One of the scientific observations which strikes me most is the sheer improbability of human existence.
This is generally referred to as the 'anthropic principle'. The anthropic principle is the recognition that a universe which can sustain observers - like us - is a very special universe indeed. The range of physical variables - strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and so on - which need to be constrained between very fine intervals indeed, is startling. A nudge one way, and the universe would collapse back in on itself. A nudge another, and it would all have flamed out an instant after the Big Bang.
What's particularly interesting is the argument from populariser of science, Richard Dawkins, in Climbing Mount Improbable, that this extremely unlikely collection of physical constants functions to make the evolution of life as we know it much more probable. In making this argument, he steps into a debate framed by luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris, and sides with the latter. Run the tape of evolution again, and we would get very similar results.
This can (and has) led atheists to assume that when Christians use the anthropic principle, we do so thinking that the centre of the universe is us. It was all created for us; it is all about us. 'Look at all that wasted space,' they say. 'Most inefficient of God.'
Actually, I'd go further. What about all that wasted time? 13.7-14.5 billion years of unobserved history. Or what about those inaccessible spaces? Because we require EM radiation to 'see', we can't explore the tiniest corners - the heart of a neutrino, for example. The sun, in all its glory, remains substantial forbidden to us. What an inefficient God!
Which is, of course, one of the things I love about Him. He creates for the joy of creating. As the LORD says in Job 38:
'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth... On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?'Who has seen all that the LORD has made? - well, God has. All those species we will never discover, vanished forever - all for Him. All those sunsets, never again to be enjoyed - all for Him.
Inefficient? That's making a virtue into a curse. God is lavish, in everything he does. 1 Jn 3.1: 'Look at how great a love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called God's children!'
4 comments:
Mike wrote:
"The range of physical variables - strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and so on - which need to be constrained between very fine intervals indeed, is startling. A nudge one way, and the universe would collapse back in on itself. A nudge another, and it would all have flamed out an instant after the Big Bang."
This might be a myth because we do not fully understand the behaviour of these variables. Physicist have just started to investigate this and initial results show that you actually can change variables a lot and universes can still form.
For example google "Is our universe fine-tuned for life adams"
I too like to think about this lavish God of the universe.
Sure, Peter - my academic background is in physics, so this is pretty familiar ground to me. You can 'nudge' in some directions and still, we think (though we don't know, obviously), produce something sustainable. The point most physicists in the field agree on, though, is that our particular universe is a product of some very specific laws and constants, and that the probability of this occurring (this universe out of all possible physical, or even mathematical) universes is astonishingly low.
Mike,
In the post you stated:
"A nudge one way, and the universe would collapse back in on itself. A nudge another, and it would all have flamed out an instant after the Big Bang."
and now you wrote:
"my academic background is in physics, so this is pretty familiar ground to me. You can 'nudge' in some directions and still, we think, produce something sustainable."
I think your Christian apologist and academic views might be arguing each other.
Mike wrote,
"The point most physicists in the field agree on, though, is that our particular universe is a product of some very specific laws and constants, and that the probability of this occurring (this universe out of all possible physical, or even mathematical) universes is astonishingly low."
I think currently physicists don't understand how the fundamental physical constants are related to each other. I think Hawking has speculated that those might somehow depend on each other and others have suggested that black holes could created different sets interdependencies. So if Hawking or others are right (and given almost infinitive time) it might not be so "astonishing". The point is that physics don't seem to know the probability yet.
Post a Comment