Fine tuning?

Finally, to answer Brian - this forum is not an echo chamber. While most of us share a basic worldview that differs from that of a physicalist and (especially) from that of a skeptic, I do believe that we consider differing views.

I consider myself a sceptic, and think many members here are as well. What I mean by that is we ask questions. What I am not is a fixed believer and adherent of certain materialist tenets to the exclusion of all else. In some circles, the word 'sceptic' has become a synonym for a certain type of faith-based position and that is unfortunately what it is often considered to mean.

Fact?  Proven?  I won't derail the thread so here is a link to my argument.

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-fine-tuning

I presume this is your argument - correct me if I am wrong

The chance argument makes perfect sense when given the sheer size of the universe. I am seeing in this thread the usual lack of interest in considering any view other than the one you already have. PQ is an echo chamber and there is no point in skeptics posting anything here because it will just get trodden underfoot without consideration. As a christian, I believe the universe was created but even I can see that there is no physical proof of that. I have lost all respect for this forum and might never come back!

The obvious problem with your argument is that it permits anything to happen. I mean we might live in a universe where there are stuffed toys waiting for us on the other side of the moon!

On the other hand I'm not a great fan of Idealism either because it would seem it too can predict anything. If the whole physical world is effectively simulated by a supreme conscious entity, then since one feature of conscious entities (at least as I see it) is that they have free will, presumable this conscious entity could decide it would be fun to populate the far side of the moon with stuffed toys!

I used to be a Christian until I was an undergraduate. Christian students were targeted by a group unofficially called "The God Squad" which pushed a particularly hard-line form of Christianity that was frankly cruel. I lost my faith because I realised that Christianity was a vehicle from which a wide range of ideas can be pushed. At the time I couldn't believe in the miracles described in the Bible, but obviously I am more prepared to accept such strange events now, and my general view of religions (always remember that there are many religions - not just Christianity!) is that they were inspired by an assortment of supernatural events, but have slowly secularised to the point that the only supernatural events that they accept are the ones written in their holy books.

David

I presume this is your argument - correct me if I am wrong
The obvious problem with your argument is that it permits anything to happen. I mean we might live in a universe where there are stuffed toys waiting for us on the other side of the moon!

On the other hand I'm not a great fan of Idealism either because it would seem it too can predict anything. If the whole physical world is effectively simulated by a supreme conscious entity, then since one feature of conscious entities (at least as I see it) is that they have free will, presumable this conscious entity could decide it would be fun to populate the far side of the moon with stuffed toys!

I used to be a Christian until I was an undergraduate. Christian students were targeted by a group unofficially called "The God Squad" which pushed a particularly hard-line form of Christianity that was frankly cruel. I lost my faith because I realised that Christianity was a vehicle from which a wide range of ideas can be pushed. At the time I couldn't believe in the miracles described in the Bible, but obviously I am more prepared to accept such strange events now, and my general view of religions (always remember that there are many religions - not just Christianity!) is that they were inspired by an assortment of supernatural events, but have slowly secularised to the point that the only supernatural events that they accept are the ones written in their holy books.

David

The hard line christians seem to believe in supernatual events which need to either be seen as performed by god/jesus or the devil

The hard line christians seem to believe in supernatual events which need to either be seen as performed by god/jesus or the devil

Before I went to university, the vicars I had known were fairly malleable in their faith. But at university I met people who insisted that God couldn't just forgive people for their sins, he had to transfer the punishment to Christ - which was why He had to die on the cross. It made no sense at all, and I hit that brick wall repeatedly and I gave up being Christian.

The issue back then was not specifically about supernatural events.

David

I consider myself a sceptic, and think many members here are as well. What I mean by that is we ask questions. What I am not is a fixed believer and adherent of certain materialist tenets to the exclusion of all else. In some circles, the word 'sceptic' has become a synonym for a certain type of faith-based position and that is unfortunately what it is often considered to mean.

Yep - totally agree. I was using the term Skeptic meaning that very group of ideological debunkers that has proliferated in the internet age. Indeed, I often use the US spelling to denote that type whereas I use my native British spelling to mean true scepticism. That's not something that is a hard and fast rule though - just a preference.

PQ is an echo chamber and there is no point in skeptics posting anything here because it will just get trodden underfoot without consideration. 

Well as far as I can see, people respond to what you say - as I have above. Nobody tries to conceal your POV, but I think that Materialism is very, very hard to support in a consistent way. We aren't responsible for it being a weak philosophy.

One example of that is that from a strictly materialist POV there is no point in anything. Very few people try to argue from what I would describe as total materialism - indeed you don't yourself because you introduce Christianity!

Remove Christianity from your POV and see what you have left!

David

Brian,

Let me ask, is it possible to mix materialism and Christianity?

The Materialist approach to life on Earth is to see us as elaborate robots - we do what we do because of chemistry and physics.

Now imagine when eventually you get your interview with St Peter. St. Peter lists the sins that you have committed, and you say (presumably) that it wasn't you, it was the design of the body you were given - you had no control because Materialism sees matter as totally controlled by physics and chemistry (which can itself be reducible in principle to physics).

How does St. Peter respond to such an argument?

David

I argue this with someone close to me but it is good natured because we love and respect each other but his POV is materialism and he has no problem with determinism nor nihilism. He asks me why I think there has to be a point or a purpose and I can't answer beyond saying that I don't think I could live with his alternative. Actually, I do think the evidence points to a teleological purpose but try going down that path with someone who scoffs at anything that smacks of a challenge to Darwinism.

I argue this with someone close to me but it is good natured because we love and respect each other but his POV is materialism and he has no problem with determinism nor nihilism. He asks me why I think there has to be a point or a purpose and I can't answer beyond saying that I don't think I could live with his alternative. Actually, I do think the evidence points to a teleological purpose but try going down that path with someone who scoffs at anything that smacks of a challenge to Darwinism.

For me when people say they have no problem with determinism/nihilism they haven't thought things all the way through. If something is unjust, what does that mean?

If there are inalienable rights, are they just customs for our time or something more?

The pseudoskeptics used to complain about the "injustice" of not being allowed to express their views on the main Skeptiko threads for each show. What if we simply said we were deterministically bound to treat them that way?

While I don't think it's a strong philosophical agrument for Idealism, it seems to me our real lives take place within the "stage" of consciousness and all its attendant aspects including our personal values.

To go back to the CS Lewis quote:

[it] has even come to be taken for granted that the external account of a thing somehow "debunks" the account given from the inside. "All these moral ideals which look so transcendental and beautiful from the inside," says the wiseacre, "are really only a mass of biological instincts and inherited taboos."


And no one plays the game the other way round by replying, "If you will only step inside, the things that look to you like instincts and taboos will suddenly reveal their real and transcendental nature."

On the other hand I'm not a great fan of Idealism either because it would seem it too can predict anything. If the whole physical world is effectively simulated by a supreme conscious entity, then since one feature of conscious entities (at least as I see it) is that they have free will, presumable this conscious entity could decide it would be fun to populate the far side of the moon with stuffed toys!

I am not enough of a philosopher to know whether my flavour of idealism meets the academic definition but my take on that presumption is, yes, in the same way that that conscious entity decided to create conscious beings such as ourselves. We exist within the consciousness from which we are created. A more relevant question would be why? The ancient and long accepted view, confirmed by other sources such as channelling and NDEs. would be that the conscious entity is striving to know itself. Even if you don't accept that, it does make sense and it is a viable explanation in the absence of a deeper understanding. I cannot see any value (not even the whimsical concept of "fun") for such a consciousness to manifest a half-moon full of stuffed toys.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I do think this physical reality conforms to a set of rules which makes it scientifically accessible. Experiments are usually repeatable and outcomes often predictable. Without those rules (laws of physics) we would not even be discussing metaphysics, whether materialist, idealist or any other philosophical position.