One can argue that this reasoning falls under the Natural Theology or teleological argument (design/designer). Yet, as advancement in astrophysics tells us more about the universe beyond our own planet, this argument deserves a separate discussion.
Robert Jastrow (American astronomer and planetary physicist at NASA & JPL) says, "There is an order in the universe." Paul Davies (Physicist at Arizona State University) says, "Universe has laws that just exist, and the universe is finely tuned." Both Jastrow and Davies are non-believers. In my opinion, they are "honest" scientists who acknowledge that scientific interpretations (1) have limits, (2) cannot explain everything about the universe, and (3) should not be infused with one's personal bias or worldview.
It should be noted that physicists and astrophysicists have always been more modest than biologists (i.e., Dawkins). The former have acknowledged that there are certain constants (laws) in the universe that just exist. So, to them, scientists are in the business of discovering what exists out there. The same can be said of mathematicians--i.e., numbers just exist; no one is creating new numbers.
The question that begs the answer is, "Who then created these constants or laws?" This is not a question that scientists or mathematicians can answer. This question falls under the domain of theologians and philosophers. New atheists such as Dawkins, however, insist that "god" need not be invoked since, well, there is no evidence for God. But, atheist must admit that certain constants just exist in the universe. If so, Dawkins must answer, "Where did those constants come from?" "Evolution did it!" or "It's always been there," are not satisfying answers. How can evolution create numbers and equations and formulas?
Reasonable Faith's video clip describes Fine-tuning of the Universe argument effectively. You can also find this video and other presentations at www.reasonablefaith.org
Sean Carroll, an up-and-coming atheist "star" who works at Cal Tech, argues that Fine-Tuning argument fails due to the following reasons:
if constants were changed, life as we know it may not exist, but there's a possibility that different forms of life might exist
God doesn't need to fine-tune anything; if God can do whatever he wants to, why does he need to fine-tune or create parameters?
fine-tuning as we know today may change or not exist in the future
multiverse makes more sense (universes creating more universes)
theism fails as an explanation because the data doesn't support theistic view of the universe
Here is my rebuttal to Carroll's points.
Points 1, 3, and 4 We only have one universe in which we find ourselves. There are no known "other" universes or multiverses out there that are observable. So, while Carroll can speculate that constants in physics/astrophysics may be different in other universes, we have no way of knowing/observing that. We don't even know much about our own universe.... Also, will the physical constants change in the future, and were they different in the past? Again, we cannot answer that question. Carroll's faith in multiverse still begs the questions: where did the first universe come from? Thus, Carroll's criticisms are speculative at best. This is the kind of response based on scientism (belief that science will find answers to all of life's questions) which we get from atheists. I think Frank Turek is right in saying, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
Point 2 True, God doesn't have to fine-tune anything. If God is omniscient, he can do whatever pleases him. So, while he doesn't have to fine-tune anything, he could have fine-tuned the universe if he wanted to.
Point 5
Fine-tuning argument is based on scientific data. Carroll insinuates that theists are data-illiterate or biased (fit the data to support their worldview), while he and other atheists are capable of making objective interpretations of the same data. This is patently false, and it is an example of smugness displayed by atheists. Also, it is an example of ad hominem (attack directed against a person rather than the position maintained) used by poor debaters.
Conclusion Without laws or constants that are finely-tuned, the universe as we know today wouldn't exist. There is precision in the universe that points to the powerful Creator who is unfathomably creative.
Comments