YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Stephen Meyer vs Phil Halper: The Big Bang & Fine Tuning - Evidence for God? | Uncommon Ground

Stephen Meyer vs Phil Halper: The Big Bang & Fine Tuning - Evidence for God? | Uncommon Ground — Transcript

by Justin Brierley | Think Faith · 33,216 words · 4,971 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00That's intelligent design.
0:01>> This is just normal physics.
0:03>> It's a reasonable conclusion to believe
0:04that the universe had a beginning.
0:06>> Two notions of the Big Bang are getting
0:08confused.
0:09>> The fact of fine-tuning is something
0:10that's on the table. It's been
0:12established by leading physicists,
0:13>> but it hasn't been established. This is
0:15something that's been disputed. This is
0:16the whole Well, let's go there.
0:18>> Any argument predicated on a beginning
0:20is going to create difficulties for a
0:22materialistic worldview.
0:24>> We don't know what's going [music] on in
0:26the early universe. What experimental
0:27evidence does the god theory make?
0:29>> Fine-tuning or information density.
0:32[music] These are things we know from
0:33experience come from minds.
0:35>> Can we get a chance to reply? You keep
0:37accusing me of interrupting you.
0:38>> Okay. Okay. Let let's let's let's
0:40>> A number of parameters fall within very
0:43narrow ranges outside of which life and
0:46even stable galaxies [music] and even
0:49basic chemistry would be impossible.
0:51>> Do we know how many signs there are on
0:53the dice? No, we don't. [music] Right?
0:55We don't know how many values are
0:56actually possible.
0:57>> The solution to the finetuning [music]
0:58that's given is is the concept of the
1:00multiverse. I mean, maybe I could have a
1:02go at
1:03>> give us both a break.
1:04>> Well, I think it's better for me to
1:06reveal not what I think, but what
1:08physicists think. So, why don't I reveal
1:10what the results are because I've come
1:12prepared.
1:13>> I'm sorry, Phil. That's a kind of dodge.
1:15>> I [music] think Steven's just got
1:16confused here. Right.
1:17>> We've been going, you know, for the best
1:18part of 3 hours at this [music] point.
1:20>> I think this is the toughest debate I've
1:22ever had.
1:22>> You're very good, too. And it's fun,
1:24right?
1:24>> Yeah, it's fun. It is fun, right?
1:33>> Hello and welcome to another edition of
1:35Uncommon Ground with me, Justin Bryley.
1:37Absolutely delighted to be joined today
1:39by Steve Meyer and Phil Halper to talk
1:42about the universe and God. Uh great
1:45quote that Steve reminded me of today
1:47from Bob Dylan who said, "You can't
1:49criticize what you don't understand."
1:51And that is really a good encapsulation
1:53of this show. We do have our differences
1:56and we're going to be debating them
1:57today. But we're also going to be trying
1:58our best to understand each other where
2:00we're coming from. That's the point of
2:02uncommon ground. Uh so let me introduce
2:05my guest. Steven Meyer is a philosopher
2:07of science who received his PhD from the
2:09University of Cambridge. A former
2:11geoysicist and college professor. He now
2:13directs Discovery Institute Center for
2:15Science and Culture in Seattle. He's a
2:17well-known proponent of intelligent
2:19design. His most recent book, Return of
2:21the God Hypothesis, argues that three
2:24major scientific discoveries in recent
2:26decades have revived the idea that there
2:28is a mind behind the universe. Phil
2:31Halper is a fellow of the Royal
2:33Astronomical Society, former journalist
2:35in residence at the Penn State Institute
2:37for Gravitation and the Cosmos and
2:40author of the new book Battle of the Big
2:42Bang with cosmologist Nesh Afroy. and
2:46he's also the creator of a number of
2:47popular YouTube videos, a series called
2:49Before the Big Bang, featuring loads of
2:51leading cosmologists. His book and video
2:54series which has had millions of views
2:56push back essentially on claims that
2:58modern cosmology points to God. So, this
3:00is going to be a really interesting
3:02conversation. Steve and Phil, thank you
3:03for joining me.
3:04>> Thank you, Justin. Yeah, I'm really
3:06looking forward to wonderful to have you
3:08both here. The fun of doing it in a
3:10place like Yanton Manor, a beautiful
3:11place like this, is we have the time uh
3:14and the leisure if you like to get to
3:15know each other a bit and and to
3:17hopefully have a really interesting
3:19conversation in the process. But where,
3:21as I say, we try and do this thing where
3:22we also understand each other as best we
3:25can. We'll come to that in a moment. Why
3:26don't we start with a bit of background
3:28to you both? Um Steve, how did you get
3:31into science, the philosophy of science,
3:34and ultimately writing about these big
3:36scientific discoveries?
3:38Well, for me, uh, there was a kind of a
3:41turning point conference that I attended
3:43when I was, uh, early in my career. I
3:45was working as a a geoysicist, uh,
3:48doing, um, seismic data processing for
3:51an oil company. And a conference came to
3:53the city where I was working that was
3:55exploring the very kinds of questions
3:57we're going to talk about today. And,
3:59uh, looking at uh, the um, the origin of
4:03the universe, the finetuning of the
4:04universe, and the origin of life, those
4:06three big questions. And u I was kind of
4:10surprised in listening to the back back
4:13and forth. There were panels with
4:15scientists who had a more materialistic
4:17worldview and those who had a more
4:18theistic worldview. And it seemed to me
4:21uh sort of coming off the street as it
4:23were that the theists had the
4:24intellectual initiative in the
4:25discussion. I was kind of fascinated.
4:28One of the scientists that I then met at
4:31the conference had just written a book,
4:33an important book about the origin of
4:34the first life called the mystery of
4:36life's origin. and he happened to live
4:38in the city where I was working. I
4:40started to join him after work hours for
4:43long discussions about different models
4:45of the origin of life. Uh and I ended up
4:49uh a year later off to Cambridge to do
4:52what I thought would be a one-year
4:53master's course in the history and
4:54philosophy of science. I did my master's
4:56thesis on uh the history of origin of
4:59life research and then ended up segueing
5:02into a PhD where I ultimately did a a
5:05thesis on origin of life biology uh
5:08because I had at simultaneously
5:12developed interest in other origins
5:14questions in particular the origin of
5:15the universe this whole discussion about
5:16fine-tuning some of that also debated or
5:19or um rather um originated at that
5:23conference I did a lot of work while I
5:26was in uh uh both my masters and PhD on
5:30history and philosophy of physics and
5:32that intersects obviously with
5:35cosmological questions. So I've kind of
5:37been fascinated with these where did we
5:38get here questions for a very long time
5:41and uh I started my my first major book
5:43was uh signature in the cell uh DNA and
5:46the evidence for intelligent design
5:47which was a kind of culmination of
5:48things I've been thinking about during
5:50my PhD on uh origin of life biology but
5:54uh the most recent book brought in the
5:56cosmological and the physical arguments
5:58about fine-tuning and and the origin of
6:00the universe as well. So it's it's kind
6:02of been a a long arc for me and a
6:04fascination for
6:04>> it has and it's been interesting to see
6:06the different iterations of what you've
6:07done. I mean many many people will know
6:09you for being you know a major proponent
6:12of intelligent design which has been a
6:13sort of controversial kind of topic in
6:15scientific circles. I've sensed that
6:18there seems to be more openness
6:20interestingly to some of the aspects of
6:22of design. the more I speak to certain
6:24scientists in the mainstream sciences,
6:27>> I think we're finding that quite a lot
6:28actually, especially among younger
6:29scientists coming up, you know, that
6:31there's a the um kind of simplistic 19th
6:34century way of looking at life as a
6:36bottomup phenomenon that's been produced
6:38by this undirected unguided mechanism of
6:40mutation selection uh has, I think,
6:43failed as an explanatory program. So
6:46you're finding this proliferation of new
6:49theories of evolution to compensate for
6:52the perceived lack of creative power
6:54associated with the main Darwinian
6:56mechanism. But that phenomenon within
6:58evolutionary biology is also opening
7:00people's minds to the possibility that
7:02we may be looking at a top- down
7:03phenomenon and that there may be a
7:05different way to look at life which is
7:06what intelligent design does.
7:07>> Well, we're not going to be covering
7:08that grant today because that's probably
7:11material for another another episode.
7:13Perhaps we could bring you into
7:14conversation at some point. uh with with
7:16someone on that. But it has it has, you
7:18know, led to invitations to big
7:20platforms like Joe Rogan. You you were
7:22on there a couple of years ago talking
7:23about these issues. It feels like
7:25there's um yeah, even even in the
7:27general public, a kind of an openness to
7:30bigger explanations, let's say.
7:32>> We're not quite as disreputable as we
7:34once were. Yeah, I would say that.
7:35>> Gay.
7:36>> Um Phil, speaking of disreputable, no,
7:39I'm joking. Uh you're Thank you for
7:41coming on.
7:42>> Oh, you know me too well, Justin.
7:43>> I know. I know. We've been friends for a
7:45number of years now. Um, and yeah, give
7:48us a little background to you. Um,
7:50because when we started engaging, it was
7:53because you were taking an interest, I
7:54think, in some of these philosophical,
7:56theological debates initially around the
7:58questions of suffering, but then
8:00increasingly your interest turns towards
8:02these questions about whether cosmology
8:04points to God or not. Where where did it
8:05begin for you? So, I was brought up
8:07Jewish and I went to Hebrew school and
8:10did all the usual things, learned the
8:11Torah and Hebrew language and blah blah
8:13blah. Um, and I was a believer, strong
8:17believer until my teenage years, this is
8:20usually when the rebellion kicks in,
8:21isn't it? Um, and the things that sort
8:24of made me turn against my faith if I
8:26remember rightly. Well, one of them was
8:28just learning what the the Jewish New
8:29Year meant. Like the year this year is
8:325,786. Do you guys know what that's
8:35roughly 6,000 years? 6,000 years from
8:37what? Do you know?
8:39>> Tell us.
8:40>> It's from the creation of the world,
8:41>> right? I assume it probably might be.
8:42>> Yeah, you thought it might be right. I
8:44thought, huh, that doesn't sound right.
8:46So, that that sort of gave me a bit of
8:47skepticism. And then I think the big
8:49event that I recall was the Passover
8:52ceremony. We we we do this ceremony
8:54every year and I have to sing this song
8:56in in Hebrew which basically says, you
8:58know, tell me about the Exodus story.
9:01And eventually
9:02uh I took the view that oh my god this
9:05is horrific. God targets you know the
9:07innocents. I think six or seven of the
9:09plagues target the animals. And that
9:12really really affected me. Um I I
9:14thought wow the first plague the fish
9:17die because the Nile is turned to blood.
9:20In the last plague all the firstborn are
9:21killed including the domestic animals.
9:24So think of all the puppies and kittens.
9:26And I just thought this is horrific. Um,
9:29so that turned me against my faith. And
9:31then when when Dawkins came out with the
9:32God delusion, he has that quote. What
9:34was it? Um,
9:35>> the Old Testament God is the most
9:37unpleasant character in all of fiction.
9:39Yes. I just thought, "Oh, yeah, yeah,
9:40yeah. That's what I've always thought."
9:42So it really resonated with me. So that
9:44maybe put me a bit more engagement. It
9:46wasn't part of my life at all, I think,
9:48until maybe The God Delusion came out.
9:50Um, and so and now what also happened
9:54was I went back to university as an
9:55adult to study astronomy. I've always
9:57been fascinated with astronomy and and
10:00um got a telescope and I do astro
10:01imaging and
10:02>> and this was after your career in
10:04banking was it?
10:04>> Yeah. Yeah. So I was I was in
10:06derivatives trading
10:08>> and you might think that's completely
10:09different field and in some say of
10:11course it is but actually a lot of the
10:13same math is used in pricing derivatives
10:16um as is used in physics. And in fact a
10:19lot of people on the trading floor have
10:20PhDs in physics and and maths and uh
10:24sometimes on the trading floor it's like
10:25really busy but sometimes it's really
10:28quiet and you just have really
10:29interesting chats with people who are
10:30like super educated. So I I thought
10:33these chats we had I had a lot a lot of
10:35guys who had theoretical physics
10:36background. We had lots of chats and it
10:38did engage me to sort of get back into
10:41an interest in science which I did have
10:42as a child and um so UCL was my home for
10:47a couple of years. I went back there to
10:49study um at University College London
10:51and went back to study astronomy and um
10:55I got very interested. We did lots of
10:57courses in various things like
10:59astrobiology and optics and all kinds of
11:02interesting topics. But the thing that I
11:03was most interested in was early
11:05universe cosmology. So I did my project
11:07on that and uh in fact I'll tell you a
11:10fun story on that. Um someone was
11:13helping me with my project and we met at
11:17the at the cafe and he says I've just
11:19got a new paper about to publish. We're
11:21just submitting it tonight. I said let's
11:23have a look. And it was experimental
11:26tests for the multiverse. Like could you
11:28detect the presence of a multiverse by
11:31looking at the cosmic microwave
11:32background? This just blew me away. I
11:34thought my god I had no idea this is
11:36even possible that people were even
11:38thinking about this. So, so I was really
11:40engaged and I thought it would be a good
11:42idea to make to well just actually just
11:44watch YouTube films about different
11:47competing models for the Big Bang
11:48because I was aware there were several
11:49competing models for the Big Bang and um
11:52but there was nothing in existence. So
11:54someone once said to me, um, what if you
11:56want to watch a film like that? Why
11:57don't you just make it?
11:58>> So I thought, okay. So I did and I
12:01started talking to cosmologists and
12:03these were like long documentaries. So I
12:05spent a lot of time going back and forth
12:06with these with these guys and I ended
12:08up making films with Steven Hawing,
12:10Roger Penrose, Alan Guth. I mean many
12:12many big names in the field and um, one
12:16name in particular kept coming up. Um
12:18they say this guy is real genius level
12:21really creative thinker and I kept
12:24seeing his name on the front cover of
12:25scientific American he won the prize for
12:28the best cosmology paper of the year and
12:31this is this guy name shorty so I
12:33interviewed him for my series and then
12:35um we hit it off straight away went to
12:38he was at the perimeter institute for
12:40theoretical physics so I went there and
12:43he he said maybe we should turn this
12:45into a book so this is the book uh the
12:48battle of the big bang
12:49>> battle of the big bang
12:50>> and I guess yeah one of the themes that
12:53we try and emphasize in the book is to
12:57embrace uncertainty so I think this puts
13:00us at odds somewhat with some of the
13:02Christian apologists that that want to
13:04tell a story that we know that the big
13:06bang was the beginning or various other
13:08features of the universe have certain
13:09properties um what we try and do in the
13:12book is to say ah there's actually much
13:15more uncertainty on this stuff and um so
13:18that's where it kind of engages and
13:20where I've engaged with the sort of
13:22apologist counter apologist scene right
13:25>> um because what I try and emphasize is
13:26you know we don't know a lot of
13:28assumptions are true that I use in these
13:30arguments
13:30>> yeah well I'll get you to give a brief
13:32summary of your book as well in a moment
13:34Steve um but that's a really helpful
13:36introduction to both of you and where
13:37you come from when it comes to these
13:39issues debating cosmology we're also
13:42going to get to some well we we're we're
13:45being sort quite ambitious in the course
13:48of today's conversation. We're going to
13:50try and talk about science and faith in
13:52general, you know, whether there's a
13:54conflict or not there. Um, we're going
13:56to talk about big bang cosmology and
13:58we're going to talk about the finetuning
14:00of universe for life and we will define
14:02what all those things are and your
14:04different perspectives on whether that
14:05gives evidence or not towards uh
14:08evidence for God. In fact, our question
14:10specifically today is does the science
14:12of the universe point to God? Now, it's
14:14worth saying there's at least one major
14:16area of Steve's book that we won't be
14:18covering, and that's the origin of life,
14:19which is more in the field of biology
14:20and so on. Not not your wheelhouse, uh,
14:23Phil. So, so, as I said, that could be a
14:25conversation for another time, but
14:26really looking forward to trying to
14:28grapple with these big issues that we
14:29have, you know, sketched out for oursel
14:31in the next hour or two. Okay. But what
14:34we always do
14:35>> sounds fun.
14:35>> It does, doesn't it?
14:36>> Oh, I'm sure it will be.
14:37>> Yeah. Yeah. I I always say to I have to
14:40pinch myself sometimes that I I get to
14:42do this. you know, [laughter] we sit
14:44down for a couple of hours with two
14:45brilliant minds to to sketch out the
14:46differences. Anyway, here we go. What we
14:48do do on this show, it's beencome our
14:51kind of signature move at the beginning
14:54of each show, is to try and get each
14:56guest to understand each other as well
14:58as possible, even though you're going to
15:00disagree on these issues, by summarizing
15:03your opponent's
15:05view, viewpoint as well as you can to
15:08the point where that person can say,
15:09"You've got it." Okay. Once we've done
15:12that for each other, then we'll move
15:13into the the conversation, the
15:15discussion itself. So, I wonder whether
15:17we could start with you, Phil, trying to
15:21summarize as best you can Steve's
15:24position on why he believes the science
15:27of the universe points towards God. And
15:29we'll see how Steve thinks you did.
15:31>> Okay. Well, on the spot. Let's
15:34>> It's like a test, man.
15:36feel like I'm being examined, but I've
15:38done my homework. So, I think we're
15:40going to be okay. Um, but who knows?
15:42You'll tell me. Um, okay. So, Steven's
15:44got a lot of arguments in this book. Um,
15:46it's a it's a big book, so I won't be
15:48able to cover all of them, but I think
15:50the ones that are going to be relevant
15:52today are well, there's a few. So, the
15:54first one is called the calam
15:55cosmological argument. And the calam can
15:58be expressed in different ways but the
16:00standard way of expressing it I think he
16:01Steven does do it this way in the book
16:04is to say okay um everything that begins
16:07to exist as a cause the universe begin
16:09to exist therefore the universe has a
16:11cause now that's stage one of the column
16:14cosmological argument a lot of people
16:15think that's it for the colum cos
16:16argument but it isn't there it's a stage
16:18two that says okay um we actually think
16:22that this points to a god it's not just
16:24a cause um and Stephen even makes the
16:27case that, you know, it's actually, you
16:28know, the monotheistic god. He makes a
16:30case against polytheism and deism and
16:33things like that. Um, so that's that's
16:35one argument. Another argument is that
16:38the Bible sort of gives us reason to
16:41believe there was a beginning of the
16:42universe. So if the Bible was true, then
16:44we should expect there's a beginning to
16:45the universe. And of course, the
16:47evidence for the beginning of the
16:48universe that that Steven goes into is
16:51is that the big bang has shown that
16:52there's a universe. Universe has a
16:54beginning. Now there are other arguments
16:56that the universe has a beginning coming
16:57from philosophy. Um but the ones that
17:00Steven focuses on on in the book is um
17:03from cosmology. So that's so that's the
17:06sort of big bang side of things. Uh the
17:08fine-tuning argument of course there's
17:10many different ways that you can express
17:12the finetuning argument. Some make it a
17:14deductive argument. Some make it a
17:15probabilistic argument. But they all
17:17going to trade off um the notion that
17:21the constants of nature are very very
17:24unlikely to have life permitting values
17:27uh given naturalism or atheism or
17:29however you want to put it. Um so the
17:33best explanation and and this is
17:34Steven's kind of um main explanatory
17:38framework is use what's called abductive
17:39reasoning. So you look for the best
17:41explanation. So it's slightly different
17:43to deductive or inductive reasoning. So,
17:45you're basically saying, "Here's the
17:46evidence. What's the best explanation?"
17:49So, Steven thinks that the best
17:50explanation for this fine-tuning
17:53um is that there's a god. Uh I think in
17:56earlier books, Steven was only saying
17:58that there was an intelligent designer
18:00and not really um saying it's
18:01necessarily God, but I think in this
18:03book, he comes out and says, "No, no,
18:04no. I'm now advocating for God and it's
18:06the God of of Judeo-Christian theism."
18:09>> Okay. Well, so we've we had a few
18:11different things there. Yeah.
18:12>> Uh the Kalam cosmological argument.
18:14Yeah,
18:14>> big bang cosmology, the finetuning all
18:18ultimately pointing back through
18:21abductive reasoning as you said uh to uh
18:24the best explanation being
18:26>> theism
18:26>> theism god
18:28>> how how did
18:29>> pretty well on the fine-tuning but the
18:31cosmological part um there's a important
18:35subtlety it's um I'm not print I I I did
18:38a a podcast not too long ago with
18:40William Lane Craig talking about our
18:43different approaches to developing the
18:44cosmological argument. I think his
18:46deductive calam argument has force
18:49because I think that as best we can tell
18:51the universe had a beginning and the
18:52alternative models that attempt to um
18:56portray a a some sort of pre- Big bang
18:59state that is materialistic I think are
19:03mainly incoherent and and not not
19:06satisfactory. But I think that uh part
19:09of the inference to the best explanation
19:11approach is that the and this is
19:13something that's come out of philosophy
19:14of science is that is that theory
19:16evaluation is inherently comparative.
19:19And the problem with a deductive form of
19:21an argument is that you really have no
19:23way of evaluating how deductive
19:27arguments can have probabilistic force.
19:29But it's hard to assign numbers as to
19:32exactly how sure are we of these
19:33premises unless you have some comparison
19:36class of alternative hypotheses that uh
19:39that affirm alternative propositions.
19:42And so I think one of the things that's
19:44coming out of the philosophy of science
19:45is this this uh the recognition that
19:50scientific evaluation as well as
19:52evaluation of metaphysical hypotheses
19:54are inherently comparative. And so what
19:57I do in the book is I I don't hang the
19:59argument, the cosmological argument just
20:01on the on the fact of a beginning. I
20:03think there's strong evidence for that.
20:05And I think the alternative to denying
20:07that uh leads in a whole bunch of
20:10directions that I think are actually
20:12problematic for naturalists. Okay. But
20:15what I what so I I developed the the
20:19argument based on the evidence we have
20:22for a beginning. But then showed that if
20:25if um in different cosmological models
20:28if the beginning is denied that the cost
20:32of that uh to the credibility of
20:34naturalism as a worldview what
20:37philosophers would call the epistemic
20:38cost is very very high. in particular
20:42that alternative cosmological models
20:44whether it be quantum cosmology or the
20:47cyclic conformal cosmology of Roger
20:49Penrose or some of the other models that
20:51that Phil and uh I'm going to take Naish
20:57is it's by the way it's a beautiful book
20:59because they do just an excellent job of
21:01exposition of these different models and
21:04and for me it's actually helped uh um
21:08clarify and sharpen my thesis is because
21:11what I see in all these different models
21:13is a common problem and that is that
21:15that uh that it's possible to deny a
21:19beginning by modeling a an alternative
21:23cosmological model maybe a pre- big bang
21:25state or quantum cosmological model in
21:26fact the history of this goes all the
21:28way back to Einstein who denied the
21:31evidence for the beginning that he saw
21:33premation in his own theory
21:34>> I think we'll come back to this because
21:36this this is I think the substance of
21:38the
21:39>> let me wrap it up for now. But but the
21:41point is that that invariably the
21:44non-theistic
21:46models of a uh alternative cosmological
21:49models end up affirming something else
21:51that has theistic implications. most
21:54commonly either unexplained fine-tuning
21:57or uh in the case of quantum cosmology
22:00something very similar to unexplained
22:01fine-tuning which is the modeling of
22:03unexplained in infusions of information
22:05into the mathematical apparatus that's
22:07used to model the universe. So the I
22:10think the the thing that Phil's summary
22:12might miss is that my argument is what
22:15uh is not hung entirely on the evidence
22:18for a beginning, but rather it's an
22:20argument has what philosophers call
22:22robustness in that if you go this
22:24direction and affirm the beginning,
22:26you've got a theistic implication. But
22:27if you deny it, the cost to a naturalist
22:30in denying it undermines naturalism and
22:33provides additional support for theism.
22:36>> So So there's there's Yes. So is that
22:38helpful? Yeah, Bill, to say it's not
22:41>> I was trying to brief summary, but yeah,
22:43there's a lot more depth. It's a
22:44critique of a naturalistic approach as
22:46much as it's a confirmation.
22:47>> So as much as I I like Bill and the work
22:49he's done on the Colam argument, I think
22:51it has force. I think it's very helpful,
22:53but I've added an additional wrinkle to
22:56this that I think is not commonly
22:58appreciated. And it comes largely from
23:01studying works like this which lay out
23:03what the the the contours of these
23:05different models. And I think the the
23:06book's been extremely helpful to me in
23:08looking at some of the newer ones that
23:10are on the scene. I was unaware of in
23:12fact um the the the VSSL
23:16uh by thermal model of your colleague
23:18and I I'm one of the things I wonder I'm
23:21just curious about is is Phil's uh own
23:25predilctions in this are is that a model
23:27that you find appealing? Is that your
23:29go? I you know like a parent saying I'm
23:33not going to choose between my children
23:35you know I think
23:36>> because you've done a lot of shows on a
23:37lot this is your you know before the big
23:39bang
23:40>> yeah no I honestly don't have a favorite
23:42model um my feeling is that the chances
23:46of any one model in our book being true
23:48are slim
23:49>> because we have like I think it's 25
23:51different models so what's the chance of
23:54any one but that doesn't mean the
23:56chances of one of them being right is is
23:58low think of a lottery the chance of any
24:00lottery ticket winning is very very low
24:02but the chances of someone winning is
24:04actually can be quite high. So um I I
24:08think that
24:09>> that's helpful to me because that's how
24:11I was going to describe your your
24:12position. So let him let him finish. I
24:15just
24:15>> I was going to say we'll come back to
24:17that because I think we we'll want to
24:18talk about the different models and I'll
24:19be interested to hear whether you do
24:21land more firmly on any of them or you
24:23hold them all kind of together as a set
24:25of possibilities. But we'll we'll come
24:27back to that because this this is going
24:28to be an important part of the
24:29discussion on big bang cosmology. But
24:31let's do let's continue the exercise and
24:33thanks Phil for for doing a really good
24:34job of of summarizing.
24:36>> Are we off to an okay start?
24:37>> So yeah. So so Steve your turn to Yeah.
24:41What do you anticipate? Can you
24:42summarize what you think Phil's
24:44perspective is on this question? Yeah,
24:46some of it's come out already and it's
24:47been very helpful that that the
24:49multiplicity of models that uh
24:53uh exclude a beginning or circumvent the
24:57the evidence from observational
25:00astronomy or for some of the proofs in
25:02theoretical physics for a beginning. The
25:04the multiplicity of models that deny a
25:06beginning uh formulated by very leading
25:09cosmologists suggests that we need to be
25:13at least uncertain about whether there
25:14was a beginning and maybe even doubt it.
25:16And the thing that we most certainly
25:18need to do is to refrain from using the
25:21evidence for a beginning as the basis of
25:23a theistic argument.
25:25>> Okay. How's that as a summary?
25:26>> Yeah, it's pretty much spot on. Um,
25:29maybe the only thing I would say is e I
25:32I would say even if we had no models
25:35that said the universe didn't have a
25:37beginning or the big bang wasn't the
25:39beginning, it wouldn't actually matter
25:41because the proofs of the beginning are
25:43not trustworthy. Um, so it wouldn't
25:46matter at all if let's suppose every
25:48model that we had in that book was
25:49proven to be wrong. Wouldn't make any
25:51difference. Okay.
25:52>> Because the proofs are not
25:55>> very convincing quite frankly.
25:56>> Okay.
25:57>> Yeah. All right. Okay. Okay. Well,
25:58that's helpful. Um, well, I'm I'm glad
26:01we've we've found the uncommon ground
26:02here. You know, you both be able to
26:04broadly speaking describe each other's
26:06position on this. So, so we're going to
26:08sort of
26:08>> This is what I used to force my students
26:10to do in philosophy science classes.
26:11Yeah. That's the the source of the Bob
26:13Dylan quote.
26:14>> Absolutely. I I' I've heard that Daniel
26:16Dennett did the same thing, you know, in
26:18his, you know, classes as well. Made
26:20sure his students
26:20>> So, so we we expect some some academic
26:23credit when we're done with the
26:24conversation.
26:25>> Absolutely. Yeah. Pats on the back all
26:27round. we've we've kind of we've so let
26:30let's start okay discussing the
26:32differences at this point um let's start
26:34actually just with the broad theme of of
26:36science and faith um I mean Phil do you
26:40feel like there is a fundamental
26:42conflict between believing in God and
26:44doing good science
26:46>> I think no doing good science definitely
26:49not like no question no you can be a
26:51religious believer and you can do good
26:52science there's no question about that
26:54>> where does the conflict lie if there is
26:55one
26:56>> so and let me give Another common ground
26:58between Stephen. There's this thesis
26:59that historians of science use called
27:02the Draper White thesis and it says that
27:03the relationship between science and
27:05religion is is one of perpetual conflict
27:07and I think that's false. I I think
27:09that's obviously false. Um so I don't
27:12sign up to the Draper White theory and I
27:14don't think there's um you know any
27:16conflict between being a religious
27:18scientist. That's fine. Um but I do
27:21think there what I would call it is a
27:22probabilistic conflict. So let me try
27:24and unpack what that means. Um and it
27:27goes back to something um that basically
27:31if you go back to let's say Tahra who
27:33was for those that don't know who he was
27:35he was a very famous astronomer um and
27:37he was he was like the greatest
27:39astronomer of his age just before the
27:40telescope and he um examined the
27:43capernac model or I say capernac model
27:46actually capernicus didn't come up with
27:47a heliocentric model it was Aristocus of
27:49Samos about 2,000 years earlier but
27:52anyway they he didn't necessarily know
27:54about that but um So the capernel model
27:56came out and Tahrai says you know he
27:59gave arguments against it from physics
28:01but he also said but it contradicts holy
28:03scripture which must be paramount. Um
28:06and I think science today says not only
28:08is holy scripture not paramount but it's
28:11not to be considered at all. And so
28:13there's whereas of course in in the
28:15religious tradition or in the Christian
28:17religion tradition which is you know the
28:18one of relevance here because you know
28:20Steven's a Christian um you know two
28:23Timothy says all scripture is God
28:25breathed and you know that then you have
28:28this this tension right um what what
28:31happens when holy scripture seems to
28:33contradict the consensus in science and
28:36of course there are many many things
28:37that scripture at least on the face of
28:39it says that do conflict with science.
28:42So the world is not 6,000 years old. Um
28:45there wasn't sort of primordial water.
28:47There's not a solid dome of the sky. Um
28:50it wasn't created in six days. Um and on
28:52and on we can go many many examples. So
28:56now with that in mind there are sort of
28:59three positions I think you could
29:01broadly take. Right? One is to embrace
29:03the science and reject the religion. Two
29:06is to um embrace the relig religion and
29:09reject the science. or three, find some
29:12way to reconcile them. But notice that
29:14two out of those three strategies is
29:16going to lead you into a conflict. And
29:18we have some data that's all
29:20hypothetical, of course. We actually
29:21have data on what people really think.
29:23So there was a survey in Time magazine
29:26of Americans and they were asked, "What
29:28would you do if a scientific fact
29:30contradicted an element of your faith?"
29:32And 64% of them said they would reject
29:35the science. There's surveys of how many
29:37people think the world is less than
29:3910,000 years old. And it does the
29:41answers do often depend on how you
29:43phrase a question. Um but it's somewhere
29:45between sort of 20 and 40%.
29:48Um surveys of um people on climate
29:52change we find something like 90% of
29:54atheists accept the science. About 45%
29:57of Christians do about 32% of
29:59evangelicals do. So what you find is
30:02that what this why I saying it's a
30:03proistic conflict. It's not that um
30:06religion or Christian religion in
30:08particular forces you to oppose science,
30:11but what it does do is increase the
30:12probability that you will.
30:14>> That's that's how we're putting it.
30:15Yeah. That that in in real life
30:17situations, if you are a Christian,
30:19you're more likely on average to be
30:22skeptical of certain scient
30:27cancer. Does it guarantee you get
30:28cancer? No, it doesn't. Could you could
30:30you get cancer without smoking? Yes, you
30:32can. Right? So similarly, you can oppose
30:34science and be an atheist.
30:35>> Well, be interested in your perspective
30:37on this, whether you you broadly agree
30:39or not with Phil's take on the
30:42probabilistic way in which
30:43>> it's a very nuanced way of explaining
30:46the the view he has. I I found that
30:48illuminating. Um my I've written a lot
30:52on this and not just the origins
30:54questions but just on the models that
30:57people have developed for capturing the
30:59relationship between science um and
31:03religious belief biblical faith if you
31:05will in specifically um one of the
31:09things we we are starting a new center
31:11in Cambridge called the Hule Center for
31:13Science and Natural Theology and one of
31:16the things that's very clear in the
31:17history of science is the very important
31:19important role that uh that
31:21Judeo-Christian that is biblical
31:23assumptions played in the foundation of
31:26modern science particularly in the
31:28period that historians call the
31:29scientific revolution and that that
31:31natural theology itself played a very
31:33important role in that um we I'm quite a
31:37fan of the work of John Ray who is often
31:39regarded as the father of modern botany
31:42turns out that Ry was very close with um
31:45Isaac Barrow who was Newton's tutor and
31:48there's this tradition ition of natural
31:49theological thought in Cambridge that
31:51was crucial to the rise of the
31:53scientific revolution. Um my um one of
31:56my Cambridge supervisors uh um historian
32:00of physics uh told me when I was doing
32:02work on the the debate about universal
32:05gravitation in the in the 17th century
32:09he said if you miss Newton's theism
32:10you've missed everything. The Principia
32:12was a theological project. So I find I I
32:17I like that Phil has rejected the the
32:20draper and white thesis that science and
32:22religion have been always at odds and in
32:25are intrinsically so. Um once then
32:28that's the sort of conflict model. The
32:30alternative I I like to think of this in
32:32terms of propositions that you have um
32:34there are propositions that come out of
32:36the scientific endeavor. There are
32:38propositions that come out of a biblical
32:40text or out of a theological tradition
32:42and those propositions can either
32:44disagree in which case you have
32:46conflict. They can often be talking or
32:49they can agree in which case you have
32:51some kind of harmony or concord um or
32:55agreement or they may be propositions
32:57that are addressing different topics
32:59altogether and can either agree or
33:01disagree. And so there are there are
33:03four basic models that people talk about
33:05when they talk about the relationship
33:06between science and and faith. They'll
33:08talk about the conflict model, the
33:10compartmentalism model, a variant of
33:12that called the complimentarity model
33:13where it's not that science and religion
33:15are talking about two completely
33:16different things, but they're talking
33:17about the same thing in different
33:19incommensurable language which also
33:22leads to the proposition that science is
33:24inherently neutral with respect to
33:27metaphysical or religious claims. And
33:29then there's a model that I've kind of
33:31developed which I call qualified
33:32agreement and that it acknowledges that
33:35yes there have been times of conflict.
33:37Uh it also acknowledges that often times
33:39science is and religion are talking
33:41about two different things. There's the
33:42famous Galileo apherism that says that
33:45um that uh the Bible tells you how to go
33:47to heaven, not how the heavens go. Um
33:50but I also point out that there are many
33:54re uh questions that science addresses
33:56that are not religiously neutral.
33:57questions about, for example, the origin
33:59of the universe and the origin of life
34:01and historical questions about, for
34:04example, whether there were people like
34:06Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipass and
34:10Josephus,
34:11sorry, um, uh, Caiaphas and others
34:14around the time of the trial of Jesus in
34:16the New Testament. So, the Bible makes
34:19factual claims about time, space, and
34:21reality. uh and when it does um I there
34:26are sometimes points of tension but what
34:27I have seen is a progressive increase
34:29this is a kind of probabilistic argument
34:31but over time there's a progressive
34:34increasing agreement between the two and
34:37um and so that's why I call it qualified
34:39agreement that on balance you have an
34:41agreement but there are some points of
34:43tension where either we're getting the
34:46science wrong or we're getting the
34:48biblical interpretation wrong or we just
34:50don't know enough yet. So that's kind of
34:51the way I look at it. And I So I I find
34:54science to be I mean I'm I've been uh
34:58I've done physics, I've done geology,
35:00I've done biology. I love science and I
35:03find that it it can the the the broad
35:06the approach of the scientific in
35:08inquiry, the methodology of science and
35:11the deliverances of science fit nicely
35:13with the the the the biblical faith that
35:15I have.
35:17>> Um re really helpful. Thank you, Steve.
35:19I I mean just just starting to to to
35:21draw this together, Phil, from your
35:23perspective, Steve, one of the points he
35:25makes is that the very fact that the
35:27scientific pioneers were broadly
35:29speaking Christian and did things out of
35:31their Christian convictions. Um I don't
35:33know whether you agree with that
35:34broadly, but obviously Steve says there
35:37is this model that he believes is quite
35:38fruitful, which is this qualified
35:40agreement. Um obviously quite different
35:42to Steven J. Gold's non-over overlapping
35:44magisterian. It's precisely the
35:46opposite. The opposite of that. Yeah,
35:47exactly. What what's your feel? Is that
35:49is that a fruitful approach? Do you
35:51agree that that science does stand on
35:53the shoulders of a number of Christian
35:54pioneers?
35:55>> Um well, I think yeah, but they stand on
35:58non-Christian pioneers, right? So that's
36:00the the point. Yes, of course, Newton
36:02was a Christian. I mean, unless you
36:05think his doubting of the trinity makes
36:07him not a Christian, but I always say
36:08yes, he was a Christian, right? So, um
36:10but of course, there were lots of people
36:12that we owe science to that were not
36:14Christians. The Greeks of course made
36:17huge contributions to science. So for
36:20example the prescratics we have an
36:22axamandanda. Anaxamandanda came up with
36:25this idea that the earth is floating in
36:27space. No one had this idea before him
36:29as far as I know. Everyone thought the
36:30earth sits on water. And Carl Pauper who
36:33was you know very very famous
36:35philosopher scientist I'm sure most
36:36people would have heard of. He said this
36:38is one of the most portentous most most
36:40incredible ideas ever put forward
36:42because it's established this idea that
36:45actually we explain the world through
36:47physical principles. I mean he said
36:49everything moves by necessity which is
36:51some people would interpret as laws.
36:53Then of course you have the Pythagoreans
36:55who said science is described by
36:57mathematics where you need mathematics
36:59to describe the world. An incredible
37:02step. Then we had uh you know people
37:04like Aeritophanes who measured the
37:06circumference of the world you know they
37:08did an experiment they used mathematics
37:10and they came to conclusions about the
37:12world and they got the answer right
37:13within about 10% you know back in
37:15ancient Greece this is all before
37:17Christianity then we have the Indians
37:19the Indians came up with the idea of
37:20atoms they gave us the mathematical
37:23tools that we need to do modern science
37:26then we have the Arabs you know the
37:27Arabs had huge contributions so I think
37:31>> and then Chinese sort of instrumentation
37:33and
37:34>> yeah the the compass I mean do you mind
37:36if I pass that back to to Steve just you
37:39know that that's a helpful repost um you
37:41know pre-Christian uh civilization and
37:44thinkers were starting to develop these
37:46ideas even if they were then taken
37:48further by Christian civilization. Yeah,
37:50sure. I I have very little bad to say
37:53about the Greeks. Uh but um I uh in grad
37:57school read a really interesting article
38:00um history history of science article
38:02about the um the jeridical the the about
38:07the origin of the concept of natural
38:08law. the and the author argued that it
38:10was a jeritical concept of theological
38:13origins and he specifically traced this
38:17back and showed that the in in Greco
38:19Roman uh writings you have the concept
38:22of law of the natural law but it was a
38:24it was the it was the idea of the
38:26ability to access the moral law through
38:29reason but that the idea of of laws
38:33applying to nature was something that
38:35came out of the Hebrew Bible and he
38:37cited particular passages meages that
38:39were of keen importance to a number of
38:41the the founders of the period in the of
38:44science during the period of the
38:44scientific revolution and uh and so
38:47there were distinctively Judeo-Christian
38:50contributions to the rise of modern
38:52science and one that a number of
38:53historians of science have focused on
38:55not just the idea of lawfulness but two
38:58others one the idea of intelligibility
39:00the idea that that nature has secrets to
39:03reveal and we can understand those
39:05secrets because being made in the image
39:07of the rational creator who made nature
39:10to manifest a rational design. Our minds
39:13are attuned to the way nature was made.
39:15So there was a principle of
39:16correspondence between as John
39:18Pulkinghorn the Cambridge physicist used
39:20to put it the reason within matches the
39:23reason without the external the reason
39:25built into nature and that gave kind of
39:28unprecedented confidence to people in
39:30the ability
39:30>> and as far as you're aware that didn't
39:32exist in
39:33>> not all to the same degree and then
39:35there was a uniquely Christian
39:36contribution which was the idea and this
39:38was coming into vogue in the late
39:40medieval period with Catholic
39:42philosophers uh and also during in the
39:45period of the reformation and that was
39:47this recovery of the doctrine of
39:49creation um as opposed to sort of the
39:53Greek notion of of an internal logos and
39:56with that came the idea of what's called
39:58contingency that nature there is an
40:01order in nature the Greeks believed in
40:03an order in nature and and that that it
40:06could be understood but the they believe
40:09that the order derived from this common
40:12source of all things this logos And so
40:15that it could be it could be understood
40:17essentially deductively. Whereas the in
40:20the period of the scientific revolution
40:22with the idea of a creation that was
40:24dependent on the will of an external
40:26creator who had a mind who could have
40:28chosen to do things otherwise. We
40:31couldn't deduce what nature must be
40:34like. We had to go out and look and see.
40:37Robert Bole said, "It is not the job of
40:38the natural philosopher to say what uh
40:42God must have done, but rather to go and
40:45look and see what he did do." And there
40:46was a there was actually a a papel uh
40:49decree that that um that condemned what
40:54was called necessarian theology. And
40:56there were all these propositions that
40:58you know uh planets must move in perfect
41:02circles. Why? Because that's the most
41:03logical way for them to do. So, so there
41:05was a sense in which the the the Greek
41:08um heritage had bound uh science to a
41:13set of what seemed to be most logical
41:15propositions, whereas there was a
41:18liberating element as the doctrine of
41:20creation began to be more well
41:22appreciated again and this idea of
41:24contingency
41:25>> to a kind of more empirical
41:27observational
41:28testable sort of way
41:30>> which again is not to impugn the Greeks
41:31because I think they were just the most
41:33enlightened of the ancient peoples, but
41:35there was something that they were
41:37missing that the Judeo-Christian view, I
41:39think, helped that the Judic
41:43Judeo-Christian view brought that helped
41:45to liberate an empirical science and
41:47many historians of science have anything
41:50to say in response.
41:51>> Well, I think that idea of contingency
41:52was there already in in the ancient
41:54Greece because there was a notion in uh
41:56Lucitius and he talks about something
41:58called the swerve. So he he builds on
42:01what anxandanda said which is that all
42:03things move according to necessity along
42:05with the order of time which I think is
42:08an implication of something like a
42:10physical law. But um what the atomist
42:13said the ancient Greek atomist said that
42:14there was this thing called the swerve.
42:16So basically you have roughly a
42:17deterministic universe but the atoms do
42:19this swerve which gives you some degree
42:21of indeterminism. So there's your
42:23contingency. So it was there in in
42:24ancient Greece already. Um, so I think I
42:28suppose that the but the sense I get
42:31from Steve here is more that it was
42:33really in the the Christian period that
42:34that this idea of that you can go out
42:36and test the universe look at it and and
42:39rather than I think it was there I think
42:43you certainly have the notion of chance
42:44and necessity in the Greeks but you get
42:48starting with uh this university with
42:50people like gross tests you get these
42:53systematic methods of interrogating
42:55nature
42:56Um that I know one of your your points
42:58Phil is that you think you you know you
43:00said that many Christians are um not
43:03skeptical enough you know that you you
43:05and but what
43:06>> and that's I just want to say one thing
43:08this method of isolation of variables of
43:11what is the precursor to the method of
43:13inference to the best explanation this
43:15was coming out of the the the Catholic
43:18universities in the late medieval period
43:19University of Paris University of Oxford
43:21and then it it blossoms into very
43:25sophisticated methods of investigating
43:28and interrogating nature in this period
43:30when people are convinced first of all
43:32that nature is intelligible and secondly
43:34that it's radically contingent on the
43:36will of the creator and therefore must
43:38be investigated empirically. we can't
43:40rely simply on um and so I I think you
43:44there's a a famous Cambridge historian
43:47of science Herbert Butterfield who asks
43:49this qu it's the he says it's the why
43:52why there why then question something
43:54unique happens in Western Europe between
43:571500 and 1700 with roots back to 1300
44:01so forth that didn't happen anywhere
44:03else it's roots back back and back and
44:06back look science has contributions from
44:09all cult well not all cultures but many
44:11cultures okay so the Greeks look the
44:14torch has been passed from culture to
44:16culture so at one point the Greeks were
44:18probably the the leading um developers
44:20of science and they made huge
44:21contributions to development of science
44:23right no one wants to say that that the
44:25the Christian culture didn't contribute
44:27of course it did right but I I reject
44:29this notion of of earth scientific
44:31revolution and what's funny is that one
44:33of your uh colleagues Glenn Scrivener
44:36made this point there wasn't earth
44:37scientific revolution there have been
44:38any scientific revolutions? Or we could
44:40say there's a scientific evolution.
44:43Maybe that's a better way to put it.
44:45Maybe.
44:45>> Yeah, maybe. Stephen, it sounds like
44:47though you're you're you not convinced
44:50that Christianity was almost required
44:53for to bring us to where we are today in
44:55terms of
44:56>> think about this. Everyone could see
44:57there are regularities in nature. You
44:59don't need to have a theological belief
45:01to say, "Look, there are regularities of
45:02nature. Maybe we can understand them."
45:04That goes back thousands and thousands
45:06of years. You look at the moon and you
45:08see it has phases. You look at the
45:09stars, you see that there are patterns.
45:11You can see there are seasons by looking
45:13at the stars. Everyone can see there's u
45:16structure in nature. There's patterns.
45:18So people wanted to investigate them.
45:19They're curious. And I think the fact
45:21that human beings are curious is
45:23actually what's driving this.
45:24>> Well, but during the period of the
45:25scientific revolution, what happened was
45:28that the notion of regularity having a
45:30theological underpinning was then
45:32conjoined with the idea of the divine
45:34rationality. And the result of that was
45:37the mathematizing of those of those
45:40regularities. And that's a huge surge
45:43forward. And this is one of the things
45:45that was emphasized to me when I was
45:47working on on Newton and on the
45:49Principia or Principia depending on how
45:51you like your Latin, right? um that that
45:54the Principia was a theological project
45:57that Newton was trying to explicate the
46:00divine uh rationality in precise
46:03mathematical form as a way of of giving
46:05glory to God and also giving and
46:09illuminating nature. And so I think
46:11something there there um and we're
46:13probably not going to come to agreement
46:14on this, but I've got three chapters on
46:16this in the book. And I think I think um
46:19uh there's I I don't deny that there
46:21were preceding uh contributions from
46:23other culture, but something really
46:25unique and revolutionary happened in
46:27Western Europe during that period of
46:28time. And it resulted in both the the
46:31conjoining of mathematics to the
46:33regularities in the development of very
46:35systematic methods of interrogating
46:38nature, these methods of isolating
46:40variables and and uh and and and a
46:43revolutionary advance in understanding.
46:45You know there was
46:46>> we we could keep going.
46:47>> Can I just say one one last thing?
46:48>> One last thing and then we'll
46:49>> happy to give you the last word.
46:50>> Okay. No, you can have the last word.
46:52Five. I just something I've got to go
46:53off my chest.
46:54>> That the ma the mathematics was used
46:56because the mathematics had been
46:57developed over thousands of years. So
46:59you it's really hard to do calculations
47:01without using the number system that we
47:03have that came from the Indians. Let's
47:04give them some credit. Right? The
47:06algebra came from the Arabs. Let's give
47:08them some credit. Right? So more
47:10importantly, I think we shouldn't
47:11underestimate the importance of
47:13contingency that the fact that the I I
47:16agree maybe uh we shouldn't use the word
47:19scientific revolution, but there
47:20certainly was uh a very significant
47:22development that happened in the 17th
47:24century. Okay. Um I think a lot of that
47:27is just chance and accident. What one of
47:29the most important things that happened
47:30in the 17th century was the invention of
47:32the telescope because what that did was
47:36enabled scientists to compare ancient
47:39dogmas with actual empirical
47:41observations in a way that could never
47:42have been done before. The telescope by
47:45all accounts was invented by an
47:46accident. People just noticed oh we put
47:48these lenses together we start
47:50magnifying things and not just a
47:51telescope the microscope too because
47:53then we started to understand oh my god
47:54there's this whole hidden world of of
47:56bacterial diseases. So there's so much
47:58contingency involved here and and we'll
48:01leave it there. I suspect Steven would
48:03just say that the empirical method is
48:06sort of
48:07>> I think we can agree that there
48:09especially in that period of history
48:11there was not a conflict between science
48:13and religion and that therefore there is
48:15no intrinsic uh or long-standing
48:18perpetual conflict between science and
48:20religion as the as the draper and white
48:22folks have said right that at least is a
48:24is a point of commonality. Okay.
48:28Hi there. If you're enjoying today's
48:30video, do give it a like and subscribe
48:32to my channel. And why not let me know
48:33what you think in the comments below.
48:35And to make sure you don't miss any of
48:37these fantastic conversations, sign up
48:39for my newsletter. As a thank you, I'll
48:42send you the first chapters of both my
48:43books, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief
48:45in God and Why I'm Still a Christian for
48:48free. The newsletter link is with the
48:50info. Enjoy the rest of the show.
48:54Brilliant. Um, let's talk about our next
48:58big subject.
49:00Literally big big bang cosmology. Um,
49:03and it might be helpful just to again
49:05reiterate, Steve, that in your book,
49:07Return of the God Hypothesis, let's hold
49:10both books up, shall we? Why don't we?
49:11uh return of the god hypothesis that
49:13there are these three specific major
49:15scientific decoderies that you're
49:17talking about from the past century
49:18which for you point back towards the
49:21idea of a a divine creator. Um the first
49:24the first of which you tackle is big
49:26bang cosmology the this this idea that
49:28the universe had a beginning. Uh so this
49:31is going to be our first major point of
49:33discussion. Perhaps you'd like to start
49:35by sketching out your your case here for
49:39um the way in which cosmology has
49:41pointed towards an origins event for the
49:43universe and why you believe this lends
49:45evidence to the idea of a god.
49:47>> Yeah, sure. There um phase one of the
49:50argument. Okay. Um if the argument uh is
49:54predicated on the evidence that we have
49:57of a beginning that there are several
50:01very key discoveries from observational
50:03astronomy that have pointed back to the
50:07a beginning point. You have the red
50:10shift data from astronomy showing that
50:13the universe appears to be expanding
50:15outward. If you back extrapolate that
50:19that expansion, you get to a point of
50:21convergence where you can't back
50:22extrapolate any further, suggesting a
50:24starting point for the expansion and
50:27arguably the universe itself. Um there
50:31are other evidences from observational
50:34astronomy that have reinforced that
50:36things like the cosmic background
50:37radiation that was first uh discovered
50:41in the 1960s with Penrose or with Pensas
50:44and Wilson. um the the subsequent
50:47discoveries of Kobe satellite showing
50:50that the kind of pertabbations you would
50:51expect on a big bang model were also
50:53present in those um in the the
50:55background radiation and then and then
50:57further there's a whole host of other
50:59empirical observations about the ages of
51:01galaxies and so forth that that fit with
51:02the idea of of a beginning point in the
51:05book I also point out that there are
51:08developments in theoretical physics the
51:10singularity theorems of Hawking and
51:11Penrose and the the the BGV theorem of
51:16uh Bourd Guth and Valinkan that in one
51:19case I think provides a proof in another
51:22case a strong indicator of a beginning.
51:24Um the thing about something in
51:27theoretical physics or attempts to make
51:29proofs is they're always predicated on
51:31certain assumptions or conditions. In
51:33the podcast Phil you did with Sir Roger
51:35Penrose was honored to be mentioned even
51:38if it was in the motive of a critique
51:40just to make sure we're understanding
51:42each other. uh he he critiqued me for
51:45not describing the conditions under
51:48which the uh singularity theorems would
51:51apply. I have an extensive discussion of
51:53that. The weak and strong energy
51:54conditions, the whole the whole issue of
51:57of quantum gravity inside the plon unit.
52:00So I'm well aware of those those uh
52:03limitations on the proof. So my
52:05conclusion about the singularity theorem
52:07was not that it provided an absolute
52:09proof but a strong pointer to a
52:10beginning. And it's it's actually kind
52:12of worth I think remembering what
52:14Hawking was thinking about when he first
52:16proposed this that Hawking was doing big
52:19bang or sorry was doing black hole
52:20physics at Cambridge. He's a PhD student
52:24and he's he's aware that in general
52:26relativity massive bodies cause the
52:28curvature of space. So he's thinking
52:30about the evidence for the expanding
52:32universe and he realizes that as you go
52:34in the forward direction of time matter
52:36is going to get more and more and more
52:37diffuse. But then if he winds that
52:40backwards that as the matter gets more
52:43and more densely concentrated in the
52:45reverse direction of time then you'll
52:47get a spatial a tighter and tighter and
52:49tighter curvature going back to some
52:51limiting case you some point in the past
52:54where you can't get any more tightly
52:56curved. Now the the we can and we'll
52:59discuss this because as I said I'm well
53:01aware of the the the limitation on that
53:04proof is that when you get small enough
53:07quantum effects become very important
53:10and the depiction of matter is no longer
53:13as a uh and uh I'm going to say his name
53:16again na
53:18explains this very well that you have um
53:21that you no we no longer conceive of
53:23matter as um uh spatially discreet But
53:26it's it's a waveical. It's spatially
53:28extended and it's a particle at the same
53:30time. And so we don't really know if
53:32you're going to get continued curvature.
53:35But but when you get to that point,
53:38you're inside um the plon unit, which is
53:4110us 43rd of a second or um as Hawking
53:45and Ellis pointed out in their uh 1972
53:48book, you're inside um 10 to the minus
53:5333rd of a cime of space. And in that
53:56first book, they said, "Well, that's not
53:59an absolute singularity, but it's for
54:02all intents purposes a singularity." So,
54:05I I'm in in my development of the case,
54:09I want to say that's a very strong
54:11indicator as to what was going on in the
54:14past, that we're going back to a
54:15beginning point of some kind. Um, and
54:18then I I think the the Borg Valinkan
54:20theorem provides additional support for
54:22that based on special relativity. it's
54:25not subject to the same uh uh condition
54:28or other conditions that are important
54:30and some of these pre- big bang models
54:32provide modelsp specific ex exceptions
54:36or exemptions to the the BGV theorem but
54:39I think on balance it too is providing
54:41epistemic support for a beginning that's
54:44part one of my argument the part two I
54:47don't know if
54:48>> well let's let's just try and bring this
54:49into a
54:50>> well here here's the big point about
54:51that if you have a beginning
54:53>> you have a beginning
54:53>> okay and if we're gonna Any argument
54:55predicated on a beginning is going to
54:57create difficulties for a materialistic
54:59worldview because either before the
55:02beginning which we have to put in scare
55:04quotes because time is beginning or
55:06independent of the beginning in an
55:08onlogical sense um there is nothing
55:12materialistic to do the causing because
55:13what is beginning is matter energy space
55:16and time. So on a straightforward on a
55:20straightforward conclusion based on
55:22observational astronomy and I think the
55:24most straightforward reading of these
55:26proofs from theoretical physics I think
55:28you got you have a not a proof but
55:30strong evidence of a beginning and that
55:32poses a a problem for materialism
55:35an explanatory challenge for materialism
55:37that it can't meet that theism can meet
55:39because if you posit an independent
55:43um entity who transcends matter space
55:46and time and also has powers of
55:48valition, you have the necessary
55:51conditions of an adequate explanation,
55:53causal explanation for the origin of the
55:54universe if it had a beginning.
55:56>> Okay. So just before I bring Phil in to
55:58to start to push back on on this, just
56:00in summary, your view is that looking at
56:04the what you might call, as far as you
56:06can see, a consensus view on cosmic,
56:08>> not so much consensus, but more of a
56:10primaacia case based on observational,
56:12what we know theoretical physics,
56:14>> observational evidence of the universe
56:15that that appears to show if you wound
56:17the clock back, you would get to this
56:20very hot dense state in the past and and
56:22what appears to be a beginning moment.
56:25You likewise add in the board goose
56:27falenum theorem singularity theorems
56:28that Penrose and others formulated and
56:31and there's a lot of different strands
56:33that point back to the idea that there
56:35is a beginning
56:36>> yeah it's as I concluded at the end of
56:38the chapter on this the sixth chapter of
56:40my book as best we can tell there was a
56:42beginning
56:42>> as best we can tell
56:43>> acknowledging that there are loopholes
56:46that could be
56:47>> we'll explore some of those
56:49>> but that the the reason that this gives
56:52us evidence for a creator
56:54outside of the universe is because you
56:56have to have posit something like that
56:58when what you're talking about coming
57:00into existence essentially is matter,
57:03time, space and energy. You have to have
57:05something that in a sense transcends
57:06those categories and and this appears to
57:08be the god therefore is right. And I
57:10think one of the interesting things
57:11about the alternative cosmological
57:13models is that they always have to posit
57:16something that is separate from or
57:18transcendent from the observable
57:21universe we have. It may be a prior
57:24mathematical state as in quantum
57:26cosmology or it might be a prior big
57:28bang. But transcendence in this in the
57:31strict sense of the word as something
57:33separate from seems I think by all
57:35concerned to be something conceited as a
57:38necessary condition of explanation.
57:40Causes need to be separate from the
57:42effects that they produce.
57:43>> Okay, Phil. Okay, so let's just take a
57:47step back um and talk about the the
57:49broader conversation here about the the
57:51big bang and and the beginning. What's
57:54often happening is that there's a bit of
57:55a bait and switch happen uh going on. In
57:58particular, two notions of the big bang
58:01are getting confused. Um so in our book,
58:04we talk about one definition of the big
58:06bang which we call the hot big bang. And
58:09that says the that's a theory if you
58:10like that says the universe evolved from
58:13an incredibly hot dense state. And that
58:15theory says nothing at all about what
58:17came before that. It doesn't say whether
58:19there was a beginning of time or not. It
58:20just says the universe evolved from a
58:22hot dune state. The other definition
58:24that we talk about for the big bang is a
58:26big bang singularity. So the universe
58:28evolved from a singular state. What we
58:30mean here is that the curvature, the
58:33pressure, the density goes to infinity.
58:35This is a sort of beginning of time if
58:36you like. Um now all the observational
58:40evidence only tells us that there was a
58:42hot density. It doesn't say there was a
58:44singularity. In fact, I would say there
58:46is no evidence at all that says not not
58:48any empirical evidence that says there
58:50was a singularity. In fact, you can't
58:52really get any empirical evidence um for
58:54a singularity. Doesn't make any
58:55predictions. And in fact, there's
58:57something called the cosmic censorship
58:58conjecture um which I think is very
59:00plausible that says actually
59:01singularities are hidden behind
59:03horizons. And in fact, if you could see
59:06a singularity, uh you would actually
59:08have a breakdown of causality which
59:09would threaten the column in the other
59:10way. it would threaten the cautial
59:12principle perhaps. Um so we can't see
59:15singularities. There's no observational
59:16evidence for them. And in fact we did a
59:18survey of physicists and I've done two
59:20surveys now. Um and this is very
59:23important. Um we asked so the first one
59:26we did was a a survey. Oh was at a
59:28conference organized by the Neils Bor
59:30Institute in Copenhagen and it had a
59:32leading leading physicists there in
59:34theoretical physics and astronomy um
59:36cosmology, astrophysics, numerical
59:38relativity and it had top top people and
59:41we asked them various questions and
59:43controversies within physics. We asked
59:44him I think it was 12 questions and he's
59:46like what's you think is the best
59:48candidate for dark matter for dark
59:49energy and the only question that we got
59:52a majority view on anything on was that
59:55the big bang should only be understood
59:58as the hot big bang not as a big bang
1:00:00singularity. So when physicists say
1:00:03we've got evidence from the cosmic
1:00:04microwave background and the red shift
1:00:06and blah blah blah blah blah they're
1:00:08only saying the hot big bang. Okay. So
1:00:11this is not empirical evidence of a
1:00:13beginning of the universe. Okay. Now, in
1:00:17fact, I would challenge Stephen, you
1:00:18know, what empirical evidence could you
1:00:20possibly have of a singularity? I I just
1:00:23can't see how.
1:00:23>> Should we pass that back then? So the
1:00:26hot big bang is is not evident of a
1:00:28beginning and the singularity theorem
1:00:30itself is contested. Says, um,
1:00:33>> well, we'll come on to that. It's more
1:00:34like we couldn't observe a singularity
1:00:36if it was one.
1:00:37>> Well, of course, that's where the laws
1:00:38of physics would break down. You know,
1:00:40I'm I'm not disputing that. The point is
1:00:42that the back extrapolation that's been
1:00:44involved in inferring the hot big bang
1:00:48state takes you back to a point of
1:00:50convergence past which you cannot go.
1:00:52And that's that's a consequence of the
1:00:54red shift as much as it is the
1:00:55consequence of of the um the singularity
1:00:59of Hawking and Penrose the singularity
1:01:01theorems. Um the the the the point that
1:01:05I'm making is that it's a reasonable
1:01:07conclusion to believe that the universe
1:01:09had a beginning. There's no way of
1:01:10getting beyond that hot big bang to
1:01:13something before. This is something that
1:01:15uh in in the book um the the I'm
1:01:21stumbling again over his name
1:01:23is is he agrees with with William Lane
1:01:26Craig that there's no um there's no
1:01:29evidence for a beginningless universe.
1:01:32>> But we also said there's no evidence for
1:01:33a beginning.
1:01:34>> No, no, no, no. There's a difference
1:01:35between evidence and proof. And I think
1:01:37the the what happens throughout your
1:01:40book is that there's a an an absolute
1:01:44100% standard of proof required for
1:01:47anyone who wants to say that the
1:01:48universe had a beginning.
1:01:49>> That's not what we're talking about.
1:01:50>> And and well, that's what the singular
1:01:52to to suspend the the board valan
1:01:56theorem simply because there are models
1:01:58that could circumvent its its conditions
1:02:01is to require an absolute proof.
1:02:03>> No, it's not. It just isn't. It does. It
1:02:06does. We're not looking for an absolute
1:02:08proof. Let's just
1:02:09>> I'm saying that there's evidence of a
1:02:10beginning because the back
1:02:11extrapolation.
1:02:12>> Can we agree there's no empirical
1:02:13evidence for a singularity.
1:02:15>> Well, you wouldn't get an empirical
1:02:17singularity is an artifact of a phys of
1:02:19mathematical physics.
1:02:20>> So, let's find the common ground. We
1:02:22agree,
1:02:22>> right? But that's that's a that's a red
1:02:24herring because no one has ever said
1:02:25that. Um,
1:02:27>> okay. Well, so you're let me just get
1:02:29this.
1:02:29>> The singularity has a technical diff
1:02:32which is a place where the laws of
1:02:33physics break down. you wouldn't get
1:02:35there's no possibility of empirical
1:02:37evidence of a singularity but there are
1:02:41but it's a hypothesis based on
1:02:43extrapolating
1:02:45>> conjoined with general relativity that
1:02:47would lead you to think that you're
1:02:48getting to a singularity or a near
1:02:50singularity but I I'd like not to get
1:02:52hung up on
1:02:53>> well just so that I can understand that
1:02:56the the the the empirical evidence we do
1:02:58have from cosmic microwave background
1:03:00radiation red shift and so on you're
1:03:03you're saying that's that all that gets
1:03:04you is a hot dense state, not a
1:03:06beginning. But you're saying that that
1:03:08you think it's it's consistent with and
1:03:10and and lends evidence towards the idea
1:03:12of a beginning because when you join
1:03:15singularity and so on, you know, I first
1:03:17encountered this with uh very compelling
1:03:19talk by Alan Sandage, uh Robert Jastro,
1:03:22many of the physicists who were first
1:03:24articulating the the case for the big
1:03:26bang thought it clearly pointed to a
1:03:28beginning and and so
1:03:30>> Okay. Well, let let's pass it back to to
1:03:32Phil. Where we're getting confused is
1:03:34the difference between evidence for
1:03:36something and an absolute 100% certain
1:03:39proof, which is which is
1:03:41>> and and this is this for that. That's
1:03:42just
1:03:43>> No. So So you're you're keen to say
1:03:44we're looking for an inference to the
1:03:46best explanation, not necessarily this
1:03:47100% deductive proof, but
1:03:50>> this doesn't give you deductive proof.
1:03:51>> No, it doesn't. And we're not asking for
1:03:52it. Go ahead. Go ahead.
1:03:54>> It seems like you are though. That's
1:03:55absolutely not. You believe obviously
1:03:57Steve's mischaracterizer.
1:03:58>> Yeah. It's it's just not We're not
1:04:00asking for 100% proof. No. Okay. What
1:04:02we're what we're asking for is an
1:04:06understanding of physics that we don't
1:04:08have at the moment. Okay. So, basically
1:04:10what these singularity theorems prove is
1:04:14that the spaceime that obeys the
1:04:17condition of the theorem encounters a
1:04:19singularity. It but it doesn't say there
1:04:21isn't some other space on that doesn't
1:04:23obey the condition of the theorem. So
1:04:24now you have to ask what are the
1:04:25assumptions in the theorem? Are they
1:04:27trustworthy? because if they're not
1:04:29trustworthy, the conclusion isn't
1:04:30trustworthy. And what I think there's
1:04:32very broad consensus on in physics is
1:04:34that the conclusions are not
1:04:36trustworthy. In fact, right, the people
1:04:38that invented them, Penrose, Hawking, um
1:04:42Ellis, Garrick, they they I think
1:04:45>> they have abandoned them.
1:04:46>> They've abandoned them, right? Not not
1:04:47they haven't abandoned them in terms of
1:04:49the the mathematics is good mathematics,
1:04:50right? No one's saying that the the
1:04:52maths is wrong, right? The question is
1:04:54for any physical theory, you have
1:04:55physical assumptions. So the question is
1:04:57are the assumptions trustworthy? Now
1:04:59there are various assumptions. We go
1:05:00through them in the book. I'm not going
1:05:02to go through them all here but I'll
1:05:03pick the one that I think is the most
1:05:05important and that is that Einstein's
1:05:07theory of gravity describes the universe
1:05:09at all scales. And that is an assumption
1:05:11that almost I think most cosmologists
1:05:14would say is wrong. Right? It's wrong
1:05:16because there's a contradiction between
1:05:18relativity and quantum
1:05:20>> quantum mechanics of course.
1:05:21>> Right? So they contradict each other.
1:05:23Right? Now for the most part we can
1:05:24ignore that.
1:05:25>> Right? The quantum effects are very big,
1:05:27things are tiny. Um, so we we just
1:05:31ignore it. It's fine. It it it doesn't
1:05:33matter. But the big bang, it does
1:05:35matter, right? Because here
1:05:37>> in this plank unit of time.
1:05:40>> Yeah. Well, when you get Yeah. When you
1:05:41get when you get uh to when the universe
1:05:44is incredibly hot and dense, you're
1:05:46going to have to bring in quantum
1:05:47mechanics. Right. That's that's the
1:05:49broad consensus view. There are a few
1:05:51exceptions, right? there uh I mean
1:05:53Penrose actually thinks you don't need
1:05:54quantum mechanics but nevertheless one
1:05:57of the other he challenges one of the
1:05:58other assumptions of his own theorem and
1:06:01his assumption is that you can measure
1:06:03um you have to assume there's three
1:06:05space dimensions one time dimension
1:06:07which you can measure with rulers and
1:06:08clocks and he's saying you couldn't
1:06:09build a ruler or a clock in the early
1:06:10universe so actually out with a
1:06:12singularity theorem but let's put that
1:06:14to one side the main the main one is
1:06:16this quantum uh gravity issue we want to
1:06:19combine general relativity with quantum
1:06:20mechanics And until we do that, we can't
1:06:23believe what the theory is telling us.
1:06:26Now, have we done that? Not
1:06:28successfully. I mean, there are
1:06:29proposals.
1:06:30>> There's strength theory, there's loop
1:06:31quantum gravity, there's causal sets,
1:06:32there's asmtotic safety,
1:06:33>> there's quantum cosmology, right? So,
1:06:35there's there's
1:06:36>> But even if all of those are wrong,
1:06:39until we get that theory, we just don't
1:06:41know. Right? So, it's not that we don't
1:06:44have the final proof. We're not saying
1:06:46we need this 100% tight um you know,
1:06:49deductive proof. No, science doesn't
1:06:51work that way. What we're saying is the
1:06:54theorems just can't be trusted. Full
1:06:55stop because they they they need this
1:06:58quantum gravity theory.
1:06:59>> This is where I would disagree, Phil. I
1:07:00think they're pointing to something. And
1:07:02the and Borg Felink, which is not based
1:07:04on as restrictive conditions, I think
1:07:06points more decisively in that
1:07:08direction. But the other part of my
1:07:10argument is that when you if you decide
1:07:13you don't want to depict the beginning
1:07:16of the universe classically in general
1:07:18relativistic terms as it were and you
1:07:21invoke a pre uh plon time uh quantum
1:07:26description of the universe, you
1:07:28invariably get a universe that is
1:07:31depicted as a superposition of
1:07:34essentially possible states of affairs,
1:07:36possible gravitational fields with
1:07:39different configurations of of of of
1:07:42space and and and matter within those
1:07:45fields and the depiction is essentially
1:07:49not materialistic. It's it's
1:07:50mathematical. It's a depiction of
1:07:52possible states. And uh Valin has
1:07:56pointed out that this is very odd
1:07:58because you have this whole mathematical
1:07:59apparatus that precedes the beginning of
1:08:01the universe in quantum cosmology which
1:08:03is taking into account the limitations
1:08:06of the singularity theorems. the the
1:08:08conditions that have to be met and says
1:08:10we need a theory of quantum gravity and
1:08:12you end up with with a system that has a
1:08:14big hairy equation, the Wheeler Dit
1:08:17equation that needs to be solved to give
1:08:19us a universal wave function. And the
1:08:22idea is that if the universal wave
1:08:23function includes among the possible
1:08:25states of affairs in superposition, a
1:08:28universe like ours, it will then
1:08:30constitute an explanation of the origin
1:08:31of the universe. But that mathematical
1:08:34apparatus that precedes the origin of
1:08:36the universe is mathematical. It's
1:08:38conceptual. It's conceptual. So what
1:08:40what Valin has noticed and is that is he
1:08:44says what is uh what
1:08:48if before there's matter, space, time
1:08:50and energy, what tablet could these laws
1:08:52referring to that whole apparatus be
1:08:54written on? He said if math is the
1:08:56domain of the mind, are we actually
1:08:57saying that the ma that the universe has
1:08:59come out of mind? And what I'm arguing
1:09:02is that when the straightforward calam
1:09:06argument rendered however whether as an
1:09:09inference to the best explanation or as
1:09:10a deductive argument is circumvented by
1:09:13alternative models of cosmology and I
1:09:15could I think every one of the ones you
1:09:17discuss reveals this that something is
1:09:20affirmed in those models that is that
1:09:24has its own theistic implications in
1:09:26particular uh uh unexplained fine-tuning
1:09:29or in quant cosmology, the big hairy
1:09:32equation that has to be solved, the
1:09:33Wheeler Dit equation is solved by the
1:09:37physicist making arbitrary choices of
1:09:39the boundary constraints are going to
1:09:41apply to the the equation in order to
1:09:44get a universal wave function out that
1:09:46includes a universe like ours. It's a
1:09:48teological modeling where there's an
1:09:50information input by the physicist into
1:09:52the mathematical apparatus to get a wave
1:09:55function out that will provide an
1:09:56explanation of the origin of the
1:09:58universe. Well, that's intelligent
1:09:59design. They're modeling the input of
1:10:01information into a mathematical
1:10:03apparatus to model how the universe
1:10:05could have come into existence. And I
1:10:08and you find this in the Steinhart
1:10:10model, not the same kind of thing, but
1:10:11this these unexplained inputs of
1:10:14information or fine-tuning in all the
1:10:16attempts to circumvent the beginning. So
1:10:18yes, you can get around the beginning,
1:10:20but at an epistemic cost of naturalism.
1:10:22And that is always the affirmation of
1:10:24unexplained fine-tuning and often some
1:10:27very very wonky physics, which is why
1:10:29you're correct to say that you're
1:10:31probably right. Most of the 25 models
1:10:32are not are not going to be correct.
1:10:34>> Okay. So there's a lot of information
1:10:35there. All right. So
1:10:37>> there's a lot less.
1:10:39Okay. Let let me
1:10:40>> The point I'm making is I'm not hanging
1:10:42the whole of my argument on the the
1:10:44evidence for beginning. I think we've
1:10:46been far too diffident about seeing what
1:10:49the the the the grainman of the body of
1:10:53evidence is showing that it's pointing
1:10:55strongly in that direction. But if you
1:10:56don't like the beginning and you
1:10:58circumvent it with a quantum cosmology
1:11:00or a conformal cosmology or any of the
1:11:04others discussed in the book, you
1:11:06invariably have an epistemic cause.
1:11:08Okay, that so if I could attempt my
1:11:12layman's summary and feel free to
1:11:13correct me on this that there um yes
1:11:17there are other models and you represent
1:11:19a number of them in the book that don't
1:11:20necessarily point to a beginning but
1:11:22each of them comes at a cost says Steven
1:11:26in terms of there being some other
1:11:27payoff which in his view do have some
1:11:30kind of theistic interpretation and in
1:11:32the end the you know particularly those
1:11:35that invoke a kind of a mathematical
1:11:37kind of solution to to some of these
1:11:38issues are are kind of
1:11:42are kind of inferring some kind of
1:11:43information input from from the outset.
1:11:45>> They require it they require it as a
1:11:48condition of explanation.
1:11:49>> And so whichever way you look at it that
1:11:52there's going to be something pointing
1:11:54back to the God conclusion as far as
1:11:56Steve is concerned. Okay. Where do you
1:11:59want to begin?
1:11:59>> There's so many topics that that
1:12:01Steven's raised there so and I want to
1:12:03try and cover them all. So you'll have
1:12:05to bring me back if I forget one or
1:12:07another. So I I want to go back. So
1:12:08first off, he quoted Alex Felen and I
1:12:11think that's a misquote because Alexin
1:12:13doesn't believe in a god, right? He
1:12:15believes that the universe um does have
1:12:18a beginning, but it doesn't need a
1:12:20cause. Okay, so he has this he does
1:12:24mention like where could the laws of
1:12:25physics be written? You know, I think
1:12:27that was honestly a bit of a
1:12:30>> turn of phrase.
1:12:31>> It's a turn of
1:12:32>> I thought it was an insightful
1:12:33rhetorical question. I I think
1:12:37>> never claimed that he believed in God.
1:12:38Nor does my argument depend on what he
1:12:40>> does, right? Let's make that clear
1:12:41because when you when you have that
1:12:43comment, it sort of hints that oh, he's
1:12:45thinking there's a mind. He's not
1:12:46thinking that. In fact, if you read his
1:12:48book many worlds in mind, is incredibly
1:12:50anti- all of the arguments that Steven
1:12:53and other theists put forward. He
1:12:54basically although he thinks the
1:12:56universe had a beginning, he doesn't
1:12:56think it needs a course. So, out with a
1:12:58calm. He also thinks like the multiverse
1:13:00is real and soul's fine tuning. So, out
1:13:02with a fine-tuning argument. And people
1:13:04often quote Alex Valenin and don't quote
1:13:06this fact. It just seems incredibly
1:13:08unemper
1:13:20and asked them about this. Right. First
1:13:22off, I can say and I think maybe we can
1:13:24clear this up that it's pronounced
1:13:26border, not board. [laughter] Okay.
1:13:29Everyone seems to pronounce right. But I
1:13:30got that from Alan Goose and I think he
1:13:31knows how to pronounce his colleagueu's
1:13:32name. Okay. So if I slip off and say
1:13:34bored or bored a um please correct me.
1:13:37So okay what does this theorem say?
1:13:39Okay. It just basically what was going
1:13:41on is that they came up with this theory
1:13:43called inflation. So Alan Guz came up
1:13:45with this theory called inflation which
1:13:46has this accelerated expansion um
1:13:49>> in the very early moments of the
1:13:50universe.
1:13:51>> Yeah. This inflationary period.
1:13:54>> Yeah. Yeah. And um it was thought by
1:13:56Valenin actually uh he was one of the
1:13:59pioneers of this to be eternal into the
1:14:01future. So once inflation starts, it
1:14:03never stops. It makes universe after
1:14:05universe after universe. So it's it's
1:14:07eternal. So they asked the question,
1:14:09well, if it's eternal into the future,
1:14:11can it be eternal into the past? And
1:14:14their conclusion was no, it cannot be
1:14:16eternal into the past. So inflation
1:14:18requires a beginning. What's in the
1:14:20paper is that there's a boundary to the
1:14:22inflating space. Okay. Now, first off,
1:14:25other people have challenged that. This
1:14:26is not like an agreed upon fact by
1:14:28everyone. There's a recent paper um by
1:14:31Leneski and Davis and Essen saying
1:14:34actually they made a mistake and it's
1:14:37actually you can have an inflating space
1:14:39that goes back into there in other
1:14:40papers that said this. Now again the
1:14:43point I want to emphasize there's no
1:14:44empirical way to adjudicate this
1:14:46disagreement. Okay, if inflation
1:14:48happened and it's eternal and suppose
1:14:51there's some beginning to eternal
1:14:52inflation, we are not going to see it
1:14:54empirically. So that's that puts caution
1:14:56on this conclusion, right? because we
1:14:58want science to be empirical. This is
1:15:00kind of why I think we need to emphasize
1:15:02the uncertainty here. We're in much more
1:15:04uncertainty about these topics than it
1:15:06would appear, right? We don't know if
1:15:09inflation, you know, even happened. I
1:15:12think there's a good case to be made for
1:15:13inflation. Um, but it's not watertight,
1:15:16right? It's, you know, it's reasonable.
1:15:18But we, in the book, we go over a whole
1:15:20fights about arguments for and against
1:15:22inflation, and I often change my mind
1:15:24about it every other day. Uh, it's a
1:15:26difficult topic, right? But even if
1:15:28inflation did have a beginning, okay, so
1:15:31something could have come before
1:15:32inflation, right? It doesn't have to be
1:15:34um something abstract. It could just be
1:15:37simple. There was a collapsing universe
1:15:38and then there was expanding universe.
1:15:40>> This is where where other models come in
1:15:41that there are other options on the
1:15:43table
1:15:43>> and we don't know which one is correct.
1:15:45So basically we have to be agnostic
1:15:47about these sorts of issues, right? It's
1:15:49just not correct to say that these
1:15:51points are beginning. In fact, Alan Guth
1:15:53thinks the universe is eternal into the
1:15:54past, right? And surely Steven knows
1:15:57this, right? I mean, this is very well
1:15:59known. Uh, and and so from your
1:16:01perspective, Phil, what you're dealing
1:16:04here is that there's lots of different
1:16:05people with different perspectives. Some
1:16:07of which might indicate a beginning, but
1:16:09that doesn't necessarily mean a god
1:16:11beginning. It could be there's some
1:16:13other formulation which which suggests
1:16:15there's there's something else happening
1:16:17in the quantum realm, whatever it might
1:16:18be.
1:16:19>> Right? So, so let's just take an
1:16:20example. Suppose you get a collapsing
1:16:21universe that expands.
1:16:23>> Okay? I don't say what on earth is
1:16:26immaterial about that. I mean it's it
1:16:28seems
1:16:28>> this doesn't have any theistic
1:16:29implications.
1:16:30>> I don't know what theistic implication
1:16:31is supposed to be of that like why is
1:16:33that showing pointed to the saying this
1:16:35is right this is one option
1:16:37>> but it's it's it's a plausible option
1:16:39among among this is this is right on
1:16:42point. Okay.
1:16:43>> Okay. So do you mind if we go back to
1:16:44Steve?
1:16:45>> Could I answer this thing about
1:16:47inputting information?
1:16:48>> Shall we do one thing at a time? We'll
1:16:51come back to information as well but but
1:16:52we're on border
1:16:56sorry border between
1:17:00pronunciation
1:17:00>> the inflation
1:17:02um and Valenin certainly seems to have
1:17:05uh said this implies a beginning though
1:17:08>> well wait a minute when I sat in Valen
1:17:10in his popular book he said that this
1:17:12was a proof of the beginning that was in
1:17:14a popular book not in a scientific paper
1:17:17okay
1:17:18>> right and when I asked asked him about
1:17:20it years later, he backed off that
1:17:22claim. He said, "No, it only proves
1:17:24proves that inflation had a beginning."
1:17:26When I asked him, he said, "No, this
1:17:28only proves inflation had a beginning."
1:17:30It doesn't say that the universe had a
1:17:32beginning. So, we're going to have to
1:17:33quote these people inflation.
1:17:34>> When they when they quote this theorem,
1:17:36when they quote Valenin, right? And they
1:17:39don't quote what they say now, which is
1:17:41that these theorems only say that
1:17:43inflation had a beginning. How you know?
1:17:47we've had a a whole uh problem of of
1:17:50taking him out of context on the other
1:17:52side because I think that the s he wrote
1:17:55an article in the journal inference
1:17:57edited by my colleague David Berlinsky
1:17:59where he was very clear he thinks the
1:18:00universe probably did have a beginning
1:18:02that the the models that circumvent the
1:18:06the BGV theorem are all the models that
1:18:10imply an eternal past are all
1:18:13problematic. And so on balance, yes, it
1:18:17the the the the in the strict sense it
1:18:19only establishes that inflationary
1:18:23big bang had a beginning. The if the
1:18:25universe is on average expanding from a
1:18:27beginning point there, you can take it
1:18:29back that far. There are models that
1:18:31obviously propose a pre big bang
1:18:35contraction. For example, the Steinhart
1:18:37model and that is a good one to
1:18:40illustrate my point. Okay? Because in
1:18:42the in the Steinhard model uh first of
1:18:45all there have been papers come out now
1:18:48that Steinhardt has conceded that his
1:18:50model uh his uh cyclic ectopic model
1:18:55does require
1:18:56>> egg pyrotic
1:18:56>> e pyroic thank you model also um is
1:19:00subject to BGV but the idea is you can't
1:19:05go back the b the the the the
1:19:09model or the BGV theorem takes you back
1:19:12to the point where inflation starts.
1:19:14What happens before that? Well, there
1:19:15are contracting models that something
1:19:16there was a previous phase and the
1:19:18universe was contracting. In Steinhart's
1:19:20work, he has he posits a unique field
1:19:25that uh changes the energy energy
1:19:28density of the universe from positive to
1:19:31negative and back again. Now, there's no
1:19:33other field in our knowledge of physics
1:19:35that does something like that. So, one
1:19:37of the epistemic costs of these
1:19:39alternative cosmologies is often a a a
1:19:42gross violation of AAM's razor in that
1:19:44they multiply theoretical entities and
1:19:47often uh very imaginatively so. But in
1:19:51order to get the contraction phase to
1:19:54work just right, so it smooths out the
1:19:57background radiation so that you get a
1:20:00um a homogeneous background radiation in
1:20:02the next phase. the mathematics has to
1:20:04be exquisitly finely tuned. And so if if
1:20:08you have someone who is gerrymandering
1:20:09the mathematics to make the model work,
1:20:12that is a reflection of what would need
1:20:14to be taking place in nature. That it
1:20:16would itself need to be finely tuned.
1:20:18And my contention is that these these
1:20:20alternative models to the big bang, the
1:20:23the alternative models that get rid of
1:20:24the of of a beginning invariably have
1:20:28problems with unexplained fine-tuning or
1:20:30inputs of information. and the the
1:20:32precontra the the the pre- Big bang
1:20:35contraction phase of the Steinhard model
1:20:38which is cited as one of the the the
1:20:41model specific exemptions to BGV
1:20:44is subject to that very condition that
1:20:47I'm talking about. So there's a
1:20:49robustness to the argument that we're
1:20:51developing. We're not hanging at all on
1:20:54the the singularity proofs or the
1:20:56observational astronomy. I think on
1:20:58balance they point in that direction to
1:21:00a beginning. But the point is to
1:21:02circumvent that conclusion invariably
1:21:05very hype very speculative models uh
1:21:08have to be invented that they actually
1:21:09have three epistemic costs. One they
1:21:11usually affirm something that has
1:21:12theistic implications like unexplained
1:21:14fine-tuning. Secondly, they usually
1:21:17violate AAM's razor because there's a
1:21:19massive multiplication of theoretical
1:21:21entities. um I list them all in the in
1:21:25the string inflationary model of
1:21:27explaining the multiverse uh in in
1:21:29chapter 16, but I've I've seen this
1:21:31repeatedly in these cosmological models.
1:21:34And then thirdly, there's often either
1:21:36something completely unprecedented being
1:21:38asserted about how physics will work or
1:21:41something that violates physics uh basic
1:21:44physics really established physics that
1:21:46we know. For example, Phil's co-author
1:21:49posits a um a return of the ether, a
1:21:54second dimension of time, and a um and
1:21:58that the speed of light is no longer
1:22:00constant. And and goes on to say that if
1:22:03he is allowed to uh add a second
1:22:06dimension of time to his his depiction
1:22:08of the universe, that uh that may imply
1:22:11that that causality is not a fundamental
1:22:13property of the universe. Well, that's a
1:22:16high cost to pay to formulate a model
1:22:19that gets around the beginning.
1:22:20>> That's really helpful. Okay, Phil, you
1:22:22might want to pick up on the the
1:22:23information sort of being bought at the
1:22:25beginning sort of point here as well as
1:22:29>> again so many points to to go back. So,
1:22:31first of all, I mean the psychic model
1:22:33of Steinhard Steinhart and Anna Eas has
1:22:36been working on this. Let's give her
1:22:38some credit too. Um, and of course, it
1:22:41goes back to earlier work.
1:22:42>> Epyroic
1:22:43>> epyotic model, right? So um
1:22:45>> is this the collapsing?
1:22:47>> No, there's a confusion. I think Steven
1:22:49just got confused here. Right. What I
1:22:50was suggesting was there was a
1:22:51collapsing universe and expanding
1:22:53universe. That does not imply cyclic
1:22:54universe of Steinhard and EAS. Not at
1:22:57all. Right. It doesn't imply a cyclic
1:22:58universe.
1:22:59>> I'm not sure which one you're talking
1:23:00about. The point is that their model
1:23:03>> Yeah, but I'm not talking about their
1:23:04model.
1:23:04>> Well, okay. But I'm talking about it
1:23:05because it illustrates my point well.
1:23:07Their model is a a model specific ex has
1:23:12an exemption.
1:23:13>> Sorry, Stephen. I didn't doesn't apply.
1:23:15I didn't interrupt you, Ste. So maybe
1:23:16let me speak. Okay. But but regardless,
1:23:18you might want to speak to
1:23:19>> I'm not I wasn't talking about the
1:23:24model. What I was talking about is a
1:23:25collapse followed by expansion. Now a
1:23:27psych cyclic universe of the aparotic
1:23:29type has collapse expansion collapse
1:23:31expansion collapse expansion. And to get
1:23:32that to work right, there are other
1:23:34things that you need. I'm not talking
1:23:36about that. I wasn't proposing that. I
1:23:37didn't even mention that.
1:23:38>> Do you concede that you need finetuning
1:23:39to get that model to work though in the
1:23:41mathematics? Um that's a complicated
1:23:44answer. Uh uh let let me let me sort of
1:23:47answer some of the points you made
1:23:48before going on to some other points.
1:23:49Right.
1:23:50>> Okay. Just for clarification maybe stop
1:23:52interrupting.
1:23:52>> I just was wanting your clarification
1:23:54though for me. Which model are you
1:23:55talking about with the the collapse
1:23:57contraction could
1:24:00well there's many models that would just
1:24:01have a collapse and expansion. So it's
1:24:03what we would call an hourglass model.
1:24:05So an example of this would be let's say
1:24:06loop quantum cosmology. Right? So here
1:24:09what you're doing you're not trying to
1:24:10circumvent the beginning. That's the
1:24:11wrong language. Okay, this is a lot of
1:24:15theists think that what cosmologists are
1:24:16trying to do, they've like they know
1:24:18about the column cosmological argument
1:24:19and it proves God existence and they're
1:24:21trying to find a way around it. No.
1:24:23Okay, most cosmologist probably never
1:24:25heard of the column cosmological
1:24:26argument. They don't care about any of
1:24:27these conversations. What they're trying
1:24:29to do is to extend the border of our
1:24:32knowledge. Okay? So, we get to the big
1:24:34bang and that's where our understanding
1:24:36stops. Okay? But they want to push
1:24:39beyond it. So what they want to do is
1:24:40say okay let's develop quantum theories
1:24:43of gravity and apply them to the big
1:24:44bang and let's just see what happens. So
1:24:46I interviewed the people that worked on
1:24:48let's say lukew cosmology as an example
1:24:50right and what they did was they
1:24:52developed the the theory over like
1:24:53decades before ever applying it to the
1:24:56big bang once they felt they had enough
1:24:59understanding of the theory that they
1:25:00could start to do this then they applied
1:25:02it to the big bang and what did they
1:25:04find that the big bang becomes a big
1:25:06bounce and there's a reason for this
1:25:08because in the theory you find that
1:25:11space has a maximum capacity so think of
1:25:14a sponge okay you pour water on a
1:25:16sponge. The sponge absorbs the water. In
1:25:18a similar way, space can absorb energy
1:25:20as you start to compress it. But what
1:25:23happens is as the water gets poured on
1:25:25the sponge, eventually the sponge gets
1:25:27filled up. It can no longer absorb the
1:25:29water. So rather than becoming water
1:25:31absorbent, it becomes water repellent.
1:25:33So similarly, space in this scenario
1:25:36bounces out because it's got filled up.
1:25:39Simple as that. So basically what you do
1:25:41is you find that the big bang is in a
1:25:44the big bang singularity is replaced by
1:25:47a big bow. So there was a contracting
1:25:48universe on the other side. Now it's
1:25:51true in the cyclic model of Steinhart
1:25:53and EAS they have to assume two
1:25:55additional fields. But of course
1:25:58assuming additional fields is not like
1:25:59some bizarre weird thing. This happens
1:26:02all the time in physics. The Higsfield
1:26:04was is even going to say the Higs field
1:26:06was some uh conflict with Okanra. When
1:26:09you have a problem, you come up with
1:26:10novel solutions. This is what science
1:26:13does. This is completely normal in
1:26:15science. And if you if you thought this
1:26:16was a great problem, you'd be you'd be
1:26:18stopping science in in a sense because
1:26:20scientists are often coming up with
1:26:22novel solutions to stuff. So this is
1:26:24>> it's [clears throat] not about
1:26:25circumventing anything. It's about just
1:26:27testing different ideas, creative ideas.
1:26:29>> It's trying to come up with better than
1:26:31what we've got and then seeing what it
1:26:32does. Now if you find that it solves
1:26:36certain problems and there are certain
1:26:38reasons to take it seriously. So for
1:26:40example
1:26:41if if we stay in the loop chronographity
1:26:43case there are re I'm not saying the
1:26:45chronograph is right okay it's got
1:26:46problems like every theory has problems
1:26:49including ones with a beginning and ones
1:26:51without a beginning. Every theory has
1:26:52problem that's why we've we writing a
1:26:55book about how people are battling about
1:26:57them. All theories have problems. What
1:26:59does that really tell us? It just tells
1:27:01us that our theories are incomplete,
1:27:03right? That we don't know what's
1:27:05happening. And this is kind of the whole
1:27:06point of the argument here. We don't
1:27:08know what's going on in the early
1:27:10universe. So, we can't make any firm
1:27:12conclusions, right? But there's nothing
1:27:15no reason to think that this these ideas
1:27:18require a god, right? It doesn't point
1:27:21to anything other than a lack of our
1:27:23understanding. And we try and push
1:27:25forward. It might be that nature doesn't
1:27:27allow us to go presumably for you. Just
1:27:30before we come back to you, Steve, you
1:27:32do you believe that I well we I think
1:27:34we'll need to get to this, you know,
1:27:35towards the end of our conversation. You
1:27:37you presumably believe that God is a
1:27:38very unsatisfactory
1:27:40explanation compared to continuing to
1:27:43explore physical, mathematical, other
1:27:45types of
1:27:45>> Well, I won't believe any I don't
1:27:47believe any of the models in our book,
1:27:49right? And the reason is because I won't
1:27:51believe it until we've made really
1:27:53precise predictions that have been
1:27:54tested thoroughly against observations.
1:27:57So what people in this field are trying
1:27:58to do are trying to do that. Now at the
1:28:00moment it's simplified models there's
1:28:02nothing I think absolutely compelling. I
1:28:05mean most if you survey cosmologist and
1:28:07in fact we have surveyed cosmologist. Uh
1:28:09uh certainly about inflation versus
1:28:11alternatives because that's that's one
1:28:12debate and then even if you think
1:28:14inflation happened you can ask what
1:28:15happened before right um so inflation is
1:28:18the most popular model right arguably it
1:28:21is actually a pre big bang model. In
1:28:22fact go talks about it that way. Um but
1:28:26we don't we don't know. I don't think
1:28:28there's anything convincing, right? So
1:28:31we basically should be agnostic, right?
1:28:33And if we're lucky, we will be able to
1:28:35push beyond. But it's possible that
1:28:37nature's just put up a brick wall and
1:28:39we'll never know, right? In fact,
1:28:40there's a theorem called uh Melvin Man
1:28:43theorem which says we can't ever know
1:28:44the global structure of space time. If
1:28:46that's right, you know, maybe we're
1:28:47never going to know, but I mean I'm a
1:28:48bit more optimistic than that. But it
1:28:50does say I think that you couldn't
1:28:51observationally tell the global
1:28:53structure of space time. But here's the
1:28:55important point. Actually, let let me
1:28:57address this issue about the inputting
1:28:58the information in.
1:28:59>> Okay, let let's do that and then and
1:29:01then we will pass it back to
1:29:02>> So it's true that uh equations often
1:29:05have infinite number of solutions. So if
1:29:07you just think of a really simple
1:29:08equation like x + y = 2, there's an
1:29:12infinite number of solutions to that
1:29:13equation, right? It could be 1 plus 1
1:29:15equals 2,
1:29:16>> 1.5 plus 0.5. Yeah,
1:29:17>> exactly. there's an infinite number of
1:29:19solution. It it could be 3 + - 1. Right?
1:29:22So now when you go to the real world,
1:29:24what you find is that often these things
1:29:26get constrained by the regularities that
1:29:28exist in nature. So um imagine what
1:29:31we're actually trying to describe is
1:29:32apples falling off a tree. Okay. So
1:29:35let's suppose we have some detector and
1:29:36it can detail a sound of something
1:29:38falling, but it can't tell how many
1:29:39apples, but we know there were two
1:29:40instance. So now our equation is x + y
1:29:44equals 2, right? Oh, actually it has to
1:29:46be 1 plus 1 because there can't be a
1:29:48negative number of apples and there
1:29:50can't be actually from what we know
1:29:52about apples there's not they when they
1:29:53fall off trees they're whole apples. So
1:29:55actually the infinite number of
1:29:56solutions collapses down to like one
1:29:58unique solution. Okay now in field
1:30:01theories it's true that there are an
1:30:03infinite number of solutions to those
1:30:05equations. Right? So how do you make
1:30:07progress? Well you impose symmetry. One
1:30:09way you can do it is impose symmetries.
1:30:11Right? And then you see what you get.
1:30:14Now a lot of the symmetries might be
1:30:17justifiable by empiricism. So we look at
1:30:20the universe and we see it's
1:30:21homogeneous. So okay let's impose that
1:30:24as a symmetry. So what physicists are
1:30:26doing is trying to make progress. They
1:30:28it's true that they have to make
1:30:29assumptions. The God theory has to make
1:30:31assumptions. You have to make
1:30:32assumptions about what God would do,
1:30:34whether he's good, what kind of universe
1:30:36he would. No one no one can get out of
1:30:38making assumptions, right? But what you
1:30:40do is you have this feedback in in
1:30:42cosmology. We don't believe even if you
1:30:44make assumptions and you get a plausible
1:30:46idea, right? So I think inflation is
1:30:48plausible, right? But we don't believe
1:30:51it until it's got through the incredible
1:30:54number of robust tests. And I think I
1:30:59don't want to endorse any theory be it
1:31:00God or a big bounce or holographic
1:31:04cosmology which actually I don't think
1:31:06holographic cosmology does need a wheel
1:31:07equation. You don't use the wheel
1:31:09equation. You use
1:31:10>> No, I'm saying it's quantum cosmology.
1:31:12And so the bottom line is yes, people
1:31:15make assumptions. This is what you have
1:31:18to do to do physics and it's nothing
1:31:20unusual. Coming up with new fields is
1:31:22nothing unusual. It's been done before.
1:31:24That's what the Higsfield was. This is
1:31:26part of doing science.
1:31:28>> Okay. All right. So a couple of points.
1:31:32>> Let's have some further thoughts and I'm
1:31:33going to start to bring this into land
1:31:35so we can also talk about our other big
1:31:36issue which is the finetuning of the
1:31:38universe for life and whether that lends
1:31:40evidence for the godhead.
1:31:41>> Right. A minute ago, Phil said that we
1:31:43have a lot of confusion about what was
1:31:45going on in the early universe. The word
1:31:48early implies that the universe was near
1:31:51the beginning of its beginning. And the
1:31:54the the the multiplication
1:31:58of these very abstract models that do
1:32:02circumvent the beginning I think is um
1:32:06evidence not of progress in physics but
1:32:10of a kind of degenerate research program
1:32:12that uh Thomas the historian of
1:32:15science said that when you see a
1:32:17multiplication of of modeling you're not
1:32:20seeing a healthy research program that's
1:32:22making progress. If there are 25
1:32:24different models, they're mainly
1:32:26inconsistent with each other. Um, if
1:32:29they require many ad hoc assumptions, a
1:32:33multiplication of explanatory entities,
1:32:38uh, this is this is not evidence of
1:32:40making progress. what he inadvertently
1:32:43said in in referring to the the universe
1:32:45as having an early state is the most
1:32:48natural thing that most people think
1:32:52even in physics when they're thinking
1:32:53about how the universe began there was a
1:32:55big bang and so what's taking place is
1:32:59these models are attempting to eliminate
1:33:01the idea that there was a single
1:33:02beginning there's they're do there there
1:33:04two basic types either you get the the
1:33:07quantum approach the quantum
1:33:08cosmological approach that wants to
1:33:09portray the early universe as a quantum
1:33:12state in superposition of these
1:33:13mathematical possibilities or you have
1:33:16either some type of oscillating or
1:33:18cyclic where you have multiple big banks
1:33:20and um Phil interviewed Sir Roger
1:33:24recently he has this cyclic conformal
1:33:27model he posits fields that have again
1:33:30properties that no other fields have he
1:33:34has to have exquisite fine-tuning after
1:33:36the crossover from the expansion phase
1:33:41phase of the universe to a a a a be a a
1:33:46a new phase where you have massive
1:33:48entropy and and it's by a kind of
1:33:51mathematical slide of hand. He reduces
1:33:54that with what he calls SCA invariance,
1:33:57scale invariance. And then somehow that
1:33:59massive universe that was had lots and
1:34:01lots of of um entropy is now a universe
1:34:06in a low entropy state with lots of
1:34:08energy available to do work simply
1:34:10because he's measuring it differently.
1:34:12Um and then once the universe begins to
1:34:14expand, it has to be the right amount of
1:34:17mass of the right kind has to be
1:34:19introduced by a new type of field. He
1:34:21used to call it a phantom field. Now
1:34:23it's it's a field of unknown unnamed
1:34:26that's producing particles called
1:34:27aerabonds that again have have features
1:34:30that no other no other uh uh massive
1:34:34particles have in physics. So what
1:34:36you're seeing I think is not a healthy
1:34:38research program but a proliferation of
1:34:41highly speculative models that are
1:34:43getting around that very obvious
1:34:44conclusion that if there was a early
1:34:46universe early with respect to what
1:34:48early with respect to its beginning and
1:34:50it would I think be much better to
1:34:52simply acknowledge that there was a
1:34:53beginning and and proceed in physics
1:34:55research based on that assumption rather
1:34:58than than the multiplication of modeling
1:35:01that is
1:35:02>> what about Phil's contention here that
1:35:04you know this has always been the of
1:35:05science. People try different things.
1:35:08They they get creative. They they put
1:35:10out different hypotheses. Uh inevitably
1:35:12some of these are going to be difficult
1:35:13to test because of the nature of the
1:35:15>> but absolutely there's nothing wrong
1:35:16with modeling. The point is what does
1:35:18the modeling show you when you look at
1:35:19it carefully.
1:35:20>> We're it's it's showing that you have to
1:35:22violate AAM's razor with multiple
1:35:23explanatory entities and invariably to
1:35:26make the models work you have to have
1:35:29exquisite fine-tuning. You can't get a
1:35:30universe like ours with specificity of
1:35:33features
1:35:35without constraining possibility space
1:35:38mathematically and and so the
1:35:40fine-tuning it becomes an inevitable
1:35:42consequence of these these models that
1:35:46eliminate a beginning. And so that
1:35:48provides I think a basis for a different
1:35:51form of the cosmological argument an
1:35:53argument from contingency but still a
1:35:55very powerful pointer to God. You either
1:35:57have a God argument if you start with
1:35:59with with a with the assumption of a
1:36:01beginning with the evidence for a
1:36:02beginning or if you if you circumvent
1:36:05that go in a different direction model a
1:36:09non-binning universe you have you you
1:36:12have to compensate for that with
1:36:13exquisite fine-tuning and I and I would
1:36:15I would assert and I think I can show
1:36:17that you find that fine-tuning in each
1:36:19of these models and it's not something
1:36:20that explained within the structure of
1:36:23the model within the structure of the
1:36:24mathematics of the model. it's imposed
1:36:27extrinsically by the modeler and that's
1:36:29the input of information I'm talking
1:36:31about that is I think being
1:36:32inadvertently
1:36:34u what I think that input of information
1:36:36from the modeler is inadvertently
1:36:39revealing what's necessary to make a
1:36:40universe which is an input of
1:36:42information or finetuning
1:36:43>> quick quick response and then I'm going
1:36:44to get you to do the uh the trying to
1:36:46understand each other thing okay so so
1:36:48quick quick respon
1:36:49>> okay so notice that Stephen didn't reply
1:36:51to my point about let's say the lip
1:36:54conmology model Okay, what was going on
1:36:56there? Nothing metaphysical about it.
1:36:58It's just a collapsing universe and an
1:37:00expanding universe. There's no need for
1:37:02the extra fields that you have in the
1:37:04porotic model. Right? Also notice that
1:37:07there's no no reply to the issue of what
1:37:10does the BGB doing really prove? Right?
1:37:13One thing I should point out that it's
1:37:14also based off of um particle picture of
1:37:18reality, but we don't think that when we
1:37:19get back to the early universe, we have
1:37:22a particle picture. It's a field
1:37:23picture. Now when I say early universe
1:37:25I'm just talking about the hot dense day
1:37:27okay because this is the language that
1:37:29we use okay it doesn't mean as we said
1:37:32we we can actually show you what
1:37:33physicists think okay and they don't
1:37:35think that the big bang was necessarily
1:37:37a beginning so when but yet they talk
1:37:39about early universe it's just a turn of
1:37:41phrase right the idea of making
1:37:42something big about that now he says
1:37:45well there's all these like exotic ideas
1:37:47out there now of course the cost of the
1:37:48ideas depends on on what they have in
1:37:51each case so for example challenge the
1:37:53idea that you could have a a variable
1:37:56speed of light. You might say that's
1:37:57like an incredibly bizarre assumption.
1:37:59Okay, why would you think that? Well,
1:38:01there are reasons to think that. There's
1:38:03a theory called Hosa lift gravity. It's
1:38:05a proposal for quantum gravity and
1:38:07there's a reason to take it seriously.
1:38:09I'm not saying it's right, but there's a
1:38:11reason to take it seriously. This is a
1:38:14dodge. I'm sorry, Phil. That's a kind of
1:38:16dodge to say I I don't uh uh I don't
1:38:19take any of the models to be correct,
1:38:20but the very fact of these possibly
1:38:22incorrect models shows that the universe
1:38:24didn't have a beginning.
1:38:25>> No, I'm not saying that, Stephen. That's
1:38:26a complete mischaracterization of what
1:38:28I'm saying. What I what I'm saying is
1:38:30that we don't know what the correct
1:38:33description of quantum gravity is. Okay.
1:38:36Therefore, we cannot make any firm
1:38:38conclusions about whether there was a
1:38:39beginning. Therefore, the singularity
1:38:42theorems which rely on Einstein's theory
1:38:44of gravity or a classical space-time
1:38:45picture and the Border Lenin theorem
1:38:48does require all right a classical
1:38:50space-time picture and it also requires
1:38:52that the speed of light can't be
1:38:54violated. Well, if a Java lift shift
1:38:56gravity is true then the speed of light
1:38:57>> it does not require a quantum
1:38:58gravitational theory. It's
1:39:00>> it's a it's a it's a classical picture
1:39:02of spaceime it absolutely is based on
1:39:05based on special relativity not based on
1:39:07general relativity. No, no, but it still
1:39:08requires
1:39:11a classical space. It still has a
1:39:12particle picture of reality, right? This
1:39:15is something well agreed upon. Okay.
1:39:17Now, the point is yes, you posit new
1:39:20things. This happens all the time in
1:39:22physics. Okay. And then what you do is
1:39:24you have this feedback with experiment.
1:39:26So, what what experimental evidence does
1:39:29the god theory make? Does it predict? So
1:39:32here's a claim made by inflation
1:39:33cosmologists and and in fact I think
1:39:35that um you know ste very much
1:39:39mischaracterized in his book. So there
1:39:40are simple models of inflation and they
1:39:42they claim to make predictions for let's
1:39:45say the degree of scale and variance or
1:39:47gravitational waves and things like this
1:39:49and in our book we talk about some of
1:39:51these possible tests and at the end of
1:39:54the I don't want to reveal the ending
1:39:55but we think there's you know a much
1:39:56more definitive test that happens okay
1:39:58and we and the point is we don't believe
1:40:00these theories until these definitive
1:40:01tests have been done so what test does
1:40:05what does God say about the level of
1:40:07scale and variance or the the strength
1:40:09of gravitational waves or whether
1:40:10they're tilted blue or red. You know, as
1:40:12far as I can see, nothing, right? It's
1:40:14very easy to say, you know, I I assume a
1:40:17being that can do anything and then it
1:40:18can explain anything, right? Okay. Of
1:40:20course, you can. But I say that we don't
1:40:23believe any theory until they've been
1:40:26tested. Now, that doesn't mean that
1:40:27something can't be have some degree of
1:40:29plausibility. And I think that some of
1:40:32these ideas like string theory, like
1:40:33loop chronal gravity, like causal set
1:40:35theory, they have reasons to take them
1:40:37seriously. So for example there are
1:40:39infinities in our equations that can be
1:40:42solved right which you can't do in
1:40:45general relativity the equations blow up
1:40:47and in these approaches equations don't
1:40:49blow up so that is is a reason to take
1:40:52them seriously it's not a reason to say
1:40:53that they're true but it means that I
1:40:56think therefore when you get this that
1:40:58is a sign of progress
1:40:59>> okay
1:40:59>> because oh my god there were equations
1:41:02that couldn't be solved now they can be
1:41:03solved there's a singularity that
1:41:04couldn't be resolved ah we actually show
1:41:06that we can resolve a singularity I
1:41:08think that's progress. It's far from the
1:41:11end of the journey, right? We need those
1:41:14empirical tests and until then, we don't
1:41:17say what's right. And I think what's
1:41:18happening with the theist is they don't
1:41:21have anything like a mathematical
1:41:23description of what God would do. They
1:41:24don't have any predictions, but yet
1:41:26they're asenting to that theory. Well,
1:41:28I' I'd like I'd like to hear Steve
1:41:30respond to that. Um uh
1:41:33>> because I think this this takes us into
1:41:34the important question. clear about
1:41:36what's going on theoretically.
1:41:39>> You go back to as far as we can go
1:41:42empirically to the beginning of the
1:41:44expansion
1:41:46and what all of the models that are
1:41:49described in the book are doing is
1:41:51modeling what came before that. And so
1:41:54there is every bit as much of a boundary
1:41:58empirically to the naturalist or
1:42:01materialist
1:42:02cosmologist
1:42:04as to what precedes the big bang as
1:42:07there is to the theist who posits a a
1:42:10creator. you all of these models are
1:42:12full of unobservables, unobservable
1:42:15fields, unobservable physics,
1:42:17unobservable um um um processes that are
1:42:22exquisitly finely tuned. What theism
1:42:25expects, there's a wonderful quote from
1:42:26Dawkins, who I guess you interviewed
1:42:28yesterday. He said that um the universe
1:42:31we observe has precisely the properties
1:42:33we should expect if at bottom there's
1:42:36there's no purpose, no design, nothing
1:42:38but blind, pitiles indifference. What's
1:42:40implied in that is that metaphysical
1:42:42systems, materialism, theism are every
1:42:45bit as testable by comparing what you
1:42:47would expect to see given the the
1:42:50hypothesis as uh as our scientific
1:42:54hypothesis. I think what we have in
1:42:56these formulations
1:42:58of um pre- Big bang cosmologies is a
1:43:02form of mathematized materialistic
1:43:05metaphysics and that that the
1:43:07proliferation of these models doesn't
1:43:09show that a promising research program
1:43:11but but the opposite and that there are
1:43:14things that you would expect to see in
1:43:16the universe that we see in physics that
1:43:19that invariably cannot be explained
1:43:22within these models. And one of those
1:43:23key things is fine-tuning.
1:43:25This is the something that agents do
1:43:28that natural processes don't do. If you
1:43:29have an ense a vast ensemble of
1:43:31possibilities and only one or very few
1:43:34of those possibilities is necessary to
1:43:36achieve a propitious outcome, whether
1:43:39we're talking about a um a French recipe
1:43:41or an internal combustion engine or you
1:43:44name it. The these are things that we
1:43:47know minds produce. And in all of the
1:43:49naturalistic cosmologies, we have a
1:43:52transcendent dimension, something
1:43:54separate from this universe.
1:43:56Theists agree you need a transcendent
1:43:58dimension. But what's missing in the in
1:44:01the uh in all the the the pre- Big bang
1:44:05naturalistic cosmologies is the is an
1:44:09entity which can fine-tune a system.
1:44:12That fine-tuning is always modeled by
1:44:14the physicist as they gerrymander the
1:44:16equations. And so that's that's an
1:44:19expectation a prediction of theism that
1:44:22is present in the physics that's not
1:44:24expected on
1:44:25>> and this is to answer Phil's objection
1:44:28that that God is not an adequate sort of
1:44:30testable.
1:44:30>> He wants to say it has no empirical
1:44:32content and I'm saying no it does. And
1:44:34the very thing that these models
1:44:36invariably cannot explain is the very
1:44:38thing that theism expects which is
1:44:40present in all of the models.
1:44:42>> Right. We're going to take a pause just
1:44:44for a moment. just for a moment because
1:44:46this is fantastic. Um I'm I'm racing to
1:44:49keep up with all of this, but I think I
1:44:51think I'm there. I'm going to ask us you
1:44:54both to to to just at this point where
1:44:55because I think this is a natural point
1:44:57to maybe start to transition into into
1:44:58our other big topic, the the fine tuning
1:45:00of the universe. And we'll we'll do as
1:45:01much justice as that as we can to that
1:45:03in the time we've got. But um maybe I'll
1:45:05start with you, Phil. Could you give for
1:45:08me as best you can where you
1:45:11you know what your understanding is of
1:45:13of what Steve is saying here as regards
1:45:16to why he he really does think you are
1:45:20entitled to posit God in light of the
1:45:24physics. I understand this will not be
1:45:25your view. You are you are if you like
1:45:27playing devil's advocate to to Steve
1:45:29here. But um what what do you understand
1:45:32to be saying as far as our conversation
1:45:34has got so far?
1:45:35>> Right. So he's basically saying, well,
1:45:37all the different quantum cosmology
1:45:39models imply something transcendent,
1:45:42which I think is completely false.
1:45:43>> We know we know you think that, but
1:45:44let's just say what you don't, but
1:45:46that's what he thinks. That's what he
1:45:47thinks.
1:45:47>> Right. Okay. Then he says, well, they
1:45:50all need a mind to model them. Again,
1:45:53this is just normal physics. There's
1:45:55nothing bizarre about this, but he says,
1:45:57well, they need information input,
1:45:59right? And that's done by a mind, right?
1:46:01But it's always done by a physical mind,
1:46:02by the way. It's never done by an
1:46:04immaterial mind, right? But therefore um
1:46:08this is evidence for theism. Then he
1:46:11says okay all of these models require
1:46:13fine-tuning. Okay. Um I don't know that
1:46:15they do or I don't know what the fine
1:46:16tuning is supposed to be in holographic
1:46:18cosmology for example but okay but even
1:46:20if they do um you know that just means
1:46:24there's something more to be learned.
1:46:25It's ridiculous to demand that a theory
1:46:29uh has to explain every mystery in
1:46:31physics. Okay.
1:46:32>> Right. So of course there are
1:46:33unexplained things. That's how we make
1:46:34progress in science. We don't try and
1:46:36solve everything at once. We try and say
1:46:38this is a problem. Let's try and fix
1:46:40this. And and Steven thinks that in
1:46:42doing that you'd have unsolved problems.
1:46:44There's still therefore fine-tuning and
1:46:46therefore God and God and theism
1:46:48predicts fine-tuning and therefore
1:46:50that's evidence of theism.
1:46:51>> All right. Are you I'm going to ask are
1:46:54you satisfied with that that
1:46:55explanation? rather pjorative framing of
1:46:58the terminology and everything else but
1:47:01uh good enough for governor.
1:47:03>> All right. Good. Good enough to go on
1:47:05for for now. Okay. What just I would
1:47:07just do the same invite invite viewers
1:47:10to to read for example chapter 17 and 18
1:47:12of my book to illustrate the depth of
1:47:15this this need for uh for unexplained
1:47:19finetuning or information inputs. It's
1:47:20it's implicit in these models. And one
1:47:23of the things I appreciate about their
1:47:24book is that by ex the exposition is so
1:47:27clear that it that it really reveals
1:47:29where that fine-tuning is being um
1:47:32excluded from consider where where it's
1:47:35where it's a necessary feature of the
1:47:37success of the model.
1:47:38>> Right.
1:47:39>> And that's that's your your perspective
1:47:40on it. Just just again, if you wouldn't
1:47:42mind doing the same process, what what
1:47:44what are you hearing from Phil um so far
1:47:48as regards why he he just doesn't see
1:47:50God as as needing to be brought into
1:47:53this conversation?
1:47:54>> Yeah. He's saying that that we have a
1:47:56lot of uncertainty about the early state
1:47:58of the universe that it's natural
1:47:59therefore that scientists would be
1:48:01developing other models to try to
1:48:03explain its origin and that this is a
1:48:07healthy part of science to develop such
1:48:09models. He's also saying that he doesn't
1:48:12affirm or agree necessarily agree with
1:48:15any of them. Um and um and doesn't think
1:48:18there's there's one to hang his hat on
1:48:20at this point. But the the fact of those
1:48:22other models suggests that there's
1:48:24there's no need to uh come to the
1:48:27conclusion that that there was a
1:48:29beginning to the universe or that there
1:48:31is any other evidence that points
1:48:33towards a mind behind the universe.
1:48:35>> Is that a
1:48:36>> it's it's close enough. But remember the
1:48:38point that we don't have any empirical
1:48:40observations for singularity and we
1:48:42can't trust the theorems. Therefore, I
1:48:44would just say don't worry about the
1:48:45models. They're fun. They're really
1:48:47interesting to learn about. But the
1:48:48point is the existing statement that the
1:48:51universe had a beginning just can't be
1:48:52trusted.
1:48:53>> Right?
1:48:54>> That's really the bottom line. Where
1:48:55whereas obviously Steve Steve Steve
1:48:56feels that that in totality he he he he
1:49:00just comes to a different very different
1:49:01conclusion that he thinks that there is
1:49:03enough evidence from different points of
1:49:04view to say it's it's a reasonable
1:49:06conclusion.
1:49:09Hello again. If you'd like to see more
1:49:11of these conversations from Uncommon
1:49:13Ground, please do consider becoming a
1:49:15monthly supporter. Monthly supporters
1:49:17get some perks, too. Silver supporters
1:49:19get early access to new episodes, plus
1:49:21bonus content from Think Faith. Gold
1:49:24supporters get all of that, plus the
1:49:25chance for and monthly catch up with me
1:49:27and signed copies of both of my books,
1:49:30The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God
1:49:32and Why I'm Still a Christian. Find the
1:49:34link to support from today's video and
1:49:37help me make more conversations that
1:49:39matter.
1:49:42Okay, let's let's talk about our next
1:49:44big issue. This is the second big sort
1:49:47of scientific discovery that you talk
1:49:49about in return of the god hypothesis,
1:49:50Steve, and it's the finetuning of the
1:49:52universe for life. This idea that it
1:49:55appears that there are certain number of
1:49:57cosmological sort of factors, values,
1:50:00laws, numbers that are precisely dialed
1:50:02to the values they need to be in order
1:50:04for life to appear in the cosmos. Uh,
1:50:06sketch out the the the big picture here
1:50:09and and why it for you lends evidence to
1:50:11the idea. Well, there the idea of
1:50:12fine-tuning is that there are a number
1:50:15of parameters uh that are that fall
1:50:18within very narrow ranges
1:50:21outside of which life and even stable
1:50:25galaxies and even basic chemistry would
1:50:28be impossible. and the um existence of
1:50:34those extremely finely tuned parameters
1:50:36and their importance for there being a
1:50:39life- friendly universe provides
1:50:41evidence of a finetuner
1:50:43>> and this is uh the idea in the the
1:50:47theistic argument is that we have a lot
1:50:49of ordinary experience. uh our uniform
1:50:52and repeated experience which is the
1:50:54basis of all scientific uh reasoning
1:50:57shows that when we see finely tuned
1:50:59systems invariably they are the product
1:51:02of a mind whether we're talking about a
1:51:04French recipe or an internal combustion
1:51:06engine or the way in which a piece of
1:51:09software runs a piece of hardware that
1:51:11type of fine-tuning where there's a vast
1:51:13ensemble of possibilities only very few
1:51:16of which will yield a propitious outcome
1:51:19those are systems which invariably are
1:51:22the products of mind. And so when we see
1:51:24that feature of a vast ensemble of
1:51:27possibilities, only very few of which
1:51:29will yield a life- friendly universe, it
1:51:32is a a natural conclusion based on our
1:51:35ordinary experience of cause and effect
1:51:38to infer that there was a designing
1:51:40intelligence. us for example Sir Fred H
1:51:42O H O H O H O H O H O H O H O H O H O H
1:51:42Oily who was one of the first scientists
1:51:45to to discover some of the fundamental
1:51:48finetuning parameters those related to
1:51:49the the uh formation of carbon in the
1:51:52universe um said that a common sense
1:51:55interpretation of the data suggests that
1:51:58a super intellect has monkeyied with
1:51:59physics um and and this
1:52:02>> and and blind chance is not something
1:52:03worth speaking of. I mean you give us an
1:52:06example of one of these apart from
1:52:07>> Frank we've been talking in a
1:52:09cosmological context we have an
1:52:10expanding universe yeah or I argue from
1:52:13a beginning um that expansion is
1:52:16fine-tuned and accepted value is about
1:52:18one part in 10 to the 90th power
1:52:19>> so if it differed from that value by one
1:52:22part in 10 to the 90 we it would
1:52:24>> we get we'd either get a heat death or
1:52:26we get a big crunch
1:52:27>> okay something that's inhospitable to
1:52:29the possibility of life
1:52:30>> and another thing to say about the
1:52:31finetuning is there are different
1:52:32classes of fine-tuning evidence Okay,
1:52:34there's the finetuning of the strength
1:52:37of the fundamental forces measured by
1:52:40their constants. I won't go I explain
1:52:42what the constants of physics are in the
1:52:44book but u uh so there's the finetuning
1:52:47of the laws and constants of physics but
1:52:49there's also the finetuning of the
1:52:50initial conditions of the universe the
1:52:53configuration of mass energy at the big
1:52:55bang going forward and both there are
1:52:58multiple parameters but there are at
1:53:00least two different categories or types
1:53:02of fine-tuning and some of the different
1:53:04models that have been proposed to u
1:53:07explain the fine-tuning uh will explain
1:53:10one class but not the other or the other
1:53:12and not the one. And so that's a another
1:53:14thing to keep in mind.
1:53:15>> Okay. And and so for you, this again is
1:53:17part of a you know an overall case for
1:53:21why God
1:53:22>> it's a sign of intelligence.
1:53:23>> It's a sign of intelligence.
1:53:24>> We we find when we find finely tuned
1:53:26systems we can look around the room find
1:53:28any number of them. Um we should apply
1:53:30the same reasoning to
1:53:31>> we should apply the same reasoning and
1:53:32realize that this that there's mind
1:53:34behind it. And I have to say, Phil, this
1:53:37even among many of the atheist sort of
1:53:38thinkers I've spoken to, Richard
1:53:40Dawkins, um, Peter Milikin, others, they
1:53:43they've often said, actually, if there's
1:53:44one argument that has given me pause for
1:53:46thought, the fine tuning of the universe
1:53:47is pretty remarkable. Um, now do you in
1:53:50any way sort of question the fact of
1:53:53fine-tuning, even if you perhaps are
1:53:55going to go in a different direction in
1:53:56terms of explaining that that
1:53:58fine-tuning? Well, I think it's better
1:54:00for me to reveal not what I think, but
1:54:02what physicists think because I've done
1:54:04some surveys with phys what they think.
1:54:07So, how about we do that? Yeah, let's
1:54:08find out.
1:54:08>> Okay. So, I had done two surveys. One
1:54:11was at a conference in Copenhagen
1:54:13organized by the Neil Bore Institute had
1:54:15leading physicists there um and so that
1:54:18was um yeah very very high top names in
1:54:21the field um but a smaller sample size.
1:54:24I think we had about 80 replies. We've
1:54:26then teamed up with the American
1:54:27Physical Society and we've done what I
1:54:29think is the largest survey of
1:54:30physicists ever. I think it's 17 about
1:54:33roughly 1700 reports we've got. Um so
1:54:37why don't I reveal what the results are?
1:54:40I've come prepared. So this is what
1:54:42physicists actually think. So let's
1:54:43start um with the Copenhagen survey
1:54:46which we've actually published. Now the
1:54:48other one has not been published yet but
1:54:49I hope by the time this goes out it will
1:54:51be. Okay. So we we now we gave them
1:54:54various options to explain the
1:54:56finetuning and we're going to go from
1:54:58the bottom up. Okay. And one thing to
1:54:59put this in perspective is just consider
1:55:02what how many scientists believe in God.
1:55:05Okay. Um so there have been a lot of
1:55:07surveys done in the US because that's
1:55:09where we have data. So that's why I'm
1:55:10going to quote. Um for the general
1:55:12population it's it varies survey to
1:55:14survey but it's something like 70 to 85%
1:55:16believe in God. For scientists as a
1:55:18whole again it varies a bit. there's
1:55:20something between 30 and 40%. So it's a
1:55:22big drop. And then when you go to what
1:55:24are called the eminent scientists, the
1:55:26top people in the field, they surveyed,
1:55:27let's say, members of the National
1:55:29Academy of Science, um they got I think
1:55:317% believed in God. So another big drop.
1:55:34Okay. So here here are the results from
1:55:36our Copenhagen survey. Um the the least
1:55:40popular uh option by the scientists was
1:55:44selected as the intelligent design
1:55:46option. It got 3% support. Now notice
1:55:48that's much much lower than even the
1:55:51numbers that believe in God from the the
1:55:52other survey, right? It's less than
1:55:54half. Um then so that got 3%. The next
1:55:57one was necessity. Um so this is the
1:56:00idea that the constants are just have to
1:56:03be what they are, right?
1:56:04>> So there's no point arguing about, you
1:56:06know, how improbable they are that
1:56:08there's some mathematical reason why
1:56:10they have to be what they are. You might
1:56:12not know what it is,
1:56:13>> but how many took that?
1:56:14>> So that got 9%.
1:56:16>> Okay. Uh the next was a Darwinian
1:56:19selection.
1:56:20>> Okay,
1:56:20>> so that got 10%. So the idea here is
1:56:23we've seen this problem before. If you
1:56:24throw genes together randomly, you're
1:56:26not going to get a functional organism.
1:56:29And most I think most scientists think
1:56:31that Darwin solved that problem. Now
1:56:33obviously Steven doesn't think so. So
1:56:34this one's not going to be problem with
1:56:35him. But um the idea is
1:56:38>> kind of Darwinian on a more sort of
1:56:40>> Yeah. The idea is that the universe can
1:56:42reproduce itself.
1:56:42>> I see.
1:56:43>> Okay. So one way that's like for example
1:56:46Lee Simmon has come up with a particular
1:56:47mechanism but you could imagine other
1:56:49mechanisms but the idea in Simon's model
1:56:51is that the um a black hole could give
1:56:54birth to a new universe. So if
1:56:56singularities are replaced by bounces
1:56:58which seems to be implied by some mod
1:57:00taking us back to our previous
1:57:01conversation but but that that there's
1:57:02some explanation in the evolution of the
1:57:05universe uh states that that allow that
1:57:09we find ourselves in one that is
1:57:10>> yeah it select it selects for ones that
1:57:11can reproduce themselves. So selecting
1:57:13for more black holes not for life. Life
1:57:15just becomes a sort of happy byproduct.
1:57:16>> Okay. So that's that's Darwin selection.
1:57:18So that got 10%. Okay. So number two um
1:57:22I've I've admitted here no opinion and
1:57:24other. Okay. Um number two. Do you want
1:57:27to guess what number two was?
1:57:29>> Multiverse.
1:57:30>> Yes. Okay.
1:57:31>> Multiverse was number two.
1:57:32>> Okay. So that got 24%. And just again if
1:57:35just for the sake of those who perhaps
1:57:36don't know what we're talking about in
1:57:38that regard, uh could you perhaps
1:57:39briefly explain the multiverse
1:57:41hypothesis?
1:57:41>> Yeah. So we actually say it's anthropic
1:57:43selection in the multiverse. So the
1:57:45multiverse is that it's like if imagine
1:57:47the lottery right super unlikely that
1:57:49someone wins the lottery
1:57:51>> unless lots of lottery tickets are sold.
1:57:53If lots of lottery tickets are sold
1:57:55quite likely that someone wins the
1:57:56lottery and then the anthropic selection
1:57:58comes in whereby so the idea is you
1:58:02could only observe the universe that has
1:58:03life emitting values. So you will
1:58:05there's a selection bias. It's not
1:58:07what's the most likely universe. Our
1:58:09universe could be incredibly unlikely.
1:58:10is what's the most likely universe to be
1:58:12observed because you have to observe the
1:58:14one that's life permitting. So, so
1:58:16that's why we call it anthropic
1:58:17selection in a multiverse. Right?
1:58:19>> So, that was the second most popular
1:58:21sort of way of of uh making sense of
1:58:24fine-tuning of the universe for life.
1:58:26>> Correct. Okay.
1:58:26>> Correct. Yeah. What was the number one
1:58:28then?
1:58:28>> Any guess?
1:58:29>> Uh I don't know. Go on.
1:58:31>> Okay. It's that there the constant
1:58:33nature are brute facts that need no
1:58:35further explanation. That there's
1:58:36nothing to be explained
1:58:37>> and that's different to them being
1:58:39necessary.
1:58:39>> Yeah. Yeah. No. So necessary is
1:58:40different to a brute fad. Okay.
1:58:42>> So necessary means they have to be what
1:58:44they are.
1:58:44>> So imagine like a coin flip, right?
1:58:47>> So you could take a coin flip and say,
1:58:49okay, it could land heads or tails. It
1:58:51landed heads. What's the grand
1:58:53metaphysical explanation for land? There
1:58:55is none. Just deal with it. It landed
1:58:57heads.
1:58:57>> No, who cares, right? It's heads. That's
1:59:00what it came out.
1:59:02>> And so it's just a brute fact. It's not
1:59:03that it had to come out heads. Whereas
1:59:05necessity means it has to come out
1:59:06heads, right? there's some reason why it
1:59:08had to come our heads, right? So that
1:59:10that was our survey of of the experts.
1:59:13Interesting. Then when we did the
1:59:14American Physical Society, that's much
1:59:16broader. Much much broader. We had, you
1:59:18know, 1,700 replies and um so there the
1:59:23the results are pretty similar. Okay,
1:59:25they're not radically different. Um so
1:59:27intelligent design I expected to be I
1:59:29thought well look the population of
1:59:32elite scientists let's say 7% believing
1:59:34in God and the broader scientific
1:59:37community is maybe 35% believe in God.
1:59:38So I thought it would go up by five but
1:59:40it only went up by three. It was 9%
1:59:42belief in intelligent design. Okay. So
1:59:45it was number two from the bottom rather
1:59:47than number one from the n rather than
1:59:49at the bottom. Okay. U then necessity
1:59:52actually was the one that got the
1:59:53biggest boost. Now we actually rephrased
1:59:55it. I should I because when we spoke to
1:59:57the American Physical Society went oh
1:59:59necessity is a philosophical term so we
2:00:01rephrased it to there's a principle that
2:00:04sort of forbids finding
2:00:05>> yeah that the laws are producing the
2:00:07their own
2:00:07>> finding well it's that there's some
2:00:11reason why they there's some reason
2:00:12>> the contingent features of the laws
2:00:14whether it be their initial conditions
2:00:16>> well we don't say that it's it's more
2:00:18that there's a reason why they have to
2:00:19take on the values that they do from
2:00:21coming from physics okay right so that
2:00:23got 19% so that that got the
2:00:25difference between the the professionals
2:00:28and and the broader one. Then Darwinian
2:00:30selection had 6% rather than 10%. And
2:00:34Multiverse went down a little bit. Um
2:00:3724% to 21% and yet again brutax was top.
2:00:42Now here's one of important thing I want
2:00:44to take away from this. Okay? Because
2:00:46we're often told that you have to choose
2:00:49between an intelligent designer or a
2:00:52multiverse. Okay? And this is what
2:00:55physics is telling us. Okay. But if you
2:00:58actually ask physicists what they think,
2:01:01they think that neither of these two
2:01:03options is well if you add up those two
2:01:05in both surveys they came to less than a
2:01:07third.
2:01:08>> Less than a third back that option,
2:01:10right? And and and so actually
2:01:14physicists don't think you need to
2:01:15appeal to intelligent designer or a
2:01:17multiverse. Not not by a majority. I
2:01:19mean some do obviously, right? So, so
2:01:21this is important because the narrative
2:01:23that we're being told is that these are
2:01:25your two choices. And in fact, um, many
2:01:28physicists think that's not correct.
2:01:29>> Okay.
2:01:30>> I'd just be interested in your response
2:01:31to this interesting survey that has
2:01:33done.
2:01:34>> I I think um, it's an argument from
2:01:38authority and it's an argument at
2:01:41populum. Okay, we're going to take a
2:01:42vote, right? Nothing in what was said
2:01:45responded to the basic logic of the
2:01:47fine-tuning argument, which is that when
2:01:49we find fine-tuning as a feature of
2:01:51systems and we know how they arose, they
2:01:55invariably arose from the activity of an
2:01:57intelligent mind. So we could identify
2:02:01to see if the the consensus view of the
2:02:04scientists that there's nothing there to
2:02:06be explained whether they would apply
2:02:08that reasoning to any other fine-tuned
2:02:10system that we might see in say our
2:02:11terrestrial environment. If a section of
2:02:14software had to be very finely tuned to
2:02:16produce a certain programming output,
2:02:20would we say well the software is just a
2:02:22brute fact of the system or would we
2:02:26want instead to attribute it to a
2:02:28programmer? Similarly, uh if we saw that
2:02:32there were a whole lot of ways of
2:02:33arranging the parts of an internal
2:02:36combustion engine, but only very few of
2:02:39those configured just right will result
2:02:41in the engine working, would we want to
2:02:44say there's nothing there to explain? I
2:02:46I think if we're going to appeal to the
2:02:48consensus of a community, we also need
2:02:51to be aware of what the assumptions of
2:02:53the community are about how they are to
2:02:55practice their discipline. And this
2:02:56applies to both materialist and theistic
2:02:59uh scientists. And that is that there's
2:03:00been a long-standing convention in
2:03:02science from about the late 19th century
2:03:05soon after the Darwinian revolution that
2:03:08science must limit itself to
2:03:11materialistic explanations only. It has
2:03:14a fancy name. It's called the principle
2:03:15of methodological naturalism. I think
2:03:17it's very much at work in the
2:03:19proliferation of naturalistic pre- Big
2:03:21Bang models, all the things we were
2:03:23talking about. But many scientists have
2:03:25been quite open and honest about the
2:03:27role of this convention in in affecting
2:03:32their own thinking about the god
2:03:33question. For example, Richard Lewenton
2:03:36uh the really famous Harvard
2:03:38evolutionary biologist was quoted
2:03:39several years ago was saying we take the
2:03:42side of science. He's talking about the
2:03:44the historic conflict between science
2:03:47and religion. And he said, "We take the
2:03:48side of science in spite of its many um
2:03:52counterintuitive constructs in sight in
2:03:55in spite of its unsubstantiated just so
2:03:58stories. Think the multiverse for
2:04:01example um because we have a prior
2:04:04commitment to materialism." And he said
2:04:07that commitment is absolute. We cannot
2:04:09allow a divine foot in the door. So you
2:04:12have something like the fine-tuning
2:04:13evidence which as I've argued in the
2:04:15previous session occurs repeatedly in
2:04:17attempts to model the universe without a
2:04:19beginning. So you've got this very
2:04:21fundamental feature of reality that
2:04:24recurs we recurringly encounter and
2:04:28rather than saying something needs to be
2:04:30explained or we
2:04:32we say nothing needs to be explained or
2:04:34we come up with a multiverse theory and
2:04:36yes intelligent design is at the bottom
2:04:37of the heap but it's at the bottom of
2:04:39the heap among a community of people who
2:04:41accept that it is their duty as
2:04:43scientists to limit themselves to
2:04:46strictly materialistic explanations
2:04:48only. So I don't think we can assess the
2:04:51rationality of the fine-tuning argument
2:04:53by an appeal to the consensus of a
2:04:55community.
2:04:56>> And in a sense I'm also hearing here
2:04:57that that good scientists don't always
2:04:59make good philosophers of science. There
2:05:01may be some extra absolutely that needs
2:05:03to be done and so just polling is so
2:05:06what what do you find?
2:05:07>> But notice when you poll philosophers
2:05:09>> yes
2:05:10>> the brute facts was the number one okay
2:05:13that's interesting.
2:05:14>> So so you can't [laughter] appeal to to
2:05:16philosophical ignorance. No, hang on.
2:05:18Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're
2:05:19appealing to a consensus.
2:05:20>> No, no, no. I'm not. Okay, cuz I'm not
2:05:22saying you have to believe in bru facts
2:05:24because that's most popular. I'm not
2:05:25saying that. But what what I'm trying to
2:05:27do is is to correct the narrative
2:05:30because of course notice that when
2:05:32Steven opened his argument up, he
2:05:34appealed to Fred Hy is a great
2:05:35physicist. No question he was.
2:05:36>> He was also the discover.
2:05:39Please don't interrupt. I didn't
2:05:40interrupt you. Right. Okay. Right. So
2:05:43people people appeal to the authority of
2:05:45science when defending the finetuning
2:05:47argument. And I think it's worthwhile
2:05:49pointing out what physicists actually
2:05:51think. I certainly don't think any
2:05:53scientific disagreement can be decided
2:05:56by a poll. Obviously not right. But what
2:05:59we can do is say look people are saying
2:06:01this is what physicists think and
2:06:03they're misrepresenting what physicists
2:06:05think because they haven't actually done
2:06:06the research. And we have what? Right.
2:06:08>> Well I' I'd push back on that. at the
2:06:10back of uh of um of Luke Barnes's
2:06:13wonderful book with uh written with his
2:06:15atheistic supervisor from Cambridge. He
2:06:17his PhD at Cambridge in physics. He has
2:06:19a list of all the leading physicists who
2:06:20accept that fine-tuning is something
2:06:22that needs to be explained. And so that
2:06:25first explanation is that it's just a
2:06:27brute fact. Maybe many don't. But the
2:06:29the fact of fine-tuning is something
2:06:31that's on the table. It's been
2:06:32established by leading physicists and
2:06:35>> but it hasn't been established. This is
2:06:37something that's been disputed. This is
2:06:38the whole point. Well, that's what we're
2:06:39trying to do here is that this has been
2:06:41disputed, right? So, you're questioning
2:06:43the very
2:06:44>> Are you questioning the fact of
2:06:45fine-tuning or that there's a need for
2:06:47an explanation of finetuning?
2:06:49>> Well, it depends what you mean by the
2:06:50fact of fine-tuning. So, don't forget
2:06:52that when physicists use the term fine
2:06:54tune, they don't always mean the
2:06:55definition that Steven often gives,
2:06:57which is that it's improbable to have
2:06:58lifeitting values. A lot of time
2:07:00physicists use the term finetune, they
2:07:02mean something else. They mean that a
2:07:03theory needs some parameter to have some
2:07:06unlikely value, for example. and and so
2:07:08people question what do you mean by
2:07:10unlikely right so the problem is um that
2:07:14when we talk about probabilities
2:07:15probabilities have to come from
2:07:17somewhere okay so where do these
2:07:19probabilities come from so a lot of
2:07:21people would say you can't do
2:07:23probabilities for for things like this
2:07:26because you don't know the mechanisms by
2:07:28which by whereby they are said so let's
2:07:30if you take an example let's say you
2:07:32throw a dieice okay you can say oh six
2:07:37is just as likely as one. It's just as
2:07:38likely as two.
2:07:39>> It's a one in six probability.
2:07:40>> Like I can say probability of getting
2:07:41six is one in six. How how can I say
2:07:43that? What justifies that? Well, I know
2:07:45how many sides the dice have. Okay, I
2:07:47know that it's equally weighted. Okay, I
2:07:49know how many times I get to throw
2:07:51because if I get to throw more times
2:07:52then, you know, different outcomes could
2:07:54be possible. I know how many dice there
2:07:56are. So, so think now think of the
2:07:59constant nature. Do we know how many
2:08:00signs there are on the dice? And we
2:08:02don't, right? We don't know how many
2:08:04values are actually possible, right? So
2:08:06some people would challenge you're
2:08:08assuming they could take on different
2:08:09values, maybe they can't. Maybe there's
2:08:11some principle that puts them in one
2:08:13value rather than another. We or or more
2:08:15broadly we just say we don't know how
2:08:17many sides are on the dice. Nor do we
2:08:18know if they're equally weighted, nor do
2:08:20we know how many dice we have. So for
2:08:23example, if I have one die, I can use
2:08:24something called the principle of
2:08:25indifference. I can say each side of the
2:08:28die is equally likely. So if six comes
2:08:30out more often than one or more often
2:08:32than two, something weird is going on.
2:08:35I'm justified in saying that right
2:08:37because I have experience of dice and I
2:08:39understand how dice work right now for
2:08:42the concept of nature we don't have that
2:08:44and and in fact if you throw in another
2:08:46die actually the principal indifference
2:08:48that you use give each possible outcome
2:08:50the same weight actually doesn't work
2:08:52anymore because in fact one is now
2:08:55impossible if you have two die you can't
2:08:57roll a one if you have two die and in
2:08:59fact six becomes much more likely than
2:09:00two right so that principle of
2:09:02indifference that we you were using
2:09:03before which is what's being used in the
2:09:05finetuning or something like it.
2:09:06>> I think I get the the general idea
2:09:08though that you you're you're taking
2:09:10objection to Steve's idea that that the
2:09:13the the specific specific specificity.
2:09:16>> It's a hard one to pronounce, isn't it?
2:09:17I keep this
2:09:18>> of these numbers um is improbable
2:09:21because you don't know what the
2:09:23conditions could have been otherwise you
2:09:25don't know.
2:09:25>> You don't know the mechanism to generate
2:09:27probability. So, in fact, let me give an
2:09:29example that was used by by um a guy
2:09:32called Chris Hitchcock. He's a professor
2:09:33of um philosophy of of of physics,
2:09:37editor of the ham Oxford handbook of uh
2:09:39philosophy of uh philosophy of
2:09:41probability, sorry. Um and he gives this
2:09:43example of of a jar with beans in it. So
2:09:46you've got um lentils and red beans and
2:09:50and you could say look a priori. So if
2:09:53I've got these red lentils and black
2:09:55beans, what if I shake them up? What's
2:09:57the probability that all the black beans
2:10:00will go to the top? Well, let's say I
2:10:02give them one half probability because
2:10:03it could go to the bottom or the top and
2:10:04there's, you know, 100 of them and you
2:10:06get this extraordinarily low
2:10:08probability. Then he shakes the jar up
2:10:10and all the red letters go to the
2:10:12bottom, right? What's going on? Well,
2:10:14you understand the process. There's a
2:10:16force of gravity pulling them down and
2:10:17the smaller ones go through the cracks
2:10:19and the bigger ones. So what what you
2:10:21calculated a pyori was it's a
2:10:23fantastically low probability and it's
2:10:25got absolutely nothing to do with the
2:10:26real world because you didn't know the
2:10:28mechanism mechanism that would lead you.
2:10:31So if you don't know anything about dice
2:10:33right suppose I'm just going to have a
2:10:34random number generator go between let's
2:10:36say two and 12 you might say well a
2:10:39pyori six is no more likely than two but
2:10:41when you learn something about how dice
2:10:43work you find out oh actually six is
2:10:45more likely two
2:10:46>> we're we're not justified essentially in
2:10:49saying this is improbable when we don't
2:10:51know what mechanism produced the values
2:10:53of the universe in
2:10:54>> right the appeal in the example is just
2:10:56some sort of underlying law in this case
2:10:58the effect of gravity on the the things
2:11:01in the jar, right? But the the
2:11:03interesting feature about the um the the
2:11:07basic parameters, the constants of
2:11:09nature is that they are contingent
2:11:11features of the fundamental laws
2:11:13themselves, the four fundamental force
2:11:14laws. And so there's no because they are
2:11:18features of those of those laws. There's
2:11:20nothing more fundamental than those laws
2:11:22to appeal to in giving an explanation
2:11:24for why the why the the values would be
2:11:28set necessarily in in one place rather
2:11:31than another. So what reduces what might
2:11:34reduce the the the probability is an
2:11:36appeal to necessity. But uh I think that
2:11:38is the least u plausible explanation for
2:11:42the incredible improbability or the
2:11:44setting of those fine-tuning parameters.
2:11:46If if they are if if the parameters
2:11:49themselves are features of the laws, you
2:11:52can't refer to the laws as the
2:11:53explanation for the parameters. Um what
2:11:56the argument I thought that um that uh
2:12:00um Phil might make has to do with the um
2:12:04the the probability that the the the the
2:12:09probability being set if you have an
2:12:11infinite range. Okay, this is the the
2:12:13the objection that comes up more more
2:12:15often. Well, if there's an infinite
2:12:17range of of possibilities, then we no
2:12:21matter how narrow the the the the number
2:12:24is on the denominator, it's going to be
2:12:26undefined because anything divided by
2:12:28infinity is is zero. Okay, that's
2:12:31something called the normalizability
2:12:32problem. It says we we can't render
2:12:35meaningful probabilities. But there's
2:12:37been a lot of advances in physics on
2:12:40this issue. One is just some work that's
2:12:43been recently done by a Colombian
2:12:45mathematician at the University of Miami
2:12:48showing that it's actually uh using
2:12:50non-standard analysis you can generate
2:12:53meaningful measures of probability even
2:12:55dealing with with in infantesmals. But
2:12:58the other thing and this is something
2:12:59that Luke Barnes and Robin Collins have
2:13:01shown is that there are natural ranges
2:13:05that allow us to calculate probabilities
2:13:07because the ranges are all discussions
2:13:10of of fine-tuning parameters are defined
2:13:13in relation to the standard model of
2:13:15particle physics and that has both upper
2:13:19and lower limits for most of the key
2:13:22parameters. And so there are not
2:13:24infinite ranges of possible um possible
2:13:28values but finite ranges. And those
2:13:30natural ranges also help the with the
2:13:33the the question of well what if what if
2:13:36the probabilities are not equiprobable.
2:13:38We we we do know that there are
2:13:40underlying physical processes that might
2:13:43play a role. But when you get to the
2:13:45fundamental physical processes, there's
2:13:47nothing more fundamental that can
2:13:48determine what the contingent features
2:13:51of those laws actually are. Those
2:13:53contingent features again being the law
2:13:55the constants of physics which have very
2:13:57idiosyncratic and precise values.
2:13:59>> Now look, we can continue to tease this
2:14:00out, the probability issue. Or we can
2:14:03perhaps accept, you're not going to come
2:14:05to agreement on on whether there is a
2:14:07legitimate sort of probability issue
2:14:09with with the fine-tuning, but we might
2:14:11at least accept that there's there's
2:14:13there's an interesting feature of our
2:14:15universe.
2:14:16>> Can we just accept that there's a debate
2:14:17about this because it's often presented
2:14:19as if it's a fact. Finetuning is a the
2:14:21fact of fine. We often hear this, the
2:14:23fact of fine-tuning, right? Or the
2:14:25discovery of finetuning. And what I
2:14:27think we can at least concede there's a
2:14:28debate about whether you can even talk
2:14:30about the probabilities for a universe
2:14:32when if there's only one universe,
2:14:34right? There's at least a debate to be
2:14:36had about this is not an established
2:14:38fact. Well,
2:14:39>> yeah, don't I don't concede that. I
2:14:41concent
2:14:44on this normalizability problem that
2:14:46shows that it is possible to render very
2:14:48meaningful probabilistic measures of the
2:14:52finetuning parameters.
2:14:53>> I'm going to accept the we can disagree
2:14:55or disagree. going to agree to disagree
2:14:57there.
2:14:57>> I I I also do agree that there is a
2:14:59debate, but but I think I think
2:15:01>> there we can find some agreement, right?
2:15:03>> There's a debate to be had. Let's let's
2:15:04look at some of those other
2:15:05possibilities. Um I mean although it
2:15:08wasn't
2:15:08>> Can we talk multiverse?
2:15:10>> I was going to say although it wasn't
2:15:11the highest on your your survey, the the
2:15:13the the solution to the finetuning that
2:15:16that is most frequently given is is the
2:15:18concept of the multiverse.
2:15:20>> Yeah, the highest on the survey was the
2:15:21non-exlanation explanation. the
2:15:23multiverse bias as the as the
2:15:25alternative explanation.
2:15:26>> Yeah. The the multiverse one assumes
2:15:27that there's something to be explained.
2:15:28>> Exactly. Yeah. So, um I mean maybe I
2:15:31could have a go roughly to you know
2:15:33explain what this one is.
2:15:34>> Give us both a break. Yeah.
2:15:36>> Exactly.
2:15:37Um look uh some there is a mechanism um
2:15:43I think inflation is often the one
2:15:45that's given at one level though there's
2:15:46a kind of string theory version of it as
2:15:47well that uh one one of the that
2:15:51hypothetically could allow for the
2:15:54creation of many universes and if all of
2:15:56these you know potentially infinite
2:15:59number of universes all have a different
2:16:01set of variables or constants and then
2:16:03yes by as you lottery analogy although
2:16:06It's very improbable that any single one
2:16:08will be the winning ticket. There will
2:16:10be more than likely one among all those.
2:16:12We happen to be in one of those unusual
2:16:15universes that does give rise to life
2:16:17because it happens to have been sort of
2:16:19uh spawned with just the right numbers
2:16:22to allow for it to happen. Um this is
2:16:24the multiverse hypothesis. Uh so um I
2:16:28don't why don't we start with you Phil
2:16:30on this one giving us what you
2:16:32understand to be some of the best
2:16:34evidence that this could be a valid
2:16:37interpretation of the finetuning of the
2:16:39universe that doesn't necessarily have
2:16:41to invoke God.
2:16:42>> So what I I I don't believe in any of
2:16:44these explanations like I think is that
2:16:46you're agnostic on these.
2:16:48>> So I think there's a mystery. Okay. Um
2:16:50it's it's not even clear there's a
2:16:52problem to be solved but there might be.
2:16:53Right. There's a debate about that.
2:16:55Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, my broader
2:16:57view is that whatever um theory we come
2:17:01up with, I think it would be really good
2:17:03if it had predictions
2:17:05um that can be confirmed. Okay. Now, I
2:17:08think necessity arguably has some
2:17:12potential predictions. Um and that is
2:17:15that the constant nature, well, if
2:17:17they're necessary, they couldn't take on
2:17:18different values, right? So, we should
2:17:20never observe them as taking on
2:17:21different values. And indeed, that's
2:17:22exactly what we see. Now that's weak
2:17:24evidence because you you know in the
2:17:25high energy physics it could be
2:17:27different. So so it's not brilliant
2:17:29evidence but it's some evidence right
2:17:31the Darwinian selection uh that's in
2:17:33some sense a multiverse but it's not
2:17:35anthropic selection in a multiverse.
2:17:36Okay. So yet again is there some
2:17:39evidence for that again in terms of
2:17:41predictions again very weak very
2:17:42circumstantial but there's a a quantum
2:17:44gravity theory called causal set theory
2:17:47and causal set theory um seems to be
2:17:51sort of there's been some work sort of
2:17:53connecting causal set theory to this
2:17:54Darwinian model. Okay. And causal set
2:17:57theory predicted that the cosmological
2:17:59constant would have the value that it
2:18:01does. Uh and it did that 10 years before
2:18:03it was observed. So that gives it a
2:18:06boost. Far far from certain, you know,
2:18:10this is very much work in progress, you
2:18:13know, very tentative, but it's it's
2:18:15better than nothing. Okay. Um, now
2:18:18coming on to the anthropic selection in
2:18:19the multiverse. One of the reasons why I
2:18:22don't believe causal set theory because
2:18:23hey, it did make this prediction of the
2:18:25in fact in causal set theory is not a
2:18:27cosmological constant. It should vary
2:18:28over time, but it it had the value that
2:18:31we observed. Um now another theory that
2:18:35predicted the cosmological constant
2:18:37before it was observed was the
2:18:39multiverse. So Steven Weinberg basically
2:18:42assumed there's something like a
2:18:43multiverse and he said well for now it's
2:18:47it's important to point out what we mean
2:18:50when we say the cosmical constant is
2:18:52fine tune. What did you say 90 just
2:18:53>> 10 to the 90th is I mean is the figure I
2:18:56get from a variety of physicists it
2:18:58varies it depends
2:19:0010 10 to the 120 in fact it depends on
2:19:02what assumptions you have so so people
2:19:04aren't sure about exactly what number to
2:19:06put on it what that doesn't mean is that
2:19:09you couldn't vary it at the 90th decimal
2:19:12place that's not what it means okay you
2:19:15could actually vary it a fair bit I
2:19:17think you could put the cosmos constant
2:19:19up by like a 100 times or something like
2:19:23um and nothing bad would happen. In
2:19:24fact, you can make it half a time
2:19:26smaller, nothing bad would happen. You
2:19:27can make it a billion times smaller and
2:19:29nothing bad would you can make it zero.
2:19:30Most people thought it was zero, nothing
2:19:31bad would happen. Right? The 120 comes
2:19:34from the prediction from quantum field
2:19:37theory. So quantum field theory seems to
2:19:40be saying the vacuum should have this
2:19:41enormous energy. It should be 120 orders
2:19:44of magnitude. So what physicists thought
2:19:46would there be some sort of cancellation
2:19:48principle some some symmetry principle
2:19:50that would cancel out the contributions
2:19:52the positive contributions to the vacuum
2:19:54and it would cancel out to zero okay and
2:19:57weberg said you know what um maybe
2:20:01there's no such principle okay maybe
2:20:03there's just a variation and so what
2:20:05would happen is we should observe a
2:20:07value that's compatible with our life so
2:20:09it wouldn't be zero but it would be
2:20:11small it would be some small value for
2:20:13the cosmological constant And again he
2:20:15predicted it 10 years beforehand. Again
2:20:17I don't think this is convincing because
2:20:19there's a lot of subtleties about this
2:20:20prediction. And uh so it's far from
2:20:23convincing but at least you could say
2:20:25it's not nothing. There was a prediction
2:20:27of the value before it was observed.
2:20:30Okay. Similarly inflation at least now
2:20:33again in our book we talk about
2:20:35inflation. There's a lot of uh claims
2:20:37and counter claims, but um if I if I was
2:20:41going to put my inflation hat on and
2:20:43argue for the multim I want to be really
2:20:44clear
2:20:45>> inflationary Phil right I want to be
2:20:47clear I think there's good arguments for
2:20:48against but given uh the context of this
2:20:50con I'm going to go with the for it okay
2:20:53um you can at least make the claim that
2:20:55it made predictions for experiments
2:20:57before they were done and they were
2:21:01confirmed by experiment now again
2:21:03there's controversy about that but that
2:21:05is actually broad consensus in the
2:21:08cosmological community. Um so in fact if
2:21:12you look at NASA's W maps plank they say
2:21:15we have good evidence for inflation. Now
2:21:18I interviewed George Fathio who was the
2:21:20cosmologist at Cambridge. I don't know
2:21:21if you know know George
2:21:24>> but um he was the scientist chosen to
2:21:28present the European Space Agency's
2:21:30plank spacecraft CMBB data release.
2:21:33Okay. And I asked him, you know, what
2:21:36what can you say about inflation? He
2:21:37goes, I think there's really strong
2:21:38evidence for inflation and it favors
2:21:40models of inflation that produce a
2:21:42multiverse. So I think Plank has shown
2:21:45evidence for a multiverse. Now, I'm not
2:21:48saying he's right. Okay? I think there's
2:21:49plenty of account there's there's an
2:21:51argument out there.
2:21:52>> There's an argument out there that at
2:21:53least it looks better than the God one
2:21:56because I don't think God has any claim
2:21:58to predictions for features of the
2:22:00cosmic microwave background. You know,
2:22:02there's there's no argument for that.
2:22:03>> It's a tentative explanation.
2:22:05>> It's a tentative hypothesis,
2:22:06>> but it's better in principle than saying
2:22:09>> it's had more success so far. There's
2:22:11plenty of reasons to doubt and I'm not
2:22:13saying inflation is right. We accept all
2:22:14those caveats, but but in the end,
2:22:17whichever one you're going for,
2:22:18necessity, um you know, multiverse,
2:22:21brute fact, it sounds like from where
2:22:24you're standing, all of those feel like
2:22:25better candidates at this point than
2:22:28than than a creator creative
2:22:30intelligence beyond the cosmos who
2:22:32>> Yeah. And I set things up so so that the
2:22:35all of those constant
2:22:36>> and there's plenty of problems even if
2:22:37you set the multiverse aside maybe we'll
2:22:39get a chance to go with thinking there
2:22:40was an intelligent design
2:22:42>> where we do need to get even if you set
2:22:44all this multiverse discussion aside
2:22:46>> let's talk about multiverse
2:22:47>> yeah um maybe just to get it out of the
2:22:49back and forth here I'll just give you
2:22:50my take on it okay all right first of
2:22:52all the the we have got a little bit of
2:22:55a difference in um the the level of
2:22:58explanation here what what you would
2:23:01expect from a god hypothes is or from a
2:23:03transcendent intelligence would be
2:23:05evidence of fine-tuning. We we wouldn't
2:23:07expect to generate fine grained
2:23:10predictions about back micro mic uh
2:23:12cosmic backro
2:23:15>> cosmic microwave backgrounds
2:23:16>> cosmic microwave background radiation
2:23:19CMBBR. Okay. Um so an empirical
2:23:22expectation of of a of a theistic design
2:23:26model would be fine-tuning and that we
2:23:28find it provides confirmation of that uh
2:23:30provided that it pro provides a better
2:23:33explanation than alternatives. Now the
2:23:35main alternative is the multiverse as an
2:23:38explanation not as a non-exlanation
2:23:39explanation and the the it happens as I
2:23:43mentioned that there are two different
2:23:44kinds of fine-tuning. There's the
2:23:46finetuning of the initial conditions of
2:23:47the universe and there's the fine-tuning
2:23:50of the laws and constants of the
2:23:51universe. And in order to explain both
2:23:55types of fine-tuning there uh multiverse
2:23:58advocates have proposed conjoining two
2:24:01different cosmological models. Now
2:24:03there's a reason for that. If if you
2:24:05have uh a lot a lot of different
2:24:08universes out there and they're causally
2:24:10disconnected from one another, then
2:24:12anything that happens in one universe is
2:24:14not going to affect the what happens in
2:24:17another universe by definition,
2:24:18including whatever process it was that
2:24:20set the fine-tuning parameters or what
2:24:23gave them their their their improbable
2:24:25values. And so for a multiverse
2:24:28hypothesis to work, there has to be
2:24:29something like an underlying common
2:24:31cause, a universe generating mechanism.
2:24:33So you can portray the different
2:24:35universes as the outcome of a kind of
2:24:38giant lottery.
2:24:39>> And indeed uh multiverse proponents have
2:24:42uh have formulated two such models. One
2:24:45is the inflationary cosmology and the
2:24:48other is a string theoretic uh
2:24:50cosmology. And it happens that the mo
2:24:54the multiverse cosmology does a nice job
2:24:56if true of explaining the fine-tuning of
2:25:01the initial conditions of the universe.
2:25:03But because every bubble universe within
2:25:04the inflationary uh cosmological model
2:25:08that is created uh when you get just the
2:25:10right uh inflaton shut off energies
2:25:13since they're all governed by the same
2:25:15laws then it you don't get a uh a
2:25:18shuffling of of laws and constants.
2:25:21Conversely, for reasons that are much
2:25:22too difficult to explain, but which I do
2:25:24address in the book, uh, string theory
2:25:27could do in principle a decent job of
2:25:30explaining the different laws and
2:25:32constants of physics, but not the
2:25:34initial conditions. So, in virtue of
2:25:37that, uh, the most current multiverse
2:25:41models can join those two things and
2:25:43give us a inflationary string or string
2:25:45inflationary model. Okay? Now, that ends
2:25:49up illustrating one of the points I've
2:25:50been making, which is that these
2:25:52speculative cosmological models end up
2:25:54having real big problems with AAM's
2:25:56razor. And I want to be able to explain
2:25:58that first and then explain what is the
2:26:00even more difficult problem.
2:26:01>> Okay, we'll let you do that and then
2:26:02we'll have respond.
2:26:03>> Um, the first problem is you get this
2:26:06multiplication of theoretical entities.
2:26:08If if if for this for the string
2:26:12multiverse the the inflationary string
2:26:15multiverse to explain the fine-tuning as
2:26:17well as call it common sensical
2:26:20inference to design. You have to posit
2:26:22an inflaton field. You have to posit the
2:26:25idea that that the shut off energies in
2:26:28the inflaton field will produce new
2:26:30universes. you have to uh posit that
2:26:33those shut off energies will happen in
2:26:35just the right in just the right measure
2:26:37at just the right time within a narrow
2:26:39interval. Then you al you then also you
2:26:43uh you inherit all of the theoretical
2:26:45entities involved in string theory that
2:26:48that the fundamental units of matter are
2:26:50small filaments called strings that
2:26:52there are multiple dimensions of of uh
2:26:56unobservable dimensions of space beyond
2:26:58the three that we observe. there's six
2:27:00or seven depending on whether you accept
2:27:01m theory or not. And uh you have to
2:27:04accept that there are are things that
2:27:06wrap around the strings that determine
2:27:08laws and constants. In the book, I list
2:27:11what I call 10 impossible things you
2:27:14have to believe before breakfast. The
2:27:15the the multiplication of theoretical
2:27:17entities in this combo multiverse
2:27:21hypothesis is pretty profleate. You get
2:27:23what philosophers of science call
2:27:25bloated ontology. And so when you
2:27:27compare the the theistic design
2:27:30hypothesis with the with the
2:27:32inflationary string multiverse, you've
2:27:34got one simple postulate which aligns
2:27:37with our ordinary experience of cause
2:27:39and effect, which is that minds generate
2:27:41finely tuned systems versus an
2:27:43explanatory framework that requires a
2:27:47multiplication of very abstract
2:27:49theoretical postulates and which in fact
2:27:52have to be conjoined. So you've got two
2:27:54different theoretical models that you
2:27:56have to accept working in tandem. That's
2:27:58one problem. So that's quite a lot. Can
2:28:00we can we can we got to fill
2:28:03>> that's a lot there. There's there's like
2:28:04three different arguments.
2:28:05>> You keep accusing me of inter
2:28:09let's let's I do want to give Steve the
2:28:11chance because he obviously feels it's
2:28:12important just to lay out a whole case.
2:28:14>> I have a full case. Maybe I can borrow
2:28:15your pen. We'll give you because
2:28:16honestly a few different arguments
2:28:18there.
2:28:18>> Go for it.
2:28:19>> All right. The sec the second thing is
2:28:21that in each of these speculative
2:28:23cosmological models that are conjoined
2:28:26and uh postulated to explain the
2:28:29fine-tuning,
2:28:31each of these require
2:28:34uh universe generating mechanisms that
2:28:36themselves have to be finely tuned. And
2:28:39so they take you back right to where we
2:28:41started, which is unexplained
2:28:43fine-tuning. So I'm actually sympathetic
2:28:45to what Phil said. Maybe there is a
2:28:47multiverse. I don't know but the
2:28:50existence of a multiverse would not
2:28:51refute the design argument rather would
2:28:54underscore it at a different level and
2:28:56that that the multiverse uh advocates
2:29:00can't um can't explain fine-tuning
2:29:03without invoking prior fine-tuning. For
2:29:05example, with in the inflationary model,
2:29:08the inflaton shut off energies have to
2:29:10be extremely finely tuned and they and
2:29:13the interval in which they occur has to
2:29:14be extremely finely tuned. In string
2:29:16theory, there's a whole lot of implicit
2:29:18fine-tuning. A little more difficult to
2:29:20explain because string theory is just
2:29:22very much more difficult to explain. But
2:29:24you've got this unexplained fine-tuning
2:29:26in both models suggesting even if the
2:29:29multiverse is true, you still need
2:29:30intelligent design.
2:29:32>> Okay. So those those are the the the two
2:29:34possibly three different different
2:29:36things.
2:29:36>> I think it's called six.
2:29:38>> Okay. So there's quite a few different
2:29:39things then.
2:29:39>> Well, two basic critiques that that it's
2:29:41bloated ontology.
2:29:42>> Bloated ontology
2:29:44>> violing a razor.
2:29:45>> Yeah. Not a better not a simpler
2:29:47explanation than theistic design and not
2:29:49an adequate explanation because there's
2:29:51no ultimate explanation for fine-tuning
2:29:53within the multiverse framework.
2:29:55>> Yeah. And and that requires further
2:29:57fine-tuning in order to to justify
2:29:59itself. Okay. Where do you want to
2:30:02begin?
2:30:02>> Okay. I don't know. Okay. So, first off,
2:30:05Steven said that you need an inflaton
2:30:07field. Not true. It's generally modeled
2:30:10as having an inflat field. True. But
2:30:12it's not true that you have to have it.
2:30:14There are versions of inflation.
2:30:15>> Fair enough. But there no but this is
2:30:17important because the whole point is oh
2:30:19you have to fine-tune the parameters of
2:30:20the inflat field. Okay. But there are
2:30:24versions of inflation that don't require
2:30:26there was a new one published very
2:30:27recently actually where you don't even
2:30:29have an inflat field. There are others
2:30:30that don't require an inflaton field. So
2:30:32maybe what this is telling you is that
2:30:34inflation is incomplete. All right. And
2:30:36there are other versions that maybe are
2:30:38better. Okay. So no doubt that inflation
2:30:40is an incomplete theory. I don't doubt
2:30:42that for a second. Right. But so what?
2:30:46All right. We we we progress in science.
2:30:49Okay. So now he says inflation requires
2:30:51fine-tuning. That is cherry-picking the
2:30:54literature, I'm afraid, because there
2:30:56are certainly papers that say that
2:30:57inflation requires finetuning. And there
2:30:59are others that say no, inflation is
2:31:00generic. So yes, you can quote the
2:31:03papers that say inflation requires
2:31:04finetuning. And lots of people in this
2:31:07game do that and they forget the papers
2:31:09that say actually inflation could be
2:31:10quite generic. It may it often depends
2:31:12on what you think happens before
2:31:13inflation. So for example, as I said
2:31:15before, you could have a a bouncing
2:31:17cosmology and in some of those models
2:31:19the bounce is seen as an alternative to
2:31:20inflation. But in others, you have a
2:31:23bounce and inflation. Okay? And in
2:31:25there, the idea has been claimed that
2:31:28they actually set up the conditions for
2:31:29inflation and inflation is not
2:31:30fine-tuned. Right? So, so you know again
2:31:34there's so much more uncertainty about
2:31:35this. So, so he says, you know, this
2:31:38requires fine-tuning. That's too quick.
2:31:41All right. Okay. Um, now he talks about
2:31:43string theory and you need all these
2:31:45assumptions. Okay. I personally think
2:31:47that you don't really need this, right?
2:31:50Because I think the advocate of the
2:31:52fine-tuning argument has to presume that
2:31:55the constants could be different. So if
2:31:57you look at like let's say when William
2:31:58Lane Craig presented the finetuning
2:32:00argument, he did it as a deductive
2:32:02argument. He said, "Oh, it's either
2:32:03chance, necessity, or design." How did
2:32:05he rule out necessity? He appealed to
2:32:07the string theory landscape. He said
2:32:10well look in string theory you've got
2:32:11all these different solutions to to um
2:32:16how the compactification of the extra
2:32:17dimensions happens and that gives you
2:32:18different constant nature so the
2:32:20constant nature are not necessary right
2:32:23but if we deny that if we say okay okay
2:32:25I'm not going to believe in string
2:32:26theory okay but now what's the
2:32:28>> you possibility of them being necessary
2:32:30>> exactly necessity just comes straight
2:32:32back in again right so uh you need it's
2:32:35the finetuning advocate that needs to
2:32:37say that the constants could be diff
2:32:39could easily be different because if
2:32:40they couldn't easily be different if
2:32:42you've got lots and lots of universes
2:32:44like say in the inflationary multiverse
2:32:46and they all have the same constants I'm
2:32:48going to say maybe the constants aren't
2:32:50that unlikely right maybe the necessary
2:32:53guys are right so I think you don't need
2:32:56any of the strings but even if you did
2:32:58right again string theory it does um
2:33:02need assumptions true but it also gives
2:33:05you a lot right so when we think about
2:33:08what theories um are plausible. Yes,
2:33:12when they have assumptions, that's a
2:33:13cost against the theory. True. But you
2:33:17have to weigh the cost versus the
2:33:18benefits. And string theory does a lot,
2:33:20right? It gives you finite solutions. It
2:33:23gives you a unified um theory of of all
2:33:26forces. It gives you quantum gravity.
2:33:29Holography came out of string theory. So
2:33:31there's you have to try and weigh up the
2:33:33costs versus the benefits. Now a very
2:33:35important point Steven says that God is
2:33:38a simple hypothesis because it just
2:33:40assumes one thing God right that is I
2:33:42think a totally wrong way to think about
2:33:45the cost of assumptions you don't
2:33:47measure the cost of assumptions by just
2:33:49how many assumptions you have to make.
2:33:53You have to weigh them by their
2:33:54plausibility. So let's think of let's
2:33:57say um one one of my favorite magicians
2:34:00is David Blaine and he does these
2:34:01fantastic tricks. He made the Statue of
2:34:03Liberty disappear. He walked through the
2:34:05wall of China. Um he flew um in around
2:34:10like a sports arena. A beautiful
2:34:12illusion. Now I could say all right,
2:34:15well I think the Statue of Liberty one
2:34:17was done by um a rotating platform. I
2:34:21think the flying one was done by you
2:34:23know invisible wires and they must have
2:34:24had some other mechanisms and you know
2:34:26other illusions were done with mirrors
2:34:29and I could have I could list all the
2:34:30assumptions I need and it could be a
2:34:32long list. Alternatively I could say no
2:34:35no no
2:34:35>> magic exist
2:34:36>> it's just magic. Okay that's one
2:34:37assumption. Now which do you think is
2:34:39simpler?
2:34:41>> Yeah, arguably the magic one is is is is
2:34:43a a simple explanation.
2:34:45>> No it's not because the it's the number
2:34:47of
2:34:47>> but that's what I'm saying. I I assumed
2:34:48you're going to say it's not it's not
2:34:50helpful because it's the plausibility.
2:34:51>> It's not even simpler because we're not
2:34:53judging simplicity by number of
2:34:54assumptions. You have to weight them by
2:34:56how plausible they are. If you have a
2:34:59whole bunch of assumptions, but each one
2:35:01has a higher degree of plausibility,
2:35:04then actually they don't come up to very
2:35:05much, right? So inflationary cosmology,
2:35:09if you ask most cosmologists, is pretty
2:35:11damn plausible, right? Same with string
2:35:14theory in in the world of quantum
2:35:16gravity. So whereas God God is an
2:35:20immaterial mind that can change the
2:35:22concept of nature. Where's the evidence
2:35:24that there there's an immaterial mind
2:35:26that can change the con of nature really
2:35:27helps brings us into land.
2:35:30>> I'm not questioning the plausibility of
2:35:32those theories although many physicists
2:35:34do. I'm questioning the efficacy of
2:35:37those theories as ultimate explanations
2:35:39for fine-tuning which is a completely
2:35:41different matter. And notice that Phil
2:35:43did not say that these alternative
2:35:45versions of inflation don't require
2:35:48fine-tuning to produce new universes.
2:35:51And all the models that in these in all
2:35:54the cosmological models that purport to
2:35:56explain the proliferation of new
2:35:58universes do require prior fine-tuning.
2:36:01And that's the unexplained thing that
2:36:03theism explains that the models
2:36:05themselves can't explain because that's
2:36:07a brute fact of the models themselves.
2:36:09Okay,
2:36:11just respond and we will start to bring
2:36:13this into land now on this this
2:36:14fundamental question which we've sort of
2:36:16circled around at various points across
2:36:18the past two hours which is Phil's
2:36:21ultimate sense that that not only does
2:36:24he feel there are other models you don't
2:36:25have to go to a beginning you don't have
2:36:27to necessarily see fine-tuning as
2:36:29fine-tuned but he he he also simply
2:36:31lands on the fact that God is not a good
2:36:34explanation in and of itself God doesn't
2:36:36give you a testable hypothesis God
2:36:38doesn't give you, you know, and and for
2:36:40and fundamentally I think that's
2:36:42probably in the end why a lot of people
2:36:43on his surveys sort of relegate
2:36:46intelligent design because it doesn't
2:36:48feel like a plausible sort of hypothesis
2:36:52that raises to the level of a scientific
2:36:53one and so on. But
2:36:55>> yeah, Phil said something very
2:36:56important. He didn't use the term
2:36:58background knowledge but he said we have
2:36:59to have hypotheses that are consistent
2:37:01with the things we so it's not just the
2:37:03it's not just the multiplication of
2:37:05hypotheses that might make something
2:37:06unparimmonious
2:37:08it's the multiplication of hypotheses
2:37:10that are not consistent with our
2:37:12background knowledge. Okay. One of the
2:37:13most important pieces of background
2:37:15knowledge that we have is the our
2:37:17knowledge of what agents do that nothing
2:37:19that nothing else no thing else does.
2:37:22And one of the things that agents do is
2:37:25they generate functional information.
2:37:27They also generate finely tuned systems.
2:37:30And so the the hypothesis of a
2:37:32pre-existing mind is not only simpler in
2:37:34the sense that it doesn't multiply
2:37:36theoretical entities. It's also simpler
2:37:39in the sense that it posits an entity
2:37:41which is known to have the kind of
2:37:43powers that are needed to explain the
2:37:44effect in question. And I think th this
2:37:47is where I think the the pre uh the
2:37:50presumption among many scientists that
2:37:53they must limit themselves to
2:37:54materialistic explanation which has been
2:37:56deeply embedded in the community over
2:37:58the last 150 years actually blinds
2:38:01people to what's going on around us all
2:38:04the time that minds have unique causal
2:38:06powers that that that brute matter
2:38:09doesn't have. And what I see in the
2:38:11cosmological discussion broad strokes is
2:38:14that is that whether we're talking about
2:38:15the origin of the universe or even about
2:38:17the finetuning invariably
2:38:20people recognize something separate from
2:38:22these phenomenon are necessary to
2:38:23explain them. But when you confine when
2:38:26the explanations are confined to
2:38:27materialistic processes, fields, forces,
2:38:30they might do a nice job of suggesting
2:38:33an entity outside of the thing that
2:38:35needs to be explained. But because our
2:38:37universe has very specific features that
2:38:39yes could be otherwise
2:38:42um that that that specificity requires
2:38:47mindlike properties to as as a condition
2:38:50of explanation. And so I think that the
2:38:53naturalist has both a something from
2:38:55nothing problem when we're talking about
2:38:57the universe, but also but also a no
2:39:00free lunch problem in that that
2:39:02fine-tuning or information density.
2:39:05These are things we know from experience
2:39:07come from minds. And when we find them
2:39:09in the in the in the universe or in life
2:39:11in systems that we know we did not
2:39:13generate, it is a a logical and natural
2:39:17inference based on our background
2:39:19knowledge of the unique properties that
2:39:21agents have to infer agency was at work.
2:39:25Okay, this this kind of shifts us into
2:39:26the more metaphysical question of of the
2:39:28nature of the explanation and and and
2:39:30yeah, Steve says in life we always are
2:39:34assuming that that a mind generates, you
2:39:37know, complexity and um effects and
2:39:40things. Why shouldn't we apply the same
2:39:42logic to the complexity of the universe
2:39:45that we find ourselves in and the fact
2:39:47that it is here in the first place? Um I
2:39:50mean without going back over some of the
2:39:52the physical explanations we've already
2:39:54spent time debating like what's what's
2:39:56your response to the you know this this
2:39:59I suppose more more simple idea that a
2:40:01mind is a plausible way of of
2:40:04understanding where where all this came
2:40:05from
2:40:06>> right okay so minds I don't think are
2:40:08the only way to get complexity so I
2:40:10think that's just false you can get
2:40:12complexity in the natural world but
2:40:14let's let's just agree that it is right
2:40:17for the sake of argument They always
2:40:19come from physical minds, right? The
2:40:21information in the mind has to be stored
2:40:23somewhere and this is stored physically.
2:40:25But that's not what Steven's suggesting.
2:40:27He's suggesting an immaterial mind and
2:40:29that doesn't comport with our
2:40:31experience. So minds that we know that
2:40:33can do physics, right? They have
2:40:36physical bodies. Even if you believe in
2:40:39dualism, like let's not deny dualism,
2:40:41but when they do their design work,
2:40:42they're attached to bodies. So even if
2:40:44you think they're maternal minds when
2:40:46what our experience is they always are
2:40:48attached to bodies when they do their
2:40:49design work they always need an energy
2:40:51source they're always localized in space
2:40:54right and in fact when we look at the
2:40:57conditions of the early universe the hot
2:40:59big bang it doesn't look like any mind
2:41:02that we know of could exist there so
2:41:05there's only two explanations either you
2:41:06say minds couldn't exist there so the
2:41:08explanation that we're looking for is
2:41:09not mind or you have to say it's some
2:41:12very very different type of mind to
2:41:14anything that we know. But then you're
2:41:16not appealing to oh the everyday world
2:41:19that we know. I'm appealing to what we
2:41:20know. That's really helpful and it's
2:41:22concise.
2:41:22>> I think there's a potential I just want
2:41:24to address one or two points and then I
2:41:26want to get to a big contradiction. He
2:41:27said theism I asked for the predictions.
2:41:30What are the predictions of theism? He
2:41:31said finetuning was a prediction. I
2:41:33don't think that's right. First off, as
2:41:35a matter of history, I don't think
2:41:37theologians maybe you'll correct me if
2:41:39I'm wrong here. I don't know if
2:41:40theologians saying we're gonna find out
2:41:42that the cosmological constant was
2:41:44fine-tuned, right? I mean, I can imagine
2:41:47I don't think that is a prediction of
2:41:49theism. And in fact, I can imagine we
2:41:51found the opposite. Suppose we find the
2:41:53opposite that the console nature could
2:41:55take on any value at all. Right? I can
2:41:58imagine the theist saying, "Wow, that's
2:42:00incredible, isn't it?" Because God
2:42:02surely he loves life. So, he would set
2:42:05the probability his life to be really
2:42:06high.
2:42:07>> Just moving the goalposts depending on
2:42:08the whatever the sharpshooter fallacy.
2:42:10You're seeing where the dot where the
2:42:12bullet landed and you're drawing a
2:42:14bullseye around it and you're saying,
2:42:16"Aha, that's what God would have
2:42:17wanted." And if you got the opposite and
2:42:19in fact there are cases it's opposite,
2:42:21right? In fact, the so-called
2:42:23fine-tuning of the entropy now that is
2:42:25fine-tuned in the sense that if you just
2:42:27selected it randomly, it's fine-tuned,
2:42:29but it's not fine-tuned for life. You
2:42:32could have the entropy enormously
2:42:33enormously higher and life would still
2:42:34exist. Bet you the theists are going to
2:42:37say, "Well, that's evidence against God.
2:42:39We were predicting that it should have
2:42:41this tiny narrow range, but it doesn't."
2:42:42No one's going to say that. Now, I think
2:42:44there's a sort of possibly a
2:42:46contradiction, at least a tension in the
2:42:47finetuning argument here with this
2:42:49appeal to an immaterial mind because
2:42:52uh let me put it in the form of a
2:42:54dilemma. All right.
2:42:56A minds can exist without brains. If
2:43:01that's true, all right, then the fine
2:43:03tuning doesn't matter, does it? Like who
2:43:05cares what the value of the cosmological
2:43:08constant is? That just means you
2:43:09couldn't have a material mind. But hey,
2:43:11minds can exist without matter. So minds
2:43:14could still exist.
2:43:15>> So it seems like finetuning if you take
2:43:17that option, minds can exist without
2:43:19matter. Then it seems like the
2:43:21finetuning doesn't matter at all.
2:43:22>> It's irrelevant to the
2:43:24>> question God can make electrons have
2:43:26mental lives. I mean often like someone
2:43:28like a theologian like Richard Swimburn
2:43:29will say what's important is that it's
2:43:31the mental property, the moral property.
2:43:34But hey, theism believes in spirits that
2:43:37rebelled against God like the devil or
2:43:39his minions, right? So it doesn't follow
2:43:42um that if if you take this view, minds
2:43:45don't have to be material, then it seems
2:43:47like fine-tuning doesn't matter. Now,
2:43:49the alternative is say, okay, minds have
2:43:51to be material. You have to have
2:43:52material bodies to have moral worth. All
2:43:55right, but if that's true, a lot of
2:43:56Christian theology is wrong, right?
2:43:59Because well, let's see how how Steve
2:44:01responds.
2:44:02>> Okay. And then I I've got one more
2:44:03argument that I want to push.
2:44:04>> Okay. So, we we may be getting to to the
2:44:08the limits of a of a discussion like
2:44:10this because there's so many different
2:44:11things that are being thrown out.
2:44:13>> Except we're not going to you're not
2:44:13going to be able to respond to
2:44:14everything that Phil's
2:44:15>> just I'd be happy to respond though.
2:44:16It's a couple things. Okay. First of
2:44:18all, um uh the the um there's a great
2:44:22deal of literature in the philosophy of
2:44:24science about the testability of
2:44:26hypotheses, whether they be metaphysical
2:44:28hypotheses or scientific hypotheses. And
2:44:31it turns out that prediction is a
2:44:33special case of empirical expectation.
2:44:36So I've often used the Dawkins quote I I
2:44:39shared before because I really like it.
2:44:41He was here yesterday. I didn't get to
2:44:42talk to him. But he says that the
2:44:45universe we observe has precisely the
2:44:47properties we should expect. Okay? That
2:44:49we can often we can often test theories
2:44:52not only by what they predict but also
2:44:54by what they explain. And if they they
2:44:56if a theory has has explanatory power
2:44:59that one that another theory lacks, that
2:45:02counts in its favor as much as a
2:45:04prediction can count in its favor. So um
2:45:07no, it's probably not the case. The
2:45:08theologians in advance predicted the the
2:45:10the fine-tuning, but fine-tuning is the
2:45:13kind of thing you would expect from the
2:45:14activity of a mind where it's not the
2:45:16kind of thing that you would expect from
2:45:18brute matter. Secondly, as to the
2:45:19immateriality of the mind, there's a
2:45:21principle in all historical scientific
2:45:24research called the veracausa principle.
2:45:27It's also works in in in physics as
2:45:28well. It's the idea that we should
2:45:31explain things by reference to causes
2:45:34that we know are in operation or by
2:45:36reference to causes that have relevantly
2:45:39similar properties to those that we know
2:45:42are in in operation. For example, Darwin
2:45:45used natural selection to explain the
2:45:49variation and the generation of new
2:45:50biological form by an analogy to what
2:45:54human breeders could do. So he extended
2:45:56known experience of cause and effect by
2:45:59saying that my mechanism of natural
2:46:01selection is relevantly similar. And so
2:46:03that allows me to extrapolate to explain
2:46:05something I haven't to to explain
2:46:08something that I've never seen produced
2:46:10in nature. But because I've seen
2:46:12something relevantly similar, this is a
2:46:13reasonable postulate. It's a completely
2:46:15reasonable postulate to say if we're
2:46:17talking about the origin of the
2:46:20fine-tuning of the universe itself. And
2:46:22if we know that fine-tuning is always
2:46:24produced by a mind, that a mind was at
2:46:26work. What kind of mind? No, not a
2:46:28terrestrial mind. Not a mind a mind
2:46:30that's embodied in in a physical
2:46:34substrate, but perhaps a mind that is
2:46:36transcendent in this in the sense that
2:46:38that that uh Judeo-Christian theology
2:46:40affirms of God. So uh that's that is
2:46:44again an appropriate extrapolation from
2:46:48a a causal power that we know from
2:46:51experience and that that type of move is
2:46:54made in in explanation by materialists
2:46:57and theists alike. There are deep
2:46:59questions about the nature of mind and
2:47:03the way in which different models of
2:47:06mind might relate to the whole program
2:47:09of intelligent design. I've written on
2:47:11that. I am a mindbody dualist. I know
2:47:13that that Phil went hammering tongs
2:47:15recently with Alex Okconor over this
2:47:18very question. Fair enough.
2:47:19>> No, that was about pans psychism
2:47:21different issue. No, I understand but
2:47:23but he's not a strict he's not a he
2:47:25doesn't hold an epiphenomenal view of
2:47:27emergence mind and so I mean these are
2:47:30these are really deep questions in the
2:47:31philosophy of mind and I think we're
2:47:33gonna
2:47:34>> yeah that would take us into a whole
2:47:35different realm.
2:47:36>> I have written on this. I think our view
2:47:37is completely coherent and and u and I I
2:47:41think the the the fine-tuning argument
2:47:44because it's based on our knowledge of
2:47:46cause and effect and a relevant
2:47:48extrapolation from that knowledge. I
2:47:51think it makes perfect sense to say that
2:47:52the fine-tuning that we see at the
2:47:54foundation of the universe that's
2:47:55necessary to life was produced by a mind
2:47:58that transcends the universe. Okay, I
2:48:00can see you're scribbling some
2:48:02responses, but I'm aware we've been
2:48:04going for it getting on for three hours
2:48:07now. So, so um very quick you may
2:48:09happily have the last word if it's the
2:48:11last word and then it won't be the
2:48:12entire last word because we'll we'll
2:48:14have one more attempt at kind of seeing
2:48:17where we got.
2:48:17>> I just realized I didn't eat very much
2:48:18at lunch and I'm [laughter]
2:48:20>> there snacks outside. We
2:48:22>> I do believe in certain material things
2:48:24like
2:48:24>> Okay. Okay. So first off, we appeal to
2:48:26causes in operation today to infer the
2:48:29past. Yes, if we think those causes were
2:48:31present in the past. So for example, if
2:48:33I look at the extinction of the dodo, oh
2:48:36yeah, that was hunted to extinction.
2:48:37Humans are the cause. You know, the same
2:48:39with many other species of animals.
2:48:41Humans did it. But if I want to look at
2:48:43the extinction of the dinosaurs, I'm not
2:48:45going to appeal to humans because humans
2:48:46weren't around. So similarly,
2:48:48>> obviously obviously,
2:48:49>> right? So, so similarly, I don't think
2:48:51minds can be around in the early
2:48:53universe because the very reasons that
2:48:54you think life couldn't be around is the
2:48:56very reasons that I think minds couldn't
2:48:58be around. So, so basically yeah, I'm
2:49:01going to throw the fine tuning back in
2:49:02your face basically. Now, um can God
2:49:06explain it? Well, God can do anything.
2:49:08So, yes, he can explain it, but at a
2:49:11cost of he can do anything to me. Now,
2:49:13this is probably where the difference
2:49:14is. He thinks that's low cost. I think
2:49:16that's maximum cost. So yes, you can
2:49:19have it explain stuff, but the cost is
2:49:20too high. So I just don't buy this. All
2:49:23right. Now, you don't just get an
2:49:25explanation for the finetuning by
2:49:27oppositing a mind. You have to have a
2:49:29mind with intentions. You have to do
2:49:31something called divine psychology.
2:49:32Right? You have to say, well, God is
2:49:34good and so God would fine-tune the
2:49:37constants. If you don't think those are
2:49:38true, then mind then this argument is
2:49:40not going to work. And I think we've got
2:49:42really good reasons to think it's not
2:49:43true because I think that the God of the
2:49:45Bible is not good. He commands genocide.
2:49:47He commands slaughtering of animals.
2:49:49>> That's opening up a whole new can of but
2:49:50this is what these these arguments
2:49:52relate to each other because if you can
2:49:55predict what a good god would do then
2:49:57basically you shouldn't observe an a
2:49:59world full of suffering. So either you
2:50:01say I can't predict what god would do in
2:50:03which case take the fine tuning argument
2:50:05away. And indeed um there have been
2:50:07Christians who who basically uh advocate
2:50:11something called skeptical theism that
2:50:12says we're going to explain the problem
2:50:14of evil by saying we don't know what a
2:50:16world god would actually make. You
2:50:18you're not epicently justified in in
2:50:20predicting the world that would come
2:50:21about by a good god. And they say these
2:50:24are Christian philosophers. Huds
2:50:25Hudson's a good example. We shouldn't be
2:50:27using the fine-tuning argument. So, I
2:50:29know I'm not going to convince every
2:50:31Christian here, but they should be aware
2:50:33that if they're using the skeptical
2:50:34theism defense for fine-tuning, then
2:50:38they're in trouble. Okay. Now, the other
2:50:40thing, the other part, so I think
2:50:41there's good there's good evidence then
2:50:43against this mind explanation for
2:50:47fine-tuning because it requires God to
2:50:49be good and the evidence is against
2:50:50that. I don't think we have strong
2:50:52evidence against the multiverse. We
2:50:53don't have strong evidence against a
2:50:54necess necessary hypothesis. don't have
2:50:56strong evidence against a black hole
2:50:57one, but we do have good evidence
2:50:59against the the God one because it
2:51:01requires at least the way it's normally
2:51:03formulated, God to be good. And then the
2:51:05very last thing I'll say is it assumes
2:51:07that it's a good thing to create a
2:51:09physical universe. But there were
2:51:10Christians who thought actually it was a
2:51:13bad thing to make the physical universe
2:51:14because there were these guys called the
2:51:16Gnostics and they thought the creation
2:51:18of the physical universe was done by an
2:51:20evil demi urge. Okay? And so that
2:51:23challenges the notion that it's a good
2:51:24thing to make a physical universe. They
2:51:26thought we should be spirits. We
2:51:28shouldn't expect a universe with
2:51:30>> this takes us into interesting the
2:51:32theological territory, scriptural
2:51:35territory, all kinds of territory that
2:51:37we're sadly out of time to be able to
2:51:39explore today. So who knows, perhaps we
2:51:41can do another two to threehour kind of
2:51:44debate on these issues. Um but we will
2:51:46leave it there. Um all I will ask is is
2:51:49well first of all I say thank you both.
2:51:52this this has not been only been you
2:51:54know a battle of minds but just of
2:51:56stamina. We've been going you know for
2:51:58the best part of three hours at this
2:51:59point and so so well done all round for
2:52:02an incredible display on that front. Um
2:52:05we've talked about science and faith is
2:52:08is there a conflict uh the origins of
2:52:10the scientific revolution? We've talked
2:52:11about big bang cosmology and your
2:52:13different views on whether some of the
2:52:15models are equally, you know, valid or
2:52:18or gives potentially explanations versus
2:52:20the explanation that there is a creative
2:52:22intelligence behind it. Likewise with
2:52:24the fine-tuning, we've been uh, you
2:52:26know, going back and forth on whether
2:52:28there is fine tuning, whether that fine
2:52:29could potentially be explained by a
2:52:31multiverse or whether God is a
2:52:33satisfactory explanation. Um, okay. So,
2:52:36as we bring this into land, accepting
2:52:38that you're, you know, neither of you
2:52:40have convinced the other person, we
2:52:41never expected that to happen. What are
2:52:44is there anything that your counterpart
2:52:46has said today that you found helpful,
2:52:50clarifying, something that you might
2:52:52take away and say, "Actually, that's
2:52:54been somewhat helpful and and and is is
2:52:56something that that I'll I'll factor
2:52:58into my future thinking around this."
2:52:59I'll start with you, Phil, and then come
2:53:02to you, Steve. Well, first of all, I
2:53:03just want to compliment Stephen because
2:53:05I think this is the toughest debate I've
2:53:07ever had. All right. So, I think he did
2:53:08a great job. Um, so I want I want to
2:53:11compliment him. I think he's done his
2:53:13homework.
2:53:14>> You're very good, too.
2:53:14>> Thank you so much.
2:53:15>> And it's fun, right?
2:53:16>> Yeah, it's fun. It is fun. Right. So,
2:53:18first takeaway is that this was fun,
2:53:20right? And I think Yes. So, to I think
2:53:23Steven makes very interesting points and
2:53:25I think him appealing to whether
2:53:28theories need their own finetunings is
2:53:30something you do need to think about.
2:53:32Um, obviously I draw a different
2:53:33conclusion from him, but I think we do
2:53:36need to think um because actually some
2:53:38atheists think, well, we've got the the
2:53:39final answers from from certain
2:53:41speculative theories. And I I I I think
2:53:44Steven's right to to say, "No, no, you
2:53:46have to look behind them. What's going
2:53:47on behind them? What are the
2:53:48metaphysical assumptions behind them?"
2:53:51So, I think that is a very uh
2:53:52interesting point. Um, and that's
2:53:54something to think about for sure.
2:53:56>> All right. Well, maybe not exactly on
2:54:00your point, but I'm very impressed with
2:54:02um the depth of Phil's knowledge of
2:54:05physics. It's commendable. Um and uh it
2:54:09reinforces the the compliment I meant to
2:54:11give at the beginning of the
2:54:12conversation. I don't know if I remember
2:54:14to, but I really appreciated the book.
2:54:16Um I think you do you and
2:54:19Nih. Did I get it right? Finally, I do
2:54:22learn fine. I think you do an excellent
2:54:24job of exposition of the of the
2:54:27competing models that are being
2:54:28formulated right now. And so I highly
2:54:31recommend the book.
2:54:32>> Can we hold the book up? Hold it up. Get
2:54:34you some sales, my friend.
2:54:35>> Let's get some sales.
2:54:36>> Absolutely. Here we go.
2:54:37>> Um,
2:54:38>> Battle of the Big Band. That's the book.
2:54:41>> Um, I there's a couple of things you
2:54:45mentioned that I'm going to need to go
2:54:46and just bone up on, you know, get back
2:54:48into. I remember writing about loop
2:54:50quantum gravity and some of the as it
2:54:52pertains kind of rusty on that right
2:54:54now. So I'll just be honest about that
2:54:56and some of your your points there. Um I
2:55:00I just I I guess I just appreciate the
2:55:04um the intensity of your interest in
2:55:06these deep questions and I've always
2:55:08felt I had a one of my first debates was
2:55:12um it wasn't really a debate. It was an
2:55:13academic conference, but I was posed
2:55:14opposite Michael Ruse, who's a
2:55:16philosopher of biology, British, and he
2:55:19had been proposed as one of the
2:55:21examiners for my PhD thesis because I
2:55:23challenged his model of explanation in
2:55:25the thesis. And and the uh examiners uh
2:55:29thought it would be fun to h have a
2:55:31spirited debate at the at the
2:55:33examination. And Michael sadly passed
2:55:36away last fall. And um so I can I can
2:55:39tell this story now, but my my uh my
2:55:41wife said, "Well, wouldn't it be better
2:55:42to have that debate after you've passed
2:55:45and and so a different examiner was
2:55:48chosen, but within six months of
2:55:49passing, we were at a conference
2:55:51together." And we had a just a uh he
2:55:54gave his view of of a lot of it had to
2:55:56do with biological origins. But the the
2:55:58underlying philosophy of explanation you
2:56:00would use to adjudicate competing
2:56:02models. It was really a very good dis
2:56:04but I my work for my thesis was directly
2:56:08pointed at his model. So I you know kind
2:56:10of let him have it and afterwards he was
2:56:13so gracious and took me aside and he
2:56:16said hey well don't take this too
2:56:18seriously. some of this I developed for
2:56:19rhetorical purposes because of those
2:56:21young earth creationists and here's what
2:56:22I really think and but then he said look
2:56:25I'd like to help you you know get on in
2:56:28the field you know you've got some
2:56:29promise I'd like to help you I have lots
2:56:31of connections and he befriended me even
2:56:33though we were on completely opposite
2:56:35sides of the discussion and and remained
2:56:38so for 30 years and we had a a
2:56:40conversation like this on a on a on a
2:56:42program in Washington DC called Think
2:56:45Tank that was just fantastic and we were
2:56:47on you So I've always felt that anyone
2:56:51who has a deep interest in these
2:56:52questions on whatever irrespective of
2:56:56what side they fall is someone that I
2:56:58feel a deep kinship to and so we got
2:57:00spirited and feisty a few times but I
2:57:03really enjoyed this. I thought I think
2:57:04you're very you're very skilled at a a
2:57:06debater but you clearly know the physics
2:57:08very well and so that makes this I think
2:57:09a really I'd hoped we would cut some
2:57:11break some new ground in a in a
2:57:13cosmological discussion. I think that
2:57:15happens today. I think we have a great
2:57:17credit to to that result.
2:57:19>> Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you both. Um
2:57:21and and just a reminder uh we'll make
2:57:23sure there are there are links to this
2:57:24from the show, but Battle of the Big
2:57:26Bang um Phil Halper and Nayesh Aford
2:57:30Afroy and uh Return of the God
2:57:32Hypothesis uh is Steven C. Meer's book.
2:57:35Thank you gentlemen both for joining me
2:57:36on Uncommon Ground.
2:57:38>> It's been brilliant. Thank you.
2:57:39>> We did it.
2:57:41Yep.
2:57:50[music]
2:58:02>> [music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Stephen Meyer vs Phil Halper: The Big Bang & Fine Tuning - Evidence for God? | Uncommon Ground by Justin Brierley | Think Faith, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 33,216 words across 4,971 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.