Do big numbers and big trees point to God?

Over at Jesus Creed, guest blogger RJS is diving into some heady mathematics and physics this morning with A Fine-Tuned Universe?

RJS says:

It has been noted by many scientist that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life. Many of the fundamental constants appear unconstrained in their values, yet have values that, if they were even slightly different, would lead to a sterile universe unable to develop life. This leads to the so-called Anthropic Principle

RJS does a great job of making some difficult ideas fairly accessible. It reminds me of Brian Greene, actually. (Though I never could finish the Fabric of the Universe.) The post concludes with a question: Does the fine-tuning of the universe for our existence point to God?

I don’t think it does–any more so than all natural beauty does.

A beautiful patch of river with tall cypress trees teeming with life make me want to worship God. But it doesn’t offer much evidence that God exists. I’m not even sure I could say that it points toward God. (I would say it points toward my desire for there to be a God.) But the peaceful river itself is only the thinnest circumstantial evidence to suggest a creator and designer.

For me, the Anthropic Principle isn’t good evidence that God exists either. From an evidence perspective, it just suggests that we’re dealing with really big numbers which are likely to produce at least a few positive outcomes. RJS does a really good job explaining the Anthropic Principle, by the way! He also doesn’t raise the issue of evidence directly, but evidence is the only way I know of to evaluate whether something points toward God or not.

I’m remembering an interview we did with Francis Collins awhile back on TheHighCalling.org, Celebrating God through Science. Towards the end of the first part of the interview, Collins made a argument for God based on some unexplained biological phenomenon. In the first question of the second part of the interview, I called him on it. It sounded like “God of the gaps” logic.

His response was fantastic:

We have to be careful about trying to attach any kind of observation about the natural world as a definite proof of God’s existence, but these arguments can be an interesting way to help skeptical people begin to think about what it might look like if God were not part of our world.

Back to RJS’s question: Does the fine-tuning of the universe for our existence point to God? Based on my conversation with Collins, I’d say it’s the wrong question. A better approach might be these two questions–What does it mean for us if we assume the universe is randomly fine-tuned for life? And what does it mean for us if we assume the universe has been deliberately fine-tuned for life? Then we are at least beginning to acknowledge the results of our choosing faith in randomness versus faith in some kind of creator.

Disclaimer: I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist, but I dabble. Someday it would be fun to learn the hard math. (Perhaps that is a project for eternity.) In the meantime, I stick with Brian Greene books, Radiolab, hard science fiction, and videos like this one (which should also be embedded in the top right of this page).

Francis Collins: A Scientific Basis for God (usnews.com)
Alister McGrath’s 2009 Gifford Lectures: A Fine-Tuned Universe (faith-theology.blogspot.com)
Manufacturing universes in a fractal multiverse (arstechnica.com)

5 Responses to "Do big numbers and big trees point to God?"

Dr. Bubba says:

July 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Hi Marcus,

I following your blog and appreciate many of your thoughts but seldom comment on your posts. But there are days when science and math are brought up that I am almost tempted. Today I cannot help myself.

I feel that my opinion about the question of science and the world around us points to God is not as important as is God’s word on the subject.

Romans 1:19-20
[19]since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20]For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It does not appear that God thinks we are excused since the evidence is plain enough.

As for me I do believe the sciences do point to God.

IJG,
Dr. Bubba

Disclaimer: I am a physicists who has studied the higher math.

Reply
Marcus says:

July 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Dr. Bubba, thanks so much for commenting! Romans 1 is perfect reassurance for people who take the Bible seriously. Believe me, I take it very seriously.

I always have trouble using the Bible as its own reference point when I’m talking to non-Christians. I don’t like circular logic, and it can often feel circular. On the other hand, there’s no avoiding the fact that I base my faith on this book. I’ve chosen to believe it. But for me, it is ultimately a choice.

I agree with you that the sciences point toward God, but they do so in a way that is hard to explain. And I’m not sure they do so empirically. I would love to see it explained using higher math…. by someone who is really patient with a doofus. (I won the state science fair in math in the 9th grade, but that’s the limits of where my math skills went.)

THANK YOU so much for commenting, Dr. Bubba. I’m feeling my way on this stuff, and often I feel quite lost. I need all the wisdom and help I can get from people like you.

Reply
Dr. Bubba says:

July 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Hi Marcus,

Yes, I can appreciate the trouble using the Bible as its own reference point. But I knew you were a Believer and found your comments about science/math and pointing to God interesting. Thus the context of my response to you.

BTW this verse meant a great deal to me as an unbeliever and scientist trying to “think” my way to God. Reading the verse was one of the turning points for me …. and as Josh McDowell says, “You do not have to commit intellectual suicide” to have faith in Christ. Quite the opposite. Though I do not think I am an intellectual … just a boy from Texas with non(Texas)standard interests.

By the way, it is way cool that you won the state fair in math!!!
Other than accidentally having the second highest score on a standardized science test in the whole town for fifth grade, I did not do much else until university….where I decided to do physics for no reason other than that accidental high score in fifth grade. We never know do we.

Or was it I wanted to be a coach and got in the physical education line at University and when I was done with school I had a physics degree.
I never could spell worth a dang.

Take care,
Dr. Bubba

Reply
Marcus says:

July 3, 2009 at 10:40 am

Dr. Bubba, I thought about this post throughout the day yesterday–even while we were watching our friends in 1776 at our community theater. My wife and I talked about it during dinner on our date. (Romantic conversation let me tell you.)

Here’s what I was thinking. The problem isn’t that the Anthropic Principle is no more persuasive than the natural world in proving the evidence for God. (As you point out, that should be plenty persuasive enough.)

The problem is that we assume there is something like definitive evidence, and I don’t believe that there is. Every truth assertion–whether numeric, scientific, poetic, theological, psychological, medical, legal, economic–every truth assertion comes down to faith. We piece together observations that we call evidence, then we make arguments to persuade ourselves that these observations mean a particular thing about the world.

That doesn’t mean that I believe there is no truth. There is. I believe that truth is best revealed through the Logos. But also believe my understanding of the Logos, and the world around me, is so limited that I don’t even understand where I’m missing the boat. I just know there is a big boat out there somewhere nearby, blowing its foghorn, and I’m paddling my life away trying to find it.

Reply
Dr. Bubba says:

July 9, 2009 at 9:08 am

“The problem is that we assume there is something like definitive evidence, and I don’t believe that there is.”

Yes I do not believe we can prove or disprove that there is a God. If we could then much of the debate would be moot. But we know from scripture that there will always be those who do not believe even up until the even end.

“We piece together observations that we call evidence, then we make arguments to persuade ourselves that these observations mean a particular thing about the world.”

As McDowell and Strobel would say, “Evidence that demands a verdict.” And for me the evidence tipped the scale toward Christ and God nearly twenty years ago. And that evidence continues to grow in Christs favor especially with the personal interactions in my life and those around me.

There has to be truth else the word has no meaning. Not everyone can be right about truth else there is no Grace and Truth. If there is no truth everything is relative so to speak.

Part of what lead me to Christ was the study and practice of physics. I realized it was one part of the many things that the Lord had revealed to us and leaves us with little excuse for not believing. I am amazed how much more consistent physics, science, and the world becomes when you allow the Creator into the equation.

Is 1776 based on McCullough’s book? I would find that interesting if they made a play of it.

Reply

Related articles by Zemanta