LOL. We keep giving each other reading assignments. Unfortunately, I've got a long queue of books ahead of me, and it takes extraordinary measures (e.g. a large bribe) to get me let a book jump the queue.
I know the feeling. And just in case you ever do pick it up, while it is a fantastic read, it is incredibly advanced and I was constantly going back to a variety of physics textsbooks to understand a lot of it.
A lot of folks are unaware of the fact that there are two very different "multiple universe" ideas out there--one that astrophysicists such as Stephen Hawking have discussed and one that quantum physicists have discussed.
I seem to recall more than two, but I could be wrong (going of memory here). In any event, the anthropic principle (or the weak anthropic principle) isn't debated. It is a mainstay of physics (or at least several sub-disciplines). This isn't saying much, as the weakest form simply states that for us to be here, the universe must be capable of supporting us. However, even those many who reject the creator argument often note how impossibly "designed" the universe seems to be. This was what finally convinced Flew. As Lee Smolin states: "luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case." Hence the multiple universes theory.
I do not think that there is a consensus of opinion on whether or not these models can be rendered defeasible.
I haven't looked as deeply into the "multiverse" explanations as I have at works (both theist and non-theist) on the "fine-tuning" of our universe. There is a lot there.
By the way, I found my source for my earlier statement (already acknowledged to be vastly overstated)
It is an established fact that those scientists who are trained in micro-specialities (e.g. genetics, biology, etc) are far more prone to agnosticism or atheism than scientists in macro-specialities (e.g. astro-physicists).
The evidence appears anecdotal, so I imagine you won't find it credible, but here it is:
"Physical Scientists, conscious of the wonderful order and finely tuned fruitfulness of natural law, have shown significant sympathy with the attitude of the new natural theology. Biological scientist, on the other hand, have been much more reserved." (
Belief in God in an Age of Science by John Polkinghorne, p. 11). I seem to recall hearing that elsewhere as well, but can't locate another source. It could very well be completely inaccurate, but I do notice both in reading and in conversation a greater tendency towards (even hostile) skepticism in the biological community of scientists vs. "physical scientists." Again, completely anecdotal and could be dead wrong.
I do not believe that either approach holds out much hope for those who believe in the existence gods, however.
My concern is deeper, and is similar to philosophical arguments like the "first cause" argument. Even if, like Flew, I were eventually convinced by arguments like the anthropic principle, all this would show is a creator. It would say nothing about "his" interactions in the universe, nor about afterlife, nor about souls. In which case it wouldn't mean much.
And as we have already discusses, while there remains the possibility of a meaningful soul, as far a I know there is absolutely no evidence for it.
So does evolution. It explains the "anthropic principle" far better than religion does.
I don't think you understand the anthropic principle then. First, evolution itself says nothing about first life. But even if we included that, the anthropic principle is concerned primarily with the physical properties of the universe, from its "perfect" unfolding, to the exactness of gravitational and nuclear force, to the nature of time, to particular distribution and properties of elements, and so forth. To give you some idea, in the nearly 700 pages of Barrow & Tipler's book (not the only work by far on the anthropic principle, but as far as I know the most complete) a mere 50 or so pages are devoted to biology, and often even here largely unrelated to evolution.
We should not feel surprised to find ourselves existing in this particular universe, whatever its probability.
It is only partly a matter of probability. More striking is how perfectly so many diverse systems have to co-exist and work together, from the beginning of the universe, just to make life possible. Obviously, I can't get into too much detail here, but although I am not quite convinced by it all, I find it quite a powerful argument.
But the fact is that probability requires an understanding of the search space, and most religious arguments based on the anthropic principle strike me as resting on that rather deep pool of mental quicksand.
What literature have you read on this topic?
I get it. I'm just saying that I prefer to look at claims of medical miracles from the perspective of someone who is not already convinced that they really take place. Meier is not expertly qualified to judge claims about medical miracles.
His discussion of Lourdes is an excursus in one of his volumes on the Historical Jesus. The premise behind the books is stated at the beginning of each: "Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic- all honest historians cognizant of the 1st-century religious movements- were locked up in the bowels of the Harvard Divinity School library, put on a spartan diet, and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was..."
His volumes are just such an attempt, and as such he often holds himself to conclusions he doesn't agree with and run counter to his faith, because his attempt is to find a consensus view.
His point in mentioning Lourdes is to find a way to explain how to look at the miracles in the NT from a modern perspective. Some people believe; others don't. The point, however, is not that if a medical case at Lourdes went unsolved it is a miracle, but that some will view it as a miracle and others won't. The event happened, miraculous or note. Likewise, just because followers of Jesus believed he performed miracles doesn't mean he did, but it also doesn't mean the events themselves never happened.
All of those claimed miracles, I believe, are well within the realm of science to explain.
I'm not saying they aren't. Simply that after review no explanation could be found.
Just claims about unexpected remissions of cancer and the like. And I thank you for your link to the Wikipedia page on the
Lourdes Medical Bureau. I noted that that particular organization is fully funded and controlled by the Catholic Church.
There are two groups, the initial investigators (whatever doctors are around), and then International International Medical Committee of Lourdes, which is composed of both believers and non-believers, but all doctors.
In theory, the Church allows atheist doctors to become members, but all members are required to wear a badge having on it a red cross inscribed with the slogan "Credo" ("I believe" in Latin).
I know latin. I also know that ambulances have the rod of Ascelpius on them, and that the cute little car an ex-girlfriend of mine was the official vehicle of the nazi party, and that atheist marines still have to talk about god, country corps. There are plenty of examples of people working in places where they have to wear emblems they don't believe in, recite mottos or creeds they don't follow, or are just unaware of the symbols they display.
In reality, the Church is not known as a disinterested party in the question of medical miracles attributed to its holy sites and relics. If it funds and controls an organization, that organization will produce the results it expects.
From Wiki: (did you read this part, or did you find contradictory evidence elsewhere)?
"To ensure claims of cures were examined properly and to protect the town from fraudulent claims of miracles, the
Lourdes Medical Bureau (Bureau Medical) was established at the request of
Pope Pius X. It is completely under medical and not ecclesiastical supervision. Approximately 7000 people have sought to have their case confirmed as a
miracle, of which only 68 have been declared a scientifically inexplicable miracle by both the Bureau and the Catholic Church"
