CC BY
49
The question of critical re-evaluation of theological interpretation of the anthropic cosmological principle: paradoxes.
people do honestly, and with dishonest... too honest". Three types of morality, despite the logic-genetic link between them, do not negate each other, and with the need to co-exist next. This segment
of one common ethical system that is subordinated to a certain global law. To understand this law is the task of the future socio-philosophical studies.
References:
1. Andreev. I. S, Grigoryan B. I. Kant's Philosophy and modern idealism. - M.: Nauka, 2007.
2. Dena D. Overcoming differences. How to improve relationships at work and at home. - SPB: 1994.
3. Dlugach T. B. I. Kant: from the early works to the "Critique of pure reason". - M.: Nauka, 2002.
4. Psychology and ethics of the business communication. - M.: Culture and sport, UNITY, 1997.
5. Shanov V. P. Manage others. How to manage yourself (Art Manager). - Minsk: Amalfea, 1996.
6. Shostrom E. Anti-Carnegie, or Man-manipulator. - Minsk: TPC «Polifact», 1992.
Makuhin Petr Gennadyevich, Omsk State Technical University, Omsk, Russia, PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Social Communication E-mail: [email protected]
The question of critical re-evaluation of theological interpretation of the anthropic cosmological principle: paradoxes of the "finalist anthropic principle" of F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow
Abstract: in the article, perhaps, the most paradoxical — in the context of scientific thinking — formulation of "the anthropic principle", meaning the "finalist" formulation, is critically analysed. However those paradoxes and contradictions to which F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow's concept led, show basic impossibility of use of scientific data as proofs of religious dogmas. Keywords: anthropic principle, "finalist" formulation, science, theology (divinity), religion, "Omega point".
Within the covers of the "European science review" magazine we already made an attempt to make some contribution to philosophical re-evaluation of the anthropic (in other transcription — anthropological) cosmological principle. (Briefly we will remind its natural-science sense, giving its definitions from the "Astronomical Dictionary" and fundamental "Physical Encyclopedia". "The principle in cosmology, according to which the intelligent life in the Universe is a necessary consequence of its fundamental properties" [1]. "People distinguish the weak and the strong types of the anthropological principle ... The essence of the first one is that our place in the Universe ... is nevertheless exclusive in the sense that it has to be compatible to our existence as observers. .According to ... (to the second one, i. e. «strong» — my note) the Universe, physical laws, which operate it, and its fundamental parameters have to be such that in it at some stage of evolution the existence of observers (mankind) was allowed" [2, 348]. That means — we gave grounds for the thesis that if not to distinguish (and rather "to mix") its scientific and religious interpretations, both scientific character and religiousness as such simply disappear located, turning into "pseu-doscientific mysticism" [3]. We shall not repeat the facts, considered in the previous article, and will provide vivid words of F. Hoy-le, which can be called the motto of the position that we criticize: "sensible interpretation of the facts gives the chance to assume that in physics, and also chemistry and biology the «superintelligence» experimented and that in the nature there are no blind forces deserving attention" (quote of [4, 141]). We realize that this tradition, which we criticize, traces its roots to many classics of the European natural sciences. For example, when the chaplain R. Bentley appealed to I. Newton to help to prepare the sermon on the subject "Atheism Denial" — relying on scientific knowledge of the "Universe structure"! — the great physicist sent him four detailed letters with explanations. In the first of them he wrote: the harmony,
surprising coherence of this "structure" "on my belief can hardly be explained with only one natural reasons and therefore I am compelled to attribute such transformations to the plan and pro-thinking of the certain agent being able to think" [5]. Therefore the following assessment of the Newton principle, that R. Cotes, a friend and a colleague of R. Bentley, gave in 1713, is not surprising: "Newton's works represent the most right protection against attacks of atheists, and not to find the best protection against impious gang" anywhere [6, 21]. Another example, we can provide, is the compatriot of I. Newton, R. Boyle. As the prominent modern Russian social thinker and the philosopher of science S. G. Kara-Murza writes, this great physicist and chemist "could not help thinking of the necessity to break evidentially the arguments of supporters of atheism" [7, 98], and, according to R. Boyle, "only the science based on supervision, experiment and mathematical calculation could rescue values of Christian religion" [7, 98]. If the reader compares these thoughts to the attempts of theological interpretations of the anthropic principle that we considered in the previous article [3], he will see that the similarity is great. We can bring more and more examples of great scientists, "standing in this row", but thoughts, which have already been considered, are enough in order that the reader had such question: "why then we criticize theological interpretations of modern discoveries, in particular, of the anthropic cosmological principle"!? Without repeating earlier provided arguments (see [3]), we will formulate a new one, related such kind of formulation of this principle as "finalist" (this option is alternative to "weak" and "strong" formulations which were briefly provided in the beginning of the article, and also to the "principle of partnership"). "The finalist anthropic principle" was introduced by the American cosmologist and mathematician F. J. Tipler and the English astrophysicist J. Barrow in their work of 1986 "The anthropic space principle" [8]. In the previous article we quoted the book by
Section 11. Philosophy
F. J. Tipler written in 1994 — with the indicative name "Physics of immortality. The latest cosmology, God and revival from the dead"! — as an example of theological interpretation of the specified cosmological principle. For example, he calls theology "part of physics", specifying that representatives of the latter "can prove the existence of God with their calculations" [9]. But the "finalist" (also called "final" or "eschatological") formulation of the anthropic principle made by F. J. Tipler together with J. Barrow brings new, paradoxical sense in theological perspective. A. V. Nesteruk, as well as Yu. V. Balashov and S. V. Illarionov translate and formulate this "finalist principle" as follows: "the generation of information which began in the Universe in the form of reason will never terminate" [10, 194]; "in the Universe there has to be a reasonable information processing, and, once having arisen, it will never stop" [11]. Notably, as A. V. Nesteruk notices, "intelligent life" is not identified by F. J. Tipler with "human life", it "is associated with the computer realizing some program" [10, 194]. In confirmation of this the Russian researcher of the anthropic principle provides the following words of the American cosmologist: "the living being is rather a submission of a certain program, than the program in itself" [10, 194]. Already at this point we see a divergence with modern science (which most challenging theories do not "extend" the qualities of "living" or "reasonable" to computers, etc.), as well as with traditional divinity (which can not estimate the idea of "living as a program" differently as "heresy"). Upon further consideration of the F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow's concept, the well-known saying "the deeper into the wood you go, the more timber seems to grow" comes to mind: i. e. this divergence (both with provisions of science, and with divinity doctrines) cardinally amplifies. After all, on the one hand, the Universe is creation of God (therefore its fundamental indicators are so uniquely coordinated that promote existence of life). But, on the other hand, God doesn't exist yet! (sic!). He will result from evolution of the Universe, and will create the world "in the past", having destroyed it in the present. As in this regard Yu. V. Bal-ashov and S. V. Illarionov write: F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow carried out "the prediction, unusual to physics based on a hypothesis of almost Teilhard plan of future destiny of our Universe" [11]. A. V. Nesteruk formulates idea of the future — according to the principle of final-ism — as follows: The Universe contains "the «Omega point» as
final in which world lines of all events will merge and all horizons will disappear" [10, 194]. As we can see, all three quoted Russian authors draw a parallel between "the anthropic finalist principle" and P. Teilhard de Chardin's concept ("Omega point" is the main concept he introduced). This "parallel" seems not quite reasonable to us and we will prove why. P. Teilhard de Chardin, the prominent philosopher, scientist-palaeontologist, and at the same time the priest and Jesuit, begins his main work — "Phenomenon of the person" — with such words: "to understand this work correctly, it should be considered not as metaphysical and all the more not as the theological tractate, and exclusively as a scientific work" [12, 136]. And acquaintance to this work confirms correctness of these words. This means it is possible to tell that Teilhard — unlike many of those authors that interpret the anthropic principle in line with theology — "doesn't mix genres": i. e. he doesn't try to prove the existence of God by means of scientific arguments, and, in turn, doesn't try to use religious doctrines as scientific arguments. He clung to it — as paradoxical as it seems! — even when he was developing the theory of a noosphere innovative at that time. According to Teilhard, formation of a noosphere is the result of impact of action of God conducting the world to association with itself — he called the moment of such association "the Omega point". As the Russian researcher G. B. Gutner writes, after that "all tendencies to disintegration and isolation will be overcome, and the mankind will turn into the uniform reasonable organism which will be in absolute harmony with the world" [13, 24]. This idea — despite the seeming para-doxicality — doesn't contradict traditional ideas of Christianity, as well as Teilhard's thinking of the person doesn't contradict scientific thinking. As for the sense, which is F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow put in the concept of the "Omega Point", it contradicts both dogmas of religion, and scientific thinking. We will remind the reader that by this "Point" they meant the emergence — as a result of evolution of the Universe — of a certain Supersanity, "God" who somehow "will create" the Universe ... in the past (!), "having closed" thereby the "cycle". In our opinion, F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow developed this difficult, sophisticated, paradoxical construction to try to overcome the "gap" between natural sciences and religion. However those paradoxes and contradictions, to which this attempt led, show basic impossibility of use of scientific data as proofs of religious dogmas.
References:
1. Anthropic principle//Astronomical Dictionary. EdwART. - 2010//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://sbiblio.com/bib-lio/content.aspx?dictid=130&wordid=930594 (accessed date: 27.08.15).
2. Starobinskiy A. A. The universe//Physical Encyclopedia: In 5 volumes. V. 1. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1988. - P. 346-348.
3. Makuhin P. G. Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle - "No Man's Land between science and theology?" (on the materials of modern Russian discussions)//European Science review. - 2014. - № 3-4. - P. 91-93.
4. Davies P. The Accidental Universe. - M.: Mir, 1985. - 160 p.
5. Newton I. Four letters ofsir Isaac Newton to doctor Bentley containing some arguments of the proof of existence of God//Questions ofhistory of natural sciences and equipment. - 1993. - № 1. - P. 33-45.
6. Newton I. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. - M.: Nauka, 1989. - 688 p.
7. Kara-Murza S. G. Crisis social science. Part 1. - M.: Nauchniy expert, 2011. - 464 p.
8. Barrow J. D., Tipler F. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. - Oxf., 1986.
9. Tipler F. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.everettica.org/article.php3?ind=74 (accessed date: 29.08.15).
10. Nesteruk A. V. Finalist anthropic principle, its philosophical and ethical sense//Astronomy and modern world view. - M.: IFRARAN (Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences), 1996. - P. 193-202.
11. Balashov Yu. V., Illarionov S. V. Anthropic principle: contents and speculation//Global evolutionism: (Philosophical analysis). - M.: Center of educational programs of the Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1994. - P. 108-123.
12. Teilhard de Chardin P. Phenomenon of the person. Collection of essays. - M.: LLC «Izdatelstvo AST (Publishing house AST)», 2002. - 553 p.
13. Gutner G. B., Teilhard de Chardin Pierre//New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 volumes. Volume 4. - M.: Mysl, 2010. - P. 23-24.
