Cris
Cris said:
I still don't see why the anthropic principle continues to be raised as if it is worthy of consideration. Isn't it simply a logical fallacy?
When one runs out the implications of the principle to various values, it apparently becomes useful in the finite arena of politics.
If one derives certain consequences from the idea of the Universe being perfectly attuned to life as a deliberate outcome, one can assert all manner of political "realities" that are much more relevant to life than the actual existence or non-existence of God or an Intelligent Designer for our Universe. Political economy, for instance, becomes a dangerously mucky field.
The relationship between the creationist assertion of the anthropic principle and the economic is not well-defined inasmuch as the one feeds the other while the other fertilizes the earth for the one, but exactly how is something that might require a trip to the Philosophy forum.
Nonetheless, on both occasions, it would seem to be a bulwark against introspective insecurity:
• Theistic - Humanity is elevated to the appearance of vital importance in relation to the Universe
• Economic - Humanity surrenders to perceived conditions and actively works against evolution
The "atheistic" proposition that the Intelligent Designer is an alien lifeform is little more than a cosmetic changeover, much like the transition from Christianity to Faery Tradition. Or, to quote--of all people--Jon Bon Jovi ... well, okay, I won't.
But just as one might take comfort from a theistic-anthropic in awarding humanity far more importance than it merits compared to the Universe at large, so does one take comfort in forgiving their own sins, appealing to the "fact" that the way things are is the only way they can be. Of course, ask those folks if they're predestined or otherwise on strings and they'll do their best Pinocchio.
The anthropic principle has diverse values applied within diverse insecurities. People keep it around, despite its fallacy, because it helps them think they feel better.
Kind of like drugs, now that I think about it.
It seems to be the same issue as having baked a cake and then expressing astonishment that the baking dish is the same shape as the cake.
A roundabout vagary has me thinking of a bit that I
think comes from Douglas Adams, about sheep being surprised every morning when the sun rises. And that, of course, brings the idea to mind of the Shepherd, and, well, suddenly we're back to religion. There's a thin parallel there that remains intangible to me, sort of an artistic irony.
Life
is performance art. It isn't actually what's real, or what you know, but whether or not you're convincing. Certainly a tragic state of affairs, but that commentary changes my perception none.
It isn't that the universe has been designed to suit life but that life is a result of that particular set of circumstances. Had the universe been different then presumably life as we know it would not have arisen and something else would have resulted, perhaps a very different type of life.
This is why I don't argue with phrases like "We are made in God's image," except for the unfortunate fact that I might be the only one who sees it that way; most go atheistic by the time they reach that point. As Diderot said, "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths".
This principle seems to endure because of those who perceive life and especially humans as something special
I believe that's the primary reason. The diverse applications I noted above are slightly more specialized. For instance, I never would have conceived of arguing the anthropic principle to justify an economic paradigm, despite my high opinion of Max Weber's work. (Or, perhaps because of my high opinion of Weber, I found such a justification somehow ridiculous, though I won't claim that as historical fact.)
One must be generally interested in a given discipline before one generally gets around to spinning the anthropic detail; it's not as readily suggestive on more obscure paths than it is at the common level of humanity and the unanswered (unanswerable?) questions that haunt the human endeavor.
So for most, the tacit assumption that humanity is somehow at the center of the Universal experience generally comes specifically to highlight the priority accorded humanity in a given worldview.
Sideshowbob
Sideshowbob said:
Theists are the last people on earth who want to "show the creator". I suspect that, if a creator is ever found, theists will be shocked and disappointed - whether it is your frog-god, or the spitting image of Charlton Heston.
Yeah, that's kind of how it goes.
Atheists, on the other hand, are more likely to react with curiosity and awe. To an atheist, finding God would be like falling in love for the first time, when you didn't even think it was possible.
Maybe. You might be a little loose with the metaphor, there. But at what point are you describing? Skepticism would greet any assertion of having found God, and for some to stand in God's presence wouldn't be enough; by the time they figured it out, it would have ceased mattering.
As to the creator/god's reaction, there would be little or none; after all, the creator won't be surprised when the expected comes about.
There is one possible admission of fallibility, though: "I didn't think y'all had it in you."
(A late note
re: polytheistic intelligent design - The "creationist" intelligent-design theory arises of necessity resulting from the myriad implications of monotheism. Nonetheless, polytheistic
creationism does exist; to that end, I recommend Barbara Sproul's
Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World. Viewed separately from the American-Christian "creationism" debate whence the phrase "intelligent design" arises, theism in general asserts existence a result of deity, and from there it's a matter of whether or not one believes the deity's actions can be explained in terms relevant to this Universe.)
Everneo
This interests me greatly:
Everneo said:
If tiassa's frog-man is indeed the creator he would have made the frogs to rule the world, man would be a lesser pet.
Why would the frog-shaman have made frogs to rule the world? Or, as with Adams' mice, who says they don't?
Imagine thresholds:
• If you had knowledge of your body, and knew with certainty that the issue of whether or not you would die of lung cancer rested on this one particular cigarette that would theoretically cross a threshold of no return, would you smoke it? Very few smokers can honestly say, outright, "No". Perhaps at the time, they would choose life, but .... However, today, I would ask you to look at the cigarette. Think of the factory that made it, the hands that inspected it and bundled it for packing. Think of the trucker who drove it out from the distribution center, the clerk that sold you the pack at 7-11. All of these things and all of these people play a role in this decision inasmuch as this cigarette, this bundle of matter, and not any other, is the point upon which the result depends. Certes, all other cigarettes in the past had their role, but just like it seems hopeless with nobody on, two strikes and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, is it really over until that last strike is thrown? This pitcher, this physical ball, this air displaced by the ball, that air that makes it bounce about just a little on its path. Or what of balance itself? To put a beam across a stand and let it tip and fall. Perhaps when you set the beam in place, you saw it jiggle a little because it was uneven, but the beam still holds in place. Where along that exterior, which molecule or unit could you mark? Where is that point of no return, that difference between the beam tipping out and holding its place? Where does gravity overcome friction?
• Similarly, if everything in the Universe is interrelated, is there a point upon which its order hinges? What if it's that rock? Or that piece of trash in the wind? What must happen at that threshold for the whole Universe to come undone?
Which is just a long way of reiterating, "Who says the frogs don't?"
Raithere
Anyone see the error with this reasoning?
Snowflakes.
No, that's not descriptive of an error in the reasoning, but rather a parallel argument I keep near at hand.
)
