Anthropic principle
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The <b>anthropic principle</b> is a [[teleologic]] argument used most often to counter arguments for [[intelligent design]]. Those who believe in ID often argue that the multiple contingencies required for us to have come into existence are tenuous, therefore there must have been a design or plan. The anthropic principle counters that since we are here, any arguments of contingencies are irrelevant--we are already here, so the universe must be adequate for our existence, otherwise we should not be having such a dull argument. | The <b>anthropic principle</b> is a [[teleologic]] argument used most often to counter arguments for [[intelligent design]]. Those who believe in ID often argue that the multiple contingencies required for us to have come into existence are tenuous, therefore there must have been a design or plan. The anthropic principle counters that since we are here, any arguments of contingencies are irrelevant--we are already here, so the universe must be adequate for our existence, otherwise we should not be having such a dull argument. | ||
| − | It ID argument from contingencies is an example of [[begging the question]]. We do not know if changing any physical constants in the universe would render life impossible. | + | It ID argument from contingencies is an example of [[begging the question]]. We do not know if changing any physical constants in the universe would render life impossible. The anthropic argument counters this idea, but it is flawed. |
Revision as of 15:51, 25 November 2007
The anthropic principle is a teleologic argument used most often to counter arguments for intelligent design. Those who believe in ID often argue that the multiple contingencies required for us to have come into existence are tenuous, therefore there must have been a design or plan. The anthropic principle counters that since we are here, any arguments of contingencies are irrelevant--we are already here, so the universe must be adequate for our existence, otherwise we should not be having such a dull argument.
It ID argument from contingencies is an example of begging the question. We do not know if changing any physical constants in the universe would render life impossible. The anthropic argument counters this idea, but it is flawed.
The argument was explained from the point of view of a puddle by Douglas Adams:
- This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' [1]