Alma said unto him: … All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator (Alma 30.44)
The universe is fined tuned for life. According to the current understanding of the universe, it had a beginning long ago when a singularity exploded into what is today known as The Big Bang. This beginning of the universe had specific values that were finely tuned to create an environment whereby man could exist. Understanding the positions and arguments associated with the fine tuning of the universe can help those that have faith in a divine creator to see that whether one believes the entire universe is the result of blind chance or divine creation, that either position requires one to have faith in something that is not observed.
Because of the nature of the world in which we live, I believe that we will always see evidence for both divine and natural causes of life and all of creation. I call this idea evidentiary equilibrium. In my mind, there will always be evidence both for and against spiritual truth. That is because we live in a fallen world. We must needs have an opposition in all things, (2 Nephi 2:10-11) and to me, that includes evidences. If all of the evidence were stacked on one side of the equation, that would be the equivalent of God compelling you to believe. And I do not believe in that kind of God.
Elder Maxwell was known as stating that we as Latter-day Saints must be able to articulate why we believe what we do. We must not allow our opponents and “uncontested slam-dunks.” One of his favorite quotes associated with this idea went like this:
“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish” (see Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in “Light on C. S. Lewis” compiled by Jocelyn Gibb, Harcourt and Brace, 1965).
Understanding the anthropic principle can help people of faith see and demonstrate the arguments for divine design and help them articulate these ideas to non-believers.
The Anthropic Principle
Definition of anthropic principle
Either of two principles in cosmology, according to Webster’s Dictionary:
a: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist— called also weak anthropic principle
b: the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life— called also strong anthropic principle
The following is mostly material from Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great About Christianity? in the 12th chapter, p. 84-89:
In recent years, physics has given this question a resounding answer that overthrows the principle of mediocrity and affirms man’s special place in the cosmos. It turns out that the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are the indispensable conditions for the existence of life on earth. In other words, the universe has to be just as big as it is and just as old as it is in order to contain living inhabitants like you and me. The entire universe with all its laws appears to be a conspiracy to produce, well, us. Physicists call this incredible finding the anthropic principle, which states that the universe we perceive must be of precisely such a nature as will make possible living beings who can perceive it.
Physicists stumbled upon the anthropic principle by asking a simple question: why does the universe operate according to the laws it does? Think about it: the universe seems to follow a very specific set of rules, and yet it didn’t have to have these rules. So why these rules and not other rules? To take a simple example, the various forces in nature, such as the force of gravity, operate in ways that can be measured. Why is the gravitational force just this strong, and not stronger or weaker? Or consider that the universe is approximately fifteen billion years old and at least fifteen billion light years in size. What would have happened if the universe was much older and bigger or much younger and smaller?
The physicists who asked these questions arrived at a remarkable conclusion. In order for life to exist—in order for the universe to have observers to take notice of it—the gravitational force has to be precisely what it is. The Big Bang had to occur exactly when it did. If the basic values and relationships of nature were even slightly different, our universe would not exist and neither would we. Fantastic though it seems, the universe is fine-tuned for human habitation. We live in a kind of Goldilocks universe in which the conditions are “just right” for life to emerge and thrive. As physicist Paul Davies puts it,”We have been written into the laws of nature in a deep and, I believe, meaningful way.”
The anthropic principle is now widely accepted among physicists, and there are several good books that explain it in comprehensive detail. John Barrows and Frank Tipler’s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle is the most thorough and detailed exposition. In his introduction to that book, physicist John Wheeler writes that “a life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.” If you want a shorter and more readable version of the same argument, try astronomer Martin Rees’s Just Six Numbers. Rees argues that six numbers underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and that each is an exact value required for life to exist. If any one of the six (say the gravitational constant, or the strong nuclear force) were different “even to the tiniest degree:’ Rees says, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.” Although he disavows the religious implications, Rees does not hesitate to call the values attached to the six numbers “providential.”
Here are Martin Rees’ Six Numbers – great summary video here. As of writing this post, an audiobook of Rees’ book is available here.
Overview of Rees’ Six Numbers
1. N =10 36th power smaller than the electrical force… (two in atoms- forces: electrical force and the force of gravity) Helium has two electrons bound by the electromagnetic force to a nucleus containing 2 protons with either 1 or 2 neutrons, held together by the strong force. The 2 protons repel each other, the gravitational force pulls these together (although the gravitational force is much weaker! How much weaker? 10 to the 36th power weaker as related to the electrical force! But you must have this force!) Bigger- universe too small, no life, Smaller, more complex universe, no life
2. E (epsilon) = the strong force, the measure of nuclear efficiency – 2 nucleii fuse, we get an explosion of matter into heat and energy. How much? .007 = too much? All hydrogen used up after big bang. Too little, no elements!
3. Ω = density parameter of the universe at the time of the big bang. Think of the well/rock throwing analogy. Just enough to expand, not too much so that the universe collapses upon itself… this is about the density of the universe at the big bang… At one second after the big bang, it could only have been at 1, and 1 part in 1 (and 12 zeroes) and the universe doesn’t happen.
4. λ Cosmological Constant (theorized by Albert Einstein when thinking about the universe – is it static? He believed a steady/static universe was impossible, he theorized a cosmic force of repulsion that counteracts the forces of gravity so the universe does not collapse upon itself)… This is a small force, affecting huge things… like a billion light years in diameter… a 120 zeroes after the decimal point! .00000 (keep going to 120th position!)
5. Q = all about texture: 1/100,000 or 10 to the -5th. The measure of the strength of these bonds among galactic matter to form clusters (stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies) is called Q = the amount of energy, as a proportion to their rest mass energy, needed to break up and disperse the clusters. For our universe, Q is estimated to be 10-5th power. If Q were much larger or smaller than 10-5, then life as we know it would not exist.
[Better explanation of Q: After the Big Bang as the universe expanded, matter was randomly distributed in space, which means that there were areas which were more densely populated and areas which were less densely populated. In the more densely populated areas, there would be stronger gravitational attractions between various matters. So over time, these clusterings of matter would become bigger and bigger and would eventually form stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, all are held together by gravity.
How tightly these structures are bound together is tied to the physical and biological evolution of the universe. If they were very tightly bound, i.e., it would take a lot of energy to break them up and disperse them (or Q as defined two paragraphs later is very large), then clustering would occur earlier and more likely to stay together. This would mean that it would take less time for the universe to evolve to the current structure. Stars and galaxies would be more closely packed, and they would more likely collide with each other, thus decreasing the chance to retain stable planetary systems and therefore less likely for life as we know it to exist.
On the other hand, if they were very loosely bound, i.e., it would not take a lot of energy to break them up and disperse them (or Q as defined in the next paragraph is very small), then clustering would be less likely to occur or to stay together. This would mean that it would take more time for the universe to evolve to the current structure. There would not be sufficient time for stars, galaxies, and planets to form, and then for life as we know it to develop and evolve.
The measure of the strength of these bonds among galactic matter to form clusters (stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies) is called Q = the amount of energy, as a proportion to their rest mass energy, needed to break up and disperse the clusters. For our universe, Q is estimated to be 10-5. As explained in the two previous paragraphs, if Q were much larger or smaller than 10-5, then life as we know it would not exist.
6. D=the number of dimensions = 3, plus we have time
Back to Dinesh D’Souza:
Astronomer Lee Smolin imagines God as a kind of master technician who is sitting at a control panel with a set of dials in front of Him. One dial sets the mass of the proton, another the charge of the electron, a third the gravitational constant, and so on. God spins the dials randomly. What, Smolin asks, is the probability that this random spinning would result in a universe with stars and planets and life? “The probability,” he answers, “is incredibly small.” How small? Smolin’s estimate is one chance in ten to the power of 229. Smolin’s point is reinforced by a single example from physicist Stephen Hawking: “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it even reached its present size.” So the odds against us being here are, well, astronomical. And yet we are here. Who is responsible for this?
We read in Psalm 19:1 that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork:’ Paul writes in verse twenty of his first letter to the Romans that “ever since the creation of the world, His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made:’ In the anthropic principle we seem to have a thrilling confirmation of these ancient passages. Not only does the anthropic principle suggest a creator who is incomparably intelligent and resourceful, but it also suggests a creator who has special concern for us. This is a personal creator, not some abstract “first mover” who uncorked the universe without any evident care for the creatures who would eventually inhabit our planet. Through science we are witnessing powerful evidence that our human destiny seems to be an intrinsic part of a divine plan. No longer do we need to be intimidated by the vast empty spaces of the cosmos. They exist, in a sense, for our sake. Contrary to the principle of mediocrity, we live in a meaningful and purposeful universe. The anthropic principle suggests that human beings are part of the intended handiwork of God.
Leading scientists have acknowledged the far-reaching implications of the anthropic principle. “A commonsense interpretation of the facts.” writes astronomer Fred Hoyle, “suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics.” Physicist Freeman Dyson says, “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” Astronomer Owen Gingerich writes that the anthropic principle “means accepting that the laws of nature are rigged not only in favor of complexity or just in favor of life, but also in favor of mind. To put it dramatically, it implies that mind is written into the laws of nature in a fundamental way.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow observes that the anthropic principle “is the most theistic result ever to come out of science.”
As you might expect, the anthropic principle has provoked a huge debate and a strong reaction. In this debate there are three positions, which for simplicity I call Lucky Us, Multiple Universes, and the Designer Universe. Let’s examine them in sequence. The first response, Lucky Us, attributes the fine-tuning of the universe to incredible coincidence. “The universe,” writes physicist Victor Stenger in Not By Design, “is an accident.”
An accident? Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins are not impressed by how improbable this is. According to Steven Weinberg, “You don’t have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible: in all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.” Richard Dawkins concurs. “It is no accident that our kind of life finds itself on a planet whose temperature, rainfall, and everything else are exactly right. If the planet were suitable for another kind of life, it is that kind of life that would have evolved here.” In science this is called a “selection effect:’ Since we are here, we know that—whatever the odds—the game of cosmic chance must have worked out in our favor.
There is a problem with this reasoning that I’d like to dramatize by giving an example from philosopher John Leslie. Imagine a man sentenced to death, standing before a firing squad of ten shooters. The shooters discharge their rifles. Somehow they all miss. Then they shoot again and one more time they fail to hit their target. Repeatedly they fire and repeatedly they miss. Later the prisoner is approached by the warden, who says, “I can’t believe they all missed. Clearly there is some sort of conspiracy at work.” Yet the prisoner laughs off the suggestion with the comment, “What on earth would make you suggest a conspiracy? It’s no big deal. Obviously the marksmen missed because if they had not missed I would not be here to have this discussion.” Such a prisoner would immediately, and rightly, be transferred to the mental ward.
What the example shows is that you cannot explain an improbability of this magnitude by simply pointing to our presence on the scene to ponder it. There is still a massive improbability that needs to be accounted for. Remember that the anthropic principle does not say that, given the billions of stars in the universe, it’s remarkable that life turned up on our planet. Rather, it says that the entire universe with all the galaxies and stars in it had to be formed in a certain way in order for it to contain life at all. It’s hard to disagree with the conclusion drawn by philosopher Antony Flew. Long a champion of atheism—he is one of the most frequently cited figures in atheist literature—Flew finally concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew says that in keeping with his lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads,” he now believes in God.”
Flew recognizes that the anthropic principle requires a better explanation than Lucky Us. So does astronomer Lee Smolin, who writes that “luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.” The odds of us being here in the universe are so fantastic that some kind of a serious explanation is required. Deep down, one suspects that Weinberg and Dawkins know this.
Consequently, many atheists have fled to the second explanation for the anthropic principle: Multiple Universes. Actually, an infinity of universes. Each universe operates according to its own set of laws. Consequently one universe may have an inverse-square law of gravity and another may have an inverse-cube law of gravity. Indeed, under conditions of true infinity, we would expect that every physical condition, every possible arrangement of matter and energy, is realized. Everything that can happen does happen. In this remarkable situation—the argument goes—we can finally account for our privileged universe. As there are an infinite number of universes, it’s entirely possible that one has developed in a way that permits observers like us.
Richard Dawkins accepts the multiverse here. You can skip to the 6:00 mark where he admits this is the position that he accepts. He says, “I think its probably true. But I don’t know enough physics to know.” My contention is that since we cannot observe multiple universes, that his position of atheism requires faith just as my position that God exists and designed the universe requires faith. Both positions are dealing with things unobserved.
Back to D’Souza:
There are several versions of the Multiple Universes theory. One is that we live in an oscillating universe that goes through an infinite number of cycles, in which big bangs are followed by big crunches. If the constants of nature vary in each cycle, at some point a particular combination will be realized by chance, like a winning number in a casino slot machine. A second version is that the Big Bang spawned multiple universes, each with its own set of laws. These universes are like separately expanding balloons that cannot relate to one another. Each has its own set of laws. A third version, sometimes called the parallel worlds theory, holds that at each act of quantum measurement the world splits into a series of parallel universes. In fact, universes are springing up even as you read this sentence. Don’t ask where; the universes are disconnected from each other and we have access only to our own universe. Another idea, presented by Smolin, is that our universe emerged from a black hole in a previous universe, and indeed the black holes in our universe are even now generating other universes. Smolin has even raised the possibility of the Darwinian principle of natural selection applying to universes, in which some universes adapt and survive and others don’t. (Not surprisingly, Darwinian hounds like Dawkins and Dennett have rushed to praise this theory.) In all these versions an infinite horizon of possibilities is invoked in order to allow for the possibility that our universe could have arisen purely by chance.
What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn’t any. As Weinberg admits, “These are very speculative ideas … without any experimental support.” Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas “a fantasy…. It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other…. There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed.” I appreciate this candor, and I am reminded of that old Ptolemaic remedy for problematic data: “just add epicycles.” Now we are in the realm of “just add universes.”
It seems worth pointing out here what Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich seems to be the first to have noticed: anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven and hell. Just think of them as alternate universes, operating outside space and time according to laws that are inoperative in our universe. Even the atheist should now be able to envision a realm in which there is no evil or suffering and where the inhabitants never grow old. These traditional concepts, which have long been dismissed as preposterous based on the rules of our world, should be quite believable and perhaps even mandatory for one who holds that there are an infinite number of universes in which all quantum possibilities are realized.
There is a principle of logic, widely accepted in science, called the principle of Occam’s razor. It means that when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires the fewest assumptions. In other words, if you’re trying to get from point A to point B, try to avoid the zigzag route. Applying Occam’s razor, Carl Sagan urges that
“when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.” Biologist E. 0. Wilson writes that the difficult thing about this principle for many people is that it “grants less license for New Age dreaming … but it gets the world straight.”
Imagine if I find a coin and begin flipping it and, every single time, it comes up heads. I try this ten thousand times, and it never fails to show me heads. There are two possibilities. The first and obvious one is that the coin is rigged in some way; somebody “fixed” it to come up heads every time. There is also a second possibility. Perhaps there are an infinite number of coins in circulation, and given infinite tossing and infinite time one set of tosses was bound to show this result. Now which of these two explanations should a rational person choose? Occam’s razor says choose the first one.
It is a serious objection to all theories of multiple universes that they violate Occam’s razor. They invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain a single case when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation right at hand. Yes, I am referring to the third possible response to the anthropic principle. It says, quite simply, that our universe is designed for life because someone designed it that way. The Designer Universe approach has this benefit: you don’t need to make up the idea of a hundred billion universes that you know nothing about in order to account for the only universe you can possibly experience. Yet this third response seems to be anathema to some people, and here we see how strongly modern atheism relies on “New Age dreaming.”
Physicist Stephen Hawking falls right into the New Age trap. As we saw in the previous chapter, Hawking recognizes that the evidence of the Big Bang and the anthropic principle point directly to a creator. However, he seems eager to have a different explanation. Recently he has advanced a proposal no less outlandish that that of an infinity of universes. Hawking’s solution begins with the mathematical concept of “imaginary time.” The distinguishing feature of imaginary time is that it requires no past, no present, and no future. Time is viewed merely as a dimension of space. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking uses imaginary time, together with quantum fluctuations in which literally anything can happen, to postulate multiple universes, all of which have no spatial or temporal boundaries. He envisions universes coming into being as baby universes popping out of wormholes in other universes. The reason none of this can be witnessed, as you may have surmised by now, is that it all occurs in imaginary time. Hawking triumphantly notes that because he has dispensed with a time dimension for universes he has also dispensed with the notion of a beginning, and as there is no beginning, there is no need for a creator.
Once again, where’s the evidence for this theory? Hawking admits that there is none, and he doesn’t expect to ever find any. Imaginary time is invoked to stipulate imaginary universes. Naturally, with so much imagining going on, there is no need to go overboard and imagine a creator. So rather than consider these theories scientific, it seems entirely reasonable to label them versions of a religious doctrine. Hawking, Weinberg, Dawkins, and the others are all members of the Church of Infinite Worlds, where new worlds with new sets of laws have to be invented in order to avoid one inconvenient admission. For members of this church, the dogmas of infinite universes, baby universes, and the rest of it seem to be largely motivated by the desire to avoid a supernatural creator. As physicist Stephen Barr puts it, “It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes.”
As one of its longtime residents, I’d like to bring us back to earth and conclude with a final point. Whether we believe in imaginary time and multiple universes or not, those are only concepts. Even if they describe our universe, they do not explain why there is a universe in the first place. As Hawking himself once asked, who put the fire into the equations? Who made them, as it were, “come to life”? Moreover, the atheist viewpoint cannot explain the profound lawfulness of nature itself. Paul Davies writes, “If the divine underpinning of the laws is removed, their existence becomes a profound mystery. Where do they come from? Who sent the message? Who devised the code?”
Indeed the question can be posed in a deeper way. How can inanimate objects like electrons follow laws? Our experience as humans is that only rational and conscious -agents can obey instructions. It remains deeply mysterious how things can do anything whatsoever, let alone abide by mathematical rules. And what rules! Throughout the history of science its practitioners have found that anomalies in known laws are usually accounted for by even deeper and more beautiful laws that seem to underlie the workings of nature. “So where did the laws of physics come from?” Victor Stenger asks. “They came from nothing.” I grant that this is an answer, but what kind of an answer? Even scientists who are not religious believers are nevertheless awed by what biologist Ursula Goodenough has called “the sacred depths of nature,” and their attitude toward it borders on the mystical. Here, I believe, is where many believers and nonbelievers can find common ground, in their shared reverence for the grandeur of creation. Yet the mind that reflects on nature’s intricate order is irresistibly propelled to ask how this order came to be. Why is reality structured in this way? Doesn’t the lawful order of nature require some ultimate explanation? If it does, then clearly the best explanation for why the universe is so orderly and intelligible and favorable for life is that an intelligent being made it that way. (From Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity? Chapter 12, pages 84-89)