Cosmologic philosophy: fine tuning is a puzzle (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 24, 2016, 12:46 (1330 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: a great article covering all the fine points of fine tuning. Worth reading. It is a strong argument for God, but not conclusive. Back to faith as a necessity.

dhw: It is indeed a great article. I have read it all now, and you have done a brilliant job editing it for us. Once again, many thanks. As for “faith as a necessity”, I take it you mean that the only way one can convince oneself that one has found a solution to the mystery is through faith, and that is as true of the atheist as it is of the theist.

DAVID: And true for the agnostic who has faith in the proposition that nothing discovered as yet approaches absolute proof. He has no faith in the proposition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aha, and who, may I ask, decides what is a “reasonable” doubt? You do, and I do. From my cushioned perch on the fence I have explained both a) to theists and b) to atheists the reasons why I still cannot embrace their faith (a) in a being for whose origin and existence there is no evidence other than as a hypothetical explanation for the mystery of life, and b) in the ability of chance to assemble the extraordinarily complex mechanisms for life and evolution. I also remain open-minded in relation to the mysteries of consciousness and psychic experiences. And you have agreed that both hypotheses eventually require the abandonment of reason and the leap which only faith can make. Facing up to reasonable doubts does not require faith. But, as I keep mea-culparing, I am wrong one way or the other, so my fence-sitting does not mean reason should have priority over faith. However, I do feel great sympathy with Bertrand Russell, who variously described himself as an agnostic or an atheist and was once asked what he would say to God if he met him. He replied: “God, you gave us insufficient evidence.”

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum