(followup) Theological "Fine Tuning" Fallacy

Quotes are from The Forgetful Apologist from comments made in response to

Theological "Fine Tuning" Fallacy at this blog. My response exceeded the 4000-ish character limitation so I am responding here instead.

"Of course God could have made things differently."

That's an assumption. But based on concept of the abrahamic god as generally accepted by believers, it's an assumption we can allow for argument's sake.

"Given the nature that exists, certain things are impossible."

"The nature that exists" does not preclude the possibility of alternate natures. The idea of alternates natures is similar to the general idea of a multiverse. Could one or more alternate universes come into existence with variations of or complete separation from the natural laws we observe? I submit that if it is possible for a mystical entity to create an alternate natural universe with alternatives to one or more of our natural laws then there is no reason to exclude the possibility that one or more alternate universes with alternate natures could come into existence without the aid of a mystical entity.

It's all purely speculative. Like gods, it only requires imagination. We could also speculate that neither a god nor proto-nature could create our known universe without also necessarily also creating an infinite multiverse. That would certainly tidy things up for some quantum physicists. But that's not quite enough to make it so.

It's not really necessary to tie oneself to one of the three perspectives included in the essay. To recap, in regards to whether God (or mystical entity(s)) or nature could have produced a different universe that would support life, it was (1) God no, nature no; (2) God yes, nature no; (3) God yes, nature yes. I left out (4) God no, nature yes; because who's really going to make that argument? The whole argument from fine tuning is predicated on the presumption that things could have been different.

It is an interesting supposition (that things could have been different.) But is there anything that could have caused it to be different? If the big bang was self sufficient at time zero how could it have taken a different course? I understand there's a lot of speculation about "gravity could have been a little weaker" or "initial expansion could have been slower." But no one has produced an explanation for what it would have taken in order for any of these or other things to have been different. It's pure "what-if," assuming the big bang was self contained and developed without external influences.

And we can further speculate that maybe there were external forces that influenced the early development of natural laws. If there was a cause then perhaps some of that cause could continue to leak in after inception? All speculation. I will agree that if things had been different then, then things would be different now. But the questions remain. Could things have been different and what could have caused things to be different?

And of course, some will want to attribute post-bang influence to mystical forces/entities or a hybrid of natural/mystical. Since we're all speculating we have little authority to turn away additional speculations.

I'm more than happy to entertain these notions for academic reasons. But where it gets us is roughly nowhere, zero progress. Imagination and wishful thinking allow us to take ourselves where we wish we already were.

"Now, back in those first few fractions of a second after the big bang, nature was not similarly constrained---at least not according to the evidence up to that point."

I'm tempted to challenge this but it may just be me misunderstanding what is meant. Regardless it has little or no influence on the overall weight of either side of the argument.

"So from that epistemic position we can run the argument. If God exists, then there is a fairly good chance that he is interested in moral agency and will ensure the constants permit such agency."

Without knowing why a theological god created this or any universe we are left to speculate "why." Without some indication as to why we are even more blind in our speculation about what such an entity would want in it's universe-like creation.

Are we asking what kind of god would make the universe the way it is? Since we have a fair idea about what and how the universe is, at least this question would be grounded in reality.

But that's not what the quoted question is asking. It assumes a mystical being wants to make something vaguely universe-like and further assumes that beings somewhat capable of distinguishing between right and wrong are also wanted. This speculation is not entirely consistent with genesis 1 and 2 but we can overlook that since we are only considering a generic theistic creator entity.

But let's go ahead and assume that a creator god is interested in creating or allowing moral agents and therefore an environment that is capable of supporting said agents. I'm taking a "moral agent" to be a conscious being that can make choices that are morally significant, on a case-by-case basis. And I'm taking morality to be a synthesis of intuitive predisposition for fairness and cooperation within one's group and a culturally developed ethical perspective. For purposes of this argument I hope we can share a workable common meaning for "moral/morality."

If we make those assumptions and check our universe to see if it supports moral agents, surprise surprise, it does. Well, kind of. Earth does. Or at least parts of Earth do. Mercury doesn't. Mars doesn't. I'm going to go out on a limb and say none of the other planets in our system do. That seems true of all the moons too. And the vast majority of the solar system which is essentially vacuum, does not support moral agents. The second nearest star is over three light-years away, and that's pretty close by interstellar standards. I'm going to go further out on my limb and say there are no moral agents in interstellar space. I'm definitely not willing to concede that potential interstellar moral agents are big fans of Jesus or Muhammad. And then there's all that intergalactic space. Moral agents? Limb: no moral agents. Moral agency seems to be at best an afterthought and more likely a happy accident. But there I go again, assuming it could have been different.

"However, if only nature exists, then since nature has no preferences, we must apply the principle of indifference, whereby we find that the probability of the constants permitting moral agency on naturalism is extremely low---extremely!"

The principle of indifference does not apply here. There may be a principle of indifference in apologist jargon that I'm not aware of. But in regards to matters of statistics and probability, the principle of indifference does not apply. I'm under no obligation to make a counter-case against the lack of case presented in the quote, but I'll explain anyway why it doesn't apply. We do have two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities, mystical entity versus non-mystical non-entity. We could even say that the two possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names. I don't suppose you're crediting the authorship of the universe to a deist god? But if we want to apply the principle of indifference we have to agree the possibilities are indistinguishable. But the reason the principle of indifference does not apply is because you are making a qualitative comparison versus a quantitative comparison.

Quantitatively each possibility has a 1/2 chance of being right. But you are saying that because the universe is indifferent to the presence of moral agency and a theist deity probably would nor be indifferent to agency, a theist deity is more likely to have created a universe which includes (at least the possibility) of moral agency. That is not the principle of indifference.

It would actually be a decent, albeit non-conclusive, argument if it could be shown that a theistic deity is more likely to exist than either a deistic deity or no deity. Using the principle of indifference we can assign each possibility a probability of 1/3 and see that a theistic deity is less likely to exist than one of the other two possibilities. (There is a 2/3 likelihood that either no deity exists or a deistic deity exists.) It could also be interpreted that it is more likely that some kind of deity exists. But hopefully it is already clear that this is the wrong tool for the job. Bottom line: the principle of indifference does not support the likelihood of a creator deity.

"Of course we now know that the physical constants are all quite friendly to moral agency in the universe, and so it is a simple matter of applying the likelihood principle to infer the existence of God."

I think I already covered this. The universe shows only a hint of friendliness to moral agency in one remote infinitesimal corner of all known existence. There may be moral agents out on other remote infinitesimal corners of existence. Or maybe not. Either way, the ratio of moral agency to universe is so small as to undermine any attempt to claim moral agency was even intended (leave alone important) in the "design" of the universe.

Also, you didn't show your work (or even define or quantify your variables) so we are free to ignore or accept your claim that the likelihood principle in any way supports probability of existence. If you do intend to show your work then you should probably go ahead and do a full Bayesian workup. I'm looking forward to the "given what we know about..." portions regarding gods.

Theological "Fine Tuning" Fallacy

The are a lot of problems with the "argument from fine tuning" but here is one I haven't seen before.

If we assume there is/was a creator god, could it only have created potential worshipers in a universe that relies on natural forces with the values we currently observe?

The argument from fine tuning suggests that because life as we know it could not exist if the fundamental forces of nature were slightly different, then the most likely cause that the values came to be what they are, was an intelligent tuner. But this also suggest that a creator god could not have done things differently. Why not? That certainly cramps the meaning of omnipotent. Or if a god could have done things differently then why couldn't an alternative nature also have done things differently?

There are better, more direct refutations out there. But it seems odd to suggest that
(1) neither a creator god nor nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(2) a creator god could have produced a different universe that would support life but an alternative nature could not have produced a different universe that would support life, therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(3)both a creator god or an alternative nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely.

None of these arguments is particularly persuasive on their own. And when the alternatives are also considered each seems even weaker.

Why is it important to convince a theist that he is wrong?

(quick rant)

People allow, nay, insist that their religion inform their opinions on social, civil and political matters. This necessarily has an effect on everybody.

Even if someone's religion happened to point them in directions beneficial to mankind, their mere ability to hold a belief which is based on groundless hearsay and that horrible F word, indicates that they can not be trusted to use sound means to deliberately inform their opinions in AT LEAST one matter.

If someone can believe something crazy without harming the rest of us, no problem. But that's not how it works. If someone wants to demonstrate that having reviewed a great breadth and depth of "evidence" they've come to the conclusion that there is no reliable reason to believe... but they still believed... as long as they recognize that their supernatural beliefs have no place in deciding how best we may live, work and advance together, there's no problem. But that's not how it works.

Why is it important to convince a theist that he is wrong? Because it hurts us all, in small but cumulative, massively cumulative ways.

Can theists be convinced by reason?

They can be reached by reason. However not all avenues are assailable. That which may be believed without reason may be immune to reason. The only hope is to discover the underlying foundation to beliefs and addressing those.

Belief is a subjective response to the best (also subjective) available evidence. Misinformation can be more valuable in making a decision in the mind of the subject. A convincing and engaging liar may appear more credible than a fact laden empiricist. We can try to teach and motivate our acquaintances to be more demanding in their epistemology. But convincing people to think harder and to consider the counter-intuitive is exhausting and poorly rewarded.

Generalized reasonable atheism advocacy will find purchase in some individuals. But we cannot predict whether such advances remain chronic moot doubts, get rationalized away or lead to serious inquiry. We probably won't hear about many near-success stories. Here too, general refutation of theologies and super-naturalism is exhausting and poorly rewarded. But retreating from either front would be a tacit invitation to every charlatan and would-be prophet.

When dealing with fallacious beliefs on a case-by-case basis we may ask the individual what they believe and why they believe it... and why they believe that... and why they believe that, until you either reach a point of mutual agreement or it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable foundation to the larger belief matrix. If you are rigorously skeptical and don't fall for any false syllogisms, reason may prevail.

Most religious ideologies encourage adherents to share their beliefs so it shouldn't be that hard to open this dialog. But questioning the beliefs is generally not welcome so expect that to get sticky. Whether I believe that milk is good for stronger teeth and bones or that dreams come from ethereal creatures, if I'm not willing explain why I believe these things I should not be treated as credible. Beliefs may be completely out of touch or demonstrably factual. It is the responsibility of the proponent of any belief to explain why it is true. Responsibility.

In the end every believer is left with "evidence" and reasons that are not substantially better than those for most competing supernatural beliefs. All the believer has left is faith and subjectivity. Not coincidentally, believers of most competing supernatural beliefs are identically "supported" by their faith and subjectivity.

They can be reached by reason. But your best bet is to have them search for reason, then let them wonder why they can't find it.

One nation, above all gods

News item: The Obama administration does not want “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. link

This republic is not one nation under God. To say that it is, establishes the government and the governed as subordinate to a deity. This is not OK. Even if it read, “one nation, under some undefined supernatural entity," it would still not be OK as that would still imply recognition of a higher authority for America and Americans, ALL Americans . The United States government does not have the authority to unilaterally create a treaty with absentee supernatural forces. Why are we surrendering? It could even be inferred from the subordination, that the US derives its authority from such an entity. The United States government did not and does not derive its authority from a supernatural source. If we made that claim then anyone having a superior claim to knowing the will of the vague or specific god could challenge our authority to confederate, legislate and self-govern. It might also be inferred that, as a subordinate to a general deity, the US is a deist theocracy, or worse.

All that would be bad enough but the current pledge says "under God." So it's not a just a noun it's a proper noun. It's a name; the name of the abrahamic god; the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The pledge makes the US not only subordinate to a vague deist god but a specific, named god of three religions. For anyone who holds a religious belief contesting the existence and/or authority of the abrahamic god, reciting the pledge prohibits their free exercise of religion. This alienates followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Scientology, Sikhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Paganism, any number of indigenous belief systems and also non-believers. The alienated must choose to forgo the pledge, miss-cite it or display deference to the abrahamic god, if only nominally.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, the US is a secular state. We operate as a nation of laws. We derive our authority for self governance not from the supernatural but from the people. Any statute that grants or recognizes deference to a vague or specific supernatural entity undermines the authenticity of our self governance, establishes subordination to a religious entity and encumbers the free exercise by those with conflicting beliefs.

The pledge is defined by U.S. Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, § 4. And while no one is likely to get arrested for messing up the pledge, The U.S. Code is law, enacted by Congress. How and why the 1954 addition of "under God" hasn't been overturned by the courts should baffle anyone who respects our integrity as a nation of laws.

And just so no one has to look for it elsewhere:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~First Amendment to the United States Constitution


pictured: United States Bill of Rights



With an election right around the corner the last thing President Obama needs to do is lose support from the rest of the god crowd. I can’t hold this against him. On this issue, at this time, my cynicism outweighs my idealism. It does seem as though he genuinely prefers the phrase in there. That’s disappointing. It’s really Congress’s or the court’s job to take it out. I’d prefer it were the court. But with the current lineup on the bench (ie, corporations are people) now is probably not a good time.

2+2=5

I believe 2+2=5.

I can’t prove that 2+2=5.

You just have to believe 2+2=5.

2+2=5 transcends naturalist and scientific explanations.

You have to accept 2+2=5 on faith.

I can feel 2+2=5 at work in my life.

I have the right to believe whatever I want.

2+2=5 is everywhere, if you care to look.

Schools that do not teach 2+2=5 should be required to teach the controversy.

There are those who deny 2+2=5.

If they would only accept 2+2=5 they would see the truth of 2+2=5.

You too should believe 2+2=5.

2+2=5 is the foundation of morality and knowledge.

That which contradicts 2+2=5 is necessarily wrong.

We need to get this country back to 2+2=5 values.

It is the lack of 2+2=5 values that is undermining what makes this country great.

It is rude and contemptible to openly question 2+2=5.

As I believe 2+2=5 I will take it as a personal attack if anyone questions 2+2=5.

2+2=5 is the light and the way.

To claim 2+2 does not =5 is blasphemy.

Blasphemers are poisoned wells.

Gay Marriage and Subjectivity

Short Version:
How would you feel about gay marriage if you learned it wasn't (whatever reason you have for being opposed to it)?


How bigots view the laws of Nature
subtitle: I wonder how they don't find it at all strange that the Universe has the same biases as them

( lolgod.blogspot.com )


Long Version:
Why are you against gay marriage? Is it because it is sinful, against the will of god or unnatural? What if you learned, irrefutably, that none of these were true. Let's not be distracted by the implausibility. We've all come to some point(s) where we realized something(s) we had believed was incorrect. Otherwise we would still believe the things we believed as children. I don't know what it would take to convince you. Certainly nothing I say or write will do the trick. But let's assume, purely to consider another question, that there was a way to convince you. Let's also assume, purely hypothetically, that somehow you've crossed that threshold.

Somehow... something... caused you to realize that the basis for your opposition to gay marriage was misinterpreted, misrepresented, faulty, wrong or completely absent. Whatever that reason was, your previous basis for opposition is now completely neutral. It's not that gay marriage is necessarily good. It's just that (again, hypothetically) you no longer have an instruction, evidence, example or reason to to be against it. Whatever reason you had, let's pretend that it is now completely indifferent to gay marriage.

How then would you feel, and I emphasize "feel," about homosexuals getting married? Remember, in this hypothetical it's not a sin. God doesn't care. It's not unnatural. Whatever objection you had, is now irrelevant. The question here is how would you personally feel about it. If your church, your holy text, your political party, your social club and everybody & everything in the world suddenly became OK with gay marriage would you still have a subjective desire to prevent homosexuals from getting married? What is it you would be feeling?

Would you be indifferent to two men talking about when one of them popped the question? Would you feel indignant if a lesbian shared her nervousness about the marriage bed? If gays got to visit their spouse in the hospital, claim "married" on their taxes, adopt as a married couple, come to you for advise on their anniversary party, be the default "by law" beneficiary, be eligible for alimony/palimony and brag about how great married life is... would that be OK with you? Or would you still find it objectionable based purely on how you feel about it? Would the way you feel about gay marriage change if cultural and religious objection vanished? Or do you think you would feel the same way?

Conclusion:
The point of this hypothetical line of inquiry is to suggest that perhaps many people hold up their ideologies as a justification of their personal objections. As it relates to gay marriage, if gay marriage would still feel somehow offensive in the absence of source-able external objections then we should consider what that might mean.

Maybe it means your ideology is justified by your feelings because your gut or intuition is reliable. Maybe it means god has written this on your heart. But if we go that route we would have to answer some tough questions. Regarding the people who were against abolition, women's suffrage, racial integration, civil rights... What is it about your gut, your intuition or what's written on your heart that is superior to their collective gut, their intuition and that which was written on their hearts? And not just you, why are the opinions of everyone who agrees with you more reliable than the opinions of those who were for slavery, against suffrage, etc.? For many things, "how you feel about it" is a perfectly legitimate factor in informing your opinion. But when it comes to limiting or liberating other people's civil participation, "how you feel about it" means very little. Just as it did for those who felt women should not be allowed to vote.

Maybe instead of your ideology being justified by your feelings you've attached yourself to an ideology that justifies your feelings... an ideology you're comfortable with. Would you cling to a belief system if it caused you emotional discomfort? Regarding belief systems, you are where you are for a reason.

For most of us, perhaps all of us, there is a vicious circle of our feelings informing our beliefs and our beliefs further (perhaps irrationally) justifying our feelings. If we can accept that this is true of many other people then perhaps we should consider that it's probably true personally as well. It isn't as simple as you having jumped on the band wagon because they were playing your tune. This is a life-long process. If your sources of information are limited then your perspective will likely be limited as well. Every belief has a cost/benefit motivator, not unlike Pascal's wager. And thinking objectively and critically is hard and can be counter-intuitive. But objectivity and critical thinking are the best tools for breaking the feelings>beliefs vicious circle.

Returning to the point, if gay marriage would still feel somehow offensive in the absence of source-able external objections then what does that say about your objection? I'm not asking you to defend your objections. I am asking you to try to better understand it. Where does that feeling come from? Do the feelings justify the beliefs or do the beliefs justify the feelings? Or would you benefit from taking a step back and considering just how much your feelings and beliefs are dependent on each other. That interdependence is fine if you just wanna live your life. But if you feel the need to speak on matters of public policy and to restrict the civil participation of other people, maybe your feelings and personal beliefs aren't enough. If I wanted to limit or change your civil liberties based on my feelings and personal beliefs, how seriously should you have to take me?

We have a responsibility to each other as members of a society, and especially as members of a democracy. We know that we have had, will have and do have the capacity to be wrong. We have been, will be and are probably right now wrong about something. For this we can forgive ourselves and each other. But if we ignore that capacity and allow our feelings and personal beliefs to be the the only sources informing our discussions and decisions on matters that effect other people, then we have ignored our responsibility.

It is my hope that people will consider the correlation between what they believe and what they feel. It is my hope that people will recognize the fallibility of basing beliefs on feelings. It is my hope that people will try to understand how to distinguish between facts, informed opinion, ideologically-driven opinion and pure speculation. It is my hope that people will try to understand how to recognize what makes information reliable. It is my hope that people will care enough to want to.

Unless these hopes are realized soon we will be remembered as the generation that got it wrong on gay rights.


In a democracy surely an uninformed or misinformed opinion has greater weight than an informed opinion. For which will do the greater harm?