Interbane wrote:I prefer the hypothesis that fine tuning is a necessary product of the nature of matter/energy, so that where ever energy exists, it has the capacity to fuse into heavy metals as we see in our universe.
The strong anthropic principle then.
No, not at all. The
SAP entails that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, whereas all I am saying is that it seems more plausible to me that seemingly universal constants are in fact universal. The strong anthropic principle is far too close to intelligent design for my taste. But the weak anthropic principle, that laws of physics must be compatible with our existence, is true by tautology.
It is possible to see humanity as a culmination of evolution, where the universe is able to reflect itself in symbolic form, without asserting that achievement of this culmination is in any way necessary.
Interbane wrote: This principle is far more controversial amongst cosmologists than the weak one. If fine tuning is a necessary product of matter and energy, how do you explain that the laws that govern matter and energy are themselves apparently fine tuned? One cannot be the product of the other and also it's cause. That's circular reasoning.
No, my statement was akin to saying that gravitational attraction appears to be a necessary product of the existence of mass. That is not circular.
Interbane wrote:
In thinking of a way for this to work(intellectual humility?), it's possible that some as yet undiscovered elementary forces could be in play which necessarily result in laws within specific parameters. Something akin to string theory, where the forces produced are an inevitable consequence of the process of matter and energy unfolding from a singularity.
Yes, that is what I was suggesting.
Interbane wrote:
There is no more evidence for this than there is for the idea of a multiverse. What's more, we still run into the issue of why the laws that are essentially emergent properties of more basic laws are still apparently fine tuned. Why must the more basic laws lead to fine-tuned laws, and not other laws? I don't know if this avoids the issue at all. I'm open to the idea, but it comes across as tautological, and even teleological.
The ‘more evidence’ is the existence of consistency in our observable universe. While we can’t deduce that everything is consistent, that is the basic principle of induction. So questions like gravitational lensing and dark matter and dark energy and accelerating expansion are approached on the basis of the universal consistency of physical law. These are immense cosmological questions, and the idea of other universes where they don’t apply has no evidentiary basis.
Your question of why the laws of physics are finely tuned appears to be one of those things that Carrier calls a brute fact. As I mentioned earlier, I think understanding physics does help us towards a scientific understanding of purpose, simply because any entity that stops having the physical requirements of durable stability will disintegrate.
Carrier uses Smolin’s speculation that the purpose of the universe is to create black holes to open up a sort of multiverse teleology, saying “it is almost as if the very purpose of the universe was to create black holes” (Kindle 19%). I think this illustrates that talk of cosmic purpose is possible within a materialist framework, even though the ‘almost’ removes the intentional aspect of supernatural teleology.
Interbane wrote:
Humor the idea that a new secular religion could be created that is founded on a truthful naturalistic worldview, incorporating necessary components of sanctification and ritual, satisfying the deep wired psychological need for religion. This may truly be the only way forward.
That is very like what I propose, although the term ‘secular’ is complex. The usual meaning of secular is “not connected with religious or spiritual matters - non-religious, lay, non-church, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane.” So many would see ‘secular religion’ as an oxymoron, since there is a routine assumption that religion involves theories of the sacred that stand in conflict with secular scientific knowledge.
To show the ambiguity of the secular, the Biblical phrase ‘
in saecula saeculorum’, used 19 times in the New Testament, is variously translated ‘for ever and ever’, ‘for an age of ages’, ‘world without end.’ It illustrates that the terms ‘world’ and ‘age’ provide the framework context for our secular paradigm of understanding, and that a shift to a new age involves a change to our theory of the nature of time, in the construction of a new world.
Interbane wrote:
I say this because, as you admit, there are portions of the bible that are emotionally(memetically) attractive. If those portions overwhelmed the platonic gnostic intent, it is because they are stickier. It is due to these false appendages that Christianity has spread and still remains popular. It's too late in the game for an amputation, because the sticky bible is so widespread that it will dominate other varieties until it undergoes a mutation so profound that no reverse mutation is possible. Any profound mutation that creates enough distance to avoid the re-attachment of stickier false memes would essentially be an entirely new religion, not merely another denomination. The latent gnostic platonism will not be rekindled as long as a stronger flame is already burning.
The primary ‘sticky’ idea that the church has used to organise its expansion is that God appeared on earth in the person of Jesus Christ. As Carrier argues perhaps more eloquently and persuasively than anyone else, the absence of secular historical evidence for this idea indicates that it has the status of a Big Lie, a claim so impudent in its audacity that no one could imagine anyone having the effrontery to invent it. The historical evidence suggests that in fact Jesus Christ was fictional, like Adam, Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses and other mythical heroes before him.
A reverse mutation of this false meme is entirely possible. Religion is today widely viewed with disdain as corrupt and unethical, precisely because of its fast and loose attitude towards facts. A common trope within reform movements is that the origins were pure, but were corrupted by later political schemers. Applied to Christianity, a plausible reading is that the Gnostic Platonic origins understood that the ignorant corruption of the world would use their idea of a heroic saviour as a basis for political stability, but that eventually people would look at the coherent origins of the myth and return to a scientific ethical core.
Interbane wrote:
This perspective is more true to an evolutionary understanding, if we mean the evolutionary algorithm. Christianity is like the crocodile, perfectly adapted to it's niche and resisting any mutational changes that stray too far from the core(bible). To compete, you need an entirely new species. The environment is ripe for this; we now have the ability to develop a new species of psychologically satiating and naturalistic worldview.
Christianity is badly adapted to its niche. There are vast churches around the world that have become little more than tourist attractions, where once they were the thriving hub of spiritual communities. The collapse of faith indicates that the swamp has drained away from around this crocodile. Faith is quietly viewed with mockery and contempt, with only the courageous few like Carrier saying what everyone sensible thinks.
The reality is that Churchianity, the fictional myth of the historical Jesus, is a mutation from the original messianic idea of the perfect presence of eternity in time. Churchianity is all about the political stability of Christendom, and only incidentally about a logical understanding. But within this illusion, the Christ story is something of a canary in the coal mine, an alert that human spirit had become alienated from nature. The Christian doctrine of the fall from grace is entirely evolutionary, reflecting the slow natural cycle of life and death, corruption and redemption.
Interbane wrote:
With that said, I agree that distilled metaphysical naturalism is not enough for the majority. But again, what about some variant of secular buddhism? Buddhists are one of the most psychologically healthy groups on the planet, and the sticky practices and rituals are already compatible with a naturalistic worldview. Buddhists already reject the notion of a creator deity. The idea of karma is historically understood as supernatural in a way(I think), but it's only one step removed from an altruistic algorithm.
Carrier raises this idea of Eastern spirituality with his discussion of Taoism as a natural spiritual path of pure logic and truth. This tradition is very like Buddhism, including with the idea of karma as a doctrine of moral causality. I like Buddhism as a path to personal psychological health, but where I think Christianity is essential is in its global vision of history, its sense that Western society in particular has launched humanity on a path towards extinction, and that a comprehensive paradigm shift is needed to shift course. By contrast, Buddhism preaches detachment as the path to happiness, and so provides only an individualist rather than a political vision of redemption.
