The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP)
The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP)
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.9
The guiding principle of Enlightenment philosophy in its dealings with science is as given by Richard Lewontin above. God is ruled out a priori. It is a key tenet of Enlightenment thinking that religious speculation does not produce knowledge. Hence any theory of origins—no matter how complicated, convoluted, or counterintuitive—is to be preferred.
The initial response is to form a different interpretation of the Anthropic Principle. One starts with Carter's original formulation, now widely referred to as the “Weak” version:
The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The universe will be observed to be amenable to the existence of observers because otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Philosopher Richard Swinburne has offered a refutation of the viability of the WAP by itself.10 Suppose I am put up against a wall to be executed by firing squad. I close my eyes; 12 rifles, aimed by expert marksmen, fire. I am still alive. What is the best explanation for my continued good health? Should I be satisfied with the WAP as an explanation? Or is it more likely I am popular with the firing squad?
Why do lotteries prevent their officials (and families) from participating? The probability of skullduggery is thought to be higher than the probability that a relative can win by pure chance. Clearly WAP is true but unhelpful. An atheist view needs something more. Hence the addition of Many Worlds to the WAP. This dual formulation is referred to as the Strong Anthropic Principle.