My honourable co-author Geraint Lewis has written a short overview of the fine-tuning of the Universe for intelligent life at the Conversation. Go have a read.
Book update: we’re reviewing a contract with a publisher.
Advertisements
Recent Comments
Archives
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
- August 2017
- July 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
Advertisements
“Straying just a little from the convivial conditions that we experience in our universe typically leads to a sterile cosmos.”
Yes, but this is like saying that straying from a local minimum moves one to higher ground. It does not show that there is not another minimum lower, or even much lower, than the local minimum one is in.
A coarse example: If I take a conventional radio (“wireless”) and slightly change some of the components, it very probably won’t work. But I can listen to internet radio on a computer, which differs in essentially every respect from the radio.
I still think that the multiverse argument is a plausible explanation of why we are here. But I don’t think that a very different universe would necessarily be devoid of life, even if a slightly different one would be.
Hi Luke,
I was struggling to find a previous mention of your imminent book deal, so I went snooping around. What I can find is that you and Geraint and another astronomer, Pascal Elahi, are linked via a grant detailed on each of your University of Sydney web pages. A grant titled “Galaxy Formation and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life”.
I’m astounded to see that this grant has, as its source, Templeton World Charity Foundation/Research Support. I researched this a little and found that this organisation does not list you among its grantees, but I accept that they might be a little behind in their update cycle. What worries me a little more is the basis on which this organisation issues grants. For example, on their “What we do and do not fund” FAQ page, they state that “TWCF supports projects that aim to discover new spiritual information”.
Their core funding areas are Humility in Theology (>60% of funding) and Individual Freedom and Free Markets, Genetics and Genius, Character Virtue Development and Other Charitable Purposes (less clear on the division of funding, but your area doesn’t seen to fit into these categories neatly either). It would appear that you are being funded from the Humility in Theology area since the page on this funding says:
“Theology reflects Sir John Templeton’s overriding vision for encouraging progress in spiritual information. The term “theology” is used because Sir John considered information about the fundamental structures and laws of the universe, and also about human capacities and character, to be central to illuminating our understanding of the divine.”
So, as a person who has previously claimed to be neutral on this issue (how fine-tuning relates to apologetic efforts to prove the existence of their god), could you please explain what is going on here?
Also, I was curious about how a line of funding could be extracted from Templeton and, from what I can find, it appears that you have to apply in a multistage process – although admittedly that was from a web page on how to obtain funding from the John Templeton Foundation, not Templeton World Charity (which doesn’t have an equivalent web page). I think we’d also be interested to know how you managed to end up with this funding.
If you are not acting from the covert position as a theist with apologetic leanings, perhaps it’s time to make that clear. (On a related note, would denying that position put your funding in peril?)
cheers,
neopolitan
PS: This may be of interest to you – http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2015/09/barnes-and-templeton.html
PPS: A version of this with links intact is available here – http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-open-letter-to-luke-barnes.html
Neopolitan,
“I’m astounded to see that this grant has, as its source, Templeton World Charity Foundation/Research Support…”
I’m astounded to see you questioning Luke’s objectivity when you can’t even recognize a poisoning the well fallacy in your own comments. Any mediocre high school student studying philosophy would’ve known to avoid this… you didn’t. If there are issues with Luke’s objectivity or funding they will reveal themselves in flawed datasets and/or faulty analysis. This is what you need to demonstrate if you want to make a credible case. So far you have not, here or at your own blog. In any event you certainly aren’t going to do so by questioning his motives, especially when they haven’t kept him from avoiding basic logical blunders you’ve fallen for or led to his published research failing peer-review.
If I were you I’d steer clear of poisoning the well not only because it’s fallacious, but because it can be turned against you with a great deal of force.
Luke is operating from “a covert position as a theist” you say…? Well he’s clearly stated that he’s a theist in this forum and elsewhere. His home page (linked from this blog) lists his CV, his research, his popular and refereed publications… everything one needs to vet his claims. If there’s anything “covert” in all that I’m not seeing it. Your blog on the other hand tells us… nothing. You show an email, an empty “About Me” section, an icon, and a note that says you’ve been on blogger.com since June 2012. No CV, no publications refereed or otherwise… nothing whatsoever that might tell us whether you’re qualified to speak on this or any other topic. As for the “objectivity” of atheism (yours or anyone else’s)… countless examples can be documented of where an atheist agenda led to all sorts of reckless scholarship, including (but not restricted to) ignorance of science, ignorance of philosophy and history, cherry picking, math errors, citing gossip spoof sites as legitimate sources, and even deliberately falsifying information, the latter of which is outright negligence.
You need to up your game Sir… 😉
Thanks for your interest, Scott.
Neopolitan,
Wow… I’m flattered to see that my comments merit a dedicated post at your blog. Thank you! 🙂 Here are some thoughts regarding your response. I’ll post them at your own blog too…
“I am accusing Barnes of being coy about his theism and his theism is relevant because of his fixation with Fine Tuning. He knows as well as I do that for anyone to be at all credible as a proponent of Fine Tuning they have to be working from a purely scientific background… If Barnes is a raving theist with apologetic aspirations, then his interest in Fine Tuning is tainted…”
It’s tainted if, and only if, his published works contain specific errors and/or omissions that impact his conclusions and are a direct consequence of his theism. You haven’t come anywhere near to demonstrating this.
“Scott’s complaint, as far as I can work out, relates to either my accusation that Barnes is a theist (thus pointing out that his work on Fine Tuning is tainted by his theistic partisanship) or my pointing out that Barnes is compromised by his association with Templeton. Is either of these a case of poisoning the well? I don’t think so. Let’s look at Scott’s link to the Wikipedia entry on what he calls the ‘poisoning the well fallacy’… It’s not strictly speaking a fallacy after all, but a rhetorical device… Poisoning the well is supposed to be pre-emptive. Nothing I’ve provided about Barnes has been pre-emptive. Also, going from the example provided by Wikipedia, the poisoning has to be irrelevant to issue at hand – and Barnes’ theism is not irrelevant to the issue at hand.”
Go back and read the Wikipedia article again carefully, and you’ll see that poisoning the well arguments are based on unfavorable information that can be either true or false, relevant or irrelevant (Structure section, first form, point 1). To establish relevance you need to show exactly where, and how Luke’s published works are invalidated by his belief in God. Since you have not, there are only two valid motives for drawing attention to it; a) To undermine trust in his work without actually doing so, or; b) To make yourself feel good by belittling him. You don’t strike me as either a bully or a coward, so b) is out. And a) is pre-emptive, and this is a textbook example of poisoning the well. BTW, Wikipedia also has a List of Fallacies. Rhetorical or not, Poisoning the Well is listed there under Red Herrings -> Ad Hominem.
“I’d also like to point out that, in pointing out my anonymity the way Scott did, he may well have been attempting a bit of well-poisoning himself – perhaps as a demonstration of how they could be turned against me ‘with a great deal of force’: You shouldn’t listen to this guy, he’s hasn’t got a detailed history of himself on his blog and he hasn’t told everyone his name! … My arguments don’t rest on my personal history or my name, Mr Church, so your attempts fail.”
You’re missing the point. I never said your arguments rest on your name or personal history, nor was I trying to poison your well (it’s a fallacy, remember?). What I said was that by poisoning the well you’re relying on an argument that, even if it weren’t a fallacy, could also be used against you. You aren’t just shooting yourself in the foot… you’re doing so twice. Which is precisely why I think you should stay away from this sort of argument. 😉
“I was going to protest loudly about the list of crimes tacked onto the end of this comment, but it appears that Scott has protected himself by being vague as to who has committed these crimes. At least the links he provides, when he provides them, indicate that there were other suspects (Richard Dawkins in one cherry picked example – the arguments in the God Delusion do not hinge on the specifics regarding the ravings of Pat Robinson – and Lawrence Krauss in another).”
I wasn’t making a larger case for atheist “crimes” so an extensive bibliography of them wasn’t necessary. Again, my only point was that poisoning the well cuts both ways, and your reliance on it puts you at risk. I included the Dawkins and Krauss links only because they happen to be particularly egregious examples of how it does. You’ve been arguing that a “raving theist” agenda = Tainted Fine Tuning Science with the implication that a raving anti-theist one doesn’t. Sorry Buddy, but you can’t have your cake and eat it. If it’s fair game for you to claim Luke’s work is tainted by theism without documenting where or how, I have every right to claim Dawkins’ and Krauss’ work is tainted by anti-theism when I actually can document their blundering incompetence and negligence. Go back and read my Dawkins essay carefully and you’ll see that it had nothing to do with whether the arguments in the God Delusion hinge on the specific “raving” Dawkins attributed to Pat Robinson. I was drawing attention to the recklessness and unprofessionalism with which he defended it. Even a few minutes’ worth of fact-checking would’ve revealed that the alleged Robertson comment he spoke of never happened… it was a joke posted by a comedy website. That inconvenient fact went right past him because was so caught up in his own anti-theist wet dream that he never got around to vetting his own damn sources or even read them carefully. If poisoning the well constitutes a valid argument, then this takes the word tainted to a whole new and terrifying level that you have to answer for, and your allegations about Luke’s motives pale in comparison. Well it isn’t valid, and you shouldn’t be doing it.
We could go back and forth here with tit-for-tat and I doubt anyone would be the wiser for it. Instead, let me leave you with this. The economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “When my information changes I alter my views. What do you do Sir?” If you want your own views to be convincing, stop trying to discredit others and concentrate on providing information that can’t be discredited. If you succeed, your claims will stand on their own and you’ll earn the respect of those who don’t agree with you. Casting aspersions on the motives of others only makes you look petulant. Especially when when you base your attacks on well-known logical fallacies. I know you can do better than this, and if you do, everyone will benefit.
Best.
I think you have over-estimated the scope of my endeavours. I’ll leave the pointing out of Luke’s specific errors to those who work in his field (if there are such errors, I am not saying there necessarily are any remember, I am only criticising his clandestine support of the cosmological equivalents of the ID crowd).
I’m quite confident though that as research continues we will develop better and better theories and models and some of the questions raised by apparent fine-tuning will be answered, forcing your god to retreat further into smaller and smaller gaps.
@n30p0litan,
“I am only criticising his clandestine support of the cosmological equivalents of the ID crowd”
So you reveal a lot about yourself in that quote. All of this bluster you’ve started is only because you think that because he’s a theist, he must be dumb, or misrepresenting data, or using false logic – not that you can demonstrate that he has done any of this. You just think it’s obvious, right, that if he’s a theist he must be a liar and be deceptive or at least be totally mistaken?!
Can you really not see what you’re doing here, or is it only everyone else who sees it?
Your last comment was also revealing.
I think you should really stop discrediting people based on whether they are theists or not, and instead actually interact with the thoughts and arguments instead as that’s far more interesting.
I don’t think Scott is dumb. I am not certain that he is a theist, although I think he probably is (having given away that he is more than a deist). I more think that he’s a little dishonest. I don’t think that that is a necessary consequence of being a theist. It’s probably more of a choice. But if he’s a theist, then sure I think he’s mistaken, I have to have that position because I am a non-theist, atheist and agnostic.
I’m not sure why you think that you are suddenly my life-coach and responsible for setting my objectives and agenda.
In this instance, my concern is with dishonest theists in academia and those who support them. Scott is on my radar for that reason. It does not mean that I need to provide academic criticism of all his works. Other people are more than capable of doing that (although one of them sadly died).
Neopolitan,
I’m glad you don’t think I’m “dumb…” Thank you! But Andy was replying to a comment of yours, and I believe he was talking about Luke, not me. That said, I’m not sure why you think I’m being “a little dishonest”, nor do I understand why you would be uncertain about my theism or imagine me to be a deist. I’m a Christian. I have been since I gave my life to Christ at the age of 15. You’ve seen plenty of my comments here, and read at least one of the essays at my clearly faith-based environmental website. One would think my faith was obvious even if I didn’t explicitly spell it out anywhere in bold type…
Which BTW, I am not in the habit of doing. I don’t trumpet my beliefs with great fanfare the way you do, nor do I use them as a weapon against others. Neither they, nor my ego are that fragile. I share them with those who are respectful and genuinely willing to listen to them (there’s a difference). If you’re interested in that (as opposed to sparring) and you have a question about my beliefs that is sincere… by all means, ask! 🙂 And if you have something constructive to share in response that I might learn from, then please do. But if you’re here to proselytize or troll, I’m not interested.
Beyond all that, why are you concerned only with dishonest theists in academia? Dishonesty is dishonesty, my friend. It’s reprehensible wherever it’s found… in theists, and in atheists like Lawrence Krauss–who as you’ve been shown, was willing to deliberately falsify his correspondence with a prominent cosmologist to win a sparring contest. Why not call out all dishonesty, including behavior like this? Better yet, why not lead by example instead… by seeking knowledge, and providing knowledge of your own that’s on-topic and constructive? This is a physics blog after all… not a tabloid or a boxing ring. 😉
Best.
Ooops… Robertson, not “Robinson” (Last point). 🙂
Does a theist, or at least a deist as Luke has admitted to me, enter any field of endeavor with a presuppositional mindset – ie ”faith” or does one maintain a completely neutral stance and evidence will dictate the final outcome?
Francis Collins’ somewhat ambiguous stance regarding the Human Genome Project comes to mind
In my experience, while every theist claims verifiable evidence as the motivator for converting not one has ever provided any.
It seems to always begin with faith.
I wonder of this is the case with FT?
@Arkenaten, that’s an interesting question. But I’d go even broader and ask does anyone at all (atheist or theist or whatnot) enter any field of endeavor with a presupposed mindset? I think everyone does come along to any endeavor with a view of the world that influences their thinking. That doesn’t mean that they are necessarily biased in their research though. They could be, but they might not be too. So it does no good to just try to invalidate a thought or discovery simply by saying “ahh, well he’s an atheist so he would say that” such as what YEC’s do, or “ahh, well he’s a theist so he would say that” such as what @neopolitan sokare seems to do. It’s poor thinking, it’s uncharitable, and it’s unwarranted.
Instead, we just have to use critical thinking and scientific investigations to find out. Yeah?
Oh, absolutely we must use critical thinking. And where evidence contradicts presupposed ideas and beliefs etc, we must surely then accept what the evidence tells us.
How would you feel, for example, if irrefutable evidence of Noah’s Ark turned up and I, an atheist turned round and said to you it was false or a likely plant?
What would your honest reaction be?