Yesterday I offered a defense of the fine-tuning argument. Here I will address further objections that were brought up in the Alex O’Connor interview with cosmologist Sean Carroll.
A common dismissal of the theistic fine-tuning argument attempts to use probability theory in a way that ends up clouding clear thinking concerning the evidence. The typical complaint, as expressed in online comments to the interview, is that, since we have only one universe to observe (which, oddly enough, does nothing to dissuade multiverse enthusiasts) we cannot know the range of possible values for various “finely tuned” parameters. The lamentable consequence, they argue, that undermines fine-tuning is that we can’t assign probabilities to the values of physical parameters within this universe. Therefore, they conclude that fine-tuning is unsupported, and only a theist eager to prop up blind religious faith could give it any credence.
Display “The Fine-Tuning Argument is Terrible – Sean Carroll” from YouTube
Dismantled by Comparison
Now, this objection can be dismantled by comparison. Consider a complex mechanism, such as a mechanical watch. As described in an article on Swiss watchmaking,
The balance wheel and hairspring are finely tuned to oscillate at a precise frequency, ensuring the accurate measurement of time. The size, weight, and shape of the balance wheel, as well as the tension and length of the hairspring, all play a crucial role in determining the frequency of the watch.
Describing luxury mechanical watches as “marvels of engineering and design” is not a religiously motivated claim. Watchmakers know that the tolerances are tight (±0.01mm or less) for the manufacture of each piece within the watch. The time-keeping mechanism is finely tuned, and anyone who claims otherwise should try to build one himself! But here’s the point — to claim fine-tuning, it’s not necessary to know the possible range of parameter space available for each component in the watch, or how many other watches might exist somewhere. It’s simply necessary to know how close to a specified value each parameter has to be for the mechanism at hand to properly function.
Even if you didn’t know how the watch was made, by examining it you could find out if it would still function (keep time) if its components were altered in varying degrees. Just measure the diameter of a gear, say, and then see how the watch works if you replace it with one that’s 10 percent bigger or smaller relative to the original. If you find that it fails with such a deviation from its original design, then that component is finely tuned to within at least 10 percent.
Investigating Various Parameters
Considering the universe as analogous to a “watch,” we can establish its degree of fine-tuning by investigating various parameters, such as the strength of the electromagnetic force relative to the gravitational force, and determine if the universe could still support life if we made that parameter 10 percent bigger or smaller. Knowing the laws of physics reveals, however, that changing this ratio by just one part in 1037 would “jam the gears,” so to speak, rendering the formation of stars (and life) physically impossible. Compared to the extreme level of fine-tuning for our universe to support life, the most intricate Swiss watch appears like something made by a blind watchmaker — an assertion certain to be scorned by the actual makers of the watch.
An intelligent skeptic will most likely also bring up the anthropic selection effect to undermine the theistic import of evidence for fine-tuning. The observation that the parameters of nature fall within ranges that allow us to exist in the universe is of course logically anticipated. Carroll presses this axiomatic point as if its obviousness has eluded those who use fine-tuning as evidence for God.
What Is Surprising
The weight of the fine-tuning argument, however, has nothing to do with the obvious necessity of physical parameters falling in a range to allow life. What’s surprising is the degree of fine-tuning. By no stretch of logic or physics can we dismiss as “necessary” the extremely sharp fine-tuning we observe in our universe. Yes, physical parameters must fall within ranges that allow life to exist. No, we can’t ascribe the knife-edge sharpness of many of these parameters to logical necessity.
If the universe “just happened” to be a place where life could exist, the logical assumption would be to expect the parameter values to exhibit a rather broad range of flexibility without destroying the anthropic congeniality of our universe. Instead of finding that our universe is far more delicately balanced for life than a Swiss watch is for keeping time, in a materialistic world view we might expect life-essential parameters to be about as finely tuned as a wheelbarrow. However, even a wheelbarrow could hardly come into existence without an intelligent designer!
Ironically, Carroll mounts an attack against the theistic implications of fine tuning by claiming that, in his view, a “God” could create life under any conditions and wouldn’t need any sort of “tuned” physical conditions at all. So, according to Carroll, the fine-tuning of parameters to allow life as we know it to exist is actually evidence for a purely materialistic universe!
His Own Version of Theology
Carroll, espousing his own version of theology, thinks that God is more likely to work in a one-off manner, doing things by his God-prerogatives that have no necessary connection to physical reality. He then adds that because God could create life to exist independently of the parameters of the universe, saying, “God is God. He can make anything alive,” the existence of life in this universe “should increase your credence in naturalism, not theism.”
Biblical theology, however, consistently portrays God as using and working through the physical processes of his creation. With reference to God’s created order in the heavens and on Earth, the Psalmist declares, “all things are your servants.”1 In the Genesis narrative, each of God’s spoken acts of fiat creation brings about specific physical results that exceed the possible outcomes of natural forces acting within the time and space limitations of our universe. In particular, divine acts of creation address the origin of the universe, the preparation of planet Earth for long-term habitability of millions of species of living things, and the origins of every form of life, all of which go beyond the boundaries of science that have been established.
If the points of evidence suggesting fine-tuning and design were a matter of mistakenly ascribing natural causes to divine agency, the ongoing study of nature should result in a systematic elimination of the evidence through the discovery of natural agency. Have we observed this trend over the last number of decades? On the contrary, the more we study the universe, on both the large scale and the small,2 the more examples of fine-tuning and design we discover.
Notes
Psalm 119:91 (ESV)
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God (Covina, CA: Reasons to Believe, 2018), p. 176.