fin-tastic

Some scientists say "yes," some say "no," other say "not yet." It's vexing. I am terribly vexed.

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.) This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement. I'll give it a shot. The odds that a single Big Bang would produce a single fine-tuned universe are incredibly small. For me and many others, this raises the question: What is the most reasonable explanation for a fine-tuned universe? 1. Chance. 2. An intelligent creator. 3. A multiverse. Your answer seems to be, "The fine-tuned universe doesn't need an explanation. It just is." I respect that. Such an answer would do away my original quesion, which was about contemplating the ramifcations of a multiverse (Bigfoot butlers). I mistakenly assumed that most atheists felt the need to explain the fine-tuned universe and went with the multiverse explanation. It appears that is not the case. They either go with Chance or feel no need to answer the question.

fingolfin: So multiple-universe theory, string theory, and much of what passes for physics today is not real science? Why? Because it's not repeatable and testable? If that's what you're saying, I don't disagree. Lee Smolin said the same thing in The Trouble With Physics. It's very controversial whether multiple-universe theory counts as science, philosophy, or something else. Some of these arguments go over my head, but I find it very strange that scientists can't agree about what qualifies as science. It's like, WTF? STer: Wikipedia has a good summary of the fine-tuned universe proposition and the objections to it. Personally, I find the proposition more convincing than the objections. Stephen Hawking: "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."

You might be confusing the fine-tuned universe with the Rare Earth hypothesis. The Rare Earth hypothesis addresses the good fortune of planet Earth—distance from a star, a large moon, stable orbit, and so forth. If only one of these factors were slightly different, complex life could never develop. That good fortune could be explained by the observable fact that billions of planets exist. The fine-tuned universe addresses the good fortune of the universe as a whole (the cosmological constant, strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, and so forth). If only one of these values were slightly different, complex life could never develop anywhere in the universe. That good fortune could be “explained” by the hypothetical existence of an infinite number of universes that can't be measured or observed. It's a new theory because only recently have physicists learned how ridiculously fine-tuned for human life the universe seems to be. The latest science seems to offer two equally extraordinary choices—an intelligent creator for this universe, or Bigfoot butlers in other universes.

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.) I am not really making an argument. I am asking a question to start a discussion: IF an atheist feels the need to explain the fine-tuned universe AND accepts multiple-universe theory as the explanation, does he have to believe in Bigfoot butlers? If so, what does he think about that? I ask because I’ve noticed that many atheists and agnostics show a skeptical if not derisive attitude toward subjects like Bigfoot encounters and UFO abductions. That attitude makes no sense if they believe multiple-universe theory is true. If Bigfoot butlers and alien sex offenders exist in an infinite number of universes almost exactly like ours, how can we be certain they don’t exist here? Atheists should maintain a receptive or agnostic mindset toward all kinds of extraordinary claims. I’m not accusing anyone here of ridiculing Bigfoot and UFO researchers, but it’s a trend I’ve noticed among people who identify as atheists, skeptics, or whatever. If the universe is governed by random, impersonal forces, it’s quite possible that a Bigfoot butler could be serving me a beer sometime in the near future. It’s weird and interesting to think about. Of course, if STer or anyone else wants to offer an alternative to the multiple-universe theory, I’d love to hear it.

This is a serious question. It makes no sense for atheists to ridicule Bigfoot as well as religion. If God does not exist, Bigfoots certainly do. Follow my reasoning: Some atheists explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe by positing an infinite number of universes (or a single universe that expands and collapses an infinite number of times). One consequence of multiple-universe theory is that every conceivable universe exists—including an infinite number where Bigfoot-like animals live discreetly among human-like animals on Earth-like planets. Considering the sightings and tracks and video evidence, it’s very possible we’re living in one of the awesome universes with Bigfoots rather than one of the boring universes without Bigfoots. Hopefully, we’re also living in a universe where I capture one and train it to be my personal butler. I would prefer an eternity in heaven, but I must admit that a Bigfoot butler would be a nice consolation prize if God does not exist.

I’m still working on a comphrensive list of what I consider to be the most compelling cases of alleged supernatural phenomena. Still following the debate though. Some thoughts: Pascal’s Wager: STer: Nice takedown of Pascal. If someone genuinely believes there are no gods, verbally professing belief in gods as a way to cover your bets is probably a bad idea. But if someone has crossed the 50 percent threshold of certainty that the supernatural is real, that argument no longer applies. So, I’ll modify: I’ve always found Pascal’s Wager to be a convincing argument for acting on your belief in the supernatural if you’re more than 50 percent sure that the supernatural is real. If gods exist, and they desire some kind relationship with mere mortals, it seems obvious that they demand a leap of faith on our part. If they wanted to give us “proof,” they would have done it by now. Perhaps they perform miracles to close the gap we have to cross, but they still expect us to leap. Anti-atheism 101: It must be annoying for atheists to hear stuff like the following: “Deep down, you know you’re wrong.” “You’re just proud.” “You probably had a hard childhood or adolescence.” “You won’t be saying that on your deathbed.” “If you look into your daughter’s eyes and still believe that love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, then you don’t really love your daughter.” I try to avoid speculating about what a person “really” thinks and the psychological and social motivations for their professed beliefs. For that reason, I regret speculating about what Stef and other atheists will believe on their deathbeds. But you have to admit: Atheists pull that kind of crap all the time. They attribute religious belief to “brainwashing” or “blind faith,” as if nobody has ever been convinced by rational argument or direct experience that the supernatural is real. Stef has argued that people believe in gods only because they . [*-)] Reason alone? IMO, when people form their worldview, they should consider things like tradition, intuition, gut feeling, the heart, personal experience, and eyewitness testimony in addition to science and philosophy. I think most skeptics/agnostics/materialists already do that; when they discuss why they don’t believe in gods, they talk a lot about unanswered prayers, negative experiences with their religious upbringing, the hypocrisy and crimes of religious leaders, and so forth. If I recall correctly, it was not “science” that made Charles Darwin an atheist; it was his heartbreak following the death of his daughter. If you do that, though, you have to consider the experiences that run in the opposite direction, including alleged supernatural phenomena. Also: If reason alone is the best way to discover truth, why have modern philosophers failed to reach anything approaching a consensus on answers to the Life Questions: What should we believe, and why? How should we live, and why? Not only have they failed to provide convincing answers to these questions, they can’t agree on a rational, consensual means to resolve their differences. Skeptics point to the proliferation of competing religious claims to discredit faith and religion, but one could easily make the same observation about reason and philosophy. In the words of analytical philosopher C. A. J. Coady: “I, for one, would not sooner think of consulting your average moral philosopher over a genuine moral problem than of consulting a philosopher of perception about an eye complaint.” Bias: I admit to having a bias regarding supernatural phenomena; I want it to be true. But there are ways to control for that. You could focus on people who were agnostics before and after their experience, or those who had negative experiences. Nobody wants their , for example. I think atheists/agnostics have their own biases that make an objective examination of alleged supernatural phenomena all but impossible. Objectivity requires that you set aside your materialist assumptions, open your mind to the possibility that the supernatural is real, and examine specific cases on their own merits. If you do that, I think you’ll end up agreeing with my original premise: It’s an equally extraordinary claim to insist that NO supernatural event has EVER happened as it is to claim that ONE has happened SOMEWHERE, at SOMETIME. This would not necessitate belief, of course—since there are many other factor factors to consider—but it’s enough to make you doubt a materialist worldview…which brings me to my last point. Uncertainty People here seem very confident that supernatural events never happen. How can you be certain? Do you ever doubt? If you want to humor me, please fill in the blank: “I am ___ % sure that materialism is true.” For the record, my degree of certainty that the supernatural is real fluctuates anywhere from 40 – 90 percent.

50 or 60 percent? I requested a CHALLENGE! I'll get you 50 or 60 in my sleep...to be continued...

Hey dudes, I gotta get some sleep, but I hope to continue this later. I really, really, hate to throw out links to videos and articles (because it basically means I've failed to convice you, and I'm hoping other people can convince you for me), but IF you're interested, check out . It's an interview with Jennifer Fulwiler, a former hardcore atheist who eventually converted to Catholicism. Yes, I just let the cat out of the bag. I'm Catholic--mainly because the Catholic Church has the best miracles, the coolest costumes, and the most repressive rules on sexuality you could ever imagine--they got it all, baby! She describes how she was "hard-wired" for atheism, which probably explains many people who frequent this messageboard. She's intelligent and insightful, and I would love to hear what you think about it. If you feel like it, check it out.

darkskyabove: It is simply inaccurate to claim that "thinking people" will always arrive at atheism. 95 percent of all people who have ever lived on Earth have believed in some kind of higher power--a group that includes such brilliant minds as Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Berkely, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Kierkegarrd, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Tolkien, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, T.S. Eliot, Dickens, Milton, and Bach. Is it really so strange to think that they might be onto something--that reality is more than what we can see, hear, and touch--that what cannot be seen, is not unreal?

“As far as I can tell, we have a confidence level on the supernatural of almost nothing. It's very very low.” Really? Unfortunately, I don’t have a comprehensive file of what I consider to be the best evidence of alleged supernatural events. Since you’re willing to throw out percentages (70% for divorce), challenge me: What’s the percentage of certainty you need for believing in the supernatural? Please don’t ask for 100; I can’t find you midichlorians. And not to get all cheesy here, but have you searched with your heart as well as your mind? When I’ve thought about Pascal’s Wager, I always assumed there was a genuine conversion of heart as well as the “gamble” aspect.

Great stuff, STer. Yes, my original post was aimed at hardcore materialists—not agnostics. I know nothing about epistemology. I will read up on it. I think one word can define what separates our idea of “proof” when it comes to the supernatural: midichlorians. Do you know about the controversy surrounding midichlorians in the Star Wars saga? Long story short: The original Star Wars trilogy defined the Force as a mystical energy. Obi-Wan Kenobi said, “Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” The Star Wars prequels redefined the Force as a concentration of biological cells called “midichlorians.” Qui-Gon Jinn actually administers a blood test to a potential Jedi, Anakin Skywalker, to measure the amount of Force in him: “His midichlorians readings are off the charts!” Naturally and justifiably, Star Wars geeks like me went apeshit. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, had stripped all the mystery and wonder out of the Star Wars universe. He had reduced the supernatural Force to a materialist Force. By searching for a “mechanism” that distinguishes natural phenomena from supernatural phenomena, you are looking for the real-world equivalent of midichlorians—evidence of the supernatural that can be observed and measured under a microscope. You will never succeed. You have set the bar impossibly high. Supernatural “mechanisms,” by definition, can’t be measured by scientific instruments. All the evidence for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal and circumstantial. We know that dozens of people have been inextricably cured of illnesses at the sites of alleged Marian apparitions, but we can’t know in advance who is going to be cured and put them under 24-7 medical surveillance. If the Virgin Mary, gods, or other supernatural forces wanted to prove themselves to us, they’d probably just go ahead and do it. Faith will always be a leap. Let me ask you this: Why do you need proof, or “reasonably conclusive evidence,” before believing in the supernatural? You don’t need “proof” before making any other major life decision. Whether it’s proposing to your girlfriend, filing for divorce, or starting a new business, it’s darn-near impossible to know for certain that it’s the “correct” decision that will work out in the long run. Instead of asking for “proof,” you look at all the available information, weigh the risks and rewards, and make the best possible decision. Deciding what to believe about gods and the afterlife is the most important decision of your life--because it has potentially eternal ramifications. To me, Pascal’s Wager has always been a convincing argument for faith. If you’re on a plane that’s crashing into the Pacific Ocean, you having nothing to lose and everything to gain by whispering, “God, forgive me for my sins.” Nobody can know for certain whether or not there are atheists in foxholes, but I suspect there are not. Dozens and dozens of prominent atheist and agnostic intellectuals have converted on their deathbeds. Christopher Hitchens died reading G.K. Chesterton, one of the greatest Catholic apologists of the 20th century. Carl Sagan was verbally denying God in his last days, but who knows what he was thinking at the exact moment of his death? I often wonder what Stef will do in his last moments. Don’t get me wrong—I love the guy, and I totally respect his philosophical reasons for rejecting belief in gods. If I were to debate him on this topic, he would embarrass me silly. He is smarter than me. But when he’s breathing his last breath—and no YouTube video is recording whether or not he caves at the last second—who cares about intellectual consistency? He’s facing the abyss of total, eternal annihilation. Stef will turn! You will turn! Everyone will turn! Deep down, everyone knows intuitively that they are more than a collection of cells.

STer: "Is this a worldview you think should change? If so, to what?" Since I disowned my last concluding statement as disrespectful and inaccurate, I wrote a new one that answers this question. Also, I substituted the word "materialist" for atheist, since some atheists apparently accept the possibility of the supernatural being real. Many people obsess over supernatural phenomena to find validation for their belief in God or the afterlife. That can be unhealthy and counter-productive; just look at all the junk in the paranormal section of any book store. However, I think many materialists make the opposite mistake: They ignore or ridicule the subject to remain secure in their materialism. A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof. I believe that an objective reading of the most compelling evidence will make even the most committed materialist less certain that supernatural phenomena never occur. Furthermore, although we should continue investigating, I believe that sufficient evidence already exists for concluding that some supernatural events are probably authentic. If you need "proof" before believing in the supernatural, nothing I have said would necessitate changing your worldview. If you're willing to act on the probability of the supernatural being real, it's time to begin investigating the truth claims of different religions and spiritualties.

Also, I wasn't trying to make you change your worldview. I was trying to make you doubt your worldview. It seems I failed miserably.

I apologize. No snark intended. I got defensive after being accused of "obsessing" over alleged miracles. That puts me in some unpleasant company. In fact, I take back my entire final post. I have no idea how much you guys have studied alleged supernatural phenomena. For all I know, maybe you've spent years researching and debunking specific cases. I was describing my overall impression of skeptics on this subject, which is irrelevant.