From one comment posted the other day came a few questions that I thought might be better dealt with in a blog entry rather than a comment reply. In particualar, the idea of the universe being rational was seen as problematic. That which we call laws, Jerry suggested were merely observable patterns, and the fact that the universe hasn’t flown apart at the seams is something that does not mean it will not in the future. I believe this to be an incorrect view of the scientific understanding of laws. Admitedly my knowledge of this is very limited, but from the reading I have done it seems that the laws of nature are something which are more than observable patterns, but are necessary for the very being of the universe. The are conditions which must be present for anything else to be, and to function in such a way to create and sustain life of any form. These are conditions which must be in place at the beginning. They must have been present in the quantum singularity which resulted in the big bang prior to its “banging.” By rational I mean two things: i. that they are fundamentally ordered, not random, and ii. that as such they correspond to something inherent in our reasoning faculty which allow us to perceive them. If one is to maintain that they are random and just happened to be this way in our universe, then I believe one would have to postulate some kind of multiple universe theory. I have heard such theories, which suggest that our universe was one of billions which failed to achieve stability. I think, however, this is as unprovable by scientific means as that there was a God who “programmed” these laws into our universe. Both must be taken on faith, though logic can speak to both. In particular, if we postulate that there are so many universes there that were “trials” so to speak, then what is the origin of those universes? There must be some first cause, be it material or immaterial. It seems that the characteristic of this first cause would also have to be a certain type of rationality also, even if you could say its some kind of “material machine” kind of rationality. This speaks nothing of personality but simply rationality.
This leads us directly to another point mentioned: the fine-tuning argument. I have heard a number of criticisms of the notion that the almost infinite improbability of the universe suggests that there is a God at work fine-tuning the universe so to make it come out. I think there are strong arguments for this understanding of the universe, but the argument is that since the universe is here, it could not have turned out any other way. My opinion is that this is a flawed argument because it simply evades the question. If you assume materialism, then obviously the universe could and has come about through these improbabilities. If you asume theism, then obviously these improbabilities point to a divine will at work. To use a crude analogy, if you see a pie sitting on a windowsill, would one ever assume that it was random chance which resulted in the molecular structure of that pie coming about in precisely that way, in precisely that place, and at that time? If I’m not being fair to the argument, someone correct me. At worst it is irrelevant to the debate, at best is simply lends some support to the theistic argument, which is, I believe, its primary function. It is not meant to prove God’s existence, but to lend weight to its arguments.