Fine-tuning as evidence for a multiverse: why White is wrong

Roger White (God and design, Routledge, London, 2003) claims that while the fine-tuning of our universe, \(\alpha \), may count as evidence for a designer, it cannot count as evidence for a multiverse. First, I will argue that his considerations are only correct, if at all, for a limited set of mult...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Saward, Mark Douglas (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2013
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2013, Volume: 73, Issue: 3, Pages: 243-253
Further subjects:B Design
B Multiverses
B God
B Fine-tuning argument
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:Electronic
Description
Summary:Roger White (God and design, Routledge, London, 2003) claims that while the fine-tuning of our universe, \(\alpha \), may count as evidence for a designer, it cannot count as evidence for a multiverse. First, I will argue that his considerations are only correct, if at all, for a limited set of multiverses that have particular features. As a result, I will argue that his claim cannot be generalised as a statement about all multiverses. This failure to generalise, I will argue, is also a feature of design hypotheses. That is, design hypotheses can likewise be made insensitive or sensitive to the evidence of fine-tuning as we please. Second, I will argue that White is mistaken about the role that this evidence plays in fine-tuning discussions. That is, even if the evidence of fine-tuning appears to support one particular hypothesis more strongly than another, this does not always help us in deciding which hypothesis to prefer.
ISSN:1572-8684
Contains:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-013-9395-4