NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15839

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 11:27 MST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 50

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Sotnak) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
>}>>seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>}>>probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
>}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
>
>}>This seems like a bad argument, to me.  Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
>}>squad of fifteen men.  They all fire, but I don't die.  I continue to
>}>exist.  By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
>}>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
>}>was one.  But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
>}>fact there that requires some sort of explanation.  The fact that if they
>}>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
>}>*not* explain what is curious in this situation.  Likewise, the fact of
>}>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
>}>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.
>
>  Yet Mr. Isaac's observation was made in the context of discussing the
>"Tunian" claim that, in effect, the probability of life existing in the
>universe is so remarkably low that we must infer a supernatural agency to
>have brought it all about.  In your firing squad example, you might feel
>that only divine protection could have prevented your death (thus far,
>anyway), but the members of the firing squad would be more interested in why
>their aim was off.  A winner of the lottery who wonders how (against all
>probability) s/he managed to win, would be making a mistake in inferring a
>supernatural agency at work, although s/he would be justified in being
>surprised.  The probability of having won the lottery GIVEN that one has
>already done so, is, indeed, 1.  But the antecedent probability of winning
>the lottery given only that one has bought a ticket (not, of course, qua
>winning ticket) is 1 in 14 million (or something like that).  The
>explanation for winning the lottery is going to be that (as it would happen)
>certain numbered ping-pong balls got selected which yielded a number
>corresponding to the winning ticket.  If the winner says that there must
>have been divine intervention because it was so improbable that the winning
>number would correspond to his/her ticket, s/he is making a kind of mistake
>in judgment.  Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
>so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.

I can, and do, agree with everything you said without agreeing that
the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721