Godless (20 page)
Second, life as we know it is not the only type of life that might arise in a universe. The likelihood against any one particular life might indeed be something we would not bet on, but the likelihood of
some
kind of life might be very high or even probable. Until we know how many kinds of life are possible, there is no way to produce two numbers to divide.
some
kind of life might be very high or even probable. Until we know how many kinds of life are possible, there is no way to produce two numbers to divide.
Third, how many chances are there? If there is only one shot at a universe, a single opportunity to “tune” the constants, then the odds indeed seem high against life forming. But if there are many opportunities, such as many Big Bangs occurring, then that raises the numerator in the fraction, upping the odds for life. How do we know how many universes, or Big Bangs, there might be? That number is greater than zero, since it happened at least once. If it can be
only
one attempt, how do we know that? What law or principle would limit the number of universes to exactly one? After all, theists believe we should not impoverish our imaginations regarding the possibility of an eternal, omnipotent being, so why should we place limits on the cosmos?
only
one attempt, how do we know that? What law or principle would limit the number of universes to exactly one? After all, theists believe we should not impoverish our imaginations regarding the possibility of an eternal, omnipotent being, so why should we place limits on the cosmos?
Most cosmologists now use the word “cosmos” to talk about “all there is” and the word “universe” to talk about a particular observable universe such as our own within the larger cosmos. Many or most cosmologists are now convinced that some kind of multiverse is likely. A multiverse is a collection of universes, and there are many scenarios. Physicist Paul Davies said that “some kind of limited multiverse” is probable, although I wonder what that limit would be. (He probably means it is not infinite.) He says we have hit the “cosmic jackpot,” which is just another way of saying that we happen to be in one of those universes that allow life, obviously. Some multiverses are spatial, assuming the immense inflation of the early universe, meaning that the cosmos is so unimaginably huge that there is room for trillions and trillions of “bubble universes,” ours being just one bubble in the huge champagne glass. Others propose a string of Big Bangs, one after the other in an oscillating universe in which ours is the current n
th
iteration. (This seems to be less likely, though, now that we see the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.) Others propose multi-dimensions, or billions of universes concurrently existing side-by-side. Still others suggest that there are splitting universes in alternate realities, with each instant of time following every possible path. This would put us in one of those paths while our “alternate selves” would be in other paths, and everyone thinking they are the only one. There are other multiverse scenarios, too.
th
iteration. (This seems to be less likely, though, now that we see the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.) Others propose multi-dimensions, or billions of universes concurrently existing side-by-side. Still others suggest that there are splitting universes in alternate realities, with each instant of time following every possible path. This would put us in one of those paths while our “alternate selves” would be in other paths, and everyone thinking they are the only one. There are other multiverse scenarios, too.
We have not proved such a multiverse of universes yet. All we know is that they are plausible, and that there is at least one. The important point here is that if there is more than one, then the numerator of the fraction that determines probability rises, making the “fine tuning” of the constants (if they vary) to allow for life by random chance more likely. In fact, some think the numerator is much larger than the denominator, meaning it would be a true miracle if life never appeared anywhere in the cosmos. Some even think that the number is so inconceivably huge that universes must repeat themselves, and you (or someone identical to you) have already read this book.
My brother, Darrell, asked me to explain this principle—the law of large numbers and probability—which our brains did not evolve to intuitively grasp. So, I asked him to imagine the following:
I have a box with 12 unique coins in it: a penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar and dollar in both U.S. and Canadian currency. I give the box one shake to produce an arrangement of heads and tails. Then, I give an identical box to him and ask him to give it a shake. Would he bet that he got the same result? Darrell said, “No, of course not, it would be very unlikely.” Next, I asked him to imagine 1,000 people, each with an identical box of 12 coins, each giving their box one shake. What would he think then? In that case, Darrell said, he would bet there was a match. What if instead of any of those boxes matching my box, they just had to match another box in the bunch? Or, what if each box was shaken 1,000 times? And so on. In those cases, Darrell agreed we would have a sure winner.
But those numbers are small in comparison to the universe. In most multiverse scenarios, there are trillions upon trillions to a high power of universes, each being shaken. In some scenarios the number is infinite—if God can be thought infinite, why can’t the cosmos? Most of those universes will be stillborn, producing nothing that would resemble life. But many of them will not. Many of them will happen to match the universe we are in.
Theists might point out that we have no direct evidence of such a multiverse, but then neither do we have evidence of a god.
“The universe is governed by natural laws. Laws require a lawgiver. There must be a divine governor.”
The universe is not “governed” by anything, nor is it “obeying” anything. There is a difference between prescriptive laws and descriptive laws. Natural laws are merely human definitions of the way things normally behave, not prescriptive mandates, as with societal laws. When I let go of a pencil, it does not think, “Oh, the force is released and I am free to move. I better move toward the center of the earth or I am in deep trouble with my designer.” A photon does not restrain itself by saying, “Go easy on the gas pedal. I don’t want to get a ticket for traveling faster than the speed of light.” The laws of nature, unlike the laws of traffic, describe what does happen, not what we would like to happen. Using these laws allows us to make predictions so that when matter “behaves” according to natural regularity, it
seems
as if it is conforming to what our minds are expecting to happen. (“You are a very obedient raindrop. You are accelerating just like you are supposed to according to the laws of gravity, and you are also obeying the laws of friction by letting air resistance slow you to a constant velocity. Good raindrop!”) Besides, if this argument were valid, the mind of a god, not being a random jumble of synapses, would equally be “governed” by some laws of order itself, thus requiring a higher lawgiver.
seems
as if it is conforming to what our minds are expecting to happen. (“You are a very obedient raindrop. You are accelerating just like you are supposed to according to the laws of gravity, and you are also obeying the laws of friction by letting air resistance slow you to a constant velocity. Good raindrop!”) Besides, if this argument were valid, the mind of a god, not being a random jumble of synapses, would equally be “governed” by some laws of order itself, thus requiring a higher lawgiver.
“It is improbable that the complexity of life occurred by accident. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that all systems tend to disorder, makes evolution impossible. There must have been a creator.”
No biologist claims that an organism suddenly appeared in one random arrangement of atoms or that any particular species was inevitable. Life as we know it—humans, for example—did not
have
to evolve. Any of megatrillions of viable possibilities might have adapted, making it quite likely that something would survive the ruthlessness of natural selection. It was not aiming at us.
have
to evolve. Any of megatrillions of viable possibilities might have adapted, making it quite likely that something would survive the ruthlessness of natural selection. It was not aiming at us.
Using probability after the fact is like a lottery winner saying, “It was highly unlikely that out of the millions of entrants I could have picked the right ticket, therefore someone must have caused me to win.” It is indeed highly unlikely that any particular person can be predicted to be the winner—which is exactly what each contestant is trying to do when he or she obtains a ticket. But it is not at all unlikely that one person will win. In fact, we would consider it a true miracle if no one ever won a lottery. In some lotteries a winner is guaranteed, so there is no mystery at all. In the gargantuan lottery of natural selection, we should not be surprised that something like us became “winners.”
People who are impressed with the design argument are like the guy who is amazed at all the rivers that were made to flow along state borders. How did they do that? It must have been a massive, expensive feat of engineering to divert all that water. Additionally, many rivers are made to flow conveniently to the major cities, right to us! There is no other explanation, he thinks, other than intelligent design. But this is backward, hindsight design—our minds imposing a pattern after the fact. It was not inevitable that a river would be used as a state border (most are not), nor was it inevitable that our life, or any life, would have arisen. We can’t press the analogy too far, however, because even though evolution and rivers both have branches, the “flow” is in opposite directions. But we can understand how people might look at the natural, winding, unbroken line of descent from ancestral life forms to their parents, compare that with a river taking the path of least resistance and wonder, “How did this happen? How did I get here? It must have been designed!”
Creationists usually misquote the second law of thermodynamics, which states that disorder increases in a closed system. The earth is currently part of an
open
system, getting energy from the sun. Driven by the immense input of solar energy, complexity routinely increases, as with the growth of an embryo or crystal or storm system. Ultimately, of course, the sun will cool and life on earth will disappear.
open
system, getting energy from the sun. Driven by the immense input of solar energy, complexity routinely increases, as with the growth of an embryo or crystal or storm system. Ultimately, of course, the sun will cool and life on earth will disappear.
“Millions of people personally know God through an inner spiritual experience.”
Many theists claim their particular god can be known directly, through meditation, prayer or mystical experiences. I used to feel it so I understand, but such experiences point to nothing outside the mind. Mysticism can be explained psychologically. It is not necessary to complicate our understanding of the universe with fanciful assumptions. We do know that many humans habitually invent myths, hear voices, hallucinate and talk with imaginary friends. We do not know there is a god.
There are millions of people who claim to know a deity, but this is a statement about humanity, not about the reality of their gods. Truth is not attained by vote. Religions differ radically and appeals to inner experience only worsen the conflict. Believers in one particular god have no trouble dismissing the “personal experiences” of the believers of other gods, so they must agree with me that the human race possesses an immense propensity to subjectively “know” things that are wrong. What makes
them
exempt from such error crafting?
them
exempt from such error crafting?
Besides, if I were to say that I have an inner personal knowledge that there is no god, would they take my word for it? (See Chapter 19 for more on personal experiences.)
“Why would so many people believe in a god if he doesn’t exist? What is the explanation for such belief? If our brains have a receiver, doesn’t that suggest a transmitter?”
Religions arose for various natural reasons, including dealing with death, illness, invaders, dreams and fear of the unknown. Also, there is the usefulness of a tribal story to unite the people, the need to assume agency in nature (a useful “assume the worst” error that confers an automatic survival advantage over those without such a strategy), the need for our prematurely born (compared to other species) infants to submit to the authority of the father figure until they are mature enough to think for themselves, and so on. Religions can be powerful mechanisms for giving a feeling of meaning to life and personal/ cultural identity. But in addition to religion, we also possess nearly universal urges toward sexism and racism, and although these attitudes may have been useful to some of our tribal ancestors in a brutal evolutionary way, no one would think we are obligated to maintain the truth of such beliefs in the light of modern science and morality. The receiver-transmitter argument could be used to prove the existence of dead ancestors or anything else we dream about. (See Chapter 19 for more on this topic.)
“Atheists lack spiritual insight and can hardly criticize the theistic experience of God. That would be like a blind person denying the existence of color.”
Is faith a “sixth sense” that perceives another world? If so, then why don’t we all have it? The blindness analogy is inapt because blind people do not deny the sense of sight built into an organism, or that color exists. Blind people know that they have eyes and neural pathways to vision centers in the brain, and they also know that their lack of sight is due to a malfunction of part of this machinery. The blind and the sighted live in the same world, and both can grasp the natural principles involved. The spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we call “light” can be experienced independently of vision. A machine could be built that emits a different sound frequency corresponding to a light frequency, and the blind person could hear it, examine it and test it. The existence of color need not be taken by faith. If we atheists are lacking a “spiritual sense,” then where is it, how does it function and what exactly is not working right?
The theist gives no independent means of testing “spiritual” insight, so it must be doubted. The skeptic does not deny the reality of subjective religious experience, but knows it can be psychologically explained without reference to a supposed transcendent realm. Dreams, for example, can seem real, but few people imagine they are in touch with another world when they are asleep.
One of the indications that mentally ill people are getting healthy is when their obsession with religion decreases. When they stop saying they are talking to Moses, or that they
are
Moses, we take it as a good sign. Those of us who do not talk with a god are not the ones with the problem. The charge that atheists are handicapped and that theists are the truly “complete” human beings is unfounded and arrogant.
are
Moses, we take it as a good sign. Those of us who do not talk with a god are not the ones with the problem. The charge that atheists are handicapped and that theists are the truly “complete” human beings is unfounded and arrogant.
Other books
The Empire of Gut and Bone by M. T. Anderson
Giver of Light by Nicola Claire
Because of You by Cathy Maxwell
Alcatraz versus the Evil Librarians by Brandon Sanderson
The Last Camellia: A Novel by Sarah Jio
Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters by Peter Vronsky
Riptide by Scheibe, Lindsey
Cold to the Touch by Fyfield, Frances