Moreover, I've never claimed that choosing “this way” to challenge us was inconsistent with God's existence. My claim was far humbler. I merely claimed that, given that life exists in the universe, the hostility of the vast majority of it is more to be expected on atheism than it is on theism.
In this chapter, I've consistently maintained that, given that moral agents exist, atheism better explains the near universal hostility of our universe than does theism. Given that theism does not lead us to expect, prior to observing our surroundings, a distinction between the friendly parts of God's creation and hostile parts of God's creation, appeals to a purposeful safe house within a wider, dangerous region are, as I've argued, woefully ad hoc. Moreover, if, on theism, the reason(s) for which the universe was created are not available to us, we are not entitled to posit it as a serious explanation of the observations under consideration.
Randal: As I said, your intuition that we should expect God to make a universe that is broadly hospitable for human beings can't even get off the ground unless you assume that God created the universe primarily for human beings, which I don't.
Consider this cool analogy. Imagine two polar bears, Koda and Snowflake, having a debate about whether there is a zoo designer who purposefully designed the zoo they live in. Koda insists there isn't a zoo designer. The reason? He points out that most of the zoo is not hospitable to polar bears. (What's with that steaming jungle habitat? And the aviary? What a waste of space!) And surely, Koda reasons, if there were a zoo designer, he/she would make it mostly hospitable to polar bears.
You'd think, right? But Snowflake demurs, as she points out that Koda's objection only works if one assumes that the zoo was designed primarily to serve the needs of polar bears. And Snowflake doesn't accept that assumption. In her view, maintaining a safe and hospitable environment for polar bears is only one of many purposes for the zoo. And thus, by Snowflake's estimation, Koda's assumptions (and the argument that goes with them) are flawed from the outset.
I gotta tell you, I'm with Snowflake on this one! Your argument parallels Koda's, and it's flawed for the same reason.
Justin: Since, to our knowledge thus far, the universe is not like a zoo with many different habitats for many different creatures, such a story won't get us far. You've continuously claimed that my argument requires the premise that the universe was primarily created for humans. But again, nobody needs to assume that humans, or even life in general, were the primary reason(s) for creating the universe in order for this argument to go through. All they need to assume is that God loves humans as her children, and that whatever nonhuman motivating reason for the universe there is could be fulfilled by an omnipotent being without making 99 percent of the universe completely hostile to those whom she loves as children and most other forms of life that we know of.
Curiously, there are some forms of life that are able to get along fine in most of the universe. If God exists, she has created some creatures with that ability while also deciding against giving moral agents that ability, even though, presumably, they are the pinnacle of terrestrial life on theism. Strange priorities.
It seems as though, once again, we've come up to a dead end. Our intuitions diverge radically on this question of what we as humans should expect to find in our universe. I've argued that we should not see so much hostility toward life. You've argued that I've no basis for such a judgment.
Randal: I need to start by replying to your critique of the zoo analogy. It doesn't require that each “habitat” in the universe include sentient creatures. It only requires that the sentient life in question (human beings or polar bears) is restricted to one part of the realm (universe or zoo).
Be that as it may, you're right that once again we come up to a dead end of sorts. But I will say I am grateful for you presenting this argument because I believe the intuitions to which you appeal are widespread in the skeptic/atheist community. I have often encountered skeptics of theism invoking the size, age, and hostility of the universe to life as evidence against a creator God. I suspect Carl Sagan's eloquent and existentially jolting ruminations about our “pale blue dot” have contributed as much to skepticism in the last thirty years as anything.6 And it seems to me that your argument provides a good start at clarifying and defending the intuitions at work, even if I remain unconvinced.
Justin: With this topic having come to completion, it would appear we are again free to explore yet another issue.
Randal: By Jove, I think you're right!
Justin: Is there some other observation you think counts as evidence for theism that you think might be worth exploring?
Randal: Indeed, there is! You started the discussion about the hostility of the universe with the illustration of a young man living in a house. I, too, would like to begin with an illustration that draws an analogy between the universe and a house. But in my telling the focus and lesson will be rather different.
Justin: Is it safe to assume this one isn't spouting poisonous gas?
Randal: Heh heh, you'd be right in that assumption. I'm going to keep this analogy simple, with no bells or whistles (or poison gas).
Perhaps I can start by giving you the basic idea, and then we can unpack it from a couple of different angles.
Justin: Certainly. I'm ready to hear what you have to offer.
ON THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS
Randal: Excellent. So I think I'll begin with a famous essay by theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner. In that essay, titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Wigner reflects on the astounding degree to which the universe can be described in mathematical terms. He writes, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”1
I agree with Wigner that this is a wonderful gift, but from a theistic perspective it is neither unexpected nor unreasonable. Since the theist believes the universe to be the product of a benevolent, rational mind, it is no surprise that, just as the architect and engineer would design a house according to a precise mathematical blueprint, so a rational God should design a universe according to a precise mathematical blueprint, one that is decipherable by finite, rational minds.
But it seems to me that that which fits so well within a theistic worldview is fundamentally inexplicable within an atheistic one.
Justin: Hmm. You and Wigner have found it fitting to describe this appropriateness of mathematical language as a gift. Surely this choice in rhetoric needs to be recognized as just that.
Randal: Whoa, presumably you're using the term rhetoric as a pejorative here. That seems unduly harsh. To be sure, Wigner is speaking figuratively, but he certainly isn't engaged in the bombast of mere rhetoric.
Justin: My point was to identify the loaded wording in a stated premise. What I'm more concerned with is why this appropriateness of mathematics is to be, as you say, “fundamentally inexplicable” within an atheistic view? Atheism is, after all, compatible with a number of views about mathematics, including Platonist views of mathematics, where mathematic entities are abstract and exist independently of our thinking about them. Needless to say, this strikes me as a bold claim, and I'll need some help tracking with you here.
Randal: Have patience, my friend. All shall be revealed!
How about I start by making some observations about the astounding mathematical structure of the world? And then you and I can each offer our reflections on how we explain that structure in light of our worldview.
Justin: Sure thing. Let's hear it.
NUMERICAL PATTERNS AS ARCHITECTURAL MOTIFS
Randal: Okay, on to numbers in nature. Let's start with the famed Fibonacci number sequence. This is a numerical pattern that begins with 0, 1, 1, and then from there every subsequent integer in the sequence is the combination of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and on to infinity.
You often find the Fibonacci seque
nce in human designs. But the astounding fact is that you also find this pattern throughout nature, ranging from the spiral structure of seashells and pinecones to pinwheel galaxies. The petal numbers of flowers regularly conform to one of the Fibonacci numbers. You can also find the Fibonacci sequence in tree branches, cabbages, sunflower seeds, pineapples, artichokes, bees, music, reflections, and countless other areas.2 Like a meadow awash in wildflowers, the natural world is blooming with the patterns of the Fibonacci sequence.
Justin: Thanks for that. I suppose it might be good if you were to get more specific on one example of the sequence found in nature. Then we can discuss why you think of it as evidence for theism.
Randal: If you don't mind, instead I'd like to introduce another recurring mathematical pattern: pi (3.14). As we all know, pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. And so, pi is stamped on nature every time you find a circular structure, from the DNA double helix spiral to the splash in a pond.
But that's only the beginning. Like the Fibonacci sequence, pi appears in places that you'd never expect. For example, in 1996, Hans-Henrik Stolum published a paper in Science in which he argued that the average meandering ratio3 for rivers is pi.4
Pi also makes appearances in probability theory. For example, if you drop a needle on a grid with parallel lines, where the width between the lines is equivalent to the length of the needle, the likelihood that the needle will fall on a line rather than in the spaces between is 2/pi.
These are just a few examples of the innumerable, fascinating instances of pi in nature. Time and again, this numerical value pops up in the strangest places. On the Nova documentary The Great Math Mystery, the narrator observes, “One writer has suggested it's like seeing pi on a series of mountain peaks, poking out of a fog shrouded valley. We know there is a way they're all connected but it's not always obvious how.”5
There are still other recurring mathematical patterns in nature as well, such as the golden ratio, but I don't want to belabor the point. Suffice it to say, the ubiquity of numerical patterns like the Fibonacci sequence and pi (and the golden ratio) throughout nature has led mathematicians to exclaim in wonder that math is the language of the universe. And the question for us is this: which worldview fits best with the incredible mathematical structure of the world? In particular, is the recurrence of these mathematical patterns throughout nature more to be expected on atheism or on theism?
Justin: You've laid out some examples of things in nature that resemble some mathematical sequences or patterns. Very well. You seem to want to suggest that these patterns (or their applicability?) are more surprising on atheism than they are on theism, but I need to hear more of your thought process on this because, at present, it's all still a bit too vague for my liking.
Randal: But of course!
Justin: I'm glad to hear there's more.
Randal: There's always more, amigo.
So here's the idea: We begin with the fact that, on theism, the universe is brought into being by God. That means that God functions analogically to an architect. Just as an architect plans a building and then oversees its construction, so God plans creation and then oversees its construction. Theologians even have a term for the planning stage of creation. They call it the divine decree. So God decrees (plans), and then God creates (builds).6
Justin: Well, I think we need to exercise a bit of caution with this comparison, especially with whatever implications we draw from it. But I'll shut up. Go on.
Randal: Your reservations have been noted!
With that in mind, we would expect creation to exhibit some features that are analogical to the buildings that are designed and constructed by architects. One of the most common elements of architectural design is the design motif, a recurring structured pattern. There are countless architectural design motifs: geometric patterns, meanders, rosettes, ornaments, and so on. Often the motifs in question serve as a creative signature of the artist. My favorite example is the famed Spanish architect Antoni Gaudi, whose work is imbued by motifs drawn from nature in an inimitable signature style, nowhere more so than in his greatest work, the magnificent Sagrada Familia Church in Barcelona.
If God functions like an architect, then just as the architect incorporates design motifs into his/her work, so we would expect God to incorporate design motifs into his work. So when we find recurring mathematical patterns throughout nature, patterns like the Fibonacci sequence, pi, and the golden ratio, we find exactly the kind of patterns that would serve as divine design motifs. In short, these are the kind of complex mathematical patterns one might expect to find in nature if the universe were indeed created by God. But if there is no God then such patterns become perplexing, inexplicable, brute facts.
Justin: Okay, that helps me with understanding where you were going with this argument. For starters, I will agree with you that, if God exists and has created the world, then, in that sense, she functions in similar ways to an architect. But I don't think there is any basis for assuming God would be likely to behave like human architects. There are a number of differences.
Randal: Do tell!
Justin: For one, unlike human architects, God does not simply reshape preexisting building materials. Rather, God is supposed to have created from absolutely nothing. Secondly, artists leave these little motifs as a kind of signature to distinguish their works from other works or to distinguish that style from other styles. Expecting this behavior from a creative agent makes sense only if there are preexisting styles of concrete objects from which God might wish to distinguish her handiwork. But this is not the case at the point of God's creative decree.
Unlike the creations of human architects, every object or design that God creates is utterly original. There are no antecedents. For any object God creates at that very first moment, nothing of a similar theme, makeup, or purpose has ever existed prior to its coming into existence. To be sure, I am not claiming that God wouldn't put these personal signatures on her works if she existed. I am only claiming that we have no clue if she would and that the human analogy is uninformative for at least these reasons.
Randal: I'm glad you agree that God's relationship to creation is analogous to an architect's relationship to the building she creates. But what about your points of disanalogy? Of the points you raise, it seems to me the most important one is your claim that motifs are only included as a means to distinguish an architect's work from other works and other styles. As you said, “Expecting this behavior from a creative agent makes sense only if there are preexisting styles of concrete objects from which God might wish to distinguish his handiwork.”
While I agree with you that an identifying “artistic signature” provides one reason why one might include architectural motifs in their work, it certainly isn't the only reason.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is a great architect living on an isolated tropical island that has no contact with the outside world. She designs all the buildings on the island so that the population of the community is exposed to no designs other than those of their resident architect. Given that there are no other competing architects, does it follow that she will include no design motifs in her work? Not at all. She could still have many reasons for including motifs in her work. For example, she might include rosettes for no other reason than that she likes rosettes.
Just as an architect can have endless reasons for including design motifs in her work apart from the need to distinguish her work from that of competing architects, so God could have endless reasons for including design motifs in his work apart from the need to distinguish that work from competing creators. The point is that theism explains the presence of these perplexing recurring mathematical patterns as architectural design motifs.
By contrast, I don't see that atheism offers any explanation for patterns like the Fibonacci sequence or pi. Do you?
DEBATING THE ARCHITECTURAL MOTIF ARGUMENT
Justin: That's a fine response, but, of course, I never claimed th
at God couldn't have other reasons to place motifs in her work. I was only pointing out that the reason you gave doesn't actually apply so it doesn't serve as a positive reason for why God is likely to create motifs. There may of course be other reasons for creating design motifs, but I assume you want to demonstrate something more than God being consistent with the observations.
On the other hand, given regular, simple laws, we'd expect repeating patterns to appear quite often in nature on atheism so it's still not clear to me why this should be seen as evidence for theism. Do you have a reason to suggest divine psychology has some interest in Fibonacci sequences or pi specifically rather than some very different but equally arbitrary pattern or patterns? I ask because, if God has no Fibonacci or pi-based fetish, then do you consider all patterns and numbers in nature as evidence for God?
Randal: Hmm, you say that I haven't established that God would have something like a “Fibonacci or pi-based fetish” that might explain the repetition of the Fibonacci sequence and pi in particular. But this is a misrepresentation of my argument.
Justin: I'm not sure I follow. Please explain.
Randal: I never set out to explain why pi and the Fibonacci sequence in particular are repeated in nature. Rather, I set out to explain why in general complex mathematical patterns like pi and the Fibonacci sequence are repeated in nature. And I've presented an explanation by attributing them to a divine architect who includes architectural motifs in his work in analogy to the motifs of a human architect.
Justin: Ah, well, I misunderstood the scope of the argument then.
Randal: All is forgiven.
Justin: I must say, though, the same point applies. You need a reason for why God would be likely to repeat complex yet ultimately arbitrary mathematical patterns in her creation. Your repeated invoking of the tendencies of creativity among humans is problematic for the reasons I've already discussed.
An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar Page 17