Of all the arguments posed by defenders of the god hypothesis in recent years,
it seems for some reason that the one that holds the most resonant persuasive power over atheists
is the so-called fine-tuning argument, a type of teleological argument
that's often quoted as being the best argument that exists in favor of God.
Now the fine-tuning argument has only really been a serious roadblock for us heretics since the advent of the science of cosmology,
a recently young-ish field of study.
Cosmology is, loosely, an attempt to explain the origins of the endlessly
perplexing universe in which we find ourselves, and in the last few centuries, humanity has born witness
to a myriad of revolutionary discoveries, which whilst some have lessened the instinctual human reflex of the invocation of a divine creator,
for others have only strengthened it.
Now before we get our trousers off I'd like to ensure that I'm not perpetuating any false excitement.
If you're looking for a
rebuttal to the so called design argument or, by extension, the watchmaker analogy in relation to the complexity of life on Earth,
I shan't be tackling that here. If, however, that is something you'd like to see as part of this series,
You're letting me know would not go unnoticed.
Instead, today I wish to focus my efforts on the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe itself
regarding cosmology and the universal conditions which govern the physics of all matter.
So, then, the argument goes as follows: there exists a number of physical constants that govern the universe
such as the rate of its expansion or the strength of gravity that if altered by even an
inconceivably small amount, would mean that the universe would cease to exist.
As an example if the expansion rate of the universe were any
faster, the universe would have initially flown apart so quickly as to disallow for the assembly of subatomic
particles and later atoms, and even later, you and me.
If, conversely, it were any slower, then the universe would have collapsed under its own gravity
Alas, the expansion rate is in fact precisely the speed it needs to be to allow for the development of matter.
Now the instinctual reaction to this is generally the consideration of two possible explanations.
Option A is that this occurred completely by chance and that we just got lucky, and option B
is that there was some kind of intelligence behind the calibration of these constants.
Now admittedly, it does at first seem rather obvious that the proposition of chance is palpably absurd.
However, it may console you to realize that this unlikelihood is comfortably recognized by most educated
disbelievers and that the options presented here in fact constitute a false dichotomy.
That is to say there are other explanations for the apparent fine-tuning
The third often unspoken option to consider is that of physical necessity.
In other words, we have to consider the possibility that there are some as of yet unidentified
laws and universal properties which create a physical impossibility for the constants of the universe to vary
from those which allow for its sustainment. The constants must have been that way, in other words.
To elucidate, allow me to present a wonderfully convenient
example given that this has already been somewhat shown to be the case for at least one of the quoted constants.
The specific example I'm speaking of is gravity. As you all know if you paid even minimal attention in school,
it was Sir Isaac Newton who first proposed gravity as an explanation for the orbit of celestial orbs
in a publication called Principia Mathematica in the 17th century.
For Newton, gravity was more of a concept than a physical quality of the universe which he explained with reference to a mathematical
inverse square law, which is simply an elegant formula that describes the strength of gravity.
If an object moves two times further away, its gravity becomes four times weaker.
If an object moves four times further away its gravity becomes sixteen times weaker because it's squared.
Under a Newtonian understanding of gravity, it can be remarkably easy to credit some intelligent designer
for the mathematical perfection of this expression, just as Newton was a man of God himself.
However, two centuries later, gravitational theory experienced quite a shake up from a modest
Swiss patent office employee with a famously incredible imagination.
When Albert Einstein published his understanding of gravity and thanks to since collected evidence,
the world was made aware of a fascinating fact: that gravity isn't just an arbitrary force,
it's a physical quality of the universe.
You see, Einstein's big idea was contrary to the belief that the universe is just empty space in which stuff happens,
that space itself is a physical thing, a thing that can bend and warped and be affected by matter.
The common analogy is to think of the universe as some kind of four-dimensional fabric.
Similarly to how placing a bowling ball on a trampoline will cause other objects on the trampoline to fall towards it,
objects in space warp the space around them, causing them to attract other objects, the effect that we call gravity.
Suddenly the mathematical perfection of Gravity makes perfect sense.
Of course the force of gravity is a perfect inverse square law. It has to be due to the fact that gravity is just a symptom
Of the malleable fabric of space. It's not just an arbitrary value that could have in principle had any strength.
It's a real tangible physical effect of space itself
And hey, presto, there's problem of fine-tuning disappears.
The problem is of course that Einsteins
don't come around all too often, and so it may be a long while before we can develop a similar understanding
of the other governing constants of the universe.
But remember that just because we don't have proof of the physical necessity of other constants,
its mere plausibility at the very least removes the need for the conjuring up of some God or gods as an alternative explanation.
To put it another way, let's inject some numbers.
If you've seen my video response to Justin Brierley, and later, my radio conversation with him,
you'll probably remember his specific claim that if any of these
universal constants were different by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 55,
an unimaginably small factor the universe could not exist. Again, this seems absolutely astonishing,
and to make matters all but worse, this is actually roughly true.
So how on Earth could any atheist possibly account for this fine-tuning. It seems ludicrous.
Well the problem lies in the assumption that these constants are in fact finely tuned at all.
Again, consider physical necessity.
Yes, if you were to change any of the constant by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 55, you would cause a universal catastrophe.
However, this doesn't mean that you actually can change these constants by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 55.
There is therefore not necessarily a 1 in 10 to the 55 chance of the constants appearing as they are
just because that's the factor by which changing them would have an effect.
And even if there were a billion billion different values these constants could have had in principle,
you can't possibly claim that each of these possibilities have the same chance of occurring
because that would require a knowledge of potential outcomes
which you and I simply do not have.
In other words, it requires a significant assumption for one to be able to assert, as apologists so often do,
that the chances of our universe existing are tiny. Beyond the present issue with this argument is assumptions such as this.
We understandably perceive the universe to be perfectly tuned for us when, in fact, the exact contrary is true.
We are perfectly tuned for it. The person who claims that the earth is perfectly located in the solar system
is the same person who disregards the other planets that surround us desolate of life.
He is the same person that ignores the
uncountable other solar systems and planets, and fails to apply the simple logic of chance.
If a blindfolded man were to walk into a room and aimlessly throw a dart,
and you later discovered it to have landed precisely in the center of a five centimeter target,
you may at first be amazed, as were the cave dwelling apes who founded our species amazed at the wonder of the universe.
If, however, upon closer investigation
You then find a marker pen lying on the floor and then notice that the target and data are in a seemingly uncalculated
random position on one of the walls,
It's only logical to assume that you were first misled. The dart hit no target. The target was drawn around the dart.
We have conclusively uncovered the marker pen of the universe through the cosmological and evolutionary sciences,
and we have recently noticed our own uncalculated random position in an endlessly hostile universe.
If, in other words, this universe is finely tuned for something,
it takes an extraordinary leap of faith for any sound-minded individual to believe that that something is us.
I've been Alex O'Connor or Cosmic Skeptic. You can find me on social media here.
I want to thank you for watching as always, don't forget to subscribe, and I will see you in the next one