Monday, December 13, 2004
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The philosophers of Christianity are giddy over the recent news that famous limey philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Savior and has bathed in the waters of baptismal redemption. Well, that may be overstating the truth a tad bit. Flew didn't quite endorse the divinity of Jesus Christ, per se. Nor did he give a clear endorsement of Yaweh, the God of Judeo-Christian lineage. However, it seems pretty clear that Flew is just as devoted to Jesus Christ as any NASCAR-lovin', Saddam-hatin', Bible-totin' American when he states - in response to the question "what he would mean if he ever asserted that 'probably God exists?'" - that "I do not think I will ever make that assertion." Flew Article Yep, Flew has been born again.
What Flew's new position boils down to is this: given recent scientific evidence, the most rational assumption regarding God is that some form of ultimate designer created the universe. Despite the fact that Flew's new opinions conflict with their dogma, Christians are trumpeting Flew's second thoughts as evidence that even the staunchest atheist can "wise up" and see the light. But, one has to wonder: is an 80 year-old convert really the mose effective poster boy for the Christian cause? Flew, by his own admission, no longer "keeps up with the relevant literature in science and theology" and he "confesses [that] his memory fails him often now." What we have here is an old man who has lost touch with the recent research in his field and is under pressure to answer questions for which his capabilities to resolve have diminished. It is unfortunate that, despite his contributions to the philosophy of science and religion, Flew may end his life best known as the senile old man who converted to Deism against the better judgment of his younger self.
The primary crux of Flew's change of heart is his inability to rectify the complexity of the first self-replicating DNA molecules with a random origin. However, many scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have shown this argument to be a red herring. The complicated structure of molecules and life on Earth may not have arisen randomly, but fortunately, it didn't have to. The universe is ordered by simple rules governing the interaction of its constituent components. As anyone familiar with cellular automata will tell you, very complex, intricate order may arise from chaos when the evolution of such chaos is governed by simple rules. And, when such patterns occur in cellular automata, they do so necessarily - there is no room for error. The simple rules ont only improve the chances for intricate order, they demand it.
So, God is not necessary to create order, even highly improbable and intricately arranged formations. But, is God necessary to design the rules themselves? That is a more interesting question. Physicists and philosophers puzzle over the unique combination of physical constants that governs our universe. There is a wide (in some instances, infinite) range of possible values for fundamental constants, but only within a certain window of values will the laws of nature permit the evolution of life. As luck would have it, we fit within that window. Many theologians propose that this fortuitous circumstance is evidence of Godly design. But, there is an equally compelling answer known as the anthropic principle (or, as the multiverse theory). According to this principle, all possible universes possessing all possibilities of fundamental constant values exist somewhere. But, it is only within those universes whose combination of constants permits - or even necessitates - life that there is any observer to puzzle over the question.
The anthropic principle is at least as powerful an explanation for our fortuitous circumstances as Flew's newfound Deistic view, but it requires no foray into the realm of the supernatural. All propositions regarding alternative universes involve parameters scientists have measured within our own natural universe, but with values that are slightly (or greatly) modified. Our current understanding of physics enables us to understand the exact laws of physics within these extra-universal realms, and to make predictions regarding their behavior. Given that both the anthropic view and the Deistic design view provide the same answer in regards to our own universe, it seems only logical to place one's "faith" in the theory that provides verifiable predictions. The better view, contrary to Flew's recent statements, is not the god hypothesis.
What Flew's new position boils down to is this: given recent scientific evidence, the most rational assumption regarding God is that some form of ultimate designer created the universe. Despite the fact that Flew's new opinions conflict with their dogma, Christians are trumpeting Flew's second thoughts as evidence that even the staunchest atheist can "wise up" and see the light. But, one has to wonder: is an 80 year-old convert really the mose effective poster boy for the Christian cause? Flew, by his own admission, no longer "keeps up with the relevant literature in science and theology" and he "confesses [that] his memory fails him often now." What we have here is an old man who has lost touch with the recent research in his field and is under pressure to answer questions for which his capabilities to resolve have diminished. It is unfortunate that, despite his contributions to the philosophy of science and religion, Flew may end his life best known as the senile old man who converted to Deism against the better judgment of his younger self.
The primary crux of Flew's change of heart is his inability to rectify the complexity of the first self-replicating DNA molecules with a random origin. However, many scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have shown this argument to be a red herring. The complicated structure of molecules and life on Earth may not have arisen randomly, but fortunately, it didn't have to. The universe is ordered by simple rules governing the interaction of its constituent components. As anyone familiar with cellular automata will tell you, very complex, intricate order may arise from chaos when the evolution of such chaos is governed by simple rules. And, when such patterns occur in cellular automata, they do so necessarily - there is no room for error. The simple rules ont only improve the chances for intricate order, they demand it.
So, God is not necessary to create order, even highly improbable and intricately arranged formations. But, is God necessary to design the rules themselves? That is a more interesting question. Physicists and philosophers puzzle over the unique combination of physical constants that governs our universe. There is a wide (in some instances, infinite) range of possible values for fundamental constants, but only within a certain window of values will the laws of nature permit the evolution of life. As luck would have it, we fit within that window. Many theologians propose that this fortuitous circumstance is evidence of Godly design. But, there is an equally compelling answer known as the anthropic principle (or, as the multiverse theory). According to this principle, all possible universes possessing all possibilities of fundamental constant values exist somewhere. But, it is only within those universes whose combination of constants permits - or even necessitates - life that there is any observer to puzzle over the question.
The anthropic principle is at least as powerful an explanation for our fortuitous circumstances as Flew's newfound Deistic view, but it requires no foray into the realm of the supernatural. All propositions regarding alternative universes involve parameters scientists have measured within our own natural universe, but with values that are slightly (or greatly) modified. Our current understanding of physics enables us to understand the exact laws of physics within these extra-universal realms, and to make predictions regarding their behavior. Given that both the anthropic view and the Deistic design view provide the same answer in regards to our own universe, it seems only logical to place one's "faith" in the theory that provides verifiable predictions. The better view, contrary to Flew's recent statements, is not the god hypothesis.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
The "Liberal Media"
According to CNN, CBS and NBC recently refused to run an 30-second spot by a liberal church advertising its openness to gay men and women. CNN Story CBS cited a policy against "advocacy advertisement" as the rationale for refusing to run the ad; NBC relied on their "long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues of public controversy." The networks' stated rationales simply don't hold water. As the article notes, both CBS and NBC aired controversial advocacy ads during the recent presidential campaign.
This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.
The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?
That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.
* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."
This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.
The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?
That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.
* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."
