The Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning Argument

Sorry for the absence of posts lately, I have just gone through a move and I've had a lot on my plate lately. So I thought I'd do another post on a typical argument against atheism which is that of the anthropic principle. The principle is rooted in the fact that if one of the physical constant (viz. gravitational constant, the electric constant etc.) were modified even slightly the universe would not be able to facilitate life. From there though, it is argued that because of this the universe was designed specifically to facilitate human life (hence the Greek prefix anthro, meaning man). Nobel Laurette Steven Weinberg explicates it as: "the world is the way it is, at least in part, because otherwise there would be no one to ask why it is the way it is".

The problem with this argument is that exact leap where you go from "out of a number of possible universes this universe is one of the only ones that can facilitate life" to "this universe was made in order to facilitate life". It does not follow that because this universe is able to facilitate life that it was designed to do so.

I'll admit that there is something amazing about the fine-tuning of the universe and about human life. We know that for life to be possible the constants must be aligned exactly as they are, think that if the one of the fundamental forces were altered by the smallest percentile then the structure of the cosmos as we know it would be radically different such that life would not be possible. Such an amazement does make one question "Why; why is the universe as it is? Why is there something rather than nothing?" but it is incredibly audacious to assert oneself as the purpose of the universe.

I'll end with a quote from Diane Benscoter: "Easy answers to complex questions are very appealing when you are emotionally vulnerable".

[A note on semantics: it has been convincingly argued that the use of the word 'principle' in the 'anthropic principle' is a misnomer. Any scientific principle must be falsifiable, the anthropic principle is not, it is an interpretation of the fine-tuning of the universe. This means that it cannot be treated scientifically, nor can it be determined to be objectively false or true. I do not think that this is a reason to discard it altogether from examination, but it is to be examined as an interpretation and not a matter-of-fact.]

Burden of Proof

Does God exist? An atheist's answer, by definition, must always be "no". When asked for proof of this claim an atheist will almost always say that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist, thus they are able to negate this proposition without proof. In the words of Jacob Fortin: "Extraordinary claims presented without proof may be dismissed without proof."

But what is extra-ordinary? What is ordinary? Theists will often argue that everyone has a spiritual capacity and that religion has been around for thousands of years thus it is the norm, ergo the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Atheists will often counter by saying that a few thousands years is very little time relative to the millions of years that humans have been around.

I think of Nietzsche's quote from The Twilight of the Idols where he says that "The apparent world is the only world, everything else has been lyingly added." This could be used as a rallying cry for atheists around the world, but it is really nothing more than an assertion, just as saying that religion is natural is really nothing more than an assertion.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is with whom does the burden of proof lie, the atheist or the theist? The phrase 'burden of proof' comes from the latin phrase 'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit' (the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges). But in this case when one demands a burden of proof from whom they believe is making charges they are subsequently implicitly making a charge for what is ordinary. When an atheist charges a theist with the burden of proof they implicitly assert that God is not natural, when a theist charges an atheist with the burden of proof they implicitly assert that God is natural.

What is ordinary? It is a question that both sides must begin to examine in further detail if they is ever to be a resolution to this quarrel. So long as atheism presents itself as nothing more than a negation of theism (as many blogs have done, see: here, here) it will never be able to progress. Instead we ought to progress the idea of 'the norm' as something entirely separate from theism and God.