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.

I admit that many religious believers “obsess” over alleged miracles to find validation for their beliefs. However, I think many atheists do the opposite: They intentionally avoid the subject to remain secure in their atheism. Sure, skeptics will discuss supernatural phenomena on a broad level, but they rarely delve into specific cases. They’ll offer hypothetical natural explanations for alleged supernatural events, but they won’t investigate whether or not these explanations make sense for individual cases. When I try to have that discussion, they will usually resort to ridicule (“You must believe in unicorns and leprechauns, too!”), change the subject (“Priests molest kids!”), or fall back on, “That doesn’t prove anything.” I imagine the skeptic closing his eyes, plugging his ears, stomping his feet, and saying, “Show me proof! Show me proof! Show me proof!” A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof on a silver platter. Skeptics seem reluctant to do that. Maybe it takes too much time to sift through all the nonsense in the field of paranormal research, or maybe it springs from intellectual insecurity. Maybe they’re afraid that if they read enough compelling eyewitness testimony of supernatural events, it will become more and more difficult for them to comfortably declare that all these people are lying or mistaken. We live in a crazy world where a lot of weird stuff happens. With all our science and technology, many of these events continue to defy scientific explanation. To say that science will *eventually* explain all them strikes me as a leap of faith. I strongly believe that no rational, informed person can proclaim with absolute certainty that the supernatural does or does not exist. There is no escape from the dilemma of uncertainty. This will be my last post on this discussion, but I am happy to read any final thoughts. It’s been a great discussion and look forward to posting again. Peace. And fuck government.

"Since I don't believe in the supernatural, there must be a natural explanation that scientists haven't identified yet." If that's your attitude, then it's pointless to discuss specific cases.

There have been many cases of alleged miraculous cures that have withstood intense medical scrutiny. Of course, this doesn't prove they were miraculous..only that scientists can find no natural explanation. You can't keep moving the goalposts like that! "It's not enough that some sick people are cured; EVERYBODY has to be cured!" "It's not enough that someone is cured of blindnes or mulitiple sclerosis. I want to see an arm magically reappear on an amutee!" Again: Come on, man! You guys gotta meet me half-way here! I'll admit that maybe all claims of miraculous cures have some kind of natural explanation. But you guys gotta admit that a lot these cases make you scratch your head and go "Hmmmmm..That is extraordinary." That's all I ask.

Supernatural events can't be proven by scientific means. We have many documented cases of terminal illnesses being cured at religious pilgramage sites like Lourdes, France, but it's impossible to prove that it was supernatural rather than some trick of the brain that we don't fully understand. Playing Devil's Advocate here: So even if a cult leader was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and allowed you to put your fingers into his wounds, you would just attribute it to hallucination or some unknown natural cause? I have three words for that: Come on, man! Sure, hypothetically, anything is possible considering how much we don’t know about the universe. Scientists have brought dead dogs back to life in the lab. But again: Come on, man! That does not sound like a rational, open-minded person following the evidence to the most likely explanation. That sounds like someone explaining away compelling evidence that challenges his worldview. It’s like a biblical fundamentalist seeing dinosaur bones and saying, “God just put those there to test our faith in the Bible.” Sure, hypothetically, God could do that if he exists. But come on, man! Atheists say, “I won’t believe anything not proven by science.” Biblical fundamentalists say, “I won’t belive anything that contradicts the Bible.” I say, “Come on, man! Worldview be damned. Sometimes seeing is believing.”

I think some of these comparisons are inappropriate. Your best friend claiming he can fly. Claiming to have witnessed a supernatural event is totally different than claiming to have supernatural abilities. If your best friend told you he saw someone else fly, would you believe him? That's the question. People believing the world was flat. Claiming to have seen a ghost is totally different than saying you believe in ghosts. Most peasants in the Dark Ages believed the world was flat, but they never claimed to sail to the ends of the Earth and see it for themselves. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are probably studies showing that white people can easily confuse one black person with another black person. That’s totally different than an exorcist claiming to witness an American teenager speaking flawless Aramaic, floating off the bed, or revealing intimate personal knowledge about complete strangers. I don’t care how wacky the brain can be, there is no charitable explanation for the priest being wrong. He’s either lying, he’s nuts, or he’s very gullible. Going back to my original point…Most people usually give eyewitness testimony the benefit of the doubt. “How was the party?” “Who won the game?” “What did the doctor say?” Society would stop functioning if everyone started demanding proof before believing anyone about anything. Considering the importance that eyewitness testimony plays in our everday lives, it seems extraordinary to say that it’s always wrong when it involves one particular kind of claim.

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on a person’s worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary to you than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.

Thanks, bbeljefe. Finally, an atheist who admits that eyewitness testimony of supernatural events is extraordinary--even if has a scientific explanation we're not yet aware of. Speaking of atheists/materialists, some atheists say they believe in the supernatural but not a deity. Does that apply to anyone here?

I think all of you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that the supernatural is real. I'm only pointing out that both believers and skeptics make unproven, extraordinary claims when it comes to alleged supernatural events. Therefore, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. "Every single person who has ever claimed to have a supernatural experience is either lying or mistaken." Are you saying that this claim is not at all extraordinary? What if a witness was a trusted friend or family member? What if Stefan Molyneux had a profound mystical experience and said, "I am no longer an atheist"? What if you had an experience yourself? Is there any conceivable eyewitness account that could make you believe, like I do, that some supernatural experiences are probably authentic?

lyghtningrod: Scientific evidence is only one kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony is another kind. We depend heavily on eyewitness testimony in both our court system and our everyday lives. I would never argue that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for "proving" the truth of supernatural claims; only that it shouldn't be dismissed. How could neither claim be true? Millions of people claim to have experienced supernatural events. They are either authentic supernatural experiences, or everyone is lying or mistaken about their supernatural character.

71% of Americans claim to have had a paranormal experience.