Customer Reviews

Universes

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is truly wonderful. Not only that, it is perhaps the only book that I know of that is endorsed by BOTH atheists and theists alike. Yep, that's right boys and girls. Quentin Smith is one of the most die hard atheists on the planet and Peter Van Inwagen of the university of Nortre Dame is one of the biggest defenders of theism. Both rave about this book and their comments can be read on the back cover. So, what is this book all about, you ask? Well, it's something known as the Anthropic Principle. It was first introduced in the early 1970s by a physicist by the name of Brandon Carter. It basically states that we are not just lucky to be here, but rather we are REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky to be here. Why? Because from the first instant of the big bang onward, an incredible and highly improbable slew of things HAD to go right in order for the possibility for life to exist anywhere in the universe. So much so that it seems that the universe was "fine tuned" just for life. Sir Fred Hoyle (an atheist) was led to comment that the universe looks like a "put up job." Now, this set of circumstances led to a ressurection of the Argument from Design by the theists with renewed vehemence. Meanwhile, the atheists have their own responses, which basically take up two camps. First Response (also known as the Weak Anthropic Principle or WAP): "Of course the universe has laws which allow life to exist. If they didn't we would not be here. Therefore, the odds are irrelevant except perhaps for some latenight philosophic mental gymnastics." Now, there is a problem with this response in that it is nothing more than a tautology. That is to say, it does not EXPLAIN why the universe supports life despite so many constricted laws of physics and chemistry. It is like someone asking why the Dallas Cowboys won the superbowl and having a person respond "because they scored more points than the other team." That answers nothing. The question is: WHY did they win? Were they better than the other team? Did they get lucky? Did they have a better coach? Did the other team have injuries? Were turnovers a factor? etc. etc. Saying that "they scored more points" only states the obvious: "of course they scored more points, or else they would not have won the game..." Now, the second camp is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and it goes something like this: "Since the odds of our existing in a universe with the PRECISE physical laws necessary for us to do so are so slim as to be intellectually unacceptable (in the order of 10^10^123 according to Roger Penrose) there must then be a whole slew of other universes (perhaps an infinite number) to JUSTIFY this one. That is to say, in an infinite number of universes, virtually anything can happen. The majority of them would have random, weird laws of physics and be lifeless but EVERY SO OFTEN you would get one which could support life (in some form or another)." Now, this is an interesting argument, but it has a fatal flaw. There is not a SHRED of evidence that even one other universe exists besides our (much less an infinte number of them). Yet they seem to HAVE to exist in order for the numbers to come out right. Hence, if one chooses to believe in these alternate universes (no matter what his scientific credentials) he MUST do so on faith alone. Obviously, most atheists are not comfortable with this conclusion, but that is the way it goes. Leslie's book engages the subject objectively and he tells wonderful, fun stories that offer both the atheist (multiple universe) and theistic (one universe with a designer) perceptions of the debate. A remarkable book. I think that Mr. Pierson missed the point when he read it as it is not about Darwinian evolution at all (nor does Leslie ever say it is). It is well worth reading the whole thing, too. What Mr. Pierson said about atheists being willing to believe in multiple universes but are not willing to believe in God is precisely one of Leslie's points. However, I also would endorse the other books that Mr. Pierson recommended as I have read them too. Also, I would suggest for those who like this book Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith and William Craig Lane.

Philosophy professor John Leslie does a supurb job of presenting evidence that our cosmos may have been "fine-tuned" for life. The basic argument is that a life-premitting cosmos requires the existence of a very large number of highly specific and seemingly unrelated facts. Were any of these facts changed even modestly, life could have never have arisen. Further, since the probability of all the facts being what are is thought to be vanishingly small, some have suggested that our cosmos may have been "fine-tuned" for life. For some this has seemed a strong argument for the existence of God. But Leslie points out that an equally good explanation is that our portion of the cosmos is only a small part of a vast Universe. The great majority of this Universe is disorded and non-life-premitting, but entirely by chance some portions are life-premitting. That we see a life-permitting cosmos should come as no surprise, because mere chance indicates that at least some areas should be life-premitting and we can exist only in these areas. While Leslie's work is fun and exciting, and while Leslie clearly knows a great deal about physics and cosmology, from a philosophical perspective some of his conclusions seem a bit naive. For example, he defends a bizarre neoplatonic notion that a life-premitting Universe may exist solely because its existence is ethically required, i.e. that an abstract ethical principle may somehow have created everything. While this is a possible cosmogony perhaps on par with the God hypothesis, its implausable nature seems to suggest that we adopt a healthy skepticism about the ultimate origins of the Universe rather than seriously entartain it as a possibility. Leslie also makes some unwarranted assumptions about the possibility of alternative laws of nature. Nonetheless, the book is fun and informative. I highly recommend it. --Greg Klebanoff

Not believing in Darwinian evolution, I find the Anthropic Principle (the core concept of the book) compelling - it does seem to me that the Universe has been fine-tuned for life. And some of the examples were quite pertinent. However, I quit reading about 1/3 of the way through the book for three reasons. 1) I found that the same facts and arguments seemed to be repeated over and over. 2) I found the book to be a "hard read" - the logic did not seem easy to follow (this may be because I have a "scientific" mind rather than a "philosophic" mind and most of the arguments are presented from a philosophical reference). 3) Multiple universes with different laws of nature, which the author believes to exist, are needed to explain the fine-tuning of our Universe only because scientists refuse to accept an "intelligent desinger" because "He" can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured, and is not constrained by the laws of nature as we know them. Yet, these same scientists have no problem believing in other universes that can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured , and which do not follow the laws of nature as we know them. For those who are looking for scientific arguments against Darwinian evolution, I suggest these recent works by two Ph.D.'s: DARWIN'S BLACK BOX;THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION and THE SCIENCE OF GOD:THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM.

I can be brief. It is astonishing how even brilliant minds, like Professor Penrose can go astray. There was this housewife from Pennsylvania who within weeks hit the jackpot twice on the same ticket. The papers were quick to report that this was a one to 17 billion long shot. Not true! Or only true if no one else but Ms Johnes is supposed to be the winner. But if just SOMEBODY is supposed to win, then, given the number of participants, the odds are something in the order of 1:30. Neither evolution nor the universe are partial about us, only WE have this bias. But given size and duration of available worlds, SOMETHING is bound to happen, if not here than somewhere else, if not life then some other oddity. As it happened it was life and it was us. Personally I don't believe in Big Bang and all this nonsense, so there is plenty of time for something to happen anyway, but this is not my point: even given the limitations and strictures most seem to believe can be observed out there, the one universe there is, is still big enough for something to occur. Besides evolution is the mechanism gradually to improve the odds. Again: evolution has no intentions to end up with weird critters like us. But it proceeds in a way that makes us possible: not necessary, but possible. The whole 'anthropic principle,' is just an other exercise in human vanity. If we can't be the necessary fruit of events, we want at least to be an impossibly rare specimen. We are neither folks, and that is all there is to it.