Refuting Robin Collins argument for fine-tuning

by bohm 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Yes and no. I think an intelligent designer must exist for evidential scientific reasons, not simply because science hasn't yet explained the 'gaps'. I think there is enough positive scientific evidence to assert that life as we know it could not have come about by chance, that there is something else behind it. I think science is just as guilty of resorting to noumenal explanations by theorising about unprovables, such as multi-universes, etc.

  But ultimately this is a thread about metaphysics, not pure science. Our current level of science cannot even begin to approach metaphysical questions. And we know that science by its materialist bent is strongly biased against metaphysical explanations.

  The first and hardest thing to do is admit biases and try to resist them, because it warps everything. Philosophy is better suited to examining metaphysical questions because it tends to sit between religion and science, and its intellectual rigour of logic tends to mitigate biases. Philosophically, the Problem of Evil destroys theism, as I alluded. So I'm no 'god of the gaps' proponent, but I do think that the scientific evidence as it is unfolding is becoming increasingly problematic for traditional evolutionary theory to explain away.

  Put it this way: as science is slowly but surely filling in the 'gaps', the evidence accumulating is suggestive or more complexity and design than otherwise. To counteract this, physicists are having to resort to ever more metaphysical speculations that are just as 'out there' as the idea of an intelligent designer. You have to follow the evidence where it leads you, but bias will draw you back to choose the metaphysical theory you favour.

  God = metaphysics

  Orthodox scientic explanations on origin of life = metaphysics

  Big bang theory = metaphysics
• 

  cofty

  I think there is enough positive scientific evidence to assert that life as we know it could not have come about by chance

  I have yet to see any.

  On the other hand the recent progress in abiogenesis is really promising.

  I do think that the scientific evidence as it is unfolding is becoming increasingly problematic for traditional evolutionary theory to explain away.

  Do you have any examples of scientific evidence that is problematic for evolution?
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I'd be hijacking this thread if I started getting into 'tit-for-tat' examples. Do some googling and read for yourself, as much as your personal bias and intellectual honestly will permit.

  I will add that the personal bias against theism in science is entirely understandable and the logically correct foundation to start from. This is because the philosophical problems against theism are so profound, and since we cannot 'see' or observe a creator directly scientifically. So atheism is philosophically the correct assumed position. There is no question that the burden of proof is on creationists to prove otherwise.
• 

  cofty

  Do some googling and read for yourself, as much as your personal bias and intellectual honestly will permit - Yadda

  Could you be any more of a smart arse?

  Reading about evolution, Intelligent Design, genetics, abiogeneis etc etc is my favourite pastime. When somebody makes groundless assertions and they are politely asked to give examples we know they are full of BS when they reply like you did.

  PS - don't rewrite a post after somebody has replied to it.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I had no idea that you read about this stuff as a hobby Cofty lol. I'm just not going to hijack this thread and turn it into another general atheism v creationism thread. There are lots of those already. If you think I'm full of bullshit that's fine, but you don't look very good resorting to such a childish ad hominem slur. This thread is about the fine-tuning argument presented by Robbin Collins, not abiogenesis. That's one of the problems the author of this thread makes, that people are always drawing on side arguments in attacking their opponent.

  ps - don't reply to posts until people have had a chance to edit theirs - which is 30 minutes. I did not edit any of my posts in response to reading your replies.
• 

  sabastious

  Awesome read. Marked.

  -Sab
• 

  bohm

  Collins has also written a much longer chapter on the fine-tuning argument for "The Blackwell Companion of Natural Theology" available here:

  http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

  I have only skimmed parts of it and it seems to be more of the same, but if someone read it and find something new please feel free to comment.
• 

  cofty

  Thanks for the link. Will have a read later.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  An excerpt from section 5.2:

  As Richard Swinburne has argued (2004, pp. 99–106), since God is perfectly good,
  omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly free, the only motivation God has for bringing about
  one state of affairs instead of another is its relative (probable) contribution to the overall
  moral and aesthetic value of reality.37 Simple forms of life, such as bacteria, do not seem
  in and of themselves to contribute to the overall moral value of reality, although it is possible
  that they might contribute to its overall aesthetic value. On the other hand, embodied
  moral agents seem to allow for the realization of unique types of value. Hence, it is this
  form of life that is most relevant for arguing that ~P(Lpc|k′ & T) << 1, and thus the most
  relevant for the fine-tuning argument.

  Just by reading this, it's hard to not be dismissive and simply call this bullshit, but I will try to make the effort. This is essentially arguing specifically that because humans exist and are moral agents, they add relevance to the fine-tuning argument.

  The interesting thing about morality in a physical universe, and especially for humans on earth (since we are the only moral agents we know of), is that it is based on economy, whether we like it or not. Some examples to clarify: the rich giving to the poor, and the attempt to cure diseases and help those who suffer can be seen as moral goods, yet the fact remains that is so because resources are not limitless, and so there always the haves and the have-nots. What other morality do we know of, except the one tied in with the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of humans? Again, I am forced to invoke the problem of evil, but in a special classification. The problem of evil is inherent in a physical, limited universe! Let's be more specific. The planet earth, upon which humans live on, and the only known planet known thus far to sustain life, is very limited in its vital resources, further exacerbating the problem. Resources are not limitless, hence perpetual cycle of the haves and the have-nots, and the only way to attain any so called moral transaction!

  Without scarcity, without sacrifice, without pain and evil, there seems to be no basis for morality, at least as far as this Christian theist version goes. So, essentially the argument is pain and evil must exist in order for morality to exist, and that that in no way invalidates a fine-tuned universe? Well, that just opens up another whole can of worms. What makes Collin's assertions valid over any other theistic model? Haven't we observed that religion is wholly subjective and interpretive?

  Bohm, in regards to this comment:

  With regard to the initial low-entropic state of the early universe: I think the most important thing to realize is what physics actually governed that phase of the universe is largely unknown, not just in terms of conditions but the actual laws. My guess is largely uninformed, but i think that to get any progress on the question one would need first to get an accurate description of how gravity work on those levels, and thats properly decades in the future.

  As that is Collin's strongest argument, and the initial conditions of the universe are still largely unknown, it is yet another appeal to the god of the gaps. So for me, it appears his strongest argument is not strong at all.
• 

  bohm

  knowsnothing:

  Just by reading this, it's hard to not be dismissive and simply call this bullshit, but I will try to make the effort.

  classic! I feel exactly that way. One wonder how serious theologians like Swinburne determine (for instance) god is "simple" or want to create human life. Do he start from the hypothesis, "God is simple", and then "discover" he can just assert it is so and thus proove it?

  It is in my oppinion a classic appeal to god of the gaps; the most telling feature of Collins argument is that if it turns out in 10 years there is absolutely no low-entropy problem, that the universe started out in thermal equilibrium, Collins will just shrug and say "thats apparently how god made it, but hey, those laws, they must have been fine-tuned" and it wont affect his conlusion at all.