This is the first post in a series from Steve Meyer’s chapter in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021):
Since the 1950s and 1960s, physicists have discovered that the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe have been finely tuned to make life in the universe (and even basic chemistry) possible. To many physicists, this discovery has suggested the activity of a fine-tuner or super-intellect — i.e., an actual designing intelligence. Yet other physicists now argue that the fine-tuning of the physical parameters of the universe manifests the appearance, but not the reality, of design. For example, physicist Lawrence Krauss has argued that cosmological fine-tuning does not provide evidence of intelligent design, but instead, “the illusion of intelligent design.”
Stephen C. Meyer, “What Is the Evidence for Intelligent Design and What Are Its Theistic Implications?” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 23, 2022)
So Larry Krauss argues “cosmological fine-tuning does not provide evidence of intelligent design, but instead, ‘the illusion of intelligent design.’” Isn’t that a misuse of the concept of illusion?
Doesn’t it amount to saying, Who Ya Gonna Believe Me or Your Own Eyes?
If cosmologists must insist that fine-tuning of our universe can be explained by an infinity of flopped universes out there (and ours just happens to work), whatever is going on, it’s not science.
Meyer is the author of The Return of the God Hypothesis.
You may also wish to read: Jordan Peterson’s reflections on Twitter on reading Steve Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis
Why does this not surprise me? Live not by lies. KF
larry krauss… who else.. always the same Darwinian clowns … dawkins, coyne, krauss …
Some with biologists … i am an engineer, when a biologist, natural science graduate claims, that design in biology is only an illusion, i can only laugh in his face (or advice him to see a doctor). I know what i see … unless, that smart biologist goes to his lab and create life from scratch by unguided process … but of course, that will NEVER happen, because:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkWmy37nmsM
What do these others “show” as evidence that fine-tuning is truly an “illusion” and not a real “manifestation” of intelligent design? Or are their arguments just the “illusion” of their intelligence?
So when is design real and when is it a mirage?
Andrew
As to: “Lawrence Krauss has argued that cosmological fine-tuning does not provide evidence of intelligent design, but instead, “the illusion of intelligent design.”
This claim from Lawrence Krauss that the fine-tuning of the universe is merely “the illusion of intelligent design” is an interesting claim for a Darwinian materialist to make.
The reason why this claim is interesting is because, given the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Krauss’s Darwinian worldview, Lawrence Krauss himself does not really exist as a real person but Krauss himself becomes merely a ‘neuronal illusion’.
The reason why atheists are forced to, embarrassingly, claim that they do not really exist as real persons, but that they are merely ‘neuronal illusions’, is because the entire concept of personhood is an abstract, immaterial, concept that simply is not reducible to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations of Darwinists.
As M. Anthony Mills explains, according to the presuppositions of reductive materialism, “you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories;”,,,
And as Dr. Dennis Bonnette explains, “every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.”
In short, the ultimate definition of what is ‘real’ for reductive materialists turns out to be atoms and particles themselves. Everything else that is immaterial, especially including the abstract, immaterial, concept of ‘personhood’, becomes, by default, illusory to that primary definition of reality of atoms and particles.
This presupposition that the ultimate definition of reality must be based in atoms and particles puts the reductive materialist in a fairly severe bind as far as ever offering a complete, and coherent, explanation of reality.
First off, there are many ‘immaterial’ things, (immaterial things that humans resolutely hold to be undeniably “real”), that simply are not reducible to materialistic explanations.
As Dr. Michael Egnor further explains, “Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts.,,, Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,”
And although the reductive materialist may be all too willing, in the name of ‘science’, to cast all that is immaterial, and truly important, by the wayside, and dogmatically hold that atoms and particles are the only things that are to be considered ‘real’ in the universe, the irony in all this is that science itself could care less what the reductive materialist wants to believe beforehand, and has now shown us that atoms themselves do not even exist until they are ‘measured’.
Specifically, in the following Delayed Choice Experiment, that was done with atoms instead of photons, it was proven that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality, (which falsified ‘realism’), stressed “the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
These findings from quantum mechanics, (findings which directly falsify the reductive materialist’s presupposition that atoms and particles are the ultimate definition of reality), really should not be all that surprising for us to find out.
Namely, for anything to even be ‘real’ for us in the first place we first must be conscious of it. Simply put,. If we were not first conscious then nothing can be real for us. PERIOD!
No less than Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger, and Eugene Wigner have all made this point clear in regards to the, obvious, primacy that consciousness must play in any definition of reality that we may put forth.
Thus in conclusion, Lawrence Krauss may firmly believe that he is more than qualified to differentiate what is real from what is illusory, (and declare that fine-tuning is merely “the illusion of intelligent design.”), but alas, in so far as Krauss himself toes the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, Krauss himself becomes merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ and thus has, by default, rendered all his opinions on what may be considered real and what may be considered illusory completely worthless.
As Ross Douthat asked Jerry Coyne, “but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit?”
Darwinists, in their rejection of the reality, and primacy, of the immaterial conscious mind, simply have no basis from which to differentiate what is real from what is illusory.
And as David Bentley Hart succinctly explained, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
Verse:
BA77, it is worse, atoms are composite and particles contingent, they cannot be ultimate. We hammered out why endless past years cannot be traversed year by year to now, we have a finite past once we understand time as thermodynamically constrained causal succession. KF
KF
Yes, reductionist physics cannot be the correct model for reality, either from a QM perspective or materialist.
It’s for that reason:
That cannot be correct – physics cannot tell us that “reality does not exist” unless one believes that physics can determine what reality is or isn’t.
Again, that’s false. Quantum physics requires reality in order to function. Reality includes living beings, like humans – which are not reducible to physics.
Realism cannot be falsified by physics.
For example, in my own view – Thomistic-Realism, God holds-together created reality through forms which are inaccessible to physical science. Physics cannot refute that in the same way that science cannot refute the realism which is at the foundation of human rationality.
If we get rid of realism, we get rid of human reason.
Silver Asiatic, you do realize that when they say “Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It”, and that “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality”, they are talking about the ‘reality’ of material particles do you not?
Of course reality must be based in something. The entire point of my posts was, and is, simply to show that, as far as science and common sense are concerned, (and contrary to what Darwinian materialists believe), it is not the material particles in which our definition of reality must be based.
For the Christian this falsification of ‘material realism’ should not be surprising. Christians have always held that our ultimate definition of reality must be God, or more specifically, must be the Mind of God.
BA77
But that’s not what they said. “Reality doesn’t exist” is not the same as saying “material particles do not exist” – far from it. “Goodbye to reality” is what it is. That’s a sweeping statement that is not only false but a lot of people believe it for exactly what it says. I’m afraid you argue for this yourself and you therefore will end up with no reality, which is insane.
Jesus told St. Thomas to touch His hands and put his hand into the wound in His side – for a very important reason. The denial of “material realism” would mean that there is no material world at all. That God really did not create “the heavens and the earth” as the Bible says.
Most importantly, if our own material bodies “do not exist unless we’re looking at them”, then there is no resurrection from the dead. The resurrection is for real, material bodies – the material world that God created.
Physics does not describe reality – but only that which is physical within reality.
BA77 quoting Kastrup:
A few big problems here: Objectivity is another word for “empiricism” which is the foundation of materialist-scientism. That worldview is falsified without any need for QM.
He says contemporary culture associates objectivity (empiricism) with reality. But contemporary culture is wrong – no need for QM to show that. But Kastrup instead thinks it’s correct and then says that “Physics says goodbye to reality”.
But as I said, physics cannot do that. Physics does not tell us what reality is. Nor does biology. Nor does mathematics. Reality is something much more than science can show.
So no, physics does not say goodbye to reality. In fact, physics requires reality (human life and intelligence which is not a product of physics) to exist.
SA, I usually respect your comments very much. Your comments are often very insightful and informative. And I usually enjoy reading them very much. So for the world of me I cannot understand why you, a Christian Theist, are having such a hard time accepting the falsification of material realism by quantum mechanics.
It is not hard to understand. They, i.e. reductive materialists, (and/or Darwinian materialists), expected the base definition of reality to be material particles. Yet, quantum mechanics has repeatedly shown that the base definition of reality cannot possibly be reduced to material particles. There is an irreducible subjective element to ‘reality’ that prevents ‘reality’ from ever being defined in purely materialistic terms.
For crying out loud SA, you, as a Christian Theist who holds the Mind of God to be ultimate base of all reality, i.e. as THE creator and sustainer of all material reality, should be among the very first to understand the significance of what these experiments from quantum mechanics are revealing to us about ‘reality’.
Verse:
BA77
Thank you and likewise me for all of your great posts and the knowledge you share.
I think in this case, we’re just not connecting on the terminology.
Yes, as a Christian Theist I hold that God is the ultimate foundation of all reality, so that definitely makes sense.
I think it’s different to say that “materialism is not the ultimate base of all reality” and “there is no material world at all”.
That’s where it gets confusing. My own body, for example, persists over time. Otherwise, I would pop in and out of existence.
But yes, I fully agree with you that materialism is not supported by the experimental data.
Thanks
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” – Orwell, 1984
“So Larry Krauss argues “cosmological fine-tuning does not provide evidence of intelligent design, but instead, ‘the illusion of intelligent design.’”
So his opinion/belief counts as “science”? Since when?
Truth be told, neither side can “prove” their belief about the origin of the universe and it’s finely tuned laws to enable life etc. This is beyond the reach of experimental science, so in the end, everyone has to make their own decision about what to believe.
It comes down to looking at the evidence and deciding which conclusion makes most sense. For theists, the design argument makes most sense. For scientists who are bound to methodological naturalism, they don’t have much choice in the matter. If they want to remain faithful to “science”, then they are forced to believe what Krauss believes, whether it makes sense or not. It seems their faith is always up to the challenge and able to accommodate any and every inconvenient piece of data that doesn’t fit their worldview.
It’s an inconvenient but unavoidable truth that even scientists, Krauss included, have great faith!
TJ, that’s what my goal is when discussing with skeptics…we all operate on faith!
SA & BA77, I note:
I do not doubt that many have been led to think like this. However, such is a gross error, a mis-definition that fails to properly assess the spectrum: subjective > objective > absolute, especially as regards truth. I suspect, too, object-IVITY is partly being erroneously conflated with objectiv-ISM in a sense that I believe is held to be characteristic of Ms Ayn Rand. Where, objectivity comes from objective, here in Collins English Dictionary we may see:
I suggest (again) that it is advisable to start with our error proneness, while recognising that in some cases after due diligence we may form well warranted arguments and views that can be held as knowledge in the weak, common sense found in science etc. Such, implies, well-warranted, credibly true [so reliable] belief, though obviously, it is subject to onward correction on further evidence or argument. Where, we cannot attain adequacy of warrant, that current state of the art becomes itself a secondary knowledge, known unknowns. Of course, Mr Rumsfeld was also correct regarding unknown unknowns, topics on which we have radical ignorance, sometimes without awareness.
In particular, materialistic reductionism as an account of the mind-body-external world problem fails. Similarly, philosophies usually termed idealism, which seek to eliminate recognition of physical entities ranging from particles and atoms to the macro scale entities we encounter in every day life, also fail. Likewise, simulationism by which we are caught up in a modern form of Plato’s Cave grand delusion also fail. These, by undermining and reducing to alleged delusion major faculties or findings of our senses and reason thus ending in discredit of the very reason used to develop the views.
None of this implies that atoms or particles are hard little solid marbles, blue or yellowish white etc. The results of quantum theory bring the micro scale to wave-particle duality, Heisenberg-Einstein uncertainties of position-momentum and energy-time, probability smearing out etc. We even have the whimsical wavicle. Contact forces with solid bodies turn out to be field interactions, especially the so called London forces. Likewise, general quantum weirdness exists. However, there is still a correspondence principle that as things scale up, there is a conformity to classical expectations, which after all have been well supported for large relatively slow moving bodies. And yes, part of the weirdness is the role of observers and how they interact with situations, e.g. if you look for particles, that’s what you will see and likewise for waves. But, too, look for, includes action of instrumental detectors. In a notorious case, a cat in a box with a radioactive event triggerable release of poison, is held to be in a superposed state of alive and dead. This thought exercise draws out the issue of uncertainty and observer triggered resolution.
Some tend to turn such into inference that the macro scale view is delusional, is an exposed error. Instead, it seems better to see it as exploring the substructure that helps to constitute the macro world. As in economics, macro phenomena can be as real as the micro scale events and circumstances that undergird them.
We may subjectively accurately perceive reality, but are error prone. Due diligence leads to objective knowledge. In turn such may approximate the absolute: truth, the whole relevant truth, undiluted and untainted.
Pardon a bit of compressed exposition.
KF
kf, I am not saying, and I have not said, that an objective ‘outside’ world does not exist. I am merely saying that, according to quantum mechanics, the objective ‘outside’ world that we perceive is not composed of atoms and particles as the ultimate substratum of ‘reality’, (as reductive materialists had originally, and falsely, presupposed). But ‘reality’ is instead reducible to information and how our conscious minds interacts with this ‘outside’ information. i.e. I hold that “reality’ is ‘information theoretic’ in its foundational essence!
Specifically I hold that energy and mass both reduce to information, with consciousness, and free will, playing an integral role in how we perceive this ‘outside’ information.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
And I am in agreement with no less than Vedral, Wheeler, and Zeilinger, (not to mention John !:!), when I say that the definition of ‘reality’, i.e. the ultimate definition of the ‘outside’ objective world, is now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in its foundational essence.
In the following video at the 48:24 mark Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and he goes on to note at the 49:45 mark the Theological significance of “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
Verse:
Of supplemental note to the ‘uncertainty principle’ and information.
BA77, I hear you. Regrettably, there seem to be others we must bear in mind who come perilously close to such. I suggest, macro and micro levels are both valid, similar to economics. As for ultimate reality, some seem to have problems with logical reasoning (perhaps failing to grasp that math is an extension and further application of logic applied to an aspect of being, structure and quantity). Notwithstanding, it is pretty clear our causal-thermodynamic time order cannot be infinite in the past. That leads to necessary being as root reality, so the real debate is its character. Obviously, not composite so not material, and more. Some objectors then want to play the scorn “Religion” card, not realising this is philosophy we are facing. Big, hard questions that have no easy, sound answers. KF
Well, there ARE easy answers. They are just answers most people reject, for one reason or another. What becomes hard is when one rejects the easy, simple answer, add a whole bunch of other unnecessary stuff, which then results in a complicated mess they have to Rube Goldberg back together.
KF
I fully agree. I was just rephrasing Kastrup’s thought as he looked at objective. It can be an external world built entirely of matter or physical entities.
But as you point out, logic is an objective system. We know of objective values.
Agreed. That’s my argument also. The very same trust that is given to science in it’s explanations of physical reality (because it’s a faith-based process at the core) is the trust we have that our knowledge of the external world is true (and it therefore exists and perdures over time).
Yes, I used the examples of classical western philosophy of forms and substances that are the architecture of reality and which hold matter together even at the sub-atomic level. At the macro level, forms are of each individual item with substances of each that we identify. These persist in time and to say “nothing exists unless you’re looking at it” would be incorrect. We can see that things exist and they show change over time (trees growing) even if nobody is looking at them.
We may subjectively accurately perceive reality, but are error prone. Due diligence leads to objective knowledge. In turn such may approximate the absolute: truth, the whole relevant truth, undiluted and untainted.
Pardon a bit of compressed exposition.