Reddit reviews The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks)

• Origin of the universe. Hundreds of years ago when people believe in an eternal universe, you could probably justify your belief that there is no God. But now I think the case becomes weaker. The universe does have a point of beginning (this also applies to the multiverse if it exists). We can't seem to see beyond that point. We hit singularities and the rules of physics that we depend on everyday in our lives do not work anymore. The universe cannot create itself and it cannot come out of nothing. I recommend this very interesting video that discusses how it makes perfect sense for God to coexist with a universe that is like that (the author is an ex-agnostic).
  
  
• Origin of life. "Abiogenesis" research is currently very thin. The last slightly notable thing we have is from 60 years ago. In an interview with a researcher working on this (can find the link if you wish) he says that regarding the chemicals that are inside the cell, we have all of it. We want to "push the ON button" to make the cell breathe and reproduce but no one has any idea how to achieve that.
  
  
• Even if you do have life it is statistically impossible for the human genome to be assembled by evolution only. Probability is from 4^-180^110000 to 4^-360^110000 (this calculation was done in [this] (http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474) book)
  
  
• Our universe is fine tuned for life but it could have been not. And rebutting this with the multiverse commits the inverse gamblers fallacy.
  
  
• The moral law. This is from mere christianity by CS Lewis: "If I find someone drowning and asking for help I have two insticts: one is to help him and the other one to survive. But there is a third something that tells me to supress my survival instict and go help the one drowning. This third something cannot be an instict itself, it is something else." And in the book he says that a common reply to that is "we just learn the moral law in schools and from parents, etc.." but he says that just because we learn it doesn't mean it was made up. We learn mathematics and absolute truths but they're not made up. 2+2 is 4. This isn't made up. If it weren't ever discovered it would still be true! He argues that the moral law is an absolute as well. In order to keep this brief, I highly recommend watching [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow) (and reading the book, it's great!)
  
  
• Thousands of years ago people thought of an afterlife and looked forward to it. Ancient Egyptians went to great lengths for that belief. But where did that strong belief come from? If we are products of the material universe why don't we feel like we are part of it? Why do we think that there is something beyond? Even though my mind is strongly convinced of God, if I put that aside, I still find my 'guts' telling me "God exists!".
  
  
• An unaused cause and a prime mover is a very logical concept. Logic dictates an uncaused cause. Previously we thought it was the universe but now it is very hard to hold on to that belief.
  
  -------------------------------------------
  
  
• As for Christianity, the historicity of Jesus is not as you make it at all. In fact the people who argue that Jesus never existed are usually compared to the people that say we never went to the moon. Even non-Christian historians acknowledge this. We know historically without the Bible that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The "Christ-Myth theory" is of the 19th century. There is no such claims before that. Arguing that Jesus never existed is arguing that the most famous man of mankind is a myth. It is arguing that the man we use his birthday to determine which year we are in to this day is a myth. It is insane to believe that.
  
  
• Treating the gospels as biased do not make any sense to me. When unbelievers ask for "unbiased" sources for Jesus being divine they are asking for something impossible. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone who isn't a Christian would believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected on the third day. I also find it unreasonable to reject the traditional authors of the gospels just because the oldest manuscripts of the books do not have their name on it. There were no disputes over gospel authorship back then and the church's tradition was always consistent about the authors.
  
  
• Most of the disciples of Jesus died for their beliefs. We don't see them achieveing any fame, money, or statue for their beliefs. It would be insane to die for a story that they themselves made up and knew to be false.
  
  
• The unbroken line of tradition that goes back to the 1st century.
  
  
• Finally, the Christian worldview fits very well with reality. I do find myself more comfortable with sin than walking the right path. I do find myself unable to escape this on my own no matter how hard I try. And I do find freedom and a new heart in Christ.
  
  There are probably more points I forgot to mention, but that's mostly it.

This brief video cites a number of prominent physicists who weigh in on the idea. Here is Roger Penrose talking about it. If you want something more involved, here is a book: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

I don't know if a poll has ever been taken to see how significant believers are from unbelievers, but from the literature I've read on the subject it seems to break down by discipline.

According to mathematical physicists and cosmologists Frank Tipler and John Borrow in their classic The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, extraterrestrial life is statistically improbable, and they've pointed out that advocates for SETI (for example) are typically astronomers and physicists, whereas many biologists including esteemed researchers like Ernst Mayr, G.G. Simpson, Peter Douglas Ward, and Leonard Ornstein had/have been very skeptical of the arguments for extraterrestrial life.

More recently, astrophysicist Edwin Turner and David Spiegel found that, while not discounting the existence of alien life completely, expectations are more likely to be built on optimism than evidence. You can read about their study here: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/52/89I01/

In my opinion, it makes sense that believers/unbelievers would break down by discipline. A man or woman who grew up on Star Trek and Dune becomes passionate about far away planets and life on those planets and due in large part to that passion become astronomers. A biologist, on the other hand, who may or may not be a sci-fi fan may have the ability to distance themselves a bit and see the broader picture.

I also believe that people in general have an innate desire to believe that they're part of something bigger than themselves. That this isn't all there is. I'm reminded of that old Peggy Lee song Is That All There Is?

No, you don't have to be insane not to believe in any alien intelligent life. According to mathematical physicists and cosmologists Frank Tipler and John Borrow in their classic The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, extraterrestrial life is statistically improbable, and they've pointed out that advocates for SETI are typically astronomers and physicists, whereas many biologists including folks like Ernst Mayr, G.G. Simpson, Peter Douglas Ward, and Leonard Ornstein have been very skeptical of the arguments for extraterrestrial life.

regarding the improbability of mutation:

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474

Regarding extrapolating "microevolution" to "macroevolution".

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

From the above article, direct quote from Professor James M Tour (Ph.D, Synthetic Chemistry, Purdue University):

> I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question?

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2640607?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102531627637

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00437.x/abstract

Here, a scientist tries to make a case for how microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution, something that would be unnecessary if the scientific community believed this to already be true. He admits:

> A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.

• Amazon link
  
• Google Books

well said. Have you read this book? I just got it, need to find the time to read it... http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474