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.
<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.