Atheism and Theism 15so on the phenomenal level we can pursue science without any danger of
religious or a priori metaphysical conflict with it. Such metaphysics is in a way
impressive but is in the end absurd, since multiplicity is evident in the very
propositions we use to state it.
The upshot of this brief look at various sorts of pantheism and near
pantheism is, I suggest, that the only obviously plausible form of it is the
minimalist one, that pantheism differs from ordinary atheism only in that the
pantheist expresses certain emotions towards the universe that the atheist
does not. Ontologically there is no difference between such a pantheist and
a pure atheist. One may mildly object, however, to the way in which certain
scientists in their popular writings often use theistic language in a way that
confuses the issue. (Stephen Hawking’s ‘The mind of God’, repeated by Paul
Davies in the title of a book,^23 and even Einstein’s ‘God does not play dice’,
though I think that it is quite clear that Einstein^24 on the various occasions in
which he used the word ‘God’ was expressing only the minimal form of
pantheism.) This use of theistic language by scientists has something in com-
mon with the way in which certain Anglican theologians have used Christian
terminology to express an essentially sceptical theological position.
5 Fine Tuning and the Anthropic Cosmological Principle
The so-called anthropic cosmological principle entered into recent discus-
sions among certain cosmologists and philosophers because of what seems
to be a fortunate and a priori improbable ‘fine tuning’ of some of the funda-
mental constants of nature. I am of course using the words ‘fine tuning’
metaphorically to point to the important and improbable relations between
the constants of nature without which stars, planets and life would be impos-
sible. I do not use the words so as to imply the existence of design and a ‘Fine
Tuner’. This last theistic hypothesis would be a further inference, the merits
of which will be considered below. In discussing the relations between funda-
mental constants of physics we have to be concerned with pure numbers. For
example, if we say that the mass of an electron is of the order of 9 × 10 −^31
kilograms we are not talking about a pure number, because the number
depends partly on the arbitrary convention of measuring mass in kilograms.
However, when we say that the ratio of the mass of the proton to that of the
electron is 1836 we are referring to a pure number. Our statement is true
whatever the units in which we measure mass. The number 1836 would be
as familiar to a physicist in Alpha Centauri or wherever as it is to the terres-
trial physicist. In fact, trying to get into communication with extraterrestrials
would involve sending such numbers as 1836. This would of course depend
on sending clues to an arithmetical notation. ‘.. + ... =.... .’ and things like