[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
Statistically (it appears) any conceivable universes in which any 
kind of life or intelligence could emerge appear to need physical 
constants, laws and boundary conditions very close to those we already observe.

[Arlo]
See, that's the problem, Ian. "Any kind of life"? On what are we 
basing that? On our narrow understanding and view of "life" based on 
what we have observed? Even our speculations are limited by this. And 
great square minds try and try and try to hypothesize about the 
nature of the sphere, but it just can't be done. The only square that 
was able to see the sphere was one who was forced to confront it 
because he experienced it. Again, my problem is the language of 
certainty flowing from two back-to-back hypotheticals.

To say, "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support life" is the 
sort of arrogant presumption I just can't take.

To say (and maybe you are), "we assume that life must be out there, 
because life is here, and we assume that based on our current 
understanding of the forms 'life' may take that the cosmos has to be 
the way it is for this 'life' to exist, then it seems to us based on 
these assumptions that the cosmos may be perfectly balanced to 
support life" is something I have absolutely no trouble with.

Because if we change the variables and "life as we conceive it" does 
not exist, I'd put my money on our conceptions being limited rather 
than the need for the cosmos to be as it is to support any life.

So we can do all these theoretical models and speculation about 
"life" until we are purple, but until we have more actual experience 
with the "forms life may take" I'm not quite sure what the point of 
all this is? What's the hoopla here? Is the foundation here some sort 
of need for "intelligent design"? Are we looking for "God's Hand"?

You say this is not about some type of "sentient teleology", but 
let's take the AP and run with it. Let's say that of all the possible 
permutations and variances the cosmos could have unfolded, this is 
the ONLY one, precisely as it is, that can support life-intelligence 
of any kind. Let's say we know that with the absolute definity of a 
God's Eye View. What does that mean for you? What do we take from that?

Now let's run the other way. Let's say that "life-intelligence" in 
some form or another that may be beyond our ability to conceive will 
exist in ANY permutation of the cosmos. Let's say we know this with 
God's Certainty as well. What would you take from this?

Fundamentally, what is the difference here?