue them, and have some indication of life. They also need (for the teleological argument) an undesigned universe. At least one. Or provide some sample of undesigned fauna/flora. It’s simple sense, almost Taoist in approach: you have to know both opposites before choosing between the two.
As for scientists discovering ET life – folks, we have to get into space before we do this. Seriously. We haven’t had any manned flights beyond the moon. ET life could be existing at the bottom of a methane ocean, or deeply dug in under the surface. There’s only so much a telescope can tell anyone.
As for Fred Hoyle – I am sick of these jokers trotting this guy out. He was a panspermist, for Pete’s sake, and I get riled when someone cites that stupid shit about ‘the odds of a tornado going through a junkyard…” Talk about broken analogies.
So Sagan was off – how long ago was that? Science is in no way comparable to religion. Because scientists (the good ones) amend the facts when evidence rises. Apologists like to cite these things because they assume it’s all written in stone, when in fact there are rules of thumb in place. Even the Drake Equation is subject to permutation.
Sure, the teleological argument is tough for narcissists, it caters to the introversive (our species actually has enough of those people, that we can actually place bets! Yay!), but the fact remains: there is no divine babysitter keeping tabs and settling scores for us. Religion is our species’ attempt to superimpose our shadow on the universe.
But that metaphorical shadow will never eclipse reality, regardless of how often it is shouted to the skies.
The WSJ did print this response – pretty cool.
Till the next post, then.
Read More...
Summary only...
One by one the instruments of torture have been wrenched from the cruel clutch of the church, until within the armory of orthodoxy there remains but one weapon -- Slander. – Robert Ingersoll, A Vindication of Thomas Paine
