Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1931

Good Riddance to a Public School Teacher Who Couldn’t Keep His Religious Beliefs to Himself

John Osborne (below) has finally decided to quit teaching, and it’s about damn time.

The history teacher had worked at Sequoyah High School in Canton, Georgia for 13 years, but he decided to leave when he realized that his classroom was not a substitute for church and that he wouldn’t be allowed to talk about Jesus:

On Friday, he told the principal he had enough with the districts politics and put in his leave. He was frustrated that he couldn’t talk to his students about God and Jesus Christ.

“I teach world history so there is a lot of talk about religion and really all I want is equality to talk about everything in America including Christianity,” Osborne said.

…

CBS46′S Mike Paluska asked Osborne if he would be willing to return to the school and teach only the curriculum and not talk about religion.

“No. it is who I am,” Osborne said. “I am not apologizing for that ever, and I won’t do that.”

Yeah, he wants “equality” as if he’s not getting it already… He’s welcome to talk about religion. But that’s not what he wants to do. He wants special privilege to promote his religion. That’s not the district’s “politics.” That’s the law.

(Does anyone really think Osborne would support atheist and Muslim and Wiccan and Pagan teachers who wanted to preach to their students, too? So much for equality…)

As far as we know, he’s always been treated like all teachers — the classroom isn’t a place for them to discuss their political and religious views. He blatantly violated those rules and expected to get away with it because he’s a Christian. No surprise there.

He may have been a great teacher in other ways but that’s not the issue in question. He broke the rules once before, in 2012, and was given a brief suspension. It’ll happen again if he continues preaching. He can’t deal with that. So he left before they punished him.

Good for him. That’s exactly what needed to happen.

There are plenty of Christian teachers out there who are extremely devout. The vast majority of them understand that proselytizing has no place in school and they do the job they were hired to do. I have no idea why Osborne is unable to contain himself, but he’s showing us why he’s better suited for a job in a church or a private Christian school. (He’s considering becoming a youth pastor, which seems appropriate.)

What really doesn’t make any sense to me is why students are protesting. Osborne made this decision on his own, not because anyone forced him to do it. And even if the school did eventually punish him for preaching, they wouldn’t have been doing anything wrong. The fact that the students don’t seem to understand that is evidence that they should be going to their government classes instead of defending a teacher who’s willfully breaking the law (and one that makes perfect sense, no less).

Despite Pressure, Allegheny County Council (PA) Votes Against “In God We Trust” Display in Courthouse

The Allegheny County Council in Pennsylvania was considering putting up an “In God We Trust” display in the County Courthouse this week.

Councilwoman Sue Means (below), the evangelical Christian who pushed for it, felt confident she had the eight votes she needed to pass the proposal, despite a local newspaper calling it a “misplaced motto” and Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald saying he would veto the measure if it was passed.

With a 15-member council, Means needed 10 votes to override his veto.

I’m happy to say she didn’t get 10 votes.

She didn’t even get the eight she needed.

The final vote was 8-6 against putting up the display (with one absence).

Shortly after the vote, county Executive Rich Fitzgerald issued a statement commending council’s decision.

“I am pleased that Allegheny County will continue to be a community that welcomes diverse populations with different viewpoints and ways of life,” he said. “This vote makes it clear that all people, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or belief system, are welcome here.”

…

After the vote, Ms. Means said she was disappointed by the outcome.

“I really thought I had the eight votes,” she said.

I guess Jesus just wasn’t on her side…

But this is a big deal. It isn’t often that a city council says no to a display like this. They listened to the citizens who wanted to keep government neutral instead of the demagogues who wanted to use their political powers to push their faith. Just listen to what the majority said:

“Whenever we start mixing [church and state], there’s going to be some problems,” said councilman Michael Finnerty, D-Scott.

Councilman Jim Ellenbogen, D-Banksville, described himself as a “person of strong faith,” but he said he does not want to see the national motto prominently placed in the Gold Room of the courthouse, where council meets.

“Putting it on that wall does nothing to make us a better council,” he said.

Councilwoman Barbara Daly Danko, D-Regent Square, said the legislative body had better things it could be doing.

“We shouldn’t do this,” she said.

…

Democrat Charles Martoni of Swissvale, a sponsor of the bill, voted against it.

“The more I looked at it, it’s unnecessary,” he said after the meeting.

Thank you, council members. (Well, the eight of you.) You did the right thing even though it wasn’t necessarily the popular thing. That’s the hallmark of a responsible, respectable politician.

Let’s hope other local governments follow in their footsteps.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

Canadian Family Faces Deportation Back to Cameroon, Which Could Result in Forced Female Circumcisions

When Hilary Fuh-Cham and his wife Yvette Fuh-Cham left Cameroon in 2007, they were hoping to find a permanent home in Canada. But despite two of their kids being born in the country, they still haven’t been granted refugee status — and they may be deported by next month.

The problem with that?

When [Hilary] Fuh-Cham had to take up the role of sub-chief after his father’s death, it meant the women in his family had to undergo circumcisions and other practices they staunchly opposed, he said.

Thankfully, the local Catholic church, to which the family belongs, is taking up their case:

Their cause is being taken up by the Saint Jean Brebeuf parish in Lasalle.

“To my mind it’s like persecuted by the government, the federal government,” said Father Gerry Martineau, the pastor of the church.

…

“People are actually somewhat shocked,” said Laura Whelton, who directs the choir.

“Knowing that the situation when he returns to Cameroon for he and his family.”

Sean McGuire reached out to the church to see if there’s anything atheists can do to help. Right now, there’s a rudimentary website set up on behalf of the family where you can get information to send a letter to the nation’s leaders and find out about upcoming rallies. There may be a petition going up soon, too.

Sean writes:

In my e-mail to the church parishioners, I pointed out that although I rarely see eye-to-eye with them — running an atheist blog and all! — I do believe we can be allies in this cause to save a family from being victimized by these horrible forced circumcisions. Forced female genital mutilation on this poor woman and these little children — surely we can find some common ground there!

Right on. I wish the church members the best with their efforts.

I’ll Be Speaking Near Baltimore This Saturday and in Boise Next Week

Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be speaking at two public events about the experiences of young atheists. All the details are below. Both events are free (though donations to the organizations are always welcome)!

Who: Periyar International of Washington D.C.
Where: Elkridge Branch Library in Elkridge, Maryland (near Baltimore)
When: Saturday, Sept. 13 at 2:30p.
RSVP: Please send an email here if you’d like to attend.

Who: Boise State University Secular Student Alliance
Where: Boise, Idaho (Jordan B Ballroom in the SUB)
When: Saturday, Sept. 20 at 7:00p.

Hope to see you there! Other upcoming events are listed here.

Thailand’s New Prime Minister Believes in Feng Shui, Holy Water, and Black Magic

Prayuth Chan-ocha (below), the Thai army officer who led a military coup against the government earlier this year, handpicked his legislature, and was (surprise!) unanimously chosen by them to be the country’s new Prime Minister last month, isn’t exactly a great role model.

Stepping away from how he obtained office, his belief in superstitious bullshit makes U.S. politicians seem almost secular in comparison:

Like many politicians and generals before him, Prayuth believes in spiritualism and divination and on Monday members of his entourage were seen carrying Buddha statues and religious idols thought to bring luck in to Government House.

But his beliefs go beyond conventional religion, and last week, Prayuth told an audience of dousing himself from head to toe in holy water as his enemies had tried to curse him.

…

Furniture in Prayuth’s designated office has been arranged according to the principles of feng shui, a Chinese form of geomancy or belief that the universe is made up of five elements — earth, water, fire, wood and metal.

“Prayuth’s work table has been placed in the east of the work room as this is thought to aid quick solutions,” a prime ministerial aide, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to media, told Reuters.

Good luck, Thailand. In everything. You’re going to need it.

(Image via Wikipedia. Thanks to Scott for the link)

Huntington (West Virginia) Mayor Finds a Silver Bullet to Fixing Substance Abuse Problem: Prayer

This is a guest post written by Rachel Ford. She regularly blogs at Rachel’s Hobbit Hole.

…

Huntington (West Virginia) mayor Steve Williams (below) has discovered the silver bullet against drug addiction: prayer. In a video, originally sent to friends and pastors, the mayor laid out his plan.

People say, he notes, that there is…

… not a silver bullet [for combating substance abuse], but I really don’t believe that. There’s one area that I haven’t seen that there’s been a concerted effort within the Tri-State community, and that’s what I wanted to chat with you about. What I’m wanting to ask you is if you would join all the churches within the Tri-State on one day in September, one Sunday in September, and have your church, during your Sunday services, participate in prayer with all the other churches, all the other congregations throughout the Tri-State area…

The video garnered a considerable amount of attention after its production. The Charleston Daily Mail reports that it:

… has since gone viral with more than 1 million combined hits on the video website Vimeo and YouTube, according to the latest report the mayor received from Trifecta Productions’ Joe Murphy, who recorded the video.

This past Sunday, the mayor’s plan came to fruition.

It was a full house at [Mayor Williams'] Fifth Avenue Baptist Church Sunday when worshipers joined countless other congregations in a prayer to stop substance abuse and the pain it leaves in its wake.

Now, while the mayor’s goals are laudable — “recovery” for those dealing with substance abuse, “protection” for the community’s “law enforcement officers,” and intervention on behalf of the drug dealers to stop them from preying on the vulnerable — relying on a fictional solution to a real problem isn’t going to solve anything. Williams does note that the community is attempting other solutions, but he also mentions in his video that he “can’t imagine the power that would be unleashed” by congregations joining in prayer on the topic. He seems to think prayer is a not only a genuine solution, but the best solution:

I’ve come to understand and experience how powerful prayer can be personally in my life and certainly what I’ve observed within my administration and how we’re going about doing business.

There doesn’t appear to be a church/state violation here since Williams wasn’t using any city resources to make his announcement, though you have to wonder why Williams mentioned the power of prayer in terms of “how we’re going about doing [the city's] business.”

No word yet on how the prayers’ effectiveness will be measured.

(Thanks to Virginia for the link)

“God Loves Gays” Billboard Goes Up Near Westboro Baptist Church

After raising more than $80,000 online, Facebook God finally had this billboard put up right next to Westboro Baptist Church — and it’ll be there through March:

The extra money will be used for bus ads and donations to the National Alliance to End Homelessness and The Trevor Project.

God told Mashable:

“For far too long, nasty humans have made God sound like a bigoted jerk… When really, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m super loving!”

Well, those “nasty humans” were probably just quoting the Bible… and part of me wants to scream “citation needed” regarding the billboard’s message, but I’ll let that slide. It’s a great idea and WBC has already responded on Twitter. (One tweet encouraged people to vandalize the billboard by using the hashtag #TagEm, but that account appears to be suspended now.)

Sometimes, the Internet isn’t such an awful place…

(Thanks to Scott for the link)

Two Very Different Takes on the Phrase “So Help Me God”

This is a guest post written by Rachel Ford. She regularly blogs at Rachel’s Hobbit Hole.

…

The news that an atheist airman refused to sign an oath that contained the words “so help me God” last month, and was subsequently denied reenlistment, has drawn some interesting responses. Among others, Law Professor Eugene Volokh and former United States Congressman Allen West have weighed in. Their takes are so profoundly different as to provide a useful study in contrasts.

For his part, West celebrates the news with a “Hallelujah!” and calls it “good tidings”:

I know there are times when you might feel there’s no good news — especially when it comes to contending with groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) or the oxymoronic Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). It does seem as though the secular humanists are winning, but sometimes there is hope.

Needless to say, this hope comes in the form of compelling non-believers to pledge to something in which they do not believe. Because, according to West,

The United States of America is based on a Judeo-Christian faith heritage and those beliefs form the fundamental moral and legal core of our country… Service in the United States military is voluntary and its members take an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution. That being the case, to whom should an oath or a pledge be rendered?

West is “sure” that some atheists still took the oath (indeed, taking the pledge is “what Americans do”) and is quite pleased with the prospect of forcing non-believers to swear to a belief they do not hold. He mostly ignores precedents against compelling affirmations of belief from non-believers. His chief counter to this is so curious as to deserve a mention of its own:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t we swear court witnesses to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God”?

Spoiler alert: we don’t. But we’ll get back to that in a minute.

Meanwhile, in his article yesterday, Volokh tackled the same point, from a vastly different (and, dare I say, fact based?) perspective. He demonstrated that a non-theistic affirmation is indeed allowed by law:

So 10 U.S.C. § 502 expressly says that each person may swear or affirm. Likewise, 1 U.S.C. § 1 expressly says that an oath includes an affirmation. And an affirmation means precisely a pledge without reference to a supreme being. Given this context, it seems to me quite clear that “So help me God” in the statute should be read as an optional component, to be used for the great bulk of people who swear, but should be omitted for those who exercise their expressly statutorily provided option to affirm — because that’s what affirming means (omitting reference to a supreme being).

Volokh also notes that the Constitution “has a thing or two to say on such matters” — not least of all, that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Furthermore, the Constitution continually recognizes affirmation as a valid alternative to oaths — including providing an alternative to swearing the presidential Oath of Office, allowing for a president to “solemnly swear (or affirm).”

But Volokh isn’t finished there. He returns to West’s contention that witnesses must be sworn in with reference to a God — and demonstrates how utterly wrong he was on that point as well.

Witnesses routinely have the option of affirming as well as swearing; see, for instance, Fed. R. Evid. 603, or in Rep. West’s home state of Florida, Fla. Evid. Code 90.605,

Before testifying, each witness shall declare that he or she will testify truthfully, by taking an oath or affirmation in substantially the following form: “Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

It’s worth noting that the former congressman was informed of similar instances by several of his own readers in his comments section (indeed, there were a surprising number of atheist commenters who took umbrage with his “good tidings”).

At any rate, the vast disconnect between these two perspectives is instructive. And it seems the lawmaker could certainly stand to take a class or two in law…

You Have to Hear This Atheist’s Off-the-Cuff Speech Urging Missouri Officials to Reject “In God We Trust” Signs

A few weeks ago, I posted about how the members of the Ballwin Board of Aldermen in Missouri were thinking about putting up “In God We Trust” displays on all city-owned buildings. The Holy Infant Knights of Columbus had pledged $750 to make that happen.

During the “Citizen Comments” portion of the Board’s meeting last night, atheist Nikki Moungo felt compelled to speak. She didn’t have much prepared — just a few notes — but her off-the-cuff, impassioned plea for the aldermen to reconsider the idea was absolutely incredible to watch. The transcript is below. (You may need to turn up the volume on the video. I promise you it’s worth it.)

Nikki Moungo (center) speaking to the crowd

Moungo outed herself as an atheist to the crowd before explaining why she was fighting this battle on behalf of her children. And there was even a surprise at the end of her impromptu speech.

I guess, first off, I’d like to say you’re all looking at an atheist. This is what an atheist looks like. I don’t eat babies. I don’t drink blood. My children are being raised as Naturalists. We look to science, reason — my son was scouted by Caltech.

I want to let you know that I’m a Daughter of the American Revolution. I was raised on history by grandparent teachers who taught for over 40 years. I had it beat into me what this country was built on, what it was for. During the Cold War, my grandfather was a science teacher in junior high. At that point in time, when the U.S. government changed the Pledge of the United States and put in “In God We Trust,” my grandfather would stand every day with his class, but he wouldn’t recite. He was the treasurer of his Baptist church. He thought that this was wrong then. And I know he would say, Mr. [Joe] Strange [of the Knights of Columbus], his suggestion, is wrong now. And Mr. Strange’s argument that “In God We Trust” is already on our money is a logical fallacy. I would direct you to Appeal [to] Tradition. Two wrongs are not going to make a right…

This sign that’s behind you guys — Ballwin: Bringing People Together… The idea of putting signs like this ["In God We Trust"] in city government buildings is not going to bring Ballwin together. This is going to create more exclusivity, not including all of the citizens.

I have an interracial family. We have many people of different beliefs. We have gay and lesbian relatives. We all get together and there’s no problem because we’ve all accepted and embraced our diversity. Such a sign… that I would have to come here for court and have my children look at when they’ve been raised that we’re all equal… in the eyes of the government? [The "In God We Trust" sign is] not teaching them the values that they were raised with.

In light of what happened in Ferguson, I think it’s very important for city officials to look at the diversity that exists in the communities and have respect for them, for all the citizens. We have friends and neighbors that are Muslim. We have friends and neighbors that are Jewish. Unless you’re going to put up signs that endorse Allah and Buddha and everybody, it’s not being inclusive. It’s hurting the residents. And it’s only going to help one particular subset of residents. That is exclusionary practice when I believe inclusivity is the key. What happened in Ferguson, this was a diversity problem that had not been recognized. Doing something like this is going to create a problem where, right now, none exists… so to me, it’s inviting trouble. It’s asking for exclusionary conflict. And I can’t embody that.

I have children who were born and raised here, and I always told them this is a great town. If you want to make changes, you go down and you tell your local government. You vote. So that’s why they’re here with me today… Because they need to see, they need to know, that they have a voice… I’m sorry, this is just very emotional for me…

I would like to pledge a check for $1,000 to the city of Ballwin, that instead of erecting a sign, anywhere, about “In God We Trust,” I would like to use the original motto, E pluribus unum, before it was perverted during the Cold War.

… I hope you guys accept this. It’s right here. If you want to put up “E pluribus unum,” you got my money. If you want to put up “In God We Trust,” then it will be a fight I’m ready to take on. I know it’s lost everywhere, but that doesn’t mean that I will not not fight it. This is my kids’ lives. This is their town. And they deserve to be included as much as Christian children do…

[Pointing at herself] This is an atheist. I’m a nice person. I do charity work. I work downtown… I don’t judge people. I accept everyone. I’m tolerant. And I’d like to see the Ballwin city government exercise tolerance as well.

Thank you.

Wow.

She wasn’t kidding about that check either. The one she’s holding up in the video isn’t a prop. (Take that, Knights of Columbus!)

I will say that the Ferguson analogy isn’t really the best fit, and “E pluribus unum” wasn’t actually our country’s official motto, but nitpicking those things is sidestepping the point. We’re so used to hearing atheists make scripted speeches in front of government officials — usually with secular invocations — that this is a breath of fresh air. For me, it’s much more powerful.

The Aldermen haven’t voted on the displays yet. But when they eventually get around to it, I hope they remember Nikki’s speech and reject the Christian signs altogether.

The Problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument: An Excerpt from Victor Stenger’s Last Book God and the Multiverse

Before he suddenly died two weeks ago, Dr. Victor J. Stenger was cranking out large books every year, tackling topics both large (the universe) and small (atoms).

His final book (as far as we know) is officially released today. It’s called God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos and Stenger, as always, makes difficult concepts accessible to those of us without strong science backgrounds.

The excerpt below, reprinted with permission of Prometheus Books, explains and thoroughly dismantles the “fine-tuning argument.” (I’ve excluded footnotes.)

THE FINE-TUNING QUESTION

In recent years, many theologians and Christian apologists have convinced themselves and their followers that they have a knockdown, drag-out scientific argument for the existence of God. They claim that the parameters of physics are so finely tuned that if any one of these parameters were just slightly different in value, life — and especially human life — would have not been possible anywhere in the universe.

Of course, like all design arguments this is a God-of-the-gaps argument that they cannot win in principle because they can never prove conclusively that the values of these parameters cannot be natural. But they keep trying.

Assuming, on no basis whatsoever, that those parameters are independent and could have taken on any value over a wide range, they conclude that the probability of a universe with our particular set of parameters is infinitesimally small. Further assuming, on no basis whatsoever, that the probability of a divine creator is not equally infinitesimally small, they conclude that such a creator existed who fine-tuned the universe for life, particularly human life. Note that there is also no basis whatsoever to assume that this creator was the personal God worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews or the god of any major religion. A deist creator works equally well.

William Lane Craig summarized the argument this way in his 1998 debate with philosopher Massimo Pigliucci (and in other debates available on his website):

During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimate that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Just because Craig’s mind reels and he personally can’t comprehend the numbers, it does not follow that they are in fact incomprehensible to the rest of us.

I have written extensively on the subject of fine-tuning but need to cover some of it again here for completeness. I will try to bring the subject up to date without, I hope, being too repetitive. Recently I contributed a chapter arguing against fine-tuning for an Oxford University Press anthology Debating Christian Theism and will refer to some of that material. Christian philosopher Robin Collins of Messiah College presented the case for fine-tuning in an accompanying chapter. In it he criticizes a number of my previous arguments, to which I will respond here. These responses have not appeared elsewhere.

The multiverse provides a very simple, purely natural, solution to the fine-tuning problem. Suppose our universe is just one of an unlimited number of individual universes that extend for an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe that is suited for our kind of life. Our particular universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to it.

The multiverse explanation is adequate to refute fine-tuning. Note the multiverse does not need to be proved to exist to refute fine-tuning claims. It just must be plausible. Those who dispute this have the burden of proving otherwise. This they have not done.

Nevertheless, the multiverse remains unverified so it behooves us to continue to examine the credibility of the divine fine-tuning hypothesis for our single, lone universe.

In a book published in 2011 titled The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, I provided purely natural explanations for the values of the so-called fine-tuned parameters that appear most frequently in the theistic literature.

Many authors have written on fine-tuning, often misleadingly referred to as the anthropic principle, which suggests it has something to do with human beings. They insist certain parameters are fine-tuned to exquisite precision. And, by “exquisite precision,” they don’t just mean within an order of magnitude or 10 percent, or even 1 percent. Rather, they assert that some parameters must be tuned to one part in fifty to a hundred orders of magnitude for any life to be possible.

Before I get to the specific parameters that are supposedly so fine-tuned, let me say a word about my basic interpretation of their meaning. The models of physics are human constructions, and so it follows that the quantities, parameters, and “laws” that appear in these models are likewise constructed. It strikes me as somewhat incongruous to think of them as fine-tuned by God or nature. Physicists in another galaxy might have their own models with a totally different set of parameters.

Thus the parameters that are supposedly fine-tuned need not have any specific ontological significance. Of course, the models must agree with observations and so, as I have emphasized, they must have something to do with whatever objective reality is out there. They are not arbitrary, just as a landscape painting is not a random splash of colors (unless it’s by Jackson Pollock).

Let us now look at the specifics. Physicist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross lists twenty-nine “characteristics of the universe” and forty-five characteristics of the solar system “that must be fine-tuned for any kind of life to be possible.” Right off the bat this statement is incorrect. More than half of Ross’s parameters do not address life in general but life on this planet alone and, in some cases, even more particularly to human life.

The most common fallacy made by Ross and others who agree with his position is to single out the carbon-based life we have on Earth and assume that it is the only possible type of life. According to Christian belief, humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), so it is not surprising that they find it difficult to imagine other life-forms. However, with only one example available, they simply do not have the data to allow them to conclude that all other forms of life are impossible, whether based on carbon chemistry or not.

Referring to the possibility that the parameters can vary randomly, Collins asks, “Why should they give rise to precisely the right set of laws required for life?” Well, that’s the whole point. They didn’t have to be precise to lead to some form of life somewhere in this vast universe. In The Fallacy of Fine Tuning I showed that wide ranges of physical parameters could plausibly lead to conditions, such as long ages of stars, that could in principle allow for the evolution of life of one form or another.

TRIVIAL PARAMETERS

Two of the parameters that appear in most lists of fine-tuned quantities are

• the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and
• Planck’s constant, h.

As basic as these parameters are to physics, their values are arbitrary. The fundamental unit of time in physics is the second. As we saw in chapter 6, the units for all other measurable quantities in physics, except for those that are dimensionless, are defined relative to the second. The value of c is chosen to define what units will be used to measure distance. To measure distance in meters you choose c = 3 × 108. To measure distance in light-years you choose c = 1.

The value of Planck’s constant h is chosen to define what units will be used to measure energy. To measure energy in joules you choose h = 6.626 × 10-34. To measure energy in electron-volts you choose h = 4.136 × 10-15. Physicists like to work in what they call “natural units,” where ħ = h/2π = c = 1. Other arbitrary quantities that are often claimed to be fine-tuned include Boltzmann’s constant, kB, which simply converts from units of absolute temperature, degrees Kelvin, to energy, and Newton’s gravitational constant, G, which also depends on the choice of units. In Planck units, G = 1.

PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR ANY FORM OF LIFE

Less trivially, let us look at five parameters that are claimed by theists to be so finely tuned that no form of life could exist in any universe in which any of the values differed by an infinitesimal amount from their existing values in our universe. These are:

• The ratio of electrons to protons in the universe
• The ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity
• The expansion rate and mass density of the universe
• The cosmological constant

The ratio of electrons to protons in the universe

Ross asserts that if this ratio were larger, there would be insufficient chemical binding. If smaller, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation.

The fact that the ratio is exactly equal to one can be easily explained. The number of electrons in the universe should equal the number of protons from charge conservation, on the reasonable expectation that the total electric charge of the universe is zero. While there are other charged particles in the standard model, the proton and electron are the only ones that are stable.

The ratio of electromagnetic force to gravity

Ross says that if this ratio were larger, there would be no stars less than 1.4 solar masses and hence short and uneven stellar burning. If it were smaller, there would be no stars more than 0.8 solar masses and hence no heavy element production.

The ratio of the forces between two particles depends on their charges and masses. As I have already remarked, despite the statement often heard in most (if not all) physics classrooms — that gravity is much weaker than electromagnetism — there is no way one can state absolutely the relative strengths of gravity and any other force. Indeed, if one were to define the strength of gravity using the only natural mass, the Planck mass, you find that gravity is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism.

The reason gravity is so weak in atoms is the small masses of elementary particles. This can be understood to be a consequence of the standard model of elementary particles in which the bare particles all have zero masses and pick up small corrections by their interactions with other particles.

Collins misunderstands this point when he writes: “Stenger’s attempt to explain away this apparent fine-tuning [the low mass of the proton and neutron] is like someone saying protons and neutron are made up of quarks and gluons, and since the latter masses are small, this explains the smallness of the former masses.”

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position. Nowhere have I used this argument. Collins provides no direct quotation or citation. In truth, I make the very reasonable assumption, based on the standard model, that all the elementary particles (the proton and neutron are not elementary) were massless when they were first generated in the early universe. All have low masses today, compared to the Planck mass, since those masses were just small corrections provided by the Higgs mechanism. And, before Collins complains that the Higgs mechanism is another arbitrary assumption, recall that it is part of the standard model, which emerged undesigned from the symmetries of emptiness and the randomness of symmetry breaking.

The expansion rate and mass density of the universe

Ross claims that if the expansion rate of the universe, given by the Hubble parameter H, were larger, there would be no galaxy formation; if smaller, the universe would collapse prior to star formation. He also asserts that if the average mass density of the universe were larger, there would be too much deuterium from the big bang and stars would burn too rapidly. If it were smaller, there would be insufficient helium from the big bang and too few heavy elements would form.

In chapter 12, we saw that inflation results in the mass density of the universe being very close to the critical value Pc. This, in turn, implies that H also has a critical value. Only one of the two parameters is adjustable. Let’s assume it’s H.

Now, in the approximation of a linear expansion given by Hubble’s law (see chapter 8), the age of the universe is given by T = 1/H. This is currently 13.8 billion years and is hardly fine-tuned for life. Life could just as well have evolved for T = 12.8 billion years or T = 14.8 billion years. In fact, suppose T = 1.38 billion years. Then we could not have life now, but it would come along ten billion years or so later. Or, suppose T = 138 billion years. The life will have already appeared 124 or so billion years earlier.

The cosmological constant

The cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density of the vacuum and is the favorite candidate for the dark energy, which is responsible for the acceleration of the universe’s expansion — constituting over 68 percent of the total mass/energy of the universe.

We saw in chapter 13 that calculations of the energy density of the vacuum that assume it equals the zero-point energy give answers that are 50–120 orders of magnitudes larger than the maximum value allowed by observations.

Physicists have not reached a consensus on the solution to the cosmological-constant problem. Some prominent figures, such as Steven Weinberg and Leonard Susskind, think the answer lies in multiple universes. Both refer to the fact that string theory, or its more advanced version called M-theory, offers a “landscape” of perhaps 10500 different possible universes. But we have no need for such speculation.

As I pointed out in chapter 13, the original energy-density calculations incorporated a fundamental error by summing all the states in a given volume. Since the entropy of a system is given by the number of accessible states of the system, the entropy calculated by summing over the volume will be greater than the entropy of a black hole of the same size, which depends on its area rather than its volume. But since we cannot see inside a black hole, the information that we have about what is inside is as small as it can be and so the entropy is as large as it can be.

Therefore, it was a mistake to calculate the number of states by summing over the volume. Correcting this by summing over the area, or, equivalently, setting the number of states equal to the entropy of a black hole equal to the size of the volume, we can naturally constrain the vacuum energy density. This calculation yields the result that an empty universe will have a vacuum energy density about equal to the critical density, just the value it appears to have.

For technical reasons, cosmologists are not ready to accept this solution to the cosmological-constant problem. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to conclude that the original calculation is simply wrong — as far wrong as any other calculation in the history of physics — and should be ignored. In any case, don’t give up all your worldly goods and enter a monastery or convent because the cosmological constant is so small.

God and the Multiverse is available online and in bookstores beginning today.