Rossiter: The philosophical missteps in the “ignore fine-tuning” argument at BioLogos
|April 9, 2017||Posted by News under Fine tuning, theistic evolution|
It’s odd to review a review, but a few things came up in Casper Hesp’s review of Signposts to God (by physicist Peter Bussey), and I felt they needed to be pointed out.
First let me say that it is apparent that Hesp’s views are not that representative of BioLogos in general (which begs the question, why is he writing for them?). Namely, if his views are correct then both Francis Collins and Robin Collins, and a good many other BioLogians, are wrong. In fact, most Christians are wrong, because most of us feel that God created the cosmos. Not so fast.
He objects to the “laundry list” of finely-tuned constants and laws, saying,
“I am skeptical of reliance on the narrow range of these physical constants. A hypothetical alien race in a hypothetical parallel universe might be wondering about completely different constants that were essential to its development.”
This is where we see a deep need for philosophy alongside science (namely, physics). Hesp is a graduate student studying astrophysics and neuroscience. Yet, he can’t see the philosophical missteps in his arguments. More.
Actually, common sense would probably do just as well in dismissing an argument against fact that relies only on imagination. We often hear this sort of argument against fine-tuning from people who admit they are naturalist atheists. Things are more nuanced now… Rossiter shouldn’t be too sure that BioLogos members don’t buy it. It would be a logical and comforting next step for them if they did.
See also: [news] BioLogos: Wayne Rossiter’s successful prediction re attack on fine-tuning
At BioLogos: One shouldn’t use fine-tuning as an argument for God’s existence
Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Follow UD News at Twitter!