Later version published in Benton, Hawthorne and Rabinowitz (eds), Knowledge, Beliefs and God (OUP)
The laws of physics are unexpectedly inhospitable to life. Scientists did not expect to discover ... more The laws of physics are unexpectedly inhospitable to life. Scientists did not expect to discover that life depends on seemingly improbable values in the fundamental constants of physics. Scientists expected to discover that life would be possible given a wide variety of values in the fundamental constants. But so it goes. One learns all sorts of weird things from contemporary physics.
If this unexpected inhospitability were equally unexpected with or without the existence of God, then the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants would be irrelevant to the philosophy of religion. But the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is substantially more likely given the existence of God than it is given the non-existence of God. Thus the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is strong evidence that there is a God.
There are some real complexities to the fine-tuning argument, complexities regarding which controversy is appropriate. But the fine-tuning argument is more controversial than it ought to be. The basic idea of the fine-tuning argument is simple. It's as legitimate an argument as one comes across in philosophy.
We will formulate the fine-tuning argument using the machinery of Bayesian probability theory. We think that a good deal of structural insight can be obtained by doing so. (In particular, we find Bayesian analyses to be more illuminating than analyses which rely on explanation-theoretic vocabulary, such as “cries out for explanation”.) We hope that our theoretical preferences will be vindicated by our output. After some scene setting, we will sketch what we take to be a promising way of developing the fine-tuning argument, which we dub the “core argument”. Additional detail and explanation will be supplied as we engage with a series of potential concerns about the argument so sketched. Along the way, we will rebut a recent critique of the fine-tuning argument from a philosopher, Jonathan Weisberg, and will also rebut a range of critiques that are common in the popular and scientific literature. We will finally turn to atheistic replies that concede the lessons of the core argument, but which attempt to find a rational home for atheism with its scope. We believe this to be the most promising approach for the atheist.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Drafts
If this unexpected inhospitability were equally unexpected with or without the existence of God, then the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants would be irrelevant to the philosophy of religion. But the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is substantially more likely given the existence of God than it is given the non-existence of God. Thus the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is strong evidence that there is a God.
There are some real complexities to the fine-tuning argument, complexities regarding which controversy is appropriate. But the fine-tuning argument is more controversial than it ought to be. The basic idea of the fine-tuning argument is simple. It's as legitimate an argument as one comes across in philosophy.
We will formulate the fine-tuning argument using the machinery of Bayesian probability theory. We think that a good deal of structural insight can be obtained by doing so. (In particular, we find Bayesian analyses to be more illuminating than analyses which rely on explanation-theoretic vocabulary, such as “cries out for explanation”.) We hope that our theoretical preferences will be vindicated by our output. After some scene setting, we will sketch what we take to be a promising way of developing the fine-tuning argument, which we dub the “core argument”. Additional detail and explanation will be supplied as we engage with a series of potential concerns about the argument so sketched. Along the way, we will rebut a recent critique of the fine-tuning argument from a philosopher, Jonathan Weisberg, and will also rebut a range of critiques that are common in the popular and scientific literature. We will finally turn to atheistic replies that concede the lessons of the core argument, but which attempt to find a rational home for atheism with its scope. We believe this to be the most promising approach for the atheist.
Papers
If this unexpected inhospitability were equally unexpected with or without the existence of God, then the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants would be irrelevant to the philosophy of religion. But the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is substantially more likely given the existence of God than it is given the non-existence of God. Thus the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants is strong evidence that there is a God.
There are some real complexities to the fine-tuning argument, complexities regarding which controversy is appropriate. But the fine-tuning argument is more controversial than it ought to be. The basic idea of the fine-tuning argument is simple. It's as legitimate an argument as one comes across in philosophy.
We will formulate the fine-tuning argument using the machinery of Bayesian probability theory. We think that a good deal of structural insight can be obtained by doing so. (In particular, we find Bayesian analyses to be more illuminating than analyses which rely on explanation-theoretic vocabulary, such as “cries out for explanation”.) We hope that our theoretical preferences will be vindicated by our output. After some scene setting, we will sketch what we take to be a promising way of developing the fine-tuning argument, which we dub the “core argument”. Additional detail and explanation will be supplied as we engage with a series of potential concerns about the argument so sketched. Along the way, we will rebut a recent critique of the fine-tuning argument from a philosopher, Jonathan Weisberg, and will also rebut a range of critiques that are common in the popular and scientific literature. We will finally turn to atheistic replies that concede the lessons of the core argument, but which attempt to find a rational home for atheism with its scope. We believe this to be the most promising approach for the atheist.