Kids are like mood rings

Just look at what color they've turned and you know how they're feeling.

God and the Hard Eight

OK, so the infinite regression argument (last blog) turns out to be irrelevant whether a primal cause is needed or not. What then? These days one hears in some quarters that the incredible complexity of the universe, and the amazing number of things that must be just right for our cosmos and our lives to exist* (in sum, "order," for simplicity), must be the product of intelligent design. Thus a probabilistic argument becomes a philosophical argument and assumed proof. The premise here is that which cannot happen by chance does not, implying a divine hand to bring such improbable order to the universe.

Again, we can examine the premise: can such improbable order happen by chance? There really are two facets to this (as I think most would concede that order exists), i.e., is such order really improbable, and if so, can this order occur randomly? I am not expert enough to know whether the number and exactitude of these factors are truly extraordinary, but they are certainly impressive and cause for wonder. I know (but don't really remember or understand) that there is a philosophical/logical argument that essentially suggests that the fact that we exist demonstrates that these conditions for existence are probable. More relevant to me, though, is the suggestion that there are multiple, perhaps very many, universes that may exist, making the likelihood of having at least one like ours possible if not probable. While this to some may smack of the same fallacy of assuming that which must be proved discussed in the last entry, what's different here is the intriguing evidence provided by scientific empiricism and supportive theory. Findings that matter can simultaneously exist in multiple locations (and other propositions of quantum theory), discoveries that at least 96% of the universe is invisible and perhaps dominated by dark matter and dark energy, and recent (and currently dominant) provocative cosmological theories such as string theories and now m-theory, for example, logically allow for multiple universes. In sum, while it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that the order found in our universe is statistically improbable, ample evidence and logic exist to surmise that such order may not be so improbable.

In the case where such order is highly improbable, the possibilities for such order to exist include 1) an improbable occurrence happening naturally, in defiance of reasonable odds, 2) overarching physical laws that dictate the formation and existence of such order, and 3) the intelligent design of our universe. The first is highly unlikely by definition, but the probability is not zero; such is the nature of randomness (as with chimps with typewriters). The second requires developing an understanding of current or past physical laws and phenomena (perhaps via a grand unifying theory, for instance) that explains the current order as the outcome of influential, causal natural forces. The physical forces described by such theory/law would seem to be one reasonable definition of a god, at least a secular one, where instead of an all powerful being, the term is used to describe basic, deterministic, and quintessential natural forces. This perspective was probably the genesis, so to speak, of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe," meaning that natural forces and laws dictate causes and effects, a response to Max Planck and his quantum theory contentions. The third implies both the ability (power, intelligence, etc.) and will (intent, motivation, etc.) to create such order, which essentially militates to the orthodox conceptions of God the creator.

In the case where such order is not highly improbable, while an intelligent designer remains an unprovable possibility, science does provide alternative (and conceptually testable) explanations, or at least the basis for discovering such explanations. As alluded to previously, the startling paradoxes of quantum theory (some already demonstated empirically), advances in m-theory (and the variations of string theory et al. subsumed by it) allowing for up to 11 dimensions, mysteries surrounding proposed dark energy and dark matter, etc., increase the degrees of freedom dramatically to increase the probability of such order.

Ultimately, there is currently not enough evidence to assess the probability that such order can occur, and no evidence to indicate an entity or force with ability and will as designer. Beyond the dubious self-reports of supernatural encounters, divine revelations, and the like, and unsubstantiated miraculous phenomena (Where will the next visage of the Virgin Mary appear?), there of course is no observable evidence for an intelligent designer, and claims of one are made soley on the basis of selective inference or wishful thinking. That is not to say that an intelligent designer does/did not exist. In fact, it may well be that there was an intelligent designer for the universe. Rather, the point is that evidence does not exist to posit an intelligent designer as fact, nor does the notion have the requisite levels of acceptance and testability to rise to the level of theory.** Consequently, as a conjecture, creationism does not belong in textbooks and classrooms other than those related to religious matters. You are entitled to your faith, but please do not impose it on others.


*For example, see Hugh Ross' Limits for the Universe, or a simplified summary chart at www.doesgodesist.org
**This is especially true when creationism is posited as an alternative theory for evolution, where the creationism conjecture not only does not meet the standard of theory, but contradicts the extant well-substantiated facts presented by the fossil record.

The Argument of Infinite Regression

Creation stories do seem interesting to me, and seem to vary with the sophistication of the culture creating those stories. Whether gods are conceptualized as expressions of natural phenomena, animalistic, anthropomorphic, paternalistic or maternalistic, amorphous forces, or whatever, the powerful being or force is often seen as the source of all that is, i.e., the creator(s). And why not? Somebody/something has to have created all this. And so begins the Argument of Infinite Regression. So you go back through the fossil record, back to the origins of life, back to the previous generations of exploding stars providing the elements that served as life's building blocks, back to the big bang, perhaps even to theories explaining the big bang and before (colliding "branes" for instance), but at each step of the way one encounters the "So where did that come from?" argument, viewed as the philosophical trump card proving that there must have been a creator for these things to exist.

But why must there be an explanation for how everything began? Must there be a cause for that effect (an underlying premise)? Granted, it is difficult for our tiny brains to conceive of effects without causes (at least it is for my tiny brain), a universe that exists without a beginning. But do all effects need causes, and has this always been so?

If one does not accept the premise that effects need causes, there is, of course, no need to invoke a god on that basis, as the universe at some point can just be. That doesn't preclude the existence of a god; it just means there would be no need for a creator. Interestingly, while in catechism (yes, I am a recovering Catholic), we were "taught" that God always was and always will be. “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 257). That simplistic catechism answer may do a real disservice to the religion, at least for little kids, in implicitly negating the need for a creator. Ockham would not be pleased.

If the need for cause is present, then the obvious and common question becomes, who created the creator? A greater creator? Who created the greater creator? I've heard the answer that God created God. Maybe, I suppose, but as before, if God can blink into existence, the ultimate machina ex deus, why can't the universe, again obviating the need for a god. And don't try the God had the power and intelligence to do so gambit, or that he exists outside of time and space or whatever, as you'll run into the same infinite regression circularity culminating in a really big David Blaine trick. No really, who made God? Lucy's got some splainin' to do.

Next: God and the hard eight