This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
While some of the points are good, there are difficulties.
The difficulty of abiogenesis doesn't actually change much, as long as you think that the universe is unbounded. As long as it's much more likely than things like Boltzmann brains, you should be fine, as it'll arise somewhere, and you, the observer, can thus account for your existence. What it does affect is how likely we are to find other life within our solar system or galaxy or light cone, or it starts to provide insight again once we have any reason to think that the universe is not infinite.
Cosmological fine-tuning is much more relevant, because it's much more plausible that we don't get graham's number of chances at it. But that also provides a strong argument in favor of a multiverse, which I don't think you actually gave any reasons why you think that that would be unlikely.
I'm not sure how persuasive your made-by-Jesus world is. It does show ways that people might misuse the anthropic principle, a little, but it doesn't touch a proper use of it.
But let's look at the 7 objections.
This one's interesting. I don't know entirely what to make of it. We should probably have priors of some sort, but I'm not really sure. I don't know if this is similar to 4, in practice, albeit more like "fine-tuning is likely" than necessary.
The key thing here is that there be enough chances. If there's only one universe, than the anthropic principle is insufficient to explain life. If there are many, it works much better.
This is a good question. However, for the theism hypothesis to be useful relative to chance, it only requires that we think it's more likely than the chance of generating a good universe randomly, and then you have to take into account your priors on theism.
I think the fine-tuned for life vs. the fine-tuned for made-by-Jesus are not the same, since it seems more plausible that kinds of complexity would be likely than that Jesus specifically would be necessary? At least, the existence of entropy makes that seem not totally crazy of a hypothesis to me, which, when we're dealing with things this literally astronomically unlikely, that's probably good enough.
Yeah, the reason here is the anthropic principle. In a multiverse, all observers should see worlds conducive to life. Far fewer of those observers would see "made-by-Jesus." Given a multiverse, we should expect existence. Given a multiverse, we should not expect "made-by-Jesus" to be written into the physics.
It seems much more likely to me that there could be exotic forms of life than exotic forms of "made-by-Jesus."
In this case, I think the comparison might actually a good comparison, showing that there needs to take some care in dismissing based a "God-of the gaps" argument.
More options
Context Copy link