12.07.2013 Views

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 113<br />

hypothesis that it is. Accordingly, unless other factors exclude the hypothesis<br />

of design it is to be preferred over that of chance.<br />

Suppose, however, someone argues that there are infinitely many other<br />

universes, ordered either in parallel or in temporal sequence, <strong>and</strong> hence that<br />

it is inevitable that one with the fundamental configuration of ours should<br />

exist. To begin with, this needs correction. Even if there were an infinity of<br />

universes it would not be inevitable that this or any other one should be<br />

among them. All one can say is that as the number of universes proceeds<br />

towards infinity the probability of a difference between the actual distribution<br />

<strong>and</strong> the probable one diminishes to zero. Taking the earlier example of the<br />

pages, if one shuffles <strong>and</strong> piles them over <strong>and</strong> over again infinitely many times<br />

then the chances of not getting 1 to 100 diminish. However it is not guaranteed<br />

that 1 to 100 will eventually result. Infinitely many operations may<br />

never yield the significant ordering. Nonetheless they will make its occurrence<br />

very much less unlikely than if there were only one operation.<br />

The logic of the many worlds response involves postulating an infinity of<br />

actual universes, because while this does not determine that the significant<br />

one will occur it diminishes its improbability. There is another reason for<br />

postulating an infinity rather than just finitely many universes <strong>and</strong> this is<br />

connected with the next argument I shall be considering, viz. the cosmological<br />

one. For if one envisages an infinity of possibilities, but stipulates that only<br />

some (however many) shall be realized, this invites the question of what<br />

debars the others, or equivalently of what occasions the occurrence of those<br />

that are realized. This then introduces the idea of contingency <strong>and</strong> of the<br />

need of a source of selection from among possibilities. In order to avoid<br />

this issue, <strong>and</strong> to eliminate any element of improbability in the occurrence of<br />

this universe, one might suggest that the set of worlds (this included), is the<br />

totality of all possible universes; or one might claim that there is <strong>and</strong> could<br />

only be one world – the actual one. In either event since it could not fail to<br />

exist no question arises as to the fact of its existence.<br />

Deferring consideration of the cosmological argument, how effective is<br />

the many universes response? Unless it claims that all possibilities are or<br />

must be actualized, it concedes that a finely tuned universe might not have<br />

existed <strong>and</strong> thereby allows scope for a probability argument for design. Rather<br />

than try to build on that reduced base, however, the theist may query the<br />

coherence of the many universes hypothesis itself. Can it be excluded? The<br />

question is ambiguous. If it asks whether there is any argument to show<br />

that it is contradictory or otherwise impossible then I suspect that there<br />

is not; at any rate I do not have one. However, one might mean less than<br />

that, for we often exclude suggestions on the grounds that they are obscure or<br />

inadequately supported, <strong>and</strong> here I think there is a significant weakness in<br />

the hypothesis.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!