Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hobbs · 08-19-2002, 06:23 PM

Sure, the anthropic principle, or the fine-tuning argument, is compatible with the existence of a god. But as a proof of God's existence, it doesn't go far enough, because it is also compatible with there being no god: lottery arguments and all that. Of course a natural (non-supernaturally created, self-existing) universe is compatible with, or suited for, whatever turns out to exist in it. "Winning" the "lottery" by this universe existing and then us existing in this universe is insufficient evidence on its own for the winners to conclude that the lottery was rigged. The lottery might have been rigged, but it might not have been: winning the lottery is consistent with both possibilities.

So the anthropic principle, pointing out that we can exist in this universe, cannot alone say anything definite about god's existence: the anthropic principle is compatible with theism and atheism. From the theist perspective, the universe is "tuned" for our existence. But from the atheist perspective, we are "tuned" for existence in the universe that happens to be. Both perspectives are compatible with the anthropic principle, i.e. that we and the universe we exist in are a good fit.

For the anthropic principle to work as a proof of god, it needs another premise: that we are somehow special and important, that the universe was designed with us in mind, that the universe is the way it is because of us, rather than that we are the way we are because of the universe. But that would beg the question at issue of what is "tuned" for what (us for the universe or vice-versa). So an anthropic principle argument for the existence of god cannot succeed on its own without assuming what it is trying to prove.

On the other hand, I think that a misanthropic principle would work to prove (or at least give lots of evidence in favor of) the existence of a god. If the universe were incompatible with our existence, if the universe were such that it could not support life in it and yet here we are, that would, on it's own, provide strong evidence that there is a god behind it all.

To use the lottery analogy: if only a few people bought tickets so the pot would naturally be small, and if I didn't buy a ticket at all, but then I still won a very large jackpot, that would be strong evidence that something, or someone, was behind it all to make it come out like that. An outcome like that would be incompatible with a "natural" or non-rigged lottery.

But the anthropic principle can't do this on its own. What, besides question-begging assumptions, could be added to the anthropic principle so that it could rule out compatibility with god not existing? Or, is there a real analog to my hypothetical, but false, misanthropic principle that could, on its own (i.e. without question-begging assumptions), demonstrate reality to be incompatible with god's non-existence?

MadMordigan · 08-19-2002, 07:49 PM

A good example of this would be a 6000 year old earth. A planet that new could not possibly have provided an environment in which modern life could have evolved.

Or a series of morphological changes in the fossil record that was totally random (cats coming before eathworms coming before elephants coming before dragonflies) and not obvious to the naked eye as being sequential.

Jobar · 08-19-2002, 09:39 PM

Very good point. I've never seen this particular refutation of the anthropic argument, and it's more easily understood than any other that I've seen.

As MM says, to demonstrate your 'misanthropic principle' we would need to find something which would make life- preferably human life- seemingly impossible, and yet here we are.

Wonder if any of the fundamentalists who insist on literalism have sense enough to realize that their arguments are misanthropic?

HRG · 08-19-2002, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Very good point. I've never seen this particular refutation of the anthropic argument, and it's more easily understood than any other that I've seen.

Ikeda and Jeffreys have given a Bayesian formulation of this line of argument at <a href="http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html" target="_blank">http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html</a>

Regards,
HRG.

Vorkosigan · 08-20-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Very good point. I've never seen this particular refutation of the anthropic argument, and it's more easily understood than any other that I've seen.

I am deeply hurt.

Vorkosigan

Jobar · 08-20-2002, 11:53 AM

Well, hey, I make no claims to omniscience. (In fact I make no claim to have read every single post on the EoG forum, and I'm supposed to do that.)

Seriously, I can't recall ever having seen it phrased as the 'misanthropic' argument before.

bluefugue · 08-20-2002, 12:22 PM

I tell ya, it's all in the labeling.

doubtingt · 08-20-2002, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hobbs:
[QB]
On the other hand, I think that a misanthropic principle would work to prove (or at least give lots of evidence in favor of) the existence of a god. If the universe were incompatible with our existence, if the universe were such that it could not support life in it and yet here we are, that would, on it's own, provide strong evidence that there is a god behind it all.

Good point. Similarly, if the possibility for spontaneous generation of life is anything but absolute zero, and we assume that time is infinite, then the absence of any life at any point on that infinite timeline would be a miraculous violation of chance.
The existence of life is perfectly compatible with what chance would predict. Thus, life not only fails to PROVE Gods existence, but prefering the God explanation for life over the "spontaneous" explanation is an irrational
violation of parsimony.

crocodile deathroll · 08-22-2002, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
A good example of this would be a 6000 year old earth. A planet that new could not possibly have provided an environment in which modern life could have evolved.

Or a series of morphological changes in the fossil record that was totally random (cats coming before eathworms coming before elephants coming before dragonflies) and not obvious to the naked eye as being sequential.

Funny I just had an argument with a fundamentalist who dismissed the fossil evidence as the work of the Devil. Will they ever give up?

case · 08-23-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Seriously, I can't recall ever having seen it phrased as the 'misanthropic' argument before.

Isn't it also known as the Woody Allen Principle?

08-19-2002, 06:23 PM	#1
Hobbs Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 929	the misanthropic principle Sure, the anthropic principle, or the fine-tuning argument, is compatible with the existence of a god. But as a proof of God's existence, it doesn't go far enough, because it is also compatible with there being no god: lottery arguments and all that. Of course a natural (non-supernaturally created, self-existing) universe is compatible with, or suited for, whatever turns out to exist in it. "Winning" the "lottery" by this universe existing and then us existing in this universe is insufficient evidence on its own for the winners to conclude that the lottery was rigged. The lottery might have been rigged, but it might not have been: winning the lottery is consistent with both possibilities. So the anthropic principle, pointing out that we can exist in this universe, cannot alone say anything definite about god's existence: the anthropic principle is compatible with theism and atheism. From the theist perspective, the universe is "tuned" for our existence. But from the atheist perspective, we are "tuned" for existence in the universe that happens to be. Both perspectives are compatible with the anthropic principle, i.e. that we and the universe we exist in are a good fit. For the anthropic principle to work as a proof of god, it needs another premise: that we are somehow special and important, that the universe was designed with us in mind, that the universe is the way it is because of us, rather than that we are the way we are because of the universe. But that would beg the question at issue of what is "tuned" for what (us for the universe or vice-versa). So an anthropic principle argument for the existence of god cannot succeed on its own without assuming what it is trying to prove. On the other hand, I think that a misanthropic principle would work to prove (or at least give lots of evidence in favor of) the existence of a god. If the universe were incompatible with our existence, if the universe were such that it could not support life in it and yet here we are, that would, on it's own, provide strong evidence that there is a god behind it all. To use the lottery analogy: if only a few people bought tickets so the pot would naturally be small, and if I didn't buy a ticket at all, but then I still won a very large jackpot, that would be strong evidence that something, or someone, was behind it all to make it come out like that. An outcome like that would be incompatible with a "natural" or non-rigged lottery. But the anthropic principle can't do this on its own. What, besides question-begging assumptions, could be added to the anthropic principle so that it could rule out compatibility with god not existing? Or, is there a real analog to my hypothetical, but false, misanthropic principle that could, on its own (i.e. without question-begging assumptions), demonstrate reality to be incompatible with god's non-existence?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 07:49 PM	#2
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	A good example of this would be a 6000 year old earth. A planet that new could not possibly have provided an environment in which modern life could have evolved. Or a series of morphological changes in the fossil record that was totally random (cats coming before eathworms coming before elephants coming before dragonflies) and not obvious to the naked eye as being sequential.

08-19-2002, 09:39 PM	#3
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Very good point. I've never seen this particular refutation of the anthropic argument, and it's more easily understood than any other that I've seen. As MM says, to demonstrate your 'misanthropic principle' we would need to find something which would make life- preferably human life- seemingly impossible, and yet here we are. Wonder if any of the fundamentalists who insist on literalism have sense enough to realize that their arguments are misanthropic?

08-20-2002, 11:53 AM	#6
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Well, hey, I make no claims to omniscience. (In fact I make no claim to have read every single post on the EoG forum, and I'm supposed to do that.) Seriously, I can't recall ever having seen it phrased as the 'misanthropic' argument before.

08-20-2002, 12:22 PM	#7
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	I tell ya, it's all in the labeling.

08-20-2002, 12:42 PM	#8
doubtingt Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: USA Posts: 4,635	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hobbs: [QB] On the other hand, I think that a misanthropic principle would work to prove (or at least give lots of evidence in favor of) the existence of a god. If the universe were incompatible with our existence, if the universe were such that it could not support life in it and yet here we are, that would, on it's own, provide strong evidence that there is a god behind it all. Good point. Similarly, if the possibility for spontaneous generation of life is anything but absolute zero, and we assume that time is infinite, then the absence of any life at any point on that infinite timeline would be a miraculous violation of chance. The existence of life is perfectly compatible with what chance would predict. Thus, life not only fails to PROVE Gods existence, but prefering the God explanation for life over the "spontaneous" explanation is an irrational violation of parsimony.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.