|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Anthropic Principle: Part I
Was the Universe Created with Humans in Mind?
return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page
Anthropic means "pertaining to man or human beings, from Greek anthropos, man; human being, (including woman), as opposed to the gods." (etymonline.com) -- Think of "anthropology," the study of mankind.
why is the universe 'just right,' as Goldilocks would say, as a habitation for humankind
The Anthropic Principle, in briefest summary, suggests that the universe was designed to support human life. Here are two sources offering detail.
The first is Wikipedia, which can always be counted on to support an atheistic-materialistic view. Notice how it lampoons and ridicules:
The anthropic principle says that the universe is how it is because it must allow for the eventual creation of us, as observers... Douglas Adams explains this concept quite well using a puddle as an analogy:
“If you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Here's a more expansive explanation of the Anthropic Principle from Robert Lamb:
Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life?
For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence.
Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago.
So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did?
In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:
Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why.
Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.
Cosmologists have devised more than 30 additional takes on the anthropic principle [source: Stenger]. They include the quantum physics-flavored participatory anthropic principle, which states that no universe can be real until it is observed, and the final anthropic principle, which holds that intelligence is a necessary property of the universe; once created it can never be destroyed.
There, but for fortune, this universe might not have permitted the evolution of intelligent life, so the anthropic principle is a scientific attempt to address the question "Why?"
homo sapiens won the lottery
Here are some of the popular objections to the Anthropic Principle:
(1) “It’s like winning the lottery. Somebody had to win. And you can’t learn anything about how lotteries work by interviewing the winning ticket-holders, and you can’t learn anything about how the universe works by the fact that we’re here.”
(2) “You say that all of the forces in the universe are ‘fine-tuned’ for the coming of Man. But that’s like the water-puddle [see Doug Adams’s comment above] thinking that its particular hole in the ground was made just for it. It is what it is, and it happened as it happened.”
(3) “Believing that humans are special in the universe is just arrogance. It’s like the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages trying to say that the Earth had to be the center of universe, because they wanted to rule that center. It’s just wishful thinking and hubris.”
(4) Richard "Dawkins applies a fairly standard evolutionist’s version of the anthropic principle. 'You are absurd for thinking that something with a one in a googol chance of happening could explain life,' says the theist to the secular scientist. The wise scientist responds, 'We exist, so we are an existence of the googol possibilities that have likely occurred in the vastness of possible existence in which the question will be asked. It doesn’t matter that our existence is infinitely improbable, if we hadn’t come to be there would be no one to notice how improbable our existence is.' In simpler terms, if something has a less than a one-in-a-billion chance of happening, all it takes is billions of billions of attempts to get billions of such improbable events." (bycommonconsent.com)
one of the most famous attacks against the Anthropic Principle
Clarence Darrow may have been the most famous attorney in America in the early 1900s. He made a big name for himself when he served as prosecutor in the “Scopes Monkey Trial.”
In his 1932 memoirs, "The Story Of My Life," Darrow offers a chapter – no doubt, inspired by his encounter with William Jennings Bryan – entitled, “The Delusion Of Design And Purpose.” The term “Anthropic Principle” had not yet made its debut, but Darrow took aim at its essence:
"To say that a certain scheme or process shows order or system, one must have some norm or pattern by which to determine whether the matter concerned shows any design or order. We have a norm, a pattern, and that is the universe itself, from which we fashion our ideas. We have observed this universe and its operation and we call it order. To say that the universe is patterned on order is to say that the universe is patterned on the universe. It can mean nothing else."
He said that if the planets made their way around the Sun in a rectangular fashion, we would call that “order and design”; likewise, if the paths were triangular.
And to suggest that the Earth is somehow a special habitation for Man ignores the fact that three-quarters of the globe is under water, which would better support an assertion that the Earth was designed for fish. Further, much of the land area, such as the mountains, deserts, and polar regions, is uninhabitable for human life.
He goes on to posit that humans make a very poor showing on the Earth as we’re so outnumbered. A better argument could be made, he thinks, that the Earth was designed for insects which plague us in their ubiquity and numberless varieties. And then, what about all the earthquakes, volcanoes, and other calamities of this world? “Were these, too, designed?” he demands.
He concludes his writing with:
“Men have built faith from hopes. They have struggled and fought in despair. They have frantically clung to life because of the will to live. The best that we can do is to be kindly and helpful toward our friends and fellow passengers who are clinging to some speck of dirt [i.e., the Earth] while we are drifting side by side to our common doom.”
drifting side by side to our common doom
That's what I like about Clarence, he's so cheery. Can't you see him now, leaning on the jury's rail, looking them in the eyes, appealing to and sharing, what he imagines as, their smug sense of futility and meaninglessness? Nihilism, with silver tongue, at its best.
In "Anthropic Principle: Part II" we will address the materialists' objections.
|