I just noticed this today myself and was going to let you know in a link. It's quite mathematical, but well worth the read as Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" has been getting too much praise in skeptical circles.
In case some people don't already know, Luke Barnes blogs over at Letters to Nature. He also has a website with a lot of useful material. Plus, he has a YouTube channel with several videos on the topic.
As a (Reformed) Christian, I should say I don't know that I always agree with him. But he can obviously be very helpful with physics as well as its intersection with philosophical and/or theological argumentation.
And he just seems like a fun and funny guy. Someone with whom you could hang out.
I enjoy listening to interviews and discussions about the fine-tuning argument (recently Robin Collins was interviewed here: http://apologetics315.s3.amazonaws.com/interview/interview-robin-collins.mp3 )
I forget the reasons why but Lydia and Tim McGrew (I take this from a recollection of an interview of Lydia) think it is no good.
I feel the force of it but it is not something that can easily be used in discourse with your average unbeliever because it relies on very technical scientific knowledge that is not easy to articulate or, for a layman, to defend. More sophisticated arguments, eg. EAAN, are far easier to get across in their details than the fine-tuning argument based on the universe as a whole.
Also, recently Steve gave this link: http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-theists-and-atheists-reason-differently-about-god/ . Essentially, it seems to promote abductive reasoning (which I have no issue with). However, without going into the counter-arguments (which Collins refers to in the above mentioned interview), it is not immediately clear why a multiverse is not a reasonable conclusion of an abductive argument based on fine-tuning parameters.
Guess my criticism is merely one of practical application.
Thanks for the link, though. Will print and try to read it.
It's somewhat snarky in parts, much like Triablogue!
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this today myself and was going to let you know in a link. It's quite mathematical, but well worth the read as Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" has been getting too much praise in skeptical circles.
ReplyDeleteIn case some people don't already know, Luke Barnes blogs over at Letters to Nature. He also has a website with a lot of useful material. Plus, he has a YouTube channel with several videos on the topic.
ReplyDeleteAs a (Reformed) Christian, I should say I don't know that I always agree with him. But he can obviously be very helpful with physics as well as its intersection with philosophical and/or theological argumentation.
And he just seems like a fun and funny guy. Someone with whom you could hang out.
I enjoy listening to interviews and discussions about the fine-tuning argument (recently Robin Collins was interviewed here: http://apologetics315.s3.amazonaws.com/interview/interview-robin-collins.mp3 )
ReplyDeleteI forget the reasons why but Lydia and Tim McGrew (I take this from a recollection of an interview of Lydia) think it is no good.
I feel the force of it but it is not something that can easily be used in discourse with your average unbeliever because it relies on very technical scientific knowledge that is not easy to articulate or, for a layman, to defend. More sophisticated arguments, eg. EAAN, are far easier to get across in their details than the fine-tuning argument based on the universe as a whole.
Also, recently Steve gave this link: http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/how-theists-and-atheists-reason-differently-about-god/ . Essentially, it seems to promote abductive reasoning (which I have no issue with). However, without going into the counter-arguments (which Collins refers to in the above mentioned interview), it is not immediately clear why a multiverse is not a reasonable conclusion of an abductive argument based on fine-tuning parameters.
Guess my criticism is merely one of practical application.
Thanks for the link, though. Will print and try to read it.