Occam's razor is a guiding principle in scientific inquiries that proclaims that among a group of competing hypotheses, the one that introduces the fewest new assumptions is most likely the best. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It is important to note that Occam's razor is not a general law, but rather a heuristic, or "rule of thumb". It is also essential to realize where the principle derives from - not from logic, reason or scientific experiment, but from innate human tendencies that appeal to aesthetics. For thoughts and ideas, we more often than not prefer elegance over jaggedness, simplicity over complexity, and succinctness over superfluity. It's not like we walk around constantly trying to convince ourselves of these things, but they just seem to pervade our rationale subconsciously.
As today's science becomes quirkier and stranger by the day, the following can really be posed as a legitimate question: "Which description of reality is less absurd - that offered by science, or that offered by religion?" No longer can a self-proclaimed "rational person" dismiss the idea of God on the grounds that it is too fantastical or that science provides a simpler answer. In fact, at first glance, it would seem that Occam's razor dictates that religion offers the simpler, and thus, better solution. But what exactly is the question? Perhaps more fundamental than asking what the nature of reality is, is asking why the nature of reality is what it is. Why is the universe designed the way it is with the laws that govern it with the properties that it has? And most mysteriously of all, why do all of these factors seem to be so perfectly, finely tuned to allow for life?
It is well established that even the slightest tweaking of any of the aforementioned factors would result in a universe incapable of supporting life. More than a 4% change in the strength of the electromagnetic force, or a 0.5% change in the strength of the strong nuclear force, and carbon and oxygen would not be able to form in stars. A 0.2% increase in the mass of protons would destabilize atoms. If there were one or two large spatial dimensions instead of three, complex structures could not form. If there were four, atoms would be unstable. If the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit were much larger, temperature fluctuations would be too great to sustain life. If the mass of our sun were 20% larger or smaller, the Earth's temperature would be too hot or too cold. The list goes on. So how was our planet Earth lucky enough to take up residence in this so-called "Goldilocks zone" of just right temperatures, in a universe with properties set to just right quantities? Before delving into the meat of this question, it first requires a bit of parsing.
Our very being here (the fact that you are alive, sitting here and reading this article) requires that the universe have certain characteristics out of an array of possibilities. This is referred to as the "Anthropic Principle". There are two forms of the Anthropic Principle, one that is largely uncontroversial, and one that is very controversial. The uncontroversial form, the "weak" Anthropic Principle, pertains to the "environmental" characteristics of our surroundings that allow for life. Such environmental characteristics are the eccentricity of our planetary orbit, the mass of our sun, and our distance from the sun. As impossibly lucky as it may at first seem that these environmental characteristics have just the right quantities to permit our existence, when you consider the vastness of the universe and the unquantifiable number of other solar systems that exist besides our own, it is simple to realize that at least one of these solar systems was bound to end up with conditions that permit life.
The idea that our existence imposes constraints on more than just the environmental characteristics of our surroundings, and extends to the actual form and content of universal laws, is the controversial "strong" Anthropic Principle. Unlike the environmental characteristics, the form and content of the laws that govern the universe (the strength of the fundamental forces, the number of dimensions, etc.) cannot be as easily explained away. It is in this realm that traditional science has met a roadblock, and where many religions have successfully invoked the concept of supernatural forces: if there is no physical, rational explanation for the endowment of our universe with the exact properties to permit life, then it must have been purposefully and meticulously constructed by a divine, non-physical power - "God".
In the modern era, science has decidedly taken the reign in determining the "what" of reality in the mind of the Western thinker, having trumped many of the ideas put forth by religion for explaining various physical phenomena with its own, for example the Heliocentric Principle and Evolution (even though for plenty of other phenomena science and religion seem in eerie agreement - see Modern physics parallels Buddhism on views of a cyclic, timeless universe ). Nevertheless, religion has always had the edge in the "why" category. Historically, many, even some scientists, have considered the question of why reality is the way it is to be eternally beyond the reach of scientific grasp - something that fundamentally escapes what science can ever learn. Now, finally, science is confidently raising its hand to offer its side of the story.
Its answer is introducing parallel universes into the cosmic mix. Science was able to explain away the coincidences of our planet's environmental characteristics with the fact that there are an uncountable number of other solar systems in the universe. Similarly, if there are an uncountable (perhaps infinite) number of other universes in a grand multiverse, then the coincidences of the form and matter of one universe are no longer coincidences because in such an infinite landscape every possibility will play out. If you had a die with a million sides, rolling it once would give you a one in a million chance of guessing a specific number. But if you roll the die a million times, there's a much greater chance that your number will turn up.
The parallel universes idea isn't just a neat trick that scientists realized would work in the same manner that a vast universe did. There is a solid set of cosmological data and observations that can be used to support and test the theory. This includes information from the cosmic microwave background radiation, the galaxy distribution, and quantum mechanics. Scientists actually describe four different levels of parallel universes, each that adds a new feature of complexity. Needless to say, the details and ramifications of the theory are mindboggling. However, due to the length needed to explain them, they will be saved for a future article. Upon learning the theory, we are taken right back to Occam's razor, and we will understand just how similar in apparent incredulity God and parallel universes are. Can either a supernatural being or a distant copy of yourself in another universe be said to seem any more real than the other? What if both are real? Maybe Occam's Razor can help us choose the best answer. Or perhaps it misleads us.
Where I disagree with you here is that you view scientific discoveries and religious determinism as two exclusive things, as opposing forces: that one theory is disproved by the existence of the other. I rather view them as complimentary. There is not one scientific discovery (so far)that disproves the existence of God or any sets of beliefs I have as a result of my religion. You bring up the geocentric and heliocentric principles to exemplify how a scientific discovery opposed religion, but there are a few things you miss, thus rendering that example invalid.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you take religion as a whole as opposed to accounting for the differences in religions. The appearance of the heliocentric principle was frowned upon by the Catholic Church's policy as opposed to by everyone. Even then, I personally do not know whether they rejected the theory because it actually contradicted their religious beliefs or whether it was because it contradicted their interpretation of their religion. So if the latter were true, then the evolution of the heliocentric principle wouldn't have even disproved the Catholic Church's policy. More importantly, it does not disprove the existence of God. Furthermore, Muslims held the same beliefs as the ones the heliocentric principle poses, as shown in the Quran as well as Universetoday.com which says: "In fact, Aristarchus of Samos developed a form of the heliocentric model as early as approximately 200 B.C. Other ancient civilizations held the same beliefs including various Muslim scholars in the 11th century who built on Aristarchus’ work and European scholars in Medieval Europe."
And even then, the heliocentric principle is not always used as the right theory of the structure of the universe. The geocentric principle is also used sometimes, even now. "New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier."
Moving on to the second point of "science disproving religion" because of the existence of parallel universes:
The existence of parallel universes does not oppose any religious theory. In fact, the Quran does mention parallel universes. Your argument regarding this does not disprove the existence of God, but rather tells people to not believe in God ONLY because our universe is created just right for life. Therefore,if I believed in God solely because I think it is unbelievable that our universe is "just right", I would not believe in Him after reading your post. But such people cannot call themselves religious, or even believers. And so whatever this post says about parallel universes does not say anything that disproves why I and so many others actually believe in God (of course the actual reasons that suggest the existence of God for me personally, are too many to list here). And after that, there is no absolute proof for the idea of "God" - there is only faith based on partial proofs.
In conclusion, and in answer to your final question: "can either a supernatural being or a distant copy of yourself in another universe be said to seem any more real than the other?", the existence of one of these, makes the other and itself more real than before, but not more real than the other.
The goal of this article was to encourage people to give science and religion an equal chance in explaining why reality is the way it is. The article intends to be objective, present only facts, and grant no bias one way or the other. This is not the subject of immediate debate. The subject of immediate debate is whether science and religion are opposing or complimentary forces, which is a completely legitimate debate that should not insult or upset anyone. Still, the article makes no explicit claim to argue one way or the other. The following is my personal opinion in response to Lina and should be considered separate from the article:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct about only one thing: that I have overgeneralized "religion". I have done this, despite obvious differences among the different religions, because the one common link that they almost all have is that which is relevant to the argument, and is in fact what defines their schools of thought as "religious" - they believe in entities or phenomena that are indefinable in physical terms (which thus requires "faith" because their existence cannot be proven). This is in direct contradiction to science, a school of thought which believes that everything can be explained in physical terms (where "faith" can be tested).
The point of the article was to make a fundamental distinction in how the "why" of reality can be explained. It can either be explained in physical terms (scientifically), or in non-physical terms (religiously). Physical terms cannot be used to help explain non-physical terms, and vice-versa, because they are by definition mutually exclusive. Whatever the explanation for the why of reality is, it cannot be explained simultaneously by both the languages of science and religion. Our universe was created either purposefully or by chance, and there is no in between. Furthermore, at this time the correct answer cannot be ascertained, and the point was to demonstrate that neither science’s nor religion’s explanation can be dismissed on the grounds that they are too ridiculous because both explanations are equally ridiculous. Of course, ridiculous it not necessarily a bad thing, because the answer to such a question as “why was reality created the way it is” is sure to have an absurdly complex answer. Again, my goal was to encourage people to give science and religion an equal chance.
To address your point concerning the heliocentric and geometric theories: your understanding is not complete. When you say that the geocentric principle is sometimes used, it is used only for ease of calculation. Such a calculation simplification is referred to as a “reduced mass” model, and is used with the knowledge that it is not completely conceptually accurate. However, this fact translates very negligibly into the calculation and is thus an effective simplification tool.
Finally, I am not saying that the success of the parallel universes theory would disprove the existence of God. It would only specifically disprove the role of a divine creator in the purposeful creation of the universe. Some might say this disproves the existence of God altogether, but as you point out, true “believers” believe in God for other reasons aside from accounting for creation.