Why I Believe, pt 3: Fine Tuning

One can hardly look at the night sky, or at any aspect of our planet, without getting the distinct impression that there is something at work in it all. The argument for God that takes its cue from the sense of design inherent within our universe is known as the Teleological Argument. Thomas Aquinas who developed one of the first forms of this argument in the 13th century could never have fathomed what we would eventually come to find. In the past century scientific discoveries have revealed that our universe seems to be fine-tuned in such a way that not only permits, but privileges life. 

Scientists whether they be atheists or theists have come to recognize that there is something peculiar about the state of our universe. Stephen Hawking has stated that "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson admits "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming." Many scientists have come to recognize that if the physical laws of our universe were different by any degree, however infinitesimally small the change, the universe as we know it would not exist; life would not be possible. The reality that we must then be reconciled with is that the odds of these values being set by chance, and thus bringing about life, is a statistical impossibility.

The late Antony Flew, one of the 20th century's most compelling and ardent atheists, could not help but take notice of these discoveries and carry them to their logical end. In his book There is a God, Flew recounts his journey from atheism to belief in a Designer-God, summarizing his position concisely: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. ...Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Flew goes on to defend the Teleological Argument for God, which he describes as "an argument to design from order" which thus implies "a Designer."

One of the most vocal critics of the argument for a designer, as well as anything else not atheistic, is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins cannot help but wonder if there were a designer of our universe, then who designed the designer? A rather childish question, to be fair. Philosopher and Theologian William Lane Craig quite eloquently illustrates the fallacy of the question by giving us the following example:"If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of some unknown group of people―even if they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from." Craig goes on to elaborate that requiring an explanation for an explanation inevitably leads to an infinite regress. Such a requirement would lead to a place where "nothing could be explained and science would be destroyed."

Dawkins is also convinced that God is rather too complex an explanation to account for the apparent design of our improbable universe. However, Flew quite rightly points out that by Dawkins' own definition, God is quite simple, rather than complex, on account of his being an immaterial spirit lacking parts. Craig picks up on the error, as well, stating that "Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas and effects, which may indeed be complex, with a mind itself, which―having no parts―is an incredibly simple entity." That a mind can think complex thoughts is not the same as saying that the nature of the mind itself is complex.

In place of a designer, Dawkins and many other atheists have sought to explain the ostensible design of our universe by postulating the existence of possibly an infinite number of universes, often referred to as Multiverse Theory. It is thought that if there were many universes, each with a different set of physical laws and parameters, then one of them would just have to have what is needed to support the existence of carbon based life forms, such as ourselves. The whole theory is a desperate attempt to explain away the apparent fine-tuning that our universe is riddled with. The problem though is that there is no scientific evidence that such universes even exist. The entire explanation is based upon the desperate need to get rid of a designer. A further problem, of course, is that the theory serverly violates Ockham's razor to an infinite degree, or as Craig puts it "Appealing to a world ensemble is like using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut." Remarkably of all, though, Dawkins and others conveniently have no desire to wonder who designed the Multiverse, infinite in its complexity.

Further Reading: 

There Is A God, by Antony Flew 

God is Good, God is Great, by William Lane Craig & Chad Meister 

The Case For A Creator, By Lee Strobel 

The Devil’s Delusion, By David Berlinski