Criticisms of the Fine Tuning Argument

Loading...

來自 The University of Edinburgh 的課程

Philosophy, Science and Religion: Religion and Science

17 個評分

The University of Edinburgh

Philosophy, Science and Religion: Religion and Science

17 個評分

Philosophy, Science and Religion mark three of the most fundamental modes of thinking about the world and our place in it. Are these modes incompatible? Put another way: is the intellectually responsible thing to do to ‘pick sides’ and identify with one of these approaches at the exclusion of others? Or, are they complementary or mutually supportive? As is typical of questions of such magnitude, the devil is in the details. For example, it is important to work out what is really distinctive about each of these ways of inquiring about the world. In order to gain some clarity here, we’ll be investigating what some of the current leading thinkers in philosophy, science and religion are actually doing. This course, entitled ‘Religion and Science’, is the third of three related courses in our Philosophy, Science and Religion Online series. The course will address five themes, each presented by an expert in the area. 1. Science, Religion, and the Origin of the Universe (Professor Tim Maudlin, NYU ) 2. Buddhism and Science (Professor Graham Priest, CUNY) 3. Evolution and Design (Dr Kevin Scharp, St Andrews) 4. Sin Suffering and Salvation: Evolutions Thorny Issues (Dr Bethany Sollereder, Oxford) 5. Human Uniqueness in Science, Theology, and Ethics (Professor David Clough, Chester) The first and second courses in the Philosophy, Science and Religion series, 'Science and Philosophy' and 'Philosophy and Religion' were launched in 2017 and you can sign up to these at any time. It is not necessary to have completed these courses to follow this course. However, completing all three courses will give you a broader understanding of this fascinating topic. Look for: • Philosophy, Science and Religion I: Science and Philosophy - https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1 • Philosophy, Science and Religion II: Philosophy and Religion - https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-2 Upon successful completion of all three courses, students will: (1) Understand the main parameters at stake in the current debate between science and religion. (2) Have some familiarity with the relevant areas of science that feature in the debate—including cosmology, evolution, and the neurosciences—and will have begun to engage with them conceptually. (3) Have encountered key philosophical approaches to the interface between science and religion, and will have had the opportunity to engage them in practice. (4) Have embarked constructively in cross-disciplinary conversations. (5) Have demonstrated an openness to personal growth through a commitment to dialogue across intellectual and spiritual boundaries. You can also follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/EdiPhilOnline and you can follow the hashtag #psrmooc

從本節課中

EVOLUTION AND DESIGN

In this module Kevin Scharp, Reader in Philosophy at the University of St Andrews introduces one of the most common arguments for Intelligent Design and considers whether it is a genuine scientific competitor to, or can even be made compatible with, evolutionary theory. He then presents the Fine-Tuning Argument for the existence of God and its criticisms.

Bigger Issues: Compatibility Between Teleology and Scientific Theory3:51

Criticisms of the Fine Tuning Argument6:44

與講師見面

Dr Mog Stapleton
Dr J Adam Carter
Researcher
Epistemology - Philosphy
Dr Orestis Palermos
Research Explorer
School of Philosophy
Dr Mark Harris
Senior Lecturer in Science and Religion
School of Divinity
Professor Duncan Pritchard
Professor of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh

So, now I want to present a couple of objections or

criticisms of the fine-tuning argument.

The first one is that from biology today,

we have a very good,

powerful, and well-received view of

the development of life on Earth namely evolutionary theory.

However, we don't have a theory a scientific theory that is,

that makes predictions that we can test and be

confirmed about the origin of life on Earth.

We have good reason to think that a certain point in Earth's history,

there were no living organisms on Earth,

and then at a later point there were living organisms on Earth.

And so, at some point in the past somehow through some natural processes,

it seems like non-living material gave rise to living material.

But we do not have a scientific theory of that process and

as such we do not have a scientific theory of life in general.

We have a scientific theory of how life developed on Earth,

but we don't have a scientific theory of life in general.

And so, that means the fine-tuning argument which says,

the universe has to be set up in a certain way in

order for life to develop in the universe.

That can't be justified at all because we have

no idea of what it is or what the conditions are under which life develops.

We don't have a general theory of life.

We have a theory of life on Earth.

So, saying that the universe has to be set up in such and such a way in order for there

to be living things in that universe is very premature.

We don't have the scientific theory of life that would

justify that aspect of the fine-tuning argument.

Another aspect of the fine-tuning argument that is dubious is the idea that we,

through physics understand the universe well

enough to say here are the physical constants.

Here are the values of the physical constants and

here are the ranges of values for the physical constants,

if there is going to be life in the universe.

The problem with these assumptions about

our knowledge of the physical constants of the universe is the following;

physics is currently and has been for

the last 60 or 70 years split between two major theories.

One theory focusing on general relativity,

the other focusing on quantum field theory.

We have four major forces in the universe that we understand: gravity,

electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force,

and the strong nuclear force.

General relativity is a theory of gravity.

Quantum field theory incorporates the other three forces: electromagnetism,

the weak nuclear force,

and the strong nuclear force.

But what we do not know how to do,

is put together our best account of

gravity with our best account of the other three forces.

When we take general relativity and quantum field theory and we try to use them together,

what we end up with is a discovery that these are incompatible theories.

The incompatibility between them is a fairly complex and subtle sort of incompatibility.

It's not that one says that P and the other says that not P. It's

that when we try to come up with predictions and calculations using both of them,

we end up with nonsense answers like dividing by

zero or thinking that some value is infinite.

So, general relativity on the one hand and

quantum field theory on the other are incompatible,

but they are still our best theories in physics right now.

General relativity is spectacular for describing what it describes,

quantum field theory is spectacular for describing what it describes,

but we know that neither of these theories

is a general theory of the universe and it's physics.

And we need a successor theory to each of these that

will have each one as a special case for those particular circumstances.

But a unified theory of all the phenomena that we

study in physics still is something that humans have not come up with.

We have various guesses for how this is going to go.

Quantum gravity is one example,

but none of these theories are super well

developed and none of them have been shown to be sufficient

to derive general relativity on the one hand and quantum field theory on the

other and have independent empirical evidence for them.

So, to say that we know exactly what

the physical constants of the universe are is premature.

We have two incompatible theories about the universe and its physical constants.

And it's deeply problematic to assume that this information

about the universe is sufficient for us to make

judgments about what the physical constants are.

Much less judgments about what their values are and much less

what ranges of values they might have based on other features of the universe.

So, two major problems with the fine-tuning argument are,

we do not have a general theory of life,

so we do not know the conditions under which life in general might come about.

We have a pretty good idea about the features of life on Earth,

but it's an unjustified extrapolation

to go from life on earth to life in the universe as a whole.

That's the first problem associated with biology and life.

The second problem associated with physics and

are two deep fundamental theories that are incompatible,

suggests that we are also unjustified in

making assumptions about which physical constants there are,

what their values are,

and what range of values they might have in order for the universe to

have various features like living things.

So, the biology is not there yet when it comes to

the fine-tuning argument and the physics is not there yet.

Maybe at some point in the future,

we will have solid well-developed theories in

these areas and maybe they will point toward fine-tuning.

Maybe they won't. We simply don't know.

探索我們的目錄

免費加入並獲得個性化推薦、更新和優惠。

Coursera 致力於普及全世界最好的教育，它與全球一流大學和機構合作提供在線課程。

© 2018 Coursera Inc. 保留所有權利。

通過 App Store 下載

通過 Google Play 獲取