Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
112 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
highly regular, some less so, some fairly chaotic, some utterly so, then it will<br />
be sufficient explanation of the general regularity <strong>and</strong> particular fine tuning of<br />
our universe that is it but one of indefinitely many. Chance alone will explain<br />
its existence. Given enough opportunities the realization of order becomes<br />
unpuzzling.<br />
Note that the question of whether to conclude to design or chance is not<br />
one that scientific observation can decide. We need to reason our way ahead.<br />
How reasonable, therefore, is the reduction of order to chance? It is not true<br />
to say that because any other outcome might have occurred a particular one<br />
requires no explanation. One way of bringing this out is in terms of significant<br />
orderings. Suppose someone photocopies the pages of this book numbered<br />
1 to 100, thoroughly shuffles them <strong>and</strong> stacks them in a pile. Assuming<br />
relevantly similar causal antecedents any stacking has the same prior probability<br />
as any other – 1 in 3,628,800, <strong>and</strong> under the description ‘papers in a pile’<br />
no particular arrangement is significant. Suppose, however, that one of these<br />
piles has the pages lying in numerical order from page 1 to page 100. As a<br />
distribution of paper, <strong>and</strong> assuming similar operative factors, this stack is no<br />
more or less likely than any other; but considered as a significant (numerical)<br />
ordering – which it certainly is – it invites an explanation which the others do<br />
not. For while the probability of its occurring is as before, the probability of<br />
some or other non-significant ordering (i.e. any other than it) is 3,628,799.<br />
That is to say, while your chance of stacking them in sequence is 0.00002756<br />
per cent, the chances of doing otherwise are 99.99997244 per cent.<br />
Admittedly, it remains possible that the significantly ordered stacking is<br />
the result of chance; but that hypothesis is much more implausible than one<br />
which invokes a different causal ancestry, hypothesizing that the seemingly<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om shuffling was in fact a well-controlled manipulation designed to order<br />
the pages sequentially. Where an explanation is available that renders an<br />
improbable outcome more likely one should prefer it to an explanation that<br />
preserves the improbability, <strong>and</strong> the greater the differential the more one<br />
should favour the probabilizing hypothesis. I do not know what the probabilities<br />
in question are, but on the assumption that the range of possible<br />
universes is very large, if not infinite, the chances of any particular outcome<br />
are small <strong>and</strong> diminish as that outcome moves up the scale of significant<br />
ordering. Equivalently, the occurrence of ‘harmonious’ arrangements is less<br />
likely than that of ‘discordant’ ones. The evidence of fine tuning is precisely<br />
of this sort. For example, if it is accurate, it tells us that a tiny percentage of<br />
possible universes having structurally equivalent laws to our own, but varying<br />
in respect of fundamental ratios <strong>and</strong> quantities, are life permitting. The fact<br />
that one such exists (that it is ours is only relevant to the extent that it allows<br />
us to contemplate the issue) calls for explanation. The hypothesis that this<br />
fact is not the outcome of chance renders it far less unlikely than does the