Francis Collins has a new book due out soon. Jerry Coyne has already covered it more interestingly than I can here, but this quote from Collins really got me.
The conclusion is astounding: if any of these [physical constants] were to vary by even the tiniest degree, a universe capable of sustaining any imaginable form of life would be impossible.
Having just read Victor Stenger’s New Atheism, I find Collins all the more annoying for bringing up this point. The fine-tuning argument is terrible enough just for the fact that it often takes the form of “But how is everything so well adapted to life?!”, but all of its creationist forms are awful. In Collins’ version, he’s assuming that the variance would be done to only one physical constant. In reality, physical constants are almost always dependent upon each other; the changing of one would mean the changing of them all. Collins’ argument is, then, incoherent.
Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith, Francis Collins, Jerry Coyne, New Atheism, Victor Stenger |
For the Sake of Science 
I am not sure interdependence of the constants makes the case weaker; indeed, it seems to make the case stronger in that such interdependence would introduce even more complexities, in the way a machines parts are interdependent.
It does make it weaker– interdependence reduces the degrees of freedom. If you’re talking about two independent numbers, then your surprise at them having two particular values would be the product of the individual probabilities of them having those values. But if the two numbers are, say, binomial probabilities, related by the constraint that p+q=1, if you find that p=.287, there is no surprise that q=.713: it had to. If we don’t recognize the constraints among the values, we may overestimate the improbability of their having the values they do.
Greg Mayer
I agree with Michael Hawkins that Victor Senger put those arguments out of commission with God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason .
Another place to look is Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees.
Here is a quote from Simon Ings about Rees’ book:
“What makes Rees’s book exceptional is his conviction that cosmology is as materialistic and as conceptually simple as any of the earth sciences. Indeed, cosmology is simpler in one important respect: once the starting point is specified, the outcome is in broad terms predictable. All large patches of the universe that start off the same way end up statistically similar.”
While this one instance isn’t much to judge by, it seems that those who were leery of such a devout Christian being the face of science might have been right to worry. We’ll see, I guess.
Depends on the sort of interdependence. Obviously the parts of your computer are interdepedent – their function is dependent upon other parts being there; but the fact that they are there isn’t a result of the fact that the parts are there.
The question is, what sort of interdepence exists in the universe? Difficult to tell, since we can only observe one – but if only one exists, the way it exists seems supspiciously condusive to our existence.
Suspiciously conducive? How could it be otherwise?
I was woefully mistaken in my previous post on this. I didn’t realize that the blurb came from Mr. Collin’s book, and I obviously didn’t go and read Jerry Coyne’s critique.:
Enough is enough. Collins is director of the NIH, and is using his office to argue publicly that scientific evidence—the Big Bang, the “Moral Law” and so forth—points to the existence of a God. That is blurring the lines between faith and science: exactly what I hoped he would not do when he took his new job.
The fine tuning argument is one of the weakest for the existence of God (not that there are any strong ones). By simply asking the question the entire argument falls apart. How could it be any other way? And let us not forget that most of the universe is utterly lethal to us.
Collins continues to push his argument from authority. Stick to genetics and keep your wacky beliefs to yourself. While he should be applauded for his work on the HGP essentially all his comments must be taken in the context of a man who has a personal belief in a God for which there is not one single piece of compelling evidence.
I have always found this response to the fine-tuning argument to be among the weakest responses; every question we ask about the nature of universe could be answered with the claim that it ‘could be no other’ way’. It is in effect a science stopper – or more properly a thought stopper.
I think of it this way. If I were standing before a firing squad of fifty excellent sharpshooters who all fired on me from a short distance away upon command, and a few seconds later I found myself standing there with nary a scratch on me, the fact that I was still there to wonder why I was still there wouldn’t contradict the legitimacy of questioning how this might be. Obviously the sharpshooters had to miss in order for me to be alive to question why they missed – but the reasons why they missed are still open to exploration, and one reasonable explanation would be that it was they intended that I not die that day.
In the same way, the series of events and conditions that allow us to exist (and interestingly, question our existence) may have to be ‘just so’ to allow us to exist and question our existence, but that fact doesn’t contradict the legitimacy of asking why it is so, and it is reasonable to assert that it is so because there is intention in the order of the universe. In fact, such an assertion goes along way to explain other aspects of the human experience.
This entirely misses the point raised. You’re saying one aspect of something must be in just such a way for another aspect to work with it. But the point is that changing either aspect will inherently change the other, making it so “in just such a way” no longer makes sense.
The above semi-Hardy-Weinberg reference of p+q=1 really does demonstrate this notion in a very simple, clear way.
Well, obviously in many cases one aspect of something must be in just such a way in order for another aspect to work with it. A few examples would be your computer, your car, your body, just to name a few of the potentially millions of examples off the top of my head.
But that really isn’t the central question – what is really being contended by Collins and others is that it is surprising that numerous specific aspects must exist in a certain way for us to exist – and it doesn’t seem that those aspects must exist as they do, so the fact that they do fits with the notion that there is some intention in the origin of the universe. The typical response, “The universe is as it is because if it were otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it” is thus trivial and doesn’t explain why the universe is in fact fine tuned for life.
So while we should not be surprised to find there are no aspects of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, this does not undermine the fact that it is surprising so many specific, independent, aspects of the universe lend themselves to our existence – and this is true beyond the ‘constants’ that are at it’s foundation.
That isn’t what’s being said. If I change the shape of the hood on my car, that doesn’t inherently change the shape of the body. Physical laws largely work in precisely the opposite way.
“The conclusion is astounding: if any of these [physical constants] were to vary by even the tiniest degree, a universe capable of sustaining any imaginable form of life would be impossible.”
But who’s to say there might not be alternative forms of life that we just can’t imagine? Human intelligence and imagination is, after all, extremely miniscule in comparison with what is possible in the universe and all of existence.
“The fine-tuning argument is terrible enough just for the fact that it often takes the form of “But how is everything so well adapted to life?!”
Yes, I agree! It makes me so frustrated to hear them say that. It isn’t that everything is so well adapted to life, it’s that LIFE IS SO WELL ADAPTED TO THE UNIVERSE!! And of course! Otherwise, it wouldn’t BE here!
“In reality, physical constants are almost always dependent upon each other; the changing of one would mean the changing of them all.”
Exactly! And thus, if one tiny thing WERE changed, EVERYTHING would then be changed. And if everything were changed, there’s no telling WHAT the universe would be like, and what kinds of life might be possible.
Well no, you missed the point – I was comparing incidental aspects of machinery to physical laws, but essential components; obviously in that regard they are similar.
But that is irrelevant because you have failed to address the central idea of the fine-tuning argument, which I detailed above twice.
Well, that is rather the point – if any of the constants were changed, not only would life (and ourselves) not exist, neither would the universe at all, in any meaningful way. It’s not just that it would be ‘different’, but that it wouldn’t exist in any way conducive to life or in all likelihood star, galaxies, planets, etc.
Jack, the physical constants aren’t incidental. They are dependent upon each other. You change one, you must change another. It is not a matter of altering one without consequence to others.
Well, other than the fact I don’t think you can know that, it doesn’t change the basic consideration.