Why I Believe, pt 3: Fine Tuning

One can hardly look at the night sky, or at any aspect of our planet, without getting the distinct impression that there is something at work in it all. The argument for God that takes its cue from the sense of design inherent within our universe is known as the Teleological Argument. Thomas Aquinas who developed one of the first forms of this argument in the 13th century could never have fathomed what we would eventually come to find. In the past century scientific discoveries have revealed that our universe seems to be fine-tuned in such a way that not only permits, but privileges life. 

Scientists whether they be atheists or theists have come to recognize that there is something peculiar about the state of our universe. Stephen Hawking has stated that "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson admits "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." Many scientists have come to recognize that if the physical laws of our universe were different by any degree, however infinitesimally small the change, the universe as we know it would not exist; life would not be possible. The reality that we must then be reconciled with is that the odds of these values being set by chance, and thus bringing about life, is a statistical impossibility.

The late Antony Flew, one of the 20th century's most compelling and ardent atheists, could not help but take notice of these discoveries and carry them to their logical end. In his book There is a God, Flew recounts his journey from atheism to belief in a Designer-God, summarizing his position concisely: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. ...Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Flew goes on to defend the Teleological Argument for God, which he describes as "an argument to design from order" which thus implies "a Designer."

One of the most vocal critics of the argument for a designer, as well as anything else not atheistic, is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins cannot help but wonder if there were a designer of our universe, then who designed the designer? A rather childish question, to be fair. Philosopher and Theologian William Lane Craig quite eloquently illustrates the fallacy of the question by giving us the following example:"If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of some unknown group of people―even if they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from." Craig goes on to elaborate that requiring an explanation for an explanation inevitably leads to an infinite regress. Such a requirement would lead to a place where "nothing could be explained and science would be destroyed."

Dawkins is also convinced that God is rather too complex an explanation to account for the apparent design of our improbable universe. However, Flew quite rightly points out that by Dawkins' own definition, God is quite simple, rather than complex, on account of his being an immaterial spirit lacking parts. Craig picks up on the error, as well, stating that "Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas and effects, which may indeed be complex, with a mind itself, which―having no parts―is an incredibly simple entity." That a mind can think complex thoughts is not the same as saying that the nature of the mind itself is complex.

In place of a designer, Dawkins and many other atheists have sought to explain the ostensible design of our universe by postulating the existence of possibly an infinite number of universes, often referred to as Multiverse Theory. It is thought that if there were many universes, each with a different set of physical laws and parameters, then one of them would just have to have what is needed to support the existence of carbon based life forms, such as ourselves. The whole theory is a desperate attempt to explain away the apparent fine-tuning that our universe is riddled with. The problem though is that there is no scientific evidence that such universes even exist. The entire explanation is based upon the desperate need to get rid of a designer. A further problem, of course, is that the theory serverly violates Ockham's razor to an infinite degree, or as Craig puts it "Appealing to a world ensemble is like using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut." Remarkably of all, though, Dawkins and others conveniently have no desire to wonder who designed the Multiverse, infinite in its complexity.

Further Reading: 

There Is A God, by Antony Flew 

God is Good, God is Great, by William Lane Craig & Chad Meister 

The Case For A Creator, By Lee Strobel 

The Devil’s Delusion, By David Berlinski

Why I believe...part 2 - Origins

Ok, so I started to blog on "why I believe" way back in August after attending Faith Day at a Reds game (who btw- deserve our congrats on winning the NL Central pennant). Now I sort of lament the fact that I kind of locked us into a series. Not that I don't think the topic of "why I believe" is important, but rather because I think it is immensely important and need to choose my words carefully. Couple that with a busy schedule and you see why I haven't posted in a while. You should also know that each of the 5 reasons I tossed out in that earlier post are deserving of much more than I can offer here. In fact, volumes have been written on them all (with the exception of my personal story). Therefore, my hope is that the few paragraphs I offer for each can serve as an introduction into your own investigation of what I think is the most important quest of our lives: the pursuit of God.

The first reason I said I "believed" in God was the fact that this universe exists and life does as well. Unless I'm just imagining it all somehow without existing myself. (Sorry, couldn't resist). This shouldn't be a surprising argument for believers. The Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). It also says we should have no excuse for not believing because, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).

The twentieth century discovery that the universe is not an unchanging, eternal entity revolutionized modern study of origins. We can thank Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity for this. The secular mind assumed the universe was static until Einstein's general theory proved otherwise. Believers have always claimed that the universe had a beginning but the argument from biblical revelation doesn't hold much weight in the secular world. Why would it if you don't believe in God?

The basic argument is this: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Now, I'm completely aware that this does not present concrete proof for the existence of God. However, it does leave open the possibility. Could there be another cause? Many have speculated about false vacuums, vacuum energy, etc, but I agree with the Stanford Professor who said, "these are very close to religious questions." In fact, I'd go a step further to argue that the question of the origin of the universe lies beyond the scope of science. For scientific law states that "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Yet, it exists. And we know that it began to exist at some point in history.

With regard to the origin of life, we've all been taught about the primordial soup that was struck by lightning and voila, "life began." Was it that easy? Early conditions of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen make it highly unlikely. Lots of money and research have been dumped into failed experiments trying to recreate and confirm this possibility as an origin.

I argue this point because I have been convinced by the mathematical improbabilities of non-living matter becoming living matter and then somehow arranging themselves to evolve into the complex organisms we see today. This is not a denial that variations occur within species. I'm not a fool. Nor again is this concrete proof. However, it does make the argument for the existence of God more probable. I'd say highly probable. And when you pile on other arguments at some point you just believe.

Here's just a sample of what I'm talking about from Walter Bradley, PH.D, author of "The Mystery of Life's Origin." Bradley was interviewed by Lee Strobel who was doing research for his book "The Case for Faith." He was asked, "what would go into building a living organism?" Try to stick with these snippets of his reply to grasp the enormity of the challenge.

"Essentially, you start with amino acids. They come in eighty different types, but only twenty of them are found in living organisms. The trick, then, is to isolate only the correct amino acids. Then the right amino acids have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules." Sound pretty simple so far? It's not too complex if an intelligent being is guiding the process. But left unguided there are a lot of complicating factors. "For instance, other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. Now you have the problem of how to eliminate these extraneous molecules. . . Then, there's another complication: there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed, and only left handed ones work in living matter. Now you've got to get these select ones to link together in the right sequence. And you also need the correct kind of chemical bonds-namely, peptide bonds- in the correct places in order for the protein to be able to fold in a specific three dimensional way. Otherwise, it won't function."

"It's sort of like a printer taking letters out of a basket and setting the type the way they used to do it by hand. If you guide it with your intelligence, it's no problem. But if you choose letters at random and put them together haphazardly-including upside down and backwards- then what are the chances you'd get words, sentences, and paragraphs that would make sense?  . . . In the same way, perhaps one hundred amino acids have to be put together in just the right manner to make a protein molecule. And, remember, that's just the first step. Creating one protein molecule doesn't mean you've created life. Now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules-maybe two hundred of them-with just the right functions to get a typical living cell." 

Wow. And Darwin thought it was no small leap from non-living chemicals to a living cell.

Oh yea, in case you forgot, even if the age of the universe continues to be conveniently extended, perhaps into the trillions, the chemical conditions would still be unfavorable.