The Human Question

More important is the fact that our species is centered upon the universe.

1. When arguing against the anthropic principle, he accuses its adherents (quoting Dawkins) to carbon chauvinism.  That is, not being open to the possible that there exist other, non-carbon-based life forms.  But the anthropic principle does not pretend to establish that only one kind of life exists: it simply establishes that any form of life would be impossible if not for the fine tuning of the universe.  This argument by Shermer is a non-sequitur. 2. He argues against the uniqueness of this world, saying there may be multiverses, etc. Well, where does he think the burden of proof lies regarding this controversy?  Does he place the same light burden of proof on those who say what he wants to hear? 3. He points out that humans are not the center because there may be other rational organisms.  Okay, so the universe is not homosapiocentric: is that a big deal?  For the purposes of theism, it would be very sufficient if--at some future date--an even more ...

That's what my mum says when both alternatives seem unfair. Shermer first points out that humanity is not the center of the universe, as was pointed out by Copernicus, and THEN points out that most of the universe (temporally and spatially) is inhospital to life.  These two statements are certainly mutually consistent.  But the additional premise one would in each case add in order to draw a conclusion opposed to the anthropic principle might not be so consistent.  For the (non-controversial) claim that we are not the center of the universe is made in opposition the pre-Copernican claim that we are at the center.  So in order for the pre-Copernican view to be valid , the earth would have to be surrounded by the non-living remainder of the cosmos.  But if that is the case, then Shermer will object that most of the universe (i.e., that which surrounds us) is not living). In other words, no matter how the universe is arranged, Shermer will take that arrangement...

Michael Shermer first criticizes the ID/creationist crowd for committing the fallacy of false dilemma (although he doesn't use that name exactly), and THEN he asks us to chose between methodological naturalism and methodological supernaturalism.

We both consider the ETI (extra-terrestrial intelligence) possibility integral to our reasoning about God.  He argues that if a sufficiently advanced ETI were to appear, then we would think of it as divine. What is much more worth pointing out is that classical theism argues for the existence of a being that is infinitely greater than any possible ETI or angel. Time to hit the books, Mike!