Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s-eye
- 194 Downloads
I argue that the standard way of formalizing the fine-tuning argument for design is flawed, and I present an alternative formalization. On the alternative formalization, the existence of life is not treated as the evidence that confirms design; instead it is treated as part of the background knowledge, while the fact that fine tuning is required for life serves as the evidence. I argue that the alternative better captures the informal line of thought that gives the fine-tuning argument its intuitive plausibility, and I show that the alternative formalization avoids all of the most prominent objections to the fine-tuning argument, including the objection from observation selection effects, the problem of old evidence, the problem of non-normalizable probability measures and a further objection due to Monton. I conclude that the alternative formalization is the one that attention should be focused on.
KeywordsFine-tuning Design Natural theology God Elliott Sober Bradley Monton
I am grateful to Matthew Kotzen, Bradley Monton, and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
- Barrow, J., & Tipler, F. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Eddington, A. (1939). The philosophy of physical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (2003). The argument from design. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. 25–53). London: Routledge.Google Scholar