Atheism 101: The Anthropic Principle

Maybe you’ve heard of it, maybe you haven’t, but I guarantee you that you’ve heard theists arguing for god because they don’t understand it.

You could just read the Wikipedia article, here, and I encourage you to do so, but that page doesn’t address the Anthropic Principle from the perspective of atheism.

So, what is it? In short:

It’s the philosophical position that the universe couldn’t be any other way than the way it is right now.

It sounds like a presumptuous statement, until you understand why we make it.

From a theist’s point of view, the universe has been fine tuned by some god in order to support the existence of life. It is true that a universe which deviated in the slightest from this one’s fundamental constants would not support life as we know it. Were the strengths of the fundamental forces any different, stars would not form, matter may not even exist, and the universe would be nothing more than a vast expanse of space and energy.

A theist, confronted with the precise nature of this universe’s tendency toward creating life concludes that the “fine tuning” of this universe is evidence of god’s hand.

The more reasonable way of looking at this, however, is to simply observe that, were it any different, we would not be here to notice. That’s it. It’s that simple.

Those who reject the anthropic principle assume that a universe has to be fine tuned to support life because they suspect that precision is improbable. There is no reason to assume that.

We know nothing about universe creation. We don’t know how to do it, we don’t know how these constants are decided and we don’t know how many universes there are. For all we know there are a trillion trillion universes in existence which don’t meet the requirements to support the development of life, and just this one which does.

What are the odds, in that case, that we would find ourselves in the needle in the haystack, that we would be so fortunate as to come to existence in the one, improbable, chance universe that can support life amongst the infinitude which can’t? Why, 100 percent of course. After all, there is no other way it could be. In order for life to exist, it must exist in a universe which is habitable and caters to its own existence. To that particular life form, the universe may appear “fine tuned.”

Perhaps those individuals might take a moment to consider that maybe they are fine tuned to the universe.

After you allow the self evident nature of the anthropic principle to sink in, I suggest that you investigate it beyond the scope of this article. Some of the philosophical implications of it are fascinating, including the idea that life is necessary for a universe to exist.

Before moving on to the practical applications of the anthropic principle in discourse with theists, I’ll close my section on what it is with a quote from Michael Frayn,

“ It's this simple paradox. The Universe is very old and very large. Humankind, by comparison, is only a tiny disturbance in one small corner of it - and a very recent one. Yet the universe is only very large and very old because we are here to say it is... And yet, of course, we all know perfectly well that it is what it is whether we are here or not.”

When will this come up?

It’s a common refrain from theists to suggest that the fine tuned universe is evidence of god. Someone who hasn’t studied the anthropic principle may find themselves disarmed when confronted by detailed explanation from a theist as to how precisely the fundamental constants of the universe are “tuned” to enable human life. Understanding this position allows retort.

How can I use it in a discussion about god?

Honestly, it’s an advanced concept. I don’t know why I chose it as my first Atheism 101 post(I do- I brought it up because everyone should know about it), but it’s definitely not the best go-to for general discussion. It’s difficult to explain, and I’m having a hard time explaining it here, so I recommend being aware of it and bringing it up when you are talking with the sort of theist who wants to discuss fundamental constants as an aspect of their defense of god.

Are there downsides to this argument?

Unfortunately, yes. For starters, it is not testable. If a theist asks you to “prove it,” you won’t be able to. It is a logical inference that we make when considering the nature of life and the prerequisites for its existence. It is also a dangerous cop out for scientists, as saying “it can’t be any other way” might discourage one from finding physical explanations for observed phenomena.

Just remember: The burden of proof is not on you. Don’t lean on the anthropic principle as the crux of your argument, just be aware of it as a retort and keep the burden where it needs to be- on the believer. While you may not be able to prove the anthropic principle, it is a reasonable observation and a suitable retort to theists who took Physics 101 and are amazed at how purposefully god designed our universe.

How should I word it if I bring it up?

However suits you, but you could always quote me:

“Were it any different, we would not be here to notice.”