McLatchie's Bayesless Argument From the Moral Arena
I don't think this is good evidence for theism.
McLatchie has written an article arguing for God based on the existence of a moral choice arena. I don’t think his argument is successful at showing what he wants it to show.
The Moral Choice Arena Evidence for God
One way to frame the argument for the existence of God – the approach I will take in this article – is to consider the evidence that we self-evidently live in what I call a moral choice arena. What is a moral choice arena? A moral choice arena is simply a community of persons, not necessarily humans, but persons in circumstances where they can engage in what we at least call moral decision-making, where they interact and mold themselves in what gets called morally significant ways.
On the hypothesis of theism, a moral choice arena is something that God could be plausibly expected to bring about. Why? Intrinsic to God’s very character is the quality of moral goodness, and because of this it is not unlikely for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity to bring about the greatest goods. Since the greatest goods require a community of embodied moral agents in a moral choice arena, this is something that it might be plausibly expected for God to bring about. One might of course ask at this point why God would choose to bring about embodied agents. After all, couldn’t He have created spiritual agents that are not embodied? However, it is being embodied that amplifies our ability as agents to affect the world and each other. A world of physical pushes and pulls greatly increases the number of opportunities for free agents to morally flourish, mould their character, and co-operate with one another.
In order to progress with our argument, we need an estimate of the probability of a moral choice arena existing on theism, and of the probability of a moral choice arena existing given atheism. The probability of a moral choice arena existing given the hypothesis of theism is difficult to estimate. However, I think most of us would say that the probability is not likely to be lower than 1%. Thus, for the purpose of argument, let us use this conservative figure of 1% as the probability of a moral choice arena existing given the hypothesis of theism.
McLatchie is overestimating the chance of a moral choice arena on theism, in my view. While 1% may be the chance of some type of moral choice arena, if we consider the specifics of the moral chance arena, it becomes clear that it is not good evidence for theism.
I’ll start by telling you of my prior in theism being about 1 in 5000 = 0.0002. This is before considering anything like evil, hiddenness, or anything else. McLatchie starts by saying
A Universe From Nothing
What is the probability, on the assumption of atheism, that there would exist a Universe governed by physical laws such as gravity? For the purpose of argument, let us make the generous assumption that the probability of a Universe governed by physical laws, on the assumption of atheism, is 0.1%.
I’d put it at about 1%. However, on theism I’d say it’s also about 1%. Why would God have a universe with physical laws such as gravity. Why not just make us blissful disembodied minds? So this is not evidence that favors theism over atheism.
Atheism doesn’t have to say the universe came from nothing. However, this can just be treated as the broader point about predictable natural laws. .
A Finely-Tuned Universe
But you don’t just need any old Universe. As it turns out, the laws and constants of physics have to be finely tuned in order to be conducive to sentient life forms – or, for that matter, any life forms. As Geoff Brumfiel confesses in this Nature News article,
“If you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal — one in a very large number.”
In 2012, astrophysicist Dr. Luke Barnes (University of Sydney) published an extensive review paper, surveying more than 200 academic papers that document the fine-tuning of our Universe for life [1] (Barnes, 2012). He stated that he can only think of “a handful of physicists that oppose this conclusion, and piles and piles that support it.” Dr. Luke Barnes also co-authored a book on the subject in 2016 with Dr. Geraint Lewis, called A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely-Tuned Cosmos, which you can purchase at Amazon.
Just to give an idea of how finely-tuned our Universe is, consider the cosmological constant, which determines how rapidly the Universe expands. It is thought to be finely-tuned to 1 part in 10120. If you get it wrong, the Universe either expands so rapidly that you only ever get the two lightest elements, or it collapses within picoseconds of the big bang. In such circumstances, no life of any kind could arise. Another factor is the ratio of electrons to protons, thought to be finely-tuned to 1 part in 1037. If it was larger or smaller, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.
That’s just two of many constants and laws that have to be delicately balanced in order to produce a life-permitting Universe. I will not here delve into the problems inherent with the usual responses to fine-tuning based on the multiverse hypothesis and weak-anthropic principle. That has been done extensively elsewhere. For the purpose of our argument here, I will generously assume that the level of fine-tuning of our Universe has been greatly over-estimated, and that the probability of getting a life-permitting Universe, on the assumption of atheism, is an absurdly high 0.1%. Given the ridiculously generous nature of the estimate, no atheist can sensibly contest that figure.
It’s far from clear that God needs to finely tune the universe. Additionally, on atheism, conditional on predictable natural laws, it seems like a multiverse is pretty likely. A multiverse would necessitate finely tuned life. Thus, I think that on atheism the odds of a finely tuned universe, conditional on predictable natural laws, are about 50%. There could also be a repeating universe, more fundamental law, of something else necessitating fine tuning.
However, on theism, a finely tuned universe like ours seems very unlikely. If we include relevant facts about fine tuning including
A Theism can’t explain why the universe is not finely tuned enough—most of it is inhospitable. This would be like saying that a house was designed just for me when I can’t fit in anywhere but a tiny closet—the rest of the house only designed for mice to fit.
B It’s far from clear that God needs to finely tune the universe. He could just make a universe that’s not finely tuned given that he could make life under quite literally any conditions.
C If God exists the odds that the universe would be finely tuned in exactly the way that it is are very low—theism isn’t a good explanation because it can’t choose why God chose to make the universe with the laws of physics that it has. However, on theories that posit tons or infinite universes, the odds of a universe exactly like ours are 100%.
D It took billions of years for life to arise—this would be surprising if God were making it. Why would he wait?
Then the odds of fine tuning on theism seem low. I’d say about .1%. So if we divide we now get the evidence that we see 0.02 x 0.0002 = 0.000004. Not looking good for the theist.
The Origins of Life
Next, given there is a life-permitting universe, how much should we expect that life would actually arise in it? I will not hash out the probabilistic arguments pertaining to the origins of life here. I would also direct less-acquainted readers to Stephen C. Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell – DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, or to William Dembski and Jonathan Wells’ book, How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not) for an accessible entry point. Needless to say, the probability of forming life from inorganic chemicals by naturalistic processes is very, very low. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this argument, I am going to assume that the likelihood is unreasonably high – at 0.1%. Again, no naturalist can sensibly contest such an estimate.
It seems like most people who have looked at the Meyer stuff are unconvinced—evaluating those arguments is way above my paygrade. However, remember here that most of my credence is in the direction of a multiverse. Conditioning on a multiverse the odds of life arising are about 80%. I’d say that the odds of this on theism are even lower, .1%. Why the hell would God make life slowly evolve from a single cell. 99% of all organisms have gone extinct. It’s resulted in tons of unnecessary suffering. Thus, the overall odds are 0.000000005.
Not looking good for the theist.
Molecular Machines in the Cell
What about the origins of the molecular machinery in the cell? Again, I will not hash out the various probabilistic arguments against the origins of the irreducibly complex machinery found inside the cell. For an accessible introduction, I would refer readers to Michael Behe’s three books, Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves. Needless to say, again, the odds of forming by naturalistic processes the numerous machines of the cell with their many interacting protein parts is prohibitively small. Nonetheless, for the purpose of our argument we can give an absurdly high estimate of the odds of 0.1%.
I think the odds are pretty high on atheism, especially because most of our credence is in the direction of a multiverse. Thus, I’d say on atheism the odds are 80%. On theism, however, the odds are probably lower. Why would God make there be molecular machines. Thus, on theism I’d say that the odds are 55%.
So we now update to the odds of theism being 0.00000034375.
The Origins of Multicellularity
What about the origins of multicellularity? Our bodies are made up not just of a single cell type but of many – including nerve cells, red blood cells, smooth muscle cells, fat (adipose) cells, intestinal epithelial cells, striated muscle cells, bone tissue with osteocytes and loose connective tissue with fibroblasts. Is this plausibly accounted for on a naturalistic scheme? It seems not. At the level of the single cell, cells that are more able to reproduce are selected for. However, if those cells reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion in a multicellular organism, it will cause serious harm, even death, to the organism. While a single cells seeks to reproduce more than its competitors, in the context of a multicellular organism, the reproduction of cells must be controlled so as to facilitate the needs of the whole organism. Indeed, as John Pepper and his colleagues state in a paper published in PLoS Computational Biology [2]
“Multicellular organisms could not emerge as functional entities before organism-level selection had led to the evolution of mechanisms to suppress cell-level selection.”
Furthermore, in multicellular organisms there is a need for a communication network between cells that controls the positioning and abundance of the various cell types within the organism. Fundamental to this is cellular differentiation, a process that takes place in all multicellular organisms. This level of organisation is inexplicable by the sum of the parts, cells, since the coordination requires a level of organisation above that which is present in individual cells.
A further requirement of multicellularity is genetic sameness. Developmental biologists Lewis Wolpert and Eörs Szathmáry explain [3],
The first step in the development of a complex organism is the establishment of a pattern of cells with different states that can differentiate along different pathways. One mechanism for pattern formation is based on positional information: cells acquire a positional identity that is then converted into one of a variety of cellular behaviours, such as differentiating into specific cell types or undergoing a change in shape and so exerting the forces required for the formation of different structures. This and other patterning processes require signalling between and within cells, leading ultimately to gene activation or inactivation. Such a process can lead to reliable patterns of cell activities only if all the cells have the same set of genes and obey the same rules.
Much more could be said on this subject, but suffice it to say that on any reasonable estimate, the probability of evolving multicellularity by chance and necessity is less than 0.1%. So let’s take that as our estimate.
This I think is evidence that favors theism. However, .1% seems way too low on atheism. There are plausible naturalistic accounts of how this would happen. Even if it would be incredibly rare, given that most of our credence is in the direction of a multiverse. I’d say the odds are .95 on theism (conditioning on other things ofc) and .88 on atheism.
So now we update to 3.7109375x 10^-7. Not looking good for the theist.
Animal Body Plans
Now that we have multicellular life, what is the likelihood of animal body plans emerging? Again, there is much that could be (and has been) said on this subject. For a more detailed discussion than what I offer here, I refer readers to the volume Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique, in particular chapter 7 (by Jonathan Wells) and chapter 9 (by Sheena Tyler). I would also recommend reading chapter 13 of Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen C. Meyer. Paul Nelson also has various articles on Evolution News and Science Today discussing the problem of ontogenetic depth, and his argument is summarised succinctly in this short video. Embryonic development takes place by a process of serial cell differentiation and specification. All animals have a programmed developmental trajectory going all the way from the fertilised egg (zygote) to the final form of the organism capable of reproduction. Only the final form capable of reproduction is ‘visible’ to natural selection. The developmental pathway must be put together by a process lacking foresight. Traversing half-way across the chasm that separates the zygote from the final form is no good – the organism is still non-viable. The chances of a developmental pathway being produced without a process with foresight, therefore, is infinitesimally small. Nonetheless, for the sake of our argument here, let’s just assume a probability of, yup you guessed it, 0.1%.
I will add a note at this point to say that I assume that the only way for a body plan to come about (by which I mean something which can house a mind whereby it can control its movements and so forth) is via cellular RNA or DNA body plans, or via some chance assembly of a computer. Of those options, the DNA-based body plans that we actually observe seem to be the easiest, and it is immensely improbable. Thus any other hypothesis is likely to be even more improbable.
I’m not familiar with the literature here, but given that it’s not run often by apologists or taken seriously by scientists, I think that this is not great evidence. However, I think that the odds of animal body plans on atheism are super low. Why would God make animals rather than something else? Sentient plants seem like a better version of life that doesn’t need to eat or starve. Thus, I think that the odds are maybe 1% on theism and 85% on atheism.
We thus move to 4.36580882x10^-9.
The Origins of Consciousness
What about the origins of consciousness? There is nothing in known physics that would allow someone to look at the brain and conclude “hey, there’s someone in there; this thing has first person experiences.” Thus, we cannot predict consciousness by way of physics and examining the brain. You might well be tempted to think that only brains with subjective experiences would avoid pain and so forth, and thus we could predict the evolution of consciousness because its adaptive. However, this response is mistaken, since only people who believe in souls believe that the mind affects the brain like that. Most naturalists would say that your body would do what it does, even if no consciousness existed, since it is a physically closed machine. All of your neurons would fire just the same and move your body the same way without ‘you’. Evolutionary history presumably would be identical without subjective experience. What is the probability, on the hypothesis of atheism, that consciousness – personal first-person subjective experience – would arise out of matter? Let us again be generous and assume a probability of 0.1%.
I’m actually with Jonathan here. Consciousness is predicted on theism, yet not predicted on atheism. We can fully grant this.
We now go back to a credence of
0.0000043658
Note, here I’m not taking into account specific features of consciousness. I’m just looking at the bare fact of consciousness.
Moral Sensibilities
The final ingredient we need for our moral choice arena is moral sensibilities – for conscious agents to recognize some behaviors as morally virtuous and others not. Again, for the purpose of our calculation, we can assign a probability here of 0.1%.
Theism does a bad job of explaining our poor moral sensibilities and general moral disagreement. If we consider our moral sensibilities as a whole I think that the odds on atheism are 40% but on theism, .2%.
So now we update to 2.1829x 10^-8. So all things considered, I don’t think this is great evidence for theism. In fact, it’s super strong evidence against theism.