Most of you surely know the fine-tuning argument for God: the claim that the physical constants of the Universe are such as to permit the evolution and existence of life (especially H. sapiens), and the concatention of so many salubrious constants is improbable—too coincidental to reflect anything but a Great Designer. (Its proponents claim that any alteration in these constants would make life impossible.)
This hourlong video interviews proponents and opponents of this argument for God (mostly opponents). They include philosophers, physicists, and believers. Here’s a list. Anybody whose name you recognize in the list below, save perhaps (Lennox and Craig) isn’t convinced by the argument.
Sir Roger Penrose
Sean Carroll
Alan Guth
Carlo Rovelli
Hans Halvorson
Justin Something
Chris Hitchcock
Barry Loewer
Graham Priest
Daniel Linford
Tim Maudlin
Simon Saunders
Niayesh Afshordi
Alex Malpass
Kenneth Williford
William Lane Craig
John Lennox
Abhay Ashketar
Lee Smolin
Stav Zalel
Rafael Sorkin
Nearly all the people interviewed reject the argument, largely on the grounds that we simply cannot calculate a priori what the probabilities are of the constants of nature being what they are, and there are alternative explanations for life that are purely naturalistic.
Sean Carroll makes the point that even thinking that there is fine-tuning that allows for the existence of life, that presupposes naturalism, because “God does not need the laws of physics to allow certain physical configurations to exist in order for there to be life. God is infinitely powerful; God can do whatever. The only theory under which the physical conditions need to be exactly right to allow for complex chemical reactions and biology and life and so forth, is naturalism.” I’m not quite sure about that argument, however; how do we know that God’s creation could occur unless the laws of physics were what they are? Could God really create humans in a universe with different physical constants, constants that He determines?
I do recommend watching the video; it gives you plenty of ammunition against those who wield the argument, but examines the argument from various sides, including what theological assumptions go into it. (The problem of evil is offered as a defeater for a God who would create a universe containing humans.) The arguments go further into string theory, multiverses, the cosmological constant, Boltzmann brains, and Lee Smolin’s “cosmological selection” argument for fine-tuning.
In the end, you will likely reject the fine-tuning argument (even the moderator says that there’s no justification for accepting God from this argument), but you’ll also be impressed about how much we still don’t understand about cosmology.
Is there really someone named Justin Something? (The Somethings should have named him Whatever.)
No, I couldn’t make out his last name. Maybe a reader knows it.
My guess is Justin Brierley.
Full name “Justin W. Something”?
I am reminded of my frequent companion when (re-)packing the rig bag (or rig-up tool chest, logging unit, etc …) “Mr Case”. “What is that for?” says my (generally unwitting) Straight Man™ ; “Mr Case” ; “Who?” ; “Justin” ; “?” ; “Justin Case”.
(Yes, I get “Justin Brierley” as a contributor too.)
Such a seductive idea – a sort of glass menagerie of Nature.
Thanks for the heads up on this video!
“(The problem of evil is offered as a defeater for a God who would create a universe containing humans.)”
Indeed. To absolve God of evil, any suffering and evil that exists from his creation would have to be strictly necessary. Yet, if a purely-mind-based non-material realm is possible – see: “God” – then how does it make sense this God would create physical beings who can suffer in innumerable ways, placed in a physical world which will inevitably cause them to suffer in innumerable ways?
There is simply no way that this can be seen as anything but God creating gratuitous suffering.
Even “soul-building” theodicies fall in to special pleading. One can never say trials in a realm of physical suffering is “necessary” for moral goodness, or for the existence of morally good beings, since God’s existence provides evidence against it: did God require “soul building” and all the suffering it entails in order to be Good or worthy? Obviously not.
Often the attempt to find necessity will appeal to God’s plan: God wanted a relationship with a particular type of being in a particular type of way – in this case it was necessary for that goal that beings “make themselves, to freely come to worship Him” in some crucible navigating suffering and evil. Except you can’t absolve God simply by saying the suffering was required to meet his plan. You may as well argue that it was “necessary” that the sadist torture his victim, because that is necessary to realize the sadists goals for that relationship! We immediately recognize that a Person can have “bad goals” – goals that will require or result in the gratuitous suffering of other people.
Likewise God is hardly off the hook for desiring to make beings who will only be “good” in the way He wants, through the process He wants, which is through horrendous suffering. If in God’s case there is no contradiction in being Good without having to be a physical, suffering being, then it is clearly gratuitous for God to desire that other beings suffer to become “good” or worthy of eternal existence. (And for revealed religions, it makes things like God/Jesus’ sacrifice gratuitous as well).
Which of these is better evidence of intelligent intervention?
A) A zoo. That is, animals that are clearly not well suited to their environment.
B) Animals in a wild state, in at least a “local optimum” fit to their environment?
The zoo, obviously. It couldn’t have been created without the intervention of human intelligence for a specific planned purpose (to entertain grandchildren). God forbid that God would create a zoo, though.
A fine tuned god needs a mechanic! a fucking good one, the last one was a failure.
Best take on fine-tuning: http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/helbig/research/publications/info/fortunate_universe.html
I subscribe to Sean Carroll’s point. Don’t fixate on the constants; constants are irrelevant and unnecessary to an omnipotent being.
I’m also thinking of Hitch in this connection, to wit, even if there’s a designing, fine-tuning intelligence at the start of it all, really a deistic concept, someone like William Lane Craig has all his work ahead of him to get to the Christian god.
Your second point is important. Thinking of Anselm’s argument for God and so on, even if it showed that some perfect being exists, that does not imply the existence of the Christian God.
I basically replied to the “fine tuning argument” on my YouTube channel in a video I titled “There is NO life in the universe.” The universe is not fine-tuned for life…life is impossible almost EVERYWHERE in the universe, both in space and in time. The notion that it is fine-tuned is laughable.
You are missing the point. Just recently I read someone claiming that if there is fine-tuning, then there isn’t enough of it. Leaving out God and so on, you still need fine-tuning to get any life at all, even if it is rare.
But fine-tuning does not imply the existence of God. Also, many confuse fine-tunining and low probability. Read the book the review of which I linked to above.
Actually, I address that (perhaps not overtly) in my video. It’s entirely plausible that in any universe with any laws that allow complex interactions among any brand of constituents, whether we would be able to understand them at all, there may be extremely rarefied places where interactions become complex enough to bring about replicators and some form of natural selection. We have no way of knowing how rare this would be, assuming that different laws of physics are even possible, but given how readily complexity seems to form in many places in our universe, it doesn’t seem that it should be any more uncommon than here. Not that that’s saying much. There’s certainly no reason to come to the conclusion that one needs fine tuning for there to be any life at all. The universe is no more fine tuned to create life than it was fine-tuned to create Pluto. In other universes, some other apparently fine-tuning-required things would happen.
I read the book review. Its a good and thoughtful review, but I don’t see how that could convince anyone unless they are already convinced and are simply looking for hand-waving affirmation.
In my opinion, the best response to the so-called fine-tuning argument for G is this one:
Under Naturalism, the only type of universe we can expect to observe is one in which the physical conditions are compatible with our existence. Thus, if Naturalism is true, it is not surprising to observe that our universe is characterized by physical conditions that are compatible with our existence. On the contrary, what would be surprising is if we found the physical universe to be incompatible with our existence. That scenario would seem to call out for some kind of ‘magical’ or ‘supernatural’ explanation!
For a Bayesian analysis along these lines, see:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/super.cfm;
That is known as the weak Anthropic Principle, and is trivially true. The question is whether the question whether such a universe is in some way unlikely is an interesting and/or meaningful question.
Douglas Adams expressed it in entertaining terms that are simple and easy for the religious to ingest:
“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!'”
It is both trivially true, and also very important for undermining the FT argument for G. If Naturalism is true and we exist, then the probability that we would observe a universe that is compatible with our existence = 1.0.
This conclusion holds regardless of how infinitesimally narrow the range of physical constants that are compatible with our existence. Logically, FT can never constitute evidence that favors Design over Naturalism, as demonstrated in the article linked above:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/super.cfm;
I find this boils down to an argument from incredulity:
I think many atheists are far too quick to deny fine tuning. It is important to separate the discussion of fine-tuning from arguments about deities. Our particular universe allows the evolution of complexity, but very slightly different seemingly-possible universes would not. For example, universes that would reach heat-death too quickly for life to evolve. Or ones in which some constants were just slightly different (if those constants really can be varied independently– a huge open question in physics). Many (most?) physicists think that our universe is so unusual that some explanation is needed. One such explanation is that our universe is just one of many (a conclusion some physicists have reached independently of the fine tuning argument), and we find ourselves in one that supports life because that is the only kind that we could appear in. This is an attractive solution, since it explains why this universe seems to be just barely able to support life. It is not designed for life.
I think atheists should not deny the fine tuning, just the goddie explanation.
I think you are suggesting that our universe is fine tuned in the sense that there could be a multiverse, where only some have physical laws that allow complex life. So that is a naturalistic fine tuning, and not a godly fine tuning. Like a fish in a pond in a desert finds its ‘universe’ to be fined tuned for it. I find that acceptable, but it isn’t what the fine tuner proponents really want.
Right, but these are two separate questions. “Is the universe fine-tuned?” and “Why is it fine-tuned?” I think the answer to the first question is clearly “Yes”. This does have naturalistic explanations (especially, self-selection from a large ensemble).
” … it explains why this universe seems to be just barely able to support life. It is not designed for life.”
Excellent point – this is what is needed – more clear ideas.
Fine-tuning has a tunnel-vision effect as if we are obsessed over a handful of jewels we can’t look away from.
I still like the Occam’s Razor type argument: which is more likely, a universe that just happens to exist, and is perfectly “fined tuned”, or a god that just happens to exist, and created a “fined tuned” universe? And about the only thing I can remember about my introduction to statistics class was the professor saying that if something has already happened, the odds of it happing is one, [100 per cent]. The universe exists, so the odds of it existing is one. And of course, only fined tuned universes can exist, so all those not fined tuned universes just failed their attempts to come into existence. And even if a god created the universe, all that proves is a first cause, Deist type god. If that is your god, fine with me.
Sorry for the non-rigorous and somewhat hasty popular epistemology, but isn’t the entire fine-tuning argument a non-starter? Life is adapted to the universe; it is not the case that the universe is adapted to life. Sure, the universe seems to be ideal for *our kind* of life, but that’s because life evolved within the physical parameters of this universe. A different universe, with different physical parameters, would either have different life, adapted to the conditions of that universe (or possibly no life at all).
The standard illustration for this idea is from Douglas Adams: “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!”
I trust that it is obvious that had the hole been of a different shape, the puddle would have conformed to it equally well, but in that different configuration. Similarly life and the universe (and everything, to extend the Douglas Adams allusion).
Look, it’s late on Saturday, so forgive me for the embarrassing “far out” nature of this :
Imagine, if life never existed – let alone sentient life, DNA, replication – honestly, how would it occur to anyone “oh, yeah – sure. Boom. Life. Obvious.”
It seems to me utterly non-obvious – given what we know about physics, chemistry, etc – that is, non-biology, I suppose.
What else is like that? Before life and the “primordial soup” existed, what signs were there that we know of that life was inevitable?
Read the book the review of which I linked to. People must realize that years of research are very rarely rebutted by blog comments.
” Life is adapted to the universe; it is not the case that the universe is adapted to life. Sure, the universe seems to be ideal for *our kind* of life, but that’s because life evolved within the physical parameters of this universe. A different universe, with different physical parameters, would either have different life, adapted to the conditions of that universe (or possibly no life at all).”
I don’t think this is completely right. Life of any kind would seem to need a degree of structural complexity, and a rich chemistry, and stable-enough conditions to permit inheritance, and enough time to permit evolution. Every one of those things is highly contingent on the values of the fundamental constants and the initial conditions. Yes, maybe some alternative forms of life are so different from ours that we cannot imagine them, but we have strong evidence that this is not likely. It appears that no exotic life in any form evolved during the early days of our own universe. So even in this universe which does permit life, there was not life until the universe cooled down, until the stars had time to generate the heavier elements, until radiation bombardment decreased to a low level, until relatively long-lived planets could form, etc.
To repeat what I and others have said above, the universe is definitely NOT ideal for our kind of life. We are a very marginal phenomenon in a largely lifeless and hostile universe.
The fact that sunlight can give us deadly cancer seems like pretty poor fine tuning.
Bible God is not to blame for suffering. Adam’s sin brought on suffering, natural disasters, disease, and death.
The cool part is that Adam showed up at the last minute, with suffering, disasters, and disease well established for millions upon millions of years. God must have seen ahead of time that Adam would sin and so started cursing the world for a sin that would be committed in the future. Omnipresent and omnipotent gods can do that. So please stop blaming God for all the suffering. It was Adam’s fault.
Plot twist! Adam never existed. He is a metaphor for all humans. Just before the credits roll, you realize that you and all humans are to blame for malaria, landslides, and babies born with tuberculosis. Like I said, omnipotent.
Fine-tuning is a good argument for a creator, but not for an omnipotent god, Sean Carroll is right.
Sean Carroll is wrong if he says that fine-tuning is an argument for a creator.
He’s also wrong on sex and gender.
He says that fine tuning is a bad argument for an omnipotent god, and he’s right. But his argument against fine tuning doesn’t work with a creator, that doesn’t have to be omnipotent or supernatural.
If Naturalism is true and we exist, then the probability that we would observe a universe that is compatible with our existence = 1.0.
This conclusion holds regardless of how infinitesimally narrow the range of physical constants that are compatible with our existence.
Logically, FT can never constitute evidence that favors a Designer (supernatural, omnipotent, or otherwise) over Naturalism, as demonstrated in the following article:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/super.cfm;
If the universe did not support life, we would not be there to notice it. And because we are self-centered beings, we might consider it a miracle.
As an aside there is a pre-publication paper called Measurement Quantitization : https://doi.org/10.1142/S021988782350069X
that proposes that it is possible to mathematically derive values for the physical constants, specifically the gravitational constant, the reduced Planck constant, and the fine structure constant.
The math (500 equations) is way beyond my ability, but as an interesting observation in one of the appendices is that the number of ‘possible’ universes is limited, and the ‘index’ value for our universe is 42.
Still no requirement for a god though.
Oh gosh, that sounds like a hoax paper….but I haven’t read it. Though I suppose one can calibrate any index so that its value for this universe is “42”., maybe the authors just have a sense of humor…
I stand corrected, it seems as if the value 42 comes from something fundamental in their theory. However I do not understand their theory. They do claim to solve all the biggest problems in physics. This is always a red flag…though it would be beautiful if true.
But the Believers like HH [and that Rabbi arguing with ACG] don’t get v far by claiming there IS a g.
So what.
Some “thing” created all this. Call it g.
Then the huge leap is from that g to the God of the Bible etc.
I think Chris Hitchcock made the best point in the video: we can’t assign probabilities unless we know something about the generation process. We know how dice operate from plenty of observations; however we’ve never seen the process of universe-generation, not even for our own universe. (We do our best to reconstruct facts about the very early universe from its after-effects, but that’s not quite the same thing.)
The beautiful irony is that if we did have strong evidence of multiple universe creations with different values of fundamental constants, then the fine tuning argument would still fail, but now because of anthropic selection-effects.
I find the whole fine-tuning argument just weird. It’s not that “we simply cannot calculate a priori what the probabilities are of the constants of nature being what they are”. If by definition, the universe is all that there is, there’s only one of it, and it simply makes no sense to discuss how probable or improbable it is – it’s just there. As the great American philosopher CS Peirce put it as recently as 1878:
“The relative probability of this or that arrangement of Nature is something which we should have a right to talk about if universes were as plenty as blackberries, if we could put a quantity of them in a bag, shake them well up, draw out a sample, and examine them to see what proportion of them had one arrangement and what proportion another. But, even in that case, a higher universe would contain us, in regard to whose arrangements the conception of probability could have no applicability.”
In modern parlance, the Universe is not, by definition, all that there is. A lot has happened since 1878.