Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
News and Announcements
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Criticism of the Non-Theistic Explanations of Fine Tuning
Show Less
1 İbn Haldun Üniversitesi, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü 34494, İstanbul , Turkey
Received: 4 April 2019 | Published online: 24 May 2019
© 2019 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract
Modern physics has shown that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Theists have argued that fine-tuning of the universe for life can be used as a premise in for a teleological argument for the existence of God. One possible way to develop such an argument is to argue that the best explanation of fine-tuning is theistic design hypothesis. There are two strategies which can be employed against this argument. First one can claim that there are naturalistic explanations of fine-tuning superior to the design hypothesis. In this paper, we analyze the two main alternatives of the design hypothesis, the more fundamental law, and multiverse hypothesis. The second one can object to the claim that the design hypothesis can explain fine-tuning. We also analyze two such objections the “God of the gaps” objection and “Who designed the God” objection. We try to show that both approaches do not undermine the teleological argument based on fine-tuning.
Keywords
Fine-tuning
teleological argument
multiverse
arguments for theism
naturalism.
References
- Barnes, L. (2013). Fine-tuning of the universe for life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. 29-4, 529-564
- Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Antropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
- Carr, B. and Rees, M. (1979). The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature, 278, 605-612.
- Carter, B. (1974). Confrontations of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. IAU Symposium, Vol. 63. (Ed. M. S. Longair). D. Reidel: Dordrecht, 291-298.
- Collins, R. (2003). Evidence for fine-tuning. God and Design: The teleological argument and modern science. (Ed. N. Manson) Abingdon: Routledge.
- Collins, R. (2009). The Teleological Argument: An Explanation of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, (Ed. W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland) Chester: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Davies, P. (1982). The accidental universe. New York, Cambridge University Press.
- Davies, P. (1984). God and The New Physics. London: Penguin Books.
- Davies, P. (1989). The anthroic principle. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 10, 1 – 38.
- Davies, P. (2007). The Goldilocks Enigma. Houghton: Mifflin Harcourt.
- Dawkins, R. (2008). The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books.
- Dorling, J. (1970). Dimensionality of time. American Journal of Physics, 38, 539.
- Ehrenfest, P. (1917). Can atoms or planets exist in higher dimensions?. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy, 20, 200-203.
- Ellis, G. (2008). Opposing the multiverse. Astronomy & Geophysics, 49-2, 2.34.
- Hacking, I. (1987). The inverse gambler’s fallacy: the argument from design. The anthropic principle applied to Wheeler universes. Mind, 96, 331-340
- Hawking S., and Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books.
- Hogan, J. (2000). Why the universe is just so. Reviews of Modern Physics, 72-4, 1149-1161.
- Laudan, L. (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science, 48-1, 19-49.
- Leslie, J. (1989), Universes, London: Routledge.
- Lewis, D. (2001). On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
- Linde, A. (1994). The Self-Replicating Inflationary Universe. Scientific American, 271-5, 48
- Page, D. (2008). Is Our Universe Likely to Decay within 20 Bilion Years. Physical Review D, 78-6.
- Parfit, D. (1998). Why anything? Why this?. London Review of Books, Jan 22, 24-27.
- Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Penrose, R. (2004). The Road To Reality. Jonathan Cope: London.
- Penrose, R. (2006). Before the big bang: An outrageous new perspective and its implications for particle physics. Proceedings of EPAC 2006, 2759-2767.
- Rees, M. (1999). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
- Setia, A. (2004). Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi on Physics and the Nature of the Physical World: A Preliminary Survey. Islam & Science, 2-2.
- Smart J. C. (1985). Laws of nature and cosmic coincidence. The Philosophical Quarterly 35-140, 272-280
- Smart, J. J. (1989). Our Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Steinhardt, P.J and Turok, N. (2004). The Cyclic Model Simplified. New Astron. Rev. 49-2-6, 43-57.
- Stenger, V. (2004). Is the universe fine-tuned for us. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. (Ed. M. Young and T. Edis). NJ: Rutgers University Press, 172-84.
- Tegmark, M. (1997) On the Dimensionality of Spacetime. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14, L69-L75.
- Tegmark, M. and Rees, M. (1998). Why Is the Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuation Level 10−5?. The Astrophysical Journal, 499, 526.
- Tegmark, M. (2005). Parallel Universes. Scientific American, 288, 40-51
- Tegmark M., Aguirre A., Rees M., Wilczek F. (2006). Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters. Physical Review D, 73, 023505.
- Weinberg, S. (1977). The first three minutes: a modern view of the origin of the universe. New York: Basic Books.
- Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant. Physical Review Letter, 59, 2607.
- White, R. (2000). Fine-tuning and multiple universes. Nous, 34, 260-67.