‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’ John Maynard Keynes

‘We have overwhelming evidence for cosmic purpose. Goal-directedness played some role in shaping the early universe. Professor Phillip Goff 

I recently outlined that I am an agnostic Deist – I don’t know who or what created the universe, but I think it was something, and that something, left it to its own devices, followed laws and rules it set from the beginning. 

I think this primarily because of the monumental scale, both colossal and infinitesimal, of the universe, and that to believe it all came about by itself is quite silly really. That said, personally, I can’t quite get my head around organised religion as the answer. That, in my mind, seems equally absurd.

Recently however, I’ve become aware of even more evidence that there is a Cosmic Designer. The Fine-Tuned Universe theory is a summary of scientific data and observations that say that it’s almost impossible that the universe happened by chance. Here is a summary of the evidence, although there is more:

• Stephen Hawking observed: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
• Paul Davies: The Accidental Universe: The odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation is 10 to the power of 1021. If they were any higher than what they were the universe expands too fast so no stars or planets are formed and if they are any less then the universe collapses in on itself.
• Roger Penrose: Odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the power of 1230. Source
• Geraint F. Lewis: Over the last 40 years, scientists have uncovered evidence that if the Universe had been forged with even slightly different properties, life as we know it – and life as we can imagine it – would be impossible’.
• Martin Rees: If the cosmological constant was even slightly larger, it would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

I could go on. There is much more evidence than this, but most of it is very technical. What shocks me is that I’ve never heard of it. I only found this out because of my curiosity, and I went searching for answers to questions I had. 

Now, I have lots of popular science books; books on cosmology, the Big Bang, and theories of the universe, but I can’t find any reference to a fine-tuned universe in any of them. Perhaps I wasn’t looking hard enough, or perhaps I’ll see lots and lots of references to it, now I’ve said that! Why isn’t this big news? Why aren’t I seeing TV shows with Brian Cox or Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about this? 

The thing is, it flies in the face of mainstream science, which tells us that everything is material, and everything happens in the moment, evolving without any goals or plans, and it’s a bit too mystical. 

Now, I’ve had issues with this before, and I’ve outlined that some scientists are now beginning to question this absolutism – that life isn’t working purely blindly. But anyway, here are my opinions on what this might mean, though there are some great books in the footnotes:

Viewpoint A – God: Fine-Tuning is concrete evidence that God created the Universe.

Viewpoint B – Science: Fine-Tuning proves nothing. More fundamental physics may explain the apparent fine-tuning, such as a Multiverse, the Higgs-Boson explanation, or Top-Down cosmology.

Viewpoint C – Designer: The universe has been designed by an unknown Cosmic Designer. Kind of like a trendier God without the religion.

Viewpoint A – God

I guess if you are firmly religious, then you believe in viewpoint A, and the debate is closed. You probably take huge comfort from these findings and they might strengthen your faith. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that random chance, applied to a single and sole universe, only raises the question as to why this universe could be so “lucky” as to have precise conditions that support life. Source

Viewpoint B – Science

For those who believe in viewpoint B, several theories have been put forward, most notably that there are many universes and we are living in the most successful variant that supports life. Physicist Lee Smolin proposed that Black Holes lead to other universes, and the multiverse theory has lots of support, including from Roger Penrose. However, philosopher Phillip Goff argues that the multiverse theory is flawed reasoning, since all it does is push back the question one stage further to – ‘who created the multiverse?’. 

Other physicists have focussed on looking at how the Higgs-Boson might interact with other particles to explain dark energy and its effect on the balance of matter. I guess what these scientists are saying is that: ‘look, we might not be able to give you a concrete answer now as to why the universe is finely-tuned right now, but give us time and we will come up with something; after all, we haven’t found any evidence for a supernatural God yet, so why should we find it now?’

Viewpoint C – Designer 

Proponents of viewpoint C argue for a Cosmic Designer. I guess most people will jump straight to the Intelligent Design movement here, but I don’t.

I reject Intelligent Design on the basis that is part of a political campaign, designed to usurp ‘liberal’ science and get Protestant Christian agendas into mainstream scientific, political and social culture. Read the Wedge strategy. Also, while I agree that the Fine-Tuning of the universe, and it’s sheer size and scale, make me believe in a Cosmic Designer, I don’t agree with ID’s other evidence against natural selection. There are many aspects of the case for evolution that are too technical for me to understand, but nothing I’ve read on their website makes me doubt mainstream science. This only reinforces my belief in Deism – the Universe was designed to fundamental principles that we call scientific laws, then left to evolve to its own accord. 

Summary

Ultimately, I’m not sure what difference any of this makes to our daily lives. If you’re religious you’ll take this as evidence of what you already know. If you’re sceptical, you’ll dismiss it as ’perculiar’, but not much else. 

In my opinion however, it makes the whole scientific field look decidedly weaker. Science has had an atheist agenda for at least fifty years, maybe longer. Mainstream science has pursued an overzealous goal to eliminate any need for God. Seen as irrelevant, superstitious nonsense, the notion of a Supreme Being was dismissed by a different notion of microscopic, selfish genes that shaped our destiny. This isn’t unbiased, rational thinking – it’s as blind as the very genes it’s meant to represent. 

I’m not going to throw myself at the feet of my local vicar and profess the error of my ways, but I am coming round to thinking about what the implications of a Cosmic Designer are. I’ll let you know how I get on!

Further reading

• Why? The Purpose of the Universe, Phillip Goff, Oxford University Press
• A Fortunate Universe: Life in a finely tuned cosmos by Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, Cambridge University Press
• The Accidental Universe, Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press