On the importance of water (again)

I have posted, before, on the importance of water. See here, for one such post.

I'm not the only person to think about this, of course. See here for a recent essay on the importance of water to life, from the BioLogos forum.

Thanks for reading.

Washington Post columnist on the question of whether God began the universe

It’s not often that you can read a column, on the editorial page of a newspaper, about scientific evidence for God's activity in creation. But Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post (his column is syndicated, and our local daily newspaper, the Greenville News, prints some of his columns) has done just that. 

Gerson points out that there are a number of physical constants and properties that are “just right” -- The Goldilocks effect -- if they weren’t what they are, or very close to that, life, perhaps even atoms, would be impossible. This could be an amazing coincidence, but that seems to be a serious stretch.

Does this absolutely prove that there is a God? No. See the verse at the top of this web page. It takes faith to believe that the universe was planned by a Divine Creator, and people without such faith are not likely to be convinced. If one doesn't believe in God at all, one isn't going to believe that He had anything to do with the way things began. One alternative explanation for our existence is that there are many universes -- so-called multiverses. We are in one of these universes where the conditions are right for life. There may be an infinite variety of universes where life, even matter, would not be possible. There’s no proof of that, and not even any evidence for it. (It’s hard for me to imagine how we could get such evidence!)

For more information on the Goldilocks effect, see here. There is a Wikipedia article on the Anthropic Principle, which exists in more than one form, but is about how conditions in the universe are compatible with our existence. Here’s my evaluation of the position of Richard Dawkins, the most prominent atheistic scientist of our time, on the question.

Gerson quotes Max Tegmark, a scientist who believes that there are multiverses: “To me, an unexplained coincidence can be a telltale sign of a gap in our scientific understanding. Dismissing it by saying, ‘We got lucky — now stop looking for an explanation!’ is not only unsatisfactory, but also tantamount to ignoring a potentially crucial clue.”

Indeed. Thanks for reading.

The fundamental properties of the universe

These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned' there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. -Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. Basic Books, 2001, page 4.

Rees's six numbers are these: N, the strength of the electrical forces between sub-atomic particles, compared to the gravitational pull between them, Epsilon, which measures the binding of atomic nuclei, Omega, which is related to the expansion of the universe, lambda, which Rees says is related to cosmic antigravity, and is thus also related to how the universe expands, Q, which is the ratio between two types of fundamental energies, and the number of dimensions, 3, in the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, and I don't think I understand any of these, except maybe the last one. See here for a little more information on these numbers, from the Wikipedia. However, I do understand that Rees is saying something profound. He has no explanation as to why his six numbers are exactly what they are, but, if they weren't, either we wouldn't exist, or the universe, and any life in it, would be seriously different. I prefer to believe that the values of these important physical relationships, and our existence, are "the providence of a benign Creator."

I don't know whether there are alternate universes, with different sets of physical constants and laws. Perhaps, perhaps not. Nor should either possibility shake one's faith in God, if she has such.

If God produced these six numbers, He might well have also produced moral constants. One such, which, also, I make no claim to understand, but which the Bible is quite clear on, is that disobedience to God must be paid for by a blood sacrifice. In the Old Testament, the sinner furnished this. In the New, God the Son did.

If you want to read more about the scientific and philosophical question of whether the universe was made for us, or we are as we are because the universe is the way it is, read the Wikipedia article on the Anthropic Principle.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 252

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
He Lives explains what the Anthropic Principle does, and doesn't, do.

Politics:(or finance, or something) NPR buys into a toxic asset. (Remember the TARP funds?)

Sports:
A woman has been selected as a high school football head coach.

Christianity:Weekend Fisher discusses the "how much more" phrases of the Bible. (That post is the first of a series. Click on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength title to see her entire blog, and scroll down until you find other "much more" posts.)



Image source (public domain)

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Dawkins argues from chance

I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, which will be the last in the series, unless there are comments that need to be addressed in a full post, or unless I simply decide to post on the subject (It's my blog!) I wish to discuss Dawkins' central argument for the non-existence of God.

Dawkins discusses the Anthropic Principle. This has to do with the apparently very narrow constraints that astronomical facts, properties of matter, and physical laws place on the existence of life as we know it. For example, if the earth were a little closer to the sun, there wouldn't be enough liquid water for life. If the earth were a little further from the sun, there wouldn't be enough, either, because so much of it would be ice. But, of course, we are here! Why? One response is that there is a supernatural God who has planned things that way. Richard Dawkins will have none of that explanation, of course. I agree with him that this is an unprovable idea, and I believe that there is even scriptural proof that it is unprovable, but I believe it, nonetheless. Hebrews 11:3 says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (ESV) Note that this says "by faith." Although the verse does not say that it is impossible to prove this, I think it means that. (I also believe that it is impossible to disprove it, and Dawkins, to his credit, does not make that claim. He does think that he has gotten very close, though!)

Why does Dawkins think he has gotten so close? He has done the opposite of believing in divine planning. Here's what he says, in reference to six physical constants, as discussed by astronomer Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 2000:
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? . . . The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants . . . so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. . . . As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed . . . (p. 143)

Say what? In the first place, it is not clear, at least to me, that God would have to be as improbable as such a combination of numbers, and I'm not alone. Of course, to a theist, God isn't improbable at all. The probability of His existence is 1.0. In the second place, assuming that God's existence is extremely improbable, how does Dawkins explain our existence? He claims -- I am not making this up -- that there are a great many universes, with many combinations of properties, and we just happen to live in one with a suitable combination. To quote Dawkins:
The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly unprobable in the same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence. (p. 147)

So, let me get this straight. The existence of a supernatural God is highly improbable, but the existence of multiple universes is not?

Multiple universes have not been scientifically proved, or disproved. Richard Dawkins is asking us to forsake belief in a supernatural creator, in favor of belief that we are living in one of an infinite number of possible universes. He also wants us to accept that the latter possibility is orders of magnitude much simpler, and more probable, than the possibility of a supernatural Creator. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with God.

Here's my previous post on Dawkins.

Thanks for reading. I made some editorial changes on June 25, 2011.

Water: an amazing substance

Water is a very common substance, so common that we take it for granted, but it is also unusual. How so? Why is that important?

1. Water is the only common substance that may be found in all three states under common conditions. This means that we can have a water cycle, wherein water moves all over the earth in the gaseous state, and precipitates in the liquid or solid state. If it weren't for that, agriculture would be mostly impossible. It also means that we can have snow and ice, which are important for many reasons, including the fact that snow and ice insulate organisms that live under them, greatly slowing heat loss from bodies of water with ice and snow covering them.

Mars is the only planet, other than Earth, in our solar system where conditions are enough like earth that all three states might occur there, but there doesn't seem to be much water on Mars at all now (there may have been in the past). There may be water on Enceladus, a satellite of Saturn.

2. Water is the only common substance that becomes less dense when it becomes a solid. This means that ice floats. If it didn't, polar bears would have a hard time, and bodies of water (except for very shallow ones) would be mostly solid, even in the summer, because the ice would be denser, and would stay on the bottom, where the sun wouldn't melt it. If that were so, many water-living organisms couldn't exist.

3. Water is unique in that it becomes most dense at 4 degrees Celsius (approximately the temperature inside a refrigerator) when it is still liquid. This means that bodies of water tend to become uniform in temperature when they cool in the fall, and when they warm up in the spring, as liquid water, either colder or warmer than 4 degrees, rests on top of the 4 degree water, until it either cools to 4 degrees in the fall, or warms to 4 degrees in the spring, so that eventually the whole body of water is at 4 degrees. The resulting uniformity means that nutrients that have sunk to the bottom can be stirred by the wind while the body of water is uniform. Again, if this were not true, many water-living organisms couldn't exist. (for more on this topic, see here)

4. Water is transparent. This means that your eye can see, as light goes through the eye (which is mostly water) to the retina. It also means that fish can see, and that plants below the surface of a body of water can carry out photosynthesis, the food-making process that requires light.

5. Water has a high specific heat, meaning that it takes a lot of energy to change the temperature of water without changing its state.

6. Water has a high heat of fusion, meaning that it takes a lot of energy to melt ice, or that you must remove a lot of energy for water to freeze.

Properties 5 and 6 help to stabilize the climate near bodies of water. They also allow fruit-growers to protect their crops from freezing by spraying them with water when a freeze is predicted.

7. Water has a high heat of vaporization, meaning that it takes a lot of energy to vaporize water, ("A watched pot never boils") or that you must remove a lot of energy to condense vapor. Properties 5-7 mean that water stabilizes temperature. For example, a human at 37 degrees C (normal body temperature) can remain in air at 45 degrees C or 0 degrees (freezing temperature) for a long time without damage. It also means that deserts are subject to a great deal of temperature fluctuation compared to areas near large bodies of water.

8. Water makes up most of the mass of most living things, including green plants. It is, of course, made of molecules with two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. One reason that this is vitally important is that water is one of the raw materials of photosynthesis, the process by which green plants make food for the rest of living things. Photosynthesis attaches the Hydrogen from water to Carbon from Carbon Dioxide.

9. Water is self-attractive, which means that it makes drops -- water molecules sticking together. This property helps tall plants get water up to their tops, and also makes it possible for some organisms to walk or run on top of the surface of bodies of water.

Some would argue that these, and other properties of water, are so unique, and so important, that water must necessarily have been specially created as it is. I believe that God designed water with these, and probably other, unique properties, but don't believe that I can prove this. In the Bible, Hebrews 11:3 implies that we understand God's creative power by faith.

Thanks for reading.

See this post on the times that water is mentioned in the book of John. Here's a post on the importance of water, from a different author.

This is a re-post from July 26, 2007, changed slightly.

"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" pt. 6

I continue, after a long hiatus, comments on Edge's "World Question" issue, which question is the same as my title. See the first part of this series, which gives some explanation. Part 5 is here.

In one of the pages of this issue, Oliver Morton has changed his mind about the scientific importance of human space flight.

George Church's essay is about faith in science, and, which is a rarity in the issue, he also mentions religious faith. This is on the same page.

Two other essays that deal with faith are on the same page. Patrick Bateson's essay is about his "coming out" as an atheist, and Alan Alda's is about how he has not seen any evidence that there isn't a God (or that there is).

Also on the same page, Jonathan Haidt says that he has come to realize that team activities, such as sports, are really beneficial to the participants. Stephen Pinker argues that humans will continue to evolve.

Paul Davies says that he is not satisfied with the idea that the laws of physics just are what they are. He understands that they are extremely well-suited for the existence of life, and wonders why. He doesn't have a full explanation. (See Anthropic Principle.)

Thanks for reading.

Joe Haldeman, God, and physics

Joe Haldeman is an honored science fiction writer. His The Forever War, about a meaningless, destructive war fought over several centuries in the future, and the human cost of that war, won both the Hugo and Nebula awards, which seldom happens.

I recently read his Forever Free (New York: Ace, 1999), which, says Haldeman, is a sequel.

I usually try not to give away the plot of literature I mention here, but in this case, I will summarize. William and Marygay Mandella, veterans of the Forever War, have been shunted off to an out-of-the-way planet, after peace has been made with the Taurans. They decide that they want to escape their situation (which includes being dependent, and in communication, with an undesirable society on earth) and escape in time, as well as space, hoping to return after millenia have passed behind them, with, perhaps improvements in the situations they want to leave behind. So they, with help, capture a ship that has the capacity to go nearly as fast as light, hoping to come back, after many years, to see what has happened to humans on their planet, and also to humans on earth.

They don't get far. Suddenly, the anti-matter that powers their ship disappears. They escape back to the planet they left, only to find that no one is alive there. Clothes and other artifacts have been left behind, as if everyone was suddenly vaporized, or something. The Mandellas, and others, go back to earth, to find the same situation. Some of them are beginning to think that perhaps their attempted journey caused the disappearances. OK, so far, but I was surprised by the resolution.

It seems that a god, or gods, had been doing an experiment on our galaxy for millenia, but, when these particular "rats" decided to escape, prevented it, and terminated the experiment. However, a representative god appears to tell the Mandellas about this, and agrees to bring everybody back. (All the people on earth were put in suspended animation in Carlsbad Caverns, and those on other planets are in similar situations.)

William Mandella has been a physics teacher, and he, and others, decide, as the book ends, that they should check out basic physics, and physical constants, because at least some of these are part of the experiment, and not really natural. They find that some of these are, indeed, not the same as they were before.

(In case you don't know it, some physical properties of the universe appear to have been fine-tuned, such that, if they were only slightly different, we wouldn't be here.)

My opinion is that Haldeman should have stuck to science fiction, and left theology out of it, but I'm not a famous writer. Thanks for reading.

The Language of God, Chapter 3, by Francis Collins

A previous post gives the contents of Chapter 1, and the bibliographic and author information for The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and another post describes Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 is entitled "The Origins of the Universe." In it, Collins describes the history of our knowledge of cosmology, and the evidence for the Big Bang. He believes that science has no explanation for (or knowledge of) what came before the Big Bang. He describes current scientific thinking on the origin of the sun, and of the earth. Then he takes up the Anthropic Principle, which, more or less, is the idea that the universe is particularly hospitable to human, and other, life. (Here's the Wikipedia article on that important subject. There is also a web domain dedicated to the subject.)

One of his most remarkable statements is the following:
Altogether, there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable. (p. 74) Collins, of course, is not the first person to point this out, but he does a good job of doing it again, and it is worth frequent reminders. It is, of course, possible that some theory will come along that explains why the velocity of light, or other of these constants, is what it is now.

He goes on to argue that cosmology points strongly toward a supernatural origin of the universe, and would say that such a position is academically defensible.

As the last topic of the chapter, Collins tackles the status of the first part of Genesis. He does not believe that it was meant to be taken literally, and says why. He quotes St. Augustine on the subject: In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. (p. 83 of Collins)

Thanks for reading.