Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:18:09.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How not to be generous to fine-tuning sceptics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2018

NEIL A. MANSON
NEIL A. MANSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religion, the University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi, 38677-1848, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God requires that the probability that the universe is life-permitting if God exists is not nearly as low as the probability that the universe is life-permitting if God does not exist. Recently, some proponents of the fine-tuning argument have reasoned as follows. ‘Stipulate that the probability that there exists a life-permitting universe if God exists is one in a billion. Only the most hardened sceptic would refuse odds like that, right? So one in a billion is more than just fair to those sceptical of the fine-tuning argument. It is generous. Even on that generous assumption, the fine-tuning argument is very strong.’ This article explains why the assumption is not, in fact, generous.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 303 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrow, J. & Tipler, F. R. (1986) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Collins, R. (2003) ‘Evidence for fine-tuning’, in Manson, N. A. (ed.) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge), 178–199.Google Scholar
Collins, R. (2009) ‘The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe’, in Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 202–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1998) ‘Mind and supermind’, in Leslie, J. (ed.) Modern Cosmology and Philosophy (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books), 187–194.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. & Isaacs, Y. (2018) ‘Fine-tuning fine-tuning’, in Benton, M. A., Hawthorne, J., & Rabinowitz, D. (eds) Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 136–168.Google Scholar
Holder, R. (2004) God, the Multiverse, and Everything: Modern Cosmology and the Argument from Design (Burlington VT: Ashgate).Google Scholar
Hudson, H. (2016a) ‘A critical evaluation of the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God’, [online] public lecture, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6qWzxKVBko> [accessed 5 June 2018].+[accessed+5+June+2018].>Google Scholar
Hudson, H. (2016b) ‘Swinburne's aesthetic appeal’, in Bergmann, M. and Brower, J. E. (eds) Reason and Faith: Themes from Richard Swinburne (New York: Oxford University Press), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, J. (1989) Universes (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Lewis, G. F. & Barnes, L. A. (2016) A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Manson, N. A. (2009) ‘The “Why design?” question’, in Nagasawa, Y. (ed.) New Waves in Philosophy of Religion (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), 68–90.Google Scholar
Manson, N. A. (2013) ‘The design argument and natural theology’, in Manning, R. R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 295–309.Google Scholar
Narveson, J. (2003) ‘God by design?’, in Manson, N. A. (ed.) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge), 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2006) Arguing About Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (2015) ‘God’, in Manson, N. A. & Barnard, R. W. (eds) The Bloomsbury Companion to Metaphysics (New York: Bloomsbury Academic), 283–307.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (2002) ‘Introduction: the evolutionary argument against naturalism’, in Beilby, J. (ed.) Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press), 1–12.Google Scholar
Rota, M. (2016) Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence, and the Abundant Life (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press).Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2003) ‘The design argument’, in Manson, N. A. (ed.) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2003) ‘The argument to God from fine-tuning reassessed’, in Manson, N. A. (ed.) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986) ‘Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar