What do you think?
Rate this book
Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us
A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this "fine-tuning" of the universe suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? In his in-depth and highly accessible discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, the author looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.
345 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
49 people are currently reading
1453 people want to read
About the author
Victor J. Stenger
31 books216 followersVictor John Stenger was an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist and author, active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
He published 13 books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience. He popularized the phrase "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
October 4, 2014
I am distressed by the way that atheism, at least for some people, has managed to metamorphose into just another religion. As far as I am concerned, a blind, dogmatic faith that there is no god is no different from any other kind of blind, dogmatic faith. I respect it, the way I respect all faiths (note that lower-cased 'g' on 'god'), but I had always thought of atheism as being somehow better, and linked to the valuable notion of skepticism. No more, apparently; The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning is an excellent example. I had seen a brief summary of the argument in chapter 5 of Stenger's earlier book
God: The Failed Hypothesis
, and didn't like it much. Now, he has expanded it to book length. I like it even less in its new form.
Stenger's presentation is deceptive at several different levels. First, the purpose of the book, as the title suggests, is to dispute the validity of the "fine-tuning argument", the claim that many of the universe's parameters appear to be carefully adjusted to a narrow range which makes life possible. There are, unsurprisingly, a number of people in the Christian apologist/Intelligent Design camp who like the idea, and Stenger goes to some lengths to make it look as though he is primarily arguing against them when he says that a wide range of settings for the universe's parameters would still have made it potentially hospitable to life. He rarely mentions that there are many extremely respectable scientists who are not in any way affiliated to ID, but still think fine-tuning makes good sense. More about that soon.
Second, Stenger includes numerous pages of complicated-looking formulas and graphs. It is evident from glancing at the other reviews here that non-expert readers often have a hard time understanding his math, and are inclined to take it on trust; they naturally assume that Stenger, who has had a distinguished career as a particle physicist, is presenting scientific support for his views in an honest and straightforward way. This is, unfortunately, far from clear.
So, third, and the crux of the matter: just how valid are Stenger's arguments? I am no expert, but I have read a reasonable amount in this area, and I immediately felt very suspicious about some of the points he makes. After just a few minutes of looking around, I found Luke Barnes, a young scientist who's currently working as a postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy. Barnes, who is an expert, posted a long paper on arXiv comprehensively criticizing Stenger's book. A short version was accepted by the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
I am not competent to judge many of Barnes's points just based on my own reading (as noted, he's an expert, I'm not), but some of things he mentions are so flagrant that I am quite sure he is correct. To name two important examples, Stenger says that the enormous difference in strength between the gravitational and electroweak forces is not in need of explanation. As Barnes points out, the "hierarchy problem" is one of the central mysteries of modern physics; it is ridiculous to say that there is nothing to discuss. Even more importantly, Stenger several times dismisses claims from the fine-tuning community on the grounds that they are explained by the mechanism of inflation in the early universe. It is well-known that inflation needs to be very finely tuned (probably to ten or eleven decimal places) in order to explain the observed data. Stenger nowhere mentions this critical point, which he is surely aware of.
In his blog, Barnes is articulate and funny when explaining what's wrong with Stenger. I particularly recommend his post from May 2 2012, "In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life", where he rebuts Stenger's response to his critical paper. Here is the concluding passage:
For people who still aren't convinced by the above: look at Sean Carroll's recent blog post, "Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology", where the first question is "In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned?" Carroll is about as far from being an apologist for ID as it's possible to imagine: he's a hard-line skeptic, and often represents the atheist side in science vs religion debates.
The simple truth of the matter is that Stenger is here representing a fringe position. The reason why few people have publicly contradicted him is that most mainstream scientists consider it a waste of time even to get into this argument. Barnes, as he points out, is just saying what nearly all the experts already think.
Stenger's presentation is deceptive at several different levels. First, the purpose of the book, as the title suggests, is to dispute the validity of the "fine-tuning argument", the claim that many of the universe's parameters appear to be carefully adjusted to a narrow range which makes life possible. There are, unsurprisingly, a number of people in the Christian apologist/Intelligent Design camp who like the idea, and Stenger goes to some lengths to make it look as though he is primarily arguing against them when he says that a wide range of settings for the universe's parameters would still have made it potentially hospitable to life. He rarely mentions that there are many extremely respectable scientists who are not in any way affiliated to ID, but still think fine-tuning makes good sense. More about that soon.
Second, Stenger includes numerous pages of complicated-looking formulas and graphs. It is evident from glancing at the other reviews here that non-expert readers often have a hard time understanding his math, and are inclined to take it on trust; they naturally assume that Stenger, who has had a distinguished career as a particle physicist, is presenting scientific support for his views in an honest and straightforward way. This is, unfortunately, far from clear.
So, third, and the crux of the matter: just how valid are Stenger's arguments? I am no expert, but I have read a reasonable amount in this area, and I immediately felt very suspicious about some of the points he makes. After just a few minutes of looking around, I found Luke Barnes, a young scientist who's currently working as a postdoctoral researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy. Barnes, who is an expert, posted a long paper on arXiv comprehensively criticizing Stenger's book. A short version was accepted by the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
I am not competent to judge many of Barnes's points just based on my own reading (as noted, he's an expert, I'm not), but some of things he mentions are so flagrant that I am quite sure he is correct. To name two important examples, Stenger says that the enormous difference in strength between the gravitational and electroweak forces is not in need of explanation. As Barnes points out, the "hierarchy problem" is one of the central mysteries of modern physics; it is ridiculous to say that there is nothing to discuss. Even more importantly, Stenger several times dismisses claims from the fine-tuning community on the grounds that they are explained by the mechanism of inflation in the early universe. It is well-known that inflation needs to be very finely tuned (probably to ten or eleven decimal places) in order to explain the observed data. Stenger nowhere mentions this critical point, which he is surely aware of.
In his blog, Barnes is articulate and funny when explaining what's wrong with Stenger. I particularly recommend his post from May 2 2012, "In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life", where he rebuts Stenger's response to his critical paper. Here is the concluding passage:
Large red letters on Stenger's homepage inform us that "No reputable physicist or cosmologist has disputed this book". I guess that makes me a disreputable cosmologist. In the meantime, a shortened version of my paper has been accepted for publication by Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. The fate of Stenger's paper 'A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos', submitted to the "Journal of Cosmology", is unknown.______________________________________
In any case, if you'd rather decide this issue by a show of hands rather than good arguments, then let's play pick the odd one out of these non-theist scientists.
Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life's requirements and nature's choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: "Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. ... The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it."
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life -- what we might call a biophilic universe -- has to be 'adjusted' in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about -- long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc -- are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, 'life' or 'intelligence' requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can't exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics ... are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. ... [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.
Guess who?: The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. ... [S]ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models. ... . My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes.
For people who still aren't convinced by the above: look at Sean Carroll's recent blog post, "Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology", where the first question is "In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned?" Carroll is about as far from being an apologist for ID as it's possible to imagine: he's a hard-line skeptic, and often represents the atheist side in science vs religion debates.
The simple truth of the matter is that Stenger is here representing a fringe position. The reason why few people have publicly contradicted him is that most mainstream scientists consider it a waste of time even to get into this argument. Barnes, as he points out, is just saying what nearly all the experts already think.
October 7, 2013
This is an excellent book; an in-depth, comprehensive review of the anthropic theory. A number of authors have claimed that the fundamental constants are "exactly" tuned to the values needed, in order to produce galaxies, stars, planets, the earth, chemistry, and life. These authors claim that if any of 30 or so fundamental constants were different by even an exceedingly small amount, then life (and perhaps even stars, in some cases) would be impossible.
In this book, step-by-step, Victor Stenger reviews every argument that has been put forward for the idea that the universe has been "fine-tuned" for life. He reviews the values of each of the fundamental constants, and analyzes how much "leeway" there is in which the universe would have evolved and produced stars and planets, and life--although the life forms might not be those forms with which we are familiar.
Stenger has a deep insight into the standard model of particle physics, and the concordance model of cosmology. He really gets to the nub of each issue of the anthropic theory, and lays out the physics equations that are pertinent. He analyzes the equations, showing how they are relevant, and the "leeway" that applies to each of the fundamental constants of physics. He shows that some of the fundamental constants can vary by as much as two orders of magnitude, or even ten orders of magnitude, and still allow a universe to evolve into one like ours. One of the reasons is that the fundamental constants are not independent; if you change one, others must also change in order to satisfy the laws of physics. This point is often ignored by the proponents of the anthropic theory.
There are plenty of equations in this book; most require only first-year algebra, but some do require matrix algebra and calculus for a full understanding. While some reviewers may claim this is a negative, as many people will not understand the mathematical reasoning, I have the opposite opinion. The full dosage of equations is actually helpful, as it shows that Stenger has not done a lot of hand-waving like many of the proponents of anthropic theory. (In fact, Stenger mentions that most proponents simply quote each other without understanding the arguments from a physics point of view.) Also, the book is filled with simple diagrams that help to communicate his arguments.
The theory of multiple universes can totally mitigate the problem of fine tuning. And, Stenger points out that while multiple universes cannot be observed, their existence is compatible with all known laws of physics. However, Stenger makes it a point that he does not want to resort to this theory, as it is not at all necessary to invoke multiple universes, in order to prove the fallacy of fine tuning.
My favorite chapter is the one on Bayes theorem. First, Stenger relates a silly argument in the book The Probability of God by Stephen Unwin. In that book, a string of arguments using Bayes theorem concludes that the probability of God is 67%. (Why not 66% or 68%?) Then, Stenger relates a refutation by physicist Larry Ford, where he shows that a more realistic set of assumptions brings the probability down to 10^-17. But Stenger goes one better, using Bayes theorem from a different point of view. He shows that the more one believes that the physical constants require fine tuning, the more probable it is that the universe has purely natural causes.
In this book, step-by-step, Victor Stenger reviews every argument that has been put forward for the idea that the universe has been "fine-tuned" for life. He reviews the values of each of the fundamental constants, and analyzes how much "leeway" there is in which the universe would have evolved and produced stars and planets, and life--although the life forms might not be those forms with which we are familiar.
Stenger has a deep insight into the standard model of particle physics, and the concordance model of cosmology. He really gets to the nub of each issue of the anthropic theory, and lays out the physics equations that are pertinent. He analyzes the equations, showing how they are relevant, and the "leeway" that applies to each of the fundamental constants of physics. He shows that some of the fundamental constants can vary by as much as two orders of magnitude, or even ten orders of magnitude, and still allow a universe to evolve into one like ours. One of the reasons is that the fundamental constants are not independent; if you change one, others must also change in order to satisfy the laws of physics. This point is often ignored by the proponents of the anthropic theory.
There are plenty of equations in this book; most require only first-year algebra, but some do require matrix algebra and calculus for a full understanding. While some reviewers may claim this is a negative, as many people will not understand the mathematical reasoning, I have the opposite opinion. The full dosage of equations is actually helpful, as it shows that Stenger has not done a lot of hand-waving like many of the proponents of anthropic theory. (In fact, Stenger mentions that most proponents simply quote each other without understanding the arguments from a physics point of view.) Also, the book is filled with simple diagrams that help to communicate his arguments.
The theory of multiple universes can totally mitigate the problem of fine tuning. And, Stenger points out that while multiple universes cannot be observed, their existence is compatible with all known laws of physics. However, Stenger makes it a point that he does not want to resort to this theory, as it is not at all necessary to invoke multiple universes, in order to prove the fallacy of fine tuning.
My favorite chapter is the one on Bayes theorem. First, Stenger relates a silly argument in the book The Probability of God by Stephen Unwin. In that book, a string of arguments using Bayes theorem concludes that the probability of God is 67%. (Why not 66% or 68%?) Then, Stenger relates a refutation by physicist Larry Ford, where he shows that a more realistic set of assumptions brings the probability down to 10^-17. But Stenger goes one better, using Bayes theorem from a different point of view. He shows that the more one believes that the physical constants require fine tuning, the more probable it is that the universe has purely natural causes.
October 4, 2011
The two stars I’ve given The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning more reflects my inadequacies as a reader than any failure on Stenger’s part. He gives fair warning that anyone reading his book should have at least a basic, college-level familiarity with math and physics.
Alas, that is not me.
As an undergraduate, I attended Washington University in St. Louis, a pretty good, private institution whose graduation requirements (at least in 1985) included taking classes in a variety of disciplines, including math and science. There was, however, a loophole. Because of my math scores on the ACT, I managed to avoid any further math courses, and I satisfied my science requirements with an astronomy and a biology class. In hindsight, Wash U. should have stuck to its guns and made me take some math courses, at least up to calculus.
I plunged ahead, though, because Stenger said I could skip the equations (which are conveniently placed in squared off sections such as the page reproduced below:
).
That didn’t help much when the prose sections included sentences like this: “This implies that the cancellation B-F will be exact above that energy, and we can use an energy cutoff of MPl = 1 TeV = 103 GeV, rather than the Planck energy, 1019 GeV. Then the vacuum energy density is ρvac = 1051(B-F) GeV/cm3.” (p. 219) (The many super- and subscripted expressions didn't come through but you get the idea.)
But I persevered because, despite myriad formulae and symbols, I found I could parse what he was trying to get across: Whether we consider a singular universe, a biverse (two universes, mirrors of each other ) or a multiverse, there is no evidence that the conditions that make life as we know it possible are “fine tuned.” We can conceive of a range of parameters that would produce a universe capable of supporting our sort of life, and – if we’re willing to entertain more exotic definitions of “life” – even larger numbers of life-friendly universes.
Stenger does save himself in the eyes of the math/physics illiterate (or largely illiterate) in his final chapter, “Summary and Review,” where he summarizes in straightforward prose the points he’s made in the preceding pages:
I can only recommend this book with cautions. If you are not very literate in math/physics or temporally close to your college math and physics classes, a lot of this book will pass right over your head. On the other hand, even if you have only a glancing familiarity with those subjects but are otherwise familiar with the arguments about fine-tuning and the anthropic principle, you can come away with a better understanding of why our universe is a remarkable but not unique expression of natural, observable laws. (And a humbling appreciation of how much we know and how much we still need to learn to figure out how everything’s put together.)
In conclusion, I should mention that Stenger is not a New Atheist, railing against the delusions of benighted fools who refuse to see the evidence before their eyes. His purpose in this book is simply to show that arguing for a designer based upon the idea that our universe is too finely tuned to be a result of natural laws is wrong. Believers cannot point to anything in our current understanding that would suggest the need for a god (or gods) to intervene, and any person’s religious profession must still rely upon a rationally unjustified leap of faith.
Alas, that is not me.
As an undergraduate, I attended Washington University in St. Louis, a pretty good, private institution whose graduation requirements (at least in 1985) included taking classes in a variety of disciplines, including math and science. There was, however, a loophole. Because of my math scores on the ACT, I managed to avoid any further math courses, and I satisfied my science requirements with an astronomy and a biology class. In hindsight, Wash U. should have stuck to its guns and made me take some math courses, at least up to calculus.
I plunged ahead, though, because Stenger said I could skip the equations (which are conveniently placed in squared off sections such as the page reproduced below:
).That didn’t help much when the prose sections included sentences like this: “This implies that the cancellation B-F will be exact above that energy, and we can use an energy cutoff of MPl = 1 TeV = 103 GeV, rather than the Planck energy, 1019 GeV. Then the vacuum energy density is ρvac = 1051(B-F) GeV/cm3.” (p. 219) (The many super- and subscripted expressions didn't come through but you get the idea.)
But I persevered because, despite myriad formulae and symbols, I found I could parse what he was trying to get across: Whether we consider a singular universe, a biverse (two universes, mirrors of each other ) or a multiverse, there is no evidence that the conditions that make life as we know it possible are “fine tuned.” We can conceive of a range of parameters that would produce a universe capable of supporting our sort of life, and – if we’re willing to entertain more exotic definitions of “life” – even larger numbers of life-friendly universes.
Stenger does save himself in the eyes of the math/physics illiterate (or largely illiterate) in his final chapter, “Summary and Review,” where he summarizes in straightforward prose the points he’s made in the preceding pages:
Most parameters used by “fine-tuners” are conventions invented by humans to describe observed phenomena.
Fine-tuners often try to prove their point by changing only one parameter. By adjusting others, you can often compensate for whatever effect the first parameter change brought about.
Many parameters are complementary – Change one and others will be affected.
Arguing that the universe is improbable is as fallacious. Any particular situation is equally improbable.
I can only recommend this book with cautions. If you are not very literate in math/physics or temporally close to your college math and physics classes, a lot of this book will pass right over your head. On the other hand, even if you have only a glancing familiarity with those subjects but are otherwise familiar with the arguments about fine-tuning and the anthropic principle, you can come away with a better understanding of why our universe is a remarkable but not unique expression of natural, observable laws. (And a humbling appreciation of how much we know and how much we still need to learn to figure out how everything’s put together.)
In conclusion, I should mention that Stenger is not a New Atheist, railing against the delusions of benighted fools who refuse to see the evidence before their eyes. His purpose in this book is simply to show that arguing for a designer based upon the idea that our universe is too finely tuned to be a result of natural laws is wrong. Believers cannot point to anything in our current understanding that would suggest the need for a god (or gods) to intervene, and any person’s religious profession must still rely upon a rationally unjustified leap of faith.
September 30, 2011
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us by Victor J. Stenger
"The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" is the latest science-driven book by the great author and physicist Victor J. Stenger. In this book, Dr. Stenger tackles the controversial topic of fine-tuning in a thorough and compelling manner. This methodical 345-page book is composed of the following sixteen chapters: 1. Science and God, 2. The Anthropic Principles, 3. The Four Dimensions, 4. Point-of-View Invariance, 5. Cosmos, 6. The Eternal Universe, 7. Gravity is Fiction, 8. Chemistry, 9. The Hoyle Resonance, 10. Physics Parameters, 11. Cosmic Parameters, 12. The Cosmological Constant, 13. Monkeygod, 14. Probability, 15. Quantum and Consciousness, and 16. Summary and Review.
Positives:
1. An ambitious book that is well-written, and well-researched.
2. The scientifically minded and especially those who enjoy math will rejoice in this book as the author brings out the heavy mathematical artillery.
3. If you are looking for a book that scientifically addresses the issue of fine-tuning, this is it.
4. Directly addresses the issue, that the parameters of our universe are "fine-tuned" to produce life as we know it. Otherwise known as, the anthropic principle.
5. Great use of illustrations and diagrams.
6. Great use of science and math to provide compelling arguments for his points.
7. Consistent work throughout. Makes use of only well-established physics to base his arguments from.
8. Is the multiverse model unscientific?
9. What logic can and cannot do.
10. The anthropic principles in thorough detail.
11. Scientific wisdom, "Models that cannot be falsified, that explain everything, explain nothing".
12. The author meticulously goes over every major "fine-tuned" parameter and puts them in their proper perspective. Painstakingly using his prodigious physics knowledge to do so.
13. Physics lovers rejoice. The who's who of physics in historical context.
14. Classic physics and then some.
15. The importance of building models that accurately describes the world we live in.
16. The "stuff" the universe is made of.
17. What we do and not know about dark matter. Enlightening!
18. The Kalam cosmological argument debunked yet again.
19. Great explanation for what we mean by "infinity" in physics.
20. Thought-provoking quotes, "If humanity is so special in God's eye, doesn't it make you wonder why he waited 13.6998 billion years before creating us?"
21. The Large Hadron Collider and what we are hoping to get from it.
22. The most important element for our life is...
23. The common mistakes of fine tuners.
24. Parameter after parameter shown not to be fine-tuned, bravo!
25. Hubble's law.
26. Einstein's greatest blunder.
27. The probability of events.
28. Quantum consciousness??
29. Great final chapter that summarizes the book.
30. Links worked great!
31. Great notes and bibliography.
Negatives:
1. This book despite being simplified is not accessible to the masses. The math used is way beyond the comprehension of your average Joe and unfortunately there is a lot of it in this book.
2. Physics in many regards defies logic and as such makes the topic obscure at times.
3. The amount of mathematical equations did take away from the joy of this book for the laymen.
4. Somewhat repetitive.
In summary, this is a difficult read for the laymen. Dr. Stenger takes the calculated approach of thoroughly debunking the fine-tuning argument but relies heavily on mathematical equations and in doing so sacrifices accessibility. However, he accomplishes what he sought out to do, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt through sound science that the fine-tuning argument is a fallacy. If you love science and in particular physics and have a good grasp for mathematics I highly recommend this book. Otherwise, I would have some minor reservations unless of course you are willing to jump over the mathematical equations and enjoy the rest of the book.
Recommendations: "God the Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger, "Physics of the Future" by Michio Kaku, Science Under Siegs" by Kendrick Frazier, "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
"The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" is the latest science-driven book by the great author and physicist Victor J. Stenger. In this book, Dr. Stenger tackles the controversial topic of fine-tuning in a thorough and compelling manner. This methodical 345-page book is composed of the following sixteen chapters: 1. Science and God, 2. The Anthropic Principles, 3. The Four Dimensions, 4. Point-of-View Invariance, 5. Cosmos, 6. The Eternal Universe, 7. Gravity is Fiction, 8. Chemistry, 9. The Hoyle Resonance, 10. Physics Parameters, 11. Cosmic Parameters, 12. The Cosmological Constant, 13. Monkeygod, 14. Probability, 15. Quantum and Consciousness, and 16. Summary and Review.
Positives:
1. An ambitious book that is well-written, and well-researched.
2. The scientifically minded and especially those who enjoy math will rejoice in this book as the author brings out the heavy mathematical artillery.
3. If you are looking for a book that scientifically addresses the issue of fine-tuning, this is it.
4. Directly addresses the issue, that the parameters of our universe are "fine-tuned" to produce life as we know it. Otherwise known as, the anthropic principle.
5. Great use of illustrations and diagrams.
6. Great use of science and math to provide compelling arguments for his points.
7. Consistent work throughout. Makes use of only well-established physics to base his arguments from.
8. Is the multiverse model unscientific?
9. What logic can and cannot do.
10. The anthropic principles in thorough detail.
11. Scientific wisdom, "Models that cannot be falsified, that explain everything, explain nothing".
12. The author meticulously goes over every major "fine-tuned" parameter and puts them in their proper perspective. Painstakingly using his prodigious physics knowledge to do so.
13. Physics lovers rejoice. The who's who of physics in historical context.
14. Classic physics and then some.
15. The importance of building models that accurately describes the world we live in.
16. The "stuff" the universe is made of.
17. What we do and not know about dark matter. Enlightening!
18. The Kalam cosmological argument debunked yet again.
19. Great explanation for what we mean by "infinity" in physics.
20. Thought-provoking quotes, "If humanity is so special in God's eye, doesn't it make you wonder why he waited 13.6998 billion years before creating us?"
21. The Large Hadron Collider and what we are hoping to get from it.
22. The most important element for our life is...
23. The common mistakes of fine tuners.
24. Parameter after parameter shown not to be fine-tuned, bravo!
25. Hubble's law.
26. Einstein's greatest blunder.
27. The probability of events.
28. Quantum consciousness??
29. Great final chapter that summarizes the book.
30. Links worked great!
31. Great notes and bibliography.
Negatives:
1. This book despite being simplified is not accessible to the masses. The math used is way beyond the comprehension of your average Joe and unfortunately there is a lot of it in this book.
2. Physics in many regards defies logic and as such makes the topic obscure at times.
3. The amount of mathematical equations did take away from the joy of this book for the laymen.
4. Somewhat repetitive.
In summary, this is a difficult read for the laymen. Dr. Stenger takes the calculated approach of thoroughly debunking the fine-tuning argument but relies heavily on mathematical equations and in doing so sacrifices accessibility. However, he accomplishes what he sought out to do, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt through sound science that the fine-tuning argument is a fallacy. If you love science and in particular physics and have a good grasp for mathematics I highly recommend this book. Otherwise, I would have some minor reservations unless of course you are willing to jump over the mathematical equations and enjoy the rest of the book.
Recommendations: "God the Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger, "Physics of the Future" by Michio Kaku, Science Under Siegs" by Kendrick Frazier, "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
October 17, 2014
The author does make a slam dunk case on the non-sense of fine-tuning. He fills the book with mathematics, physics and statistical equations. That doesn't bother me, what did bother me is he doesn't always give enough explanations to the equations or their derivations if the reader is seeing them for the first time. If you put such complex equations into a book, don't underestimate the reader's desire to understand them, but they often were obviously incomplete.
The writer is not always good at explaining somethings and I would find myself re-reading sections for clarification and realizing that some of the points weren't fully flushed out. That could be frustrating.
Though, sometimes the author explained concepts or put the pieces together or made statements better than I have ever seen them anywhere before. This is one of the beauties of this book. The author knew how to get to the heart of a point better than I've seen elsewhere.
Fine-tuning is just a dumb concept and the author gives really good reasons why it should be ignored. Most of the book is a reaction to what somebody (usually a theist of some kind) has made and the author demonstrates why the point is best thought of in different ways.
My complaint of the book is not the author's points or arguments, it's that he doesn't always explain the math fully and sometimes he writes awkwardly.
The writer is not always good at explaining somethings and I would find myself re-reading sections for clarification and realizing that some of the points weren't fully flushed out. That could be frustrating.
Though, sometimes the author explained concepts or put the pieces together or made statements better than I have ever seen them anywhere before. This is one of the beauties of this book. The author knew how to get to the heart of a point better than I've seen elsewhere.
Fine-tuning is just a dumb concept and the author gives really good reasons why it should be ignored. Most of the book is a reaction to what somebody (usually a theist of some kind) has made and the author demonstrates why the point is best thought of in different ways.
My complaint of the book is not the author's points or arguments, it's that he doesn't always explain the math fully and sometimes he writes awkwardly.
August 3, 2017
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
This offering by the late Dr. Stenger addresses the claim made by a number of apologists that the basic parameters of the universe have been fine tuned in order that life in general and, more importantly, human life in particular could arise. In other words the universe was made specifically to have us in it. There are a variety of apologists that point to a number of different aspects of our current models and claim none of these could have come about without the intervention of a supernatural entity. In this book, Dr. Stenger addresses each and every one of them and also provides the the relevant equations to show how these claims are specious at best and outright dishonest at worst. Don't let the large amount of equations in the book throw you off. As Dr. Stenger says in the preface, you can easily skim over them and still understand the points he is making. If you have the requisite knowledge of physics, the equations demonstrate his claims in the language of science. By far the most interesting takeaway from the book is that the apologists who attempt to argue that the universe is fine tuned are well aware that the scientists who actually deal with the subject have shown, like Dr. Stenger does in this book, how wrong those arguments are. Yet, even though their arguments have been shown to be false they continue to use them in debates and in their published works. If one has to lie to defend what one believes then what one believes is a lie.
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
This offering by the late Dr. Stenger addresses the claim made by a number of apologists that the basic parameters of the universe have been fine tuned in order that life in general and, more importantly, human life in particular could arise. In other words the universe was made specifically to have us in it. There are a variety of apologists that point to a number of different aspects of our current models and claim none of these could have come about without the intervention of a supernatural entity. In this book, Dr. Stenger addresses each and every one of them and also provides the the relevant equations to show how these claims are specious at best and outright dishonest at worst. Don't let the large amount of equations in the book throw you off. As Dr. Stenger says in the preface, you can easily skim over them and still understand the points he is making. If you have the requisite knowledge of physics, the equations demonstrate his claims in the language of science. By far the most interesting takeaway from the book is that the apologists who attempt to argue that the universe is fine tuned are well aware that the scientists who actually deal with the subject have shown, like Dr. Stenger does in this book, how wrong those arguments are. Yet, even though their arguments have been shown to be false they continue to use them in debates and in their published works. If one has to lie to defend what one believes then what one believes is a lie.
October 22, 2013
An indepth treatment of the subject, including mathematical explanations of the various parameters that some claim show that the universe was designed for life -- usually meaning, for us human beings and by some creator god. The author then shows that these parameters need not be the exact values they are for life to be possible, and many could vary quite widely. Also, he brings out that the parameters are interdependent, so it is unrealistic to argue about varying this one alone, or that one. If one value changed, others would change as well, compensating for the effects of the original change. The upshot is that there is no need for a divine intervention to explain the way the universe is; natural processes are very sufficient and life not improbable.
If you want to understand the issues as a physicist does, this is the book. If you want just the gist of the argument against fine-tuning, this book will be too detailed. It would benefit those arguing for fine-tuning to be more familiar with the material presented here, though I doubt it would change their minds -- few people change deeply held beliefs on the basis of rational argument.
If you want to understand the issues as a physicist does, this is the book. If you want just the gist of the argument against fine-tuning, this book will be too detailed. It would benefit those arguing for fine-tuning to be more familiar with the material presented here, though I doubt it would change their minds -- few people change deeply held beliefs on the basis of rational argument.
August 1, 2023
I have a problem with the hard-core skeptics being as nutty as the hard-core libertarian oddballs out there!
Honestly, i think the religious flakes are just as warped as the skeptics, and it's just two types of tiresome people with a fanatical axe to grind. I'm always disappointed when people have this urge to go for low hanging fruit, and have the urge to debate and get some glee out of debating a bunch of religious dummies. Fuck me, just teach some kids mathematics, like do something useful.
Same goes for Dawkins, who i agree with him one third of a time, and he's enjoyable there as a social critic, but when he gets off on other topics, i just think he's out of his depth like when he starts talking about philosophy, he's just an embarassment.
Sir Alfred Ayer i think got it right when 99% of all debates on ethics and metaphysics boil down to likes and dislikes, and often ethical statements and metaphysical statements are of a defective logical form.
a. I like this, you do it too!
b. I don't like that, stop doing that!
And when people invoke scientist or theology, they have a few bolts loose.
---
Now as for the Battle of the Astrophysicists, it's a pretty cool one.
one of the best summaries came from the odd
Is There A God Blog
quote
In recent decades, cosmologists have investigated the ‘fine-tuning’ of a number of physical laws and values that determine the structure and nature of our universe. It appears that these parameters have to be very carefully selected for our universe to survive and for intelligent life to evolve.
This scientific conclusions has been used to argue for the existence of God, so when two expert scientists strongly disagree, the stakes are high.
.....
The protagonists
Victor Stenger
Victor Stenger is a semi-retired US particle physicist (formerly of the University of Hawaii), an author and a committed atheist. He has written a dozen books on science and religion, and has taken an interest in the fine-tuning question.
Of particular interest are his papers Intelligent Design and The Anthropic Principle, a computer simulation, MonkeyGod and the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
Luke Barnes
Luke Barnes is a postdoctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Sydney, having previously studied at Cambridge and worked in Switzerland.
He has taken considerable interest in the question of fine-tuning. On his blog, Letters to Nature, he has evaluated and critiqued the views of theists such as William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and PZ Myers – and Stenger.
.....
Claim and counter claim
Stenger claimed in the book that fine-tuning is a fallacy.
“The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained….. Plausible natural explanations can be found for those parameters that are most crucial for life”
Barnes argued in a comprehensive paper later published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29, 4, pp. 529) that Stenger had got most of the science wrong in both his book and the MonkeyGod simulation. He concludes his review of the fine-tuning literature with:
'...the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life.'
Stenger responded with a brief 12 page paper which claims Barnes has misunderstood and misrepresented him, does not invalidate any of the book, which is in agreement with the literature.
Finally Barnes replied with a further critique, concluding that Stenger had failed in his objectives, and was clearly out of step with the science, quoting 7 of the world’s top cosmologists to illustrate.
.....
Who’s right?
It seems to me that Barnes’ case is far stronger than Stenger’s.
Expertise
Barnes works in the field and has peer-reviewed publications in cosmology, including his paper critiquing Stenger’s book. Stenger’s field is particle physics, which is relevant to only some of the cosmology, and I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed publications in cosmology. (He did prepare a paper but it hasn’t appeared.)
Depth of argument
I don’t have any competence in cosmology, but Barnes has argued his case with impressive rigour and copious references to current research. Stenger’s case is, on his own admission, aimed at a more popular level, and therefore he doesn’t really address the scientific evidence referenced by Barnes.
Scientific consensus
Stenger claims “no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions”, and he has corresponded with several prominent cosmologists and obtained their response to two questions he put to them.
But their replies don’t support Stenger’s claim that they agree with him – they clearly disagree about the science – and Stenger has had to re-interpret their comments to suit his purposes. (see Note 1)
[Martin Rees didn’t give a public reply, so Stenger quotes some of his books to the effect that fine-tuning (which Rees accepts) need not imply a designer God – but ignores the fact that Rees clearly writes (in Just Six Numbers) that God is a possible explanation, but not a scientific one. Rees definitely supports Barnes’ view over Stenger’s.]
[It is thus clear that Stenger has seriously overstated and confused the support he received from these four cosmologists. On the matters taken up by Barnes, the cosmologists all support Barnes over Stenger – they clearly give examples where there is no natural explanation of fine-tuning. It is only on the question of whether fine-tuning implies theism that they cautiously agree with Stenger, but this isn’t a matter addressed by Barnes.]
Barnes is discussing the science, not theistic arguments, and Stenger’s conclusions on the science disagree with the impressive list of ‘world-class’ cosmologists referenced by Barnes (and even the ones he himself quotes).
I have read some of the scientists Barnes quotes (Rees, Davies, Penrose, Susskind) and they definitely support the scientific argument for fine-tuning.
Confirmation bias?
Stenger is an atheist who believes science and theistic belief are incompatible, and clearly has an agenda in arguing against fine-tuning.
In some places he seems uninterested in the science, only in arguing against God; in other places he confuses the two.
Barnes, on the other hand, has no stated religious or anti-religious belief (I would guess he is an open-minded agnostic), and argues from the scientific evidence alone.
.....
What this may, or may not, prove
a. We need to distinguish the scientific and philosophical questions. Stenger seems confused about this, and jumps between the scientific consensus (which is clearly against him) and the metaphysical question (which Barnes doesn’t address).
He doesn’t seem to realise that a scientific fine-tuning claim is not necessarily a theistic claim. Barnes clearly distinguishes the two, and bases his discussion on the science.
b. Stenger appears to be wrong about the science and argues it rather poorly, while Barnes has outlined the current scientific consensus clearly.
However we explain it, the physics of the universe shows that: “In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small.” (Luke Barnes)
c. Stenger is correct that most prominent cosmologists don’t argue that the science is a good basis for a theistic argument.
But neither do they argue against God – that is a philosophical question which most say little about.
Rees, Davies, Penrose, Susskind, for example, express agnostic views about God.
In the end, we should look to philosophers for an assessment of the theistic argument.
---
Amazone
Fine tuning remains a mystery
I believe Stenger's book goes to extraordinary lengths to "prove" something which it can't.
Stenger is clearly agenda driven as evidenced by his many other publications and activities, relating to religion.
I happen to think "fine tuning" is a profound coincidence that begs an explanation. Many first rate physicists and mathematicians have made the same observation.
Gravitational to strong force strength ratio:
Stenger goes to great lengths to avoid dealing with this life-friendly yet exceedingly improbable ratio (10^-39) of gravitational to the nuclear strong force (of the proton).
He in effect attempts to define it out of existence, probably because it is highly inconvenient to his thesis.
The Gravitational to nuclear force ratio (using the proton) is normally published as being approximately 10exp(-39). That is widely published in books, tables, and articles having nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument (i.e.,where there is no agenda).
It uses the proton as the particle where this ratio comparison is made.
But Stenger says the proton is not a fundamental particle and the gravity to nuclear strength ratio should be evaluated at the Planck mass.
But, the Planck mass is an abstraction, there is no known particle with that mass. He dismisses the proton (a real particle) as a valid particle for which to make this ratio measurement.
And, importantly, even granting that gravity and nuclear forces are theoretically* roughly equal at the Planck scale, the bare fact remains that they are different by 10^-39 factor, at the scale where it actually matters for this debate.
In a sense, this strengthens the coincidence argument, because nature has conspired to transform the immediate post big-bang super hot regime via phase changes into the differentiated and distinct forces that allow life.
Also saying the Planck scale is more fundamental is not true either. If the phase change view is taken (and it is widespread among physicists), then one phase is no more fundamental than another.
For example, one can't say liquid water is more fundamental than ice, even though liquid water has a higher degree of symmetry. (Yes, despite snow flake symmetries, liquid water has more symmetry in the technical sense.) They are just different manifestations of the same thing.
*Note: The physics of the Planck scale is still highly speculative, being inaccessible to current experiment. That is why string theory receives much criticism. It offers no path to direct experimental verification.
That is in turn because string theory depends on Planck scale energies, which are many orders of magnitude higher (by a factor of ~10^14) than experimentally accessible to any foreseeable particle accelerator.
The Planck mass is a notion that has no current experimental validation. Given that novel and unpredictable phenomena routinely occur with accelerators only marginally more energetic than the previous generation, it is hard to be confident in predictions so many magnitudes beyond experimental verification. But, the ratio of 10exp(-39) actually exists for a real particle (the proton).
Furthermore, that is the scale of physical reality where it interacts, in a meaningful way to the possibility of life.
The Planck scale doesn't matter in this argument.
What we should be talking about is the level of reality where the different forces affect life. That is, at the level where gravity is balanced against electromagnetic and nuclear short range forces. And which determine larger scale galactic formation, stellar evolution, stellar nucleosynthesis, and stellar lifetimes, all directly related to the possibility of life.
Probability
Stenger introduces arguments from probability. The Bayesian claim seems dubious.
He first gives an example of the school with boys and girls and skirts and trousers. That example is perfectly clear and sensible. In part because all variables are well-defined. They are unambiguously observable and quantifiable, having binary values. One binary value is Boy vs. Girl. The other is skirts vs. trousers. Each variable is definite and observable.
However that is not the case when Stenger attempts to apply the same Bayesian calculation to fine-tuning. For that he introduces the following variables:
L= "the universe exists and has life"; F=The conditions in the universe are life friendly"; N="the universe is governed solely by physical law".
Note L and F are redundant. F says conditions in the universe are life friendly. Obviously F must be true if L is true (If the universe has life, it must be life friendly). And conversely, L must be true if F is true (you couldn't say the universe is life friendly if you did not exist, or if no examples of life existed (and what other criterion could you use?). And saying the "universe exists" is unnecessary and need not be stated. None of the 3 cases could be true without the universe existing. Nor would we be talking about it here.
Note that N is neither well-defined or observable. Instead N is subjective and unquantifiable. What does one observe, or mean, when saying a universe is "governed solely by natural law"?
How do you observe, distinguish and in particular, quantify that? What if natural law were different from what we have now? Or what if it is just as it is now? How would you distinguish those from each other, in terms of quantifying the degree of "being governed by natural law"?
Or how would you distinguish a natural universe from one designed by divine creation? The naturalistic universe might appear just the same as a divinely created universe. Or maybe not. There is obviously no answer to those questions.
So, the exercise is meaningless. In any case, this application of Bayesian principles does not parallel the example of the trousers and skirts.
A "Parts List" argument
Any complex artifact has a parts list. A car or airliner has a parts list., small items that are assembled into the larger working product. You can reasonably say elementary particles and forces are the 'parts list' for the universe, and in particular, life. The most complex systems known are biological, in particular the human body. No human created artifact comes close in complexity and fine-grained detail. Sub-atomic particles and forces combine and form higher level structures, percolating upwards, all the way up to the macro level. In the case of life, the end result is a precisely functioning, hyper-complex organism.
Now, imagine another parts list consisting of randomly designated objects; a piece of stone here, a chunk of metal there, pieces of plastic, glass, anything. As many as you want, made of anything you choose at random. The parts are not to be shaped in any particular way-they can be of any size or shape, entirely determined randomly.
Now, what chance do you think this list would have of forming a precisely working complex machine? It's obvious, the probability would be nil.
In this case the "parameter space" (or phase space) is very large/infinite for all practical purposes, though one can limit it if desired.
Here the "parameter space" is all conceivable variations in the size, composition and shape of the randomly generated parts. If, we parameterized the materials, i.e., compositions, sizes and shapes were assigned independent coordinates (analogous to phase space or parameter space), the "machine friendly" hypervolume would be vanishingly small compared to the total hypervolume of the space.
Yet, Stenger claims there is no improbability conundrum that the parts list for matter (elementary particles and forces) , which in a single try, (the big bang) makes possible the most exquisitely complex of all machines, life.
One problem is that Stenger trivializes the difficulty (the improbability) of randomly chosen parameters allowing for complex and precise functioning (life). He seems to think it's pretty easy, and the parameter space is filled with life friendly places.
That is purely his assertion which has no evidence in fact.
And it runs contrary to the well known fact that complexity of function is very difficulty to achieve.
Random changes multiply failure much faster than success. Biologists know random mutations are overwhelmingly more likely to be destructive than helpful to an organism.
Biological evolution avoids that problem, but that is not the case with elementary particles and forces : Evolution involves trillions of trial end error events (mutation, sexual recombination of genes), both in parallel and all going forward serially. Success accumulates, while failure dies out.
There is a ratchet-like consolidation of gains by natural selection allowing the favorable but rare mutations to survive, while the failed ones are filtered out by natural selection.
Biological evolution makes sense and works, but elementary particles did not evolve.
There is no corresponding evolutionary process in the determination of elementary particles and forces.
That was determined essentially by a one-time event, the big bang and the subsequent inflation, symmetry breaking, and differentiation into the forces we see today.
When I say "one time event", I exclude the possibility of the multiverse, which seems the only alternative to avoid the huge coincidence of the fortuitous properties of matter being life-friendly.
The multiverse, if true, might provide the statistically large number of "trials" to get a life friendly universe.
John
---
It's interesting how hostile the reviews and debates about the book get, people who don't like the book, get roasted for being some religious theist, and i guess people miss some of the points about the law of physics and coincidences.
It's like there is a whole theology and anti-theology about Nature getting a hole in one on the golf course.
And if you are a hard core skeptic or reductionist, you'll accuse the other guy of saying that you said 'God got a Hole in one on the golf course'! A slight difference.
I pretty much think that I have a dislike of Scientists and 'scientism' when it's a philosophical argument not a scientific one, and sometimes the philsophy stinks, and the science stinks.
Honestly, i think the religious flakes are just as warped as the skeptics, and it's just two types of tiresome people with a fanatical axe to grind. I'm always disappointed when people have this urge to go for low hanging fruit, and have the urge to debate and get some glee out of debating a bunch of religious dummies. Fuck me, just teach some kids mathematics, like do something useful.
Same goes for Dawkins, who i agree with him one third of a time, and he's enjoyable there as a social critic, but when he gets off on other topics, i just think he's out of his depth like when he starts talking about philosophy, he's just an embarassment.
Sir Alfred Ayer i think got it right when 99% of all debates on ethics and metaphysics boil down to likes and dislikes, and often ethical statements and metaphysical statements are of a defective logical form.
a. I like this, you do it too!
b. I don't like that, stop doing that!
And when people invoke scientist or theology, they have a few bolts loose.
---
Now as for the Battle of the Astrophysicists, it's a pretty cool one.
one of the best summaries came from the odd
Is There A God Blog
quote
In recent decades, cosmologists have investigated the ‘fine-tuning’ of a number of physical laws and values that determine the structure and nature of our universe. It appears that these parameters have to be very carefully selected for our universe to survive and for intelligent life to evolve.
This scientific conclusions has been used to argue for the existence of God, so when two expert scientists strongly disagree, the stakes are high.
.....
The protagonists
Victor Stenger
Victor Stenger is a semi-retired US particle physicist (formerly of the University of Hawaii), an author and a committed atheist. He has written a dozen books on science and religion, and has taken an interest in the fine-tuning question.
Of particular interest are his papers Intelligent Design and The Anthropic Principle, a computer simulation, MonkeyGod and the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
Luke Barnes
Luke Barnes is a postdoctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Sydney, having previously studied at Cambridge and worked in Switzerland.
He has taken considerable interest in the question of fine-tuning. On his blog, Letters to Nature, he has evaluated and critiqued the views of theists such as William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and PZ Myers – and Stenger.
.....
Claim and counter claim
Stenger claimed in the book that fine-tuning is a fallacy.
“The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained….. Plausible natural explanations can be found for those parameters that are most crucial for life”
Barnes argued in a comprehensive paper later published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29, 4, pp. 529) that Stenger had got most of the science wrong in both his book and the MonkeyGod simulation. He concludes his review of the fine-tuning literature with:
'...the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life.'
Stenger responded with a brief 12 page paper which claims Barnes has misunderstood and misrepresented him, does not invalidate any of the book, which is in agreement with the literature.
Finally Barnes replied with a further critique, concluding that Stenger had failed in his objectives, and was clearly out of step with the science, quoting 7 of the world’s top cosmologists to illustrate.
.....
Who’s right?
It seems to me that Barnes’ case is far stronger than Stenger’s.
Expertise
Barnes works in the field and has peer-reviewed publications in cosmology, including his paper critiquing Stenger’s book. Stenger’s field is particle physics, which is relevant to only some of the cosmology, and I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed publications in cosmology. (He did prepare a paper but it hasn’t appeared.)
Depth of argument
I don’t have any competence in cosmology, but Barnes has argued his case with impressive rigour and copious references to current research. Stenger’s case is, on his own admission, aimed at a more popular level, and therefore he doesn’t really address the scientific evidence referenced by Barnes.
Scientific consensus
Stenger claims “no prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions”, and he has corresponded with several prominent cosmologists and obtained their response to two questions he put to them.
But their replies don’t support Stenger’s claim that they agree with him – they clearly disagree about the science – and Stenger has had to re-interpret their comments to suit his purposes. (see Note 1)
[Martin Rees didn’t give a public reply, so Stenger quotes some of his books to the effect that fine-tuning (which Rees accepts) need not imply a designer God – but ignores the fact that Rees clearly writes (in Just Six Numbers) that God is a possible explanation, but not a scientific one. Rees definitely supports Barnes’ view over Stenger’s.]
[It is thus clear that Stenger has seriously overstated and confused the support he received from these four cosmologists. On the matters taken up by Barnes, the cosmologists all support Barnes over Stenger – they clearly give examples where there is no natural explanation of fine-tuning. It is only on the question of whether fine-tuning implies theism that they cautiously agree with Stenger, but this isn’t a matter addressed by Barnes.]
Barnes is discussing the science, not theistic arguments, and Stenger’s conclusions on the science disagree with the impressive list of ‘world-class’ cosmologists referenced by Barnes (and even the ones he himself quotes).
I have read some of the scientists Barnes quotes (Rees, Davies, Penrose, Susskind) and they definitely support the scientific argument for fine-tuning.
Confirmation bias?
Stenger is an atheist who believes science and theistic belief are incompatible, and clearly has an agenda in arguing against fine-tuning.
In some places he seems uninterested in the science, only in arguing against God; in other places he confuses the two.
Barnes, on the other hand, has no stated religious or anti-religious belief (I would guess he is an open-minded agnostic), and argues from the scientific evidence alone.
.....
What this may, or may not, prove
a. We need to distinguish the scientific and philosophical questions. Stenger seems confused about this, and jumps between the scientific consensus (which is clearly against him) and the metaphysical question (which Barnes doesn’t address).
He doesn’t seem to realise that a scientific fine-tuning claim is not necessarily a theistic claim. Barnes clearly distinguishes the two, and bases his discussion on the science.
b. Stenger appears to be wrong about the science and argues it rather poorly, while Barnes has outlined the current scientific consensus clearly.
However we explain it, the physics of the universe shows that: “In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small.” (Luke Barnes)
c. Stenger is correct that most prominent cosmologists don’t argue that the science is a good basis for a theistic argument.
But neither do they argue against God – that is a philosophical question which most say little about.
Rees, Davies, Penrose, Susskind, for example, express agnostic views about God.
In the end, we should look to philosophers for an assessment of the theistic argument.
---
Amazone
Fine tuning remains a mystery
I believe Stenger's book goes to extraordinary lengths to "prove" something which it can't.
Stenger is clearly agenda driven as evidenced by his many other publications and activities, relating to religion.
I happen to think "fine tuning" is a profound coincidence that begs an explanation. Many first rate physicists and mathematicians have made the same observation.
Gravitational to strong force strength ratio:
Stenger goes to great lengths to avoid dealing with this life-friendly yet exceedingly improbable ratio (10^-39) of gravitational to the nuclear strong force (of the proton).
He in effect attempts to define it out of existence, probably because it is highly inconvenient to his thesis.
The Gravitational to nuclear force ratio (using the proton) is normally published as being approximately 10exp(-39). That is widely published in books, tables, and articles having nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument (i.e.,where there is no agenda).
It uses the proton as the particle where this ratio comparison is made.
But Stenger says the proton is not a fundamental particle and the gravity to nuclear strength ratio should be evaluated at the Planck mass.
But, the Planck mass is an abstraction, there is no known particle with that mass. He dismisses the proton (a real particle) as a valid particle for which to make this ratio measurement.
And, importantly, even granting that gravity and nuclear forces are theoretically* roughly equal at the Planck scale, the bare fact remains that they are different by 10^-39 factor, at the scale where it actually matters for this debate.
In a sense, this strengthens the coincidence argument, because nature has conspired to transform the immediate post big-bang super hot regime via phase changes into the differentiated and distinct forces that allow life.
Also saying the Planck scale is more fundamental is not true either. If the phase change view is taken (and it is widespread among physicists), then one phase is no more fundamental than another.
For example, one can't say liquid water is more fundamental than ice, even though liquid water has a higher degree of symmetry. (Yes, despite snow flake symmetries, liquid water has more symmetry in the technical sense.) They are just different manifestations of the same thing.
*Note: The physics of the Planck scale is still highly speculative, being inaccessible to current experiment. That is why string theory receives much criticism. It offers no path to direct experimental verification.
That is in turn because string theory depends on Planck scale energies, which are many orders of magnitude higher (by a factor of ~10^14) than experimentally accessible to any foreseeable particle accelerator.
The Planck mass is a notion that has no current experimental validation. Given that novel and unpredictable phenomena routinely occur with accelerators only marginally more energetic than the previous generation, it is hard to be confident in predictions so many magnitudes beyond experimental verification. But, the ratio of 10exp(-39) actually exists for a real particle (the proton).
Furthermore, that is the scale of physical reality where it interacts, in a meaningful way to the possibility of life.
The Planck scale doesn't matter in this argument.
What we should be talking about is the level of reality where the different forces affect life. That is, at the level where gravity is balanced against electromagnetic and nuclear short range forces. And which determine larger scale galactic formation, stellar evolution, stellar nucleosynthesis, and stellar lifetimes, all directly related to the possibility of life.
Probability
Stenger introduces arguments from probability. The Bayesian claim seems dubious.
He first gives an example of the school with boys and girls and skirts and trousers. That example is perfectly clear and sensible. In part because all variables are well-defined. They are unambiguously observable and quantifiable, having binary values. One binary value is Boy vs. Girl. The other is skirts vs. trousers. Each variable is definite and observable.
However that is not the case when Stenger attempts to apply the same Bayesian calculation to fine-tuning. For that he introduces the following variables:
L= "the universe exists and has life"; F=The conditions in the universe are life friendly"; N="the universe is governed solely by physical law".
Note L and F are redundant. F says conditions in the universe are life friendly. Obviously F must be true if L is true (If the universe has life, it must be life friendly). And conversely, L must be true if F is true (you couldn't say the universe is life friendly if you did not exist, or if no examples of life existed (and what other criterion could you use?). And saying the "universe exists" is unnecessary and need not be stated. None of the 3 cases could be true without the universe existing. Nor would we be talking about it here.
Note that N is neither well-defined or observable. Instead N is subjective and unquantifiable. What does one observe, or mean, when saying a universe is "governed solely by natural law"?
How do you observe, distinguish and in particular, quantify that? What if natural law were different from what we have now? Or what if it is just as it is now? How would you distinguish those from each other, in terms of quantifying the degree of "being governed by natural law"?
Or how would you distinguish a natural universe from one designed by divine creation? The naturalistic universe might appear just the same as a divinely created universe. Or maybe not. There is obviously no answer to those questions.
So, the exercise is meaningless. In any case, this application of Bayesian principles does not parallel the example of the trousers and skirts.
A "Parts List" argument
Any complex artifact has a parts list. A car or airliner has a parts list., small items that are assembled into the larger working product. You can reasonably say elementary particles and forces are the 'parts list' for the universe, and in particular, life. The most complex systems known are biological, in particular the human body. No human created artifact comes close in complexity and fine-grained detail. Sub-atomic particles and forces combine and form higher level structures, percolating upwards, all the way up to the macro level. In the case of life, the end result is a precisely functioning, hyper-complex organism.
Now, imagine another parts list consisting of randomly designated objects; a piece of stone here, a chunk of metal there, pieces of plastic, glass, anything. As many as you want, made of anything you choose at random. The parts are not to be shaped in any particular way-they can be of any size or shape, entirely determined randomly.
Now, what chance do you think this list would have of forming a precisely working complex machine? It's obvious, the probability would be nil.
In this case the "parameter space" (or phase space) is very large/infinite for all practical purposes, though one can limit it if desired.
Here the "parameter space" is all conceivable variations in the size, composition and shape of the randomly generated parts. If, we parameterized the materials, i.e., compositions, sizes and shapes were assigned independent coordinates (analogous to phase space or parameter space), the "machine friendly" hypervolume would be vanishingly small compared to the total hypervolume of the space.
Yet, Stenger claims there is no improbability conundrum that the parts list for matter (elementary particles and forces) , which in a single try, (the big bang) makes possible the most exquisitely complex of all machines, life.
One problem is that Stenger trivializes the difficulty (the improbability) of randomly chosen parameters allowing for complex and precise functioning (life). He seems to think it's pretty easy, and the parameter space is filled with life friendly places.
That is purely his assertion which has no evidence in fact.
And it runs contrary to the well known fact that complexity of function is very difficulty to achieve.
Random changes multiply failure much faster than success. Biologists know random mutations are overwhelmingly more likely to be destructive than helpful to an organism.
Biological evolution avoids that problem, but that is not the case with elementary particles and forces : Evolution involves trillions of trial end error events (mutation, sexual recombination of genes), both in parallel and all going forward serially. Success accumulates, while failure dies out.
There is a ratchet-like consolidation of gains by natural selection allowing the favorable but rare mutations to survive, while the failed ones are filtered out by natural selection.
Biological evolution makes sense and works, but elementary particles did not evolve.
There is no corresponding evolutionary process in the determination of elementary particles and forces.
That was determined essentially by a one-time event, the big bang and the subsequent inflation, symmetry breaking, and differentiation into the forces we see today.
When I say "one time event", I exclude the possibility of the multiverse, which seems the only alternative to avoid the huge coincidence of the fortuitous properties of matter being life-friendly.
The multiverse, if true, might provide the statistically large number of "trials" to get a life friendly universe.
John
---
It's interesting how hostile the reviews and debates about the book get, people who don't like the book, get roasted for being some religious theist, and i guess people miss some of the points about the law of physics and coincidences.
It's like there is a whole theology and anti-theology about Nature getting a hole in one on the golf course.
And if you are a hard core skeptic or reductionist, you'll accuse the other guy of saying that you said 'God got a Hole in one on the golf course'! A slight difference.
I pretty much think that I have a dislike of Scientists and 'scientism' when it's a philosophical argument not a scientific one, and sometimes the philsophy stinks, and the science stinks.
March 23, 2020
If you know what fine-tuning is, then you may be puzzled as to what is the best explanation of it. The opinion is probably a wide spectrum but perhaps can be roughly divided into 3 camps.
Camp 1 dismisses the "strangeness" of it. Since the universe has to be able to support conscious life before said conscious life can wonder about such problems, whatever parameters are, are. Period.
Camp 2 wonders if this means many (perhaps infinitely many) other universes exist.
Camp 3 believes that fine-tuning is the result (maybe even proof) of some sort of intentional design or tuning by a designer (aka God).
At the moment, all these positions are beliefs/opinions. There is no cogent hypotheses (that I'm aware of) that allow testing. The author of the book clearly doesn't fall into camp 3 and is particularly annoyed about some members of this camp putting forward bad arguments and even facts to further their beliefs. Not all of the author's counter arguments are easily understandable as sometimes, the devil's in the detail. If you don't break out your quantum mechanical equations to calculate yourself, you have to basically trust the analogies are not distorted. But basically, he is saying the universe is not as fine-tuned as some (those people want you to join camp 3) would have you believe.
In some cases, later research found a wider range of parameters that earlier thought to be much narrower and more miraculous. (For instance, in Carbon fusion, Helium ions/alpha particles do not directly come together to form a carbon ion -- they do but with very very low probability. Instead they do so via beryllium-8 which requires the presence of a very specific excited state of carbon-12 (7.7MeV). Sure enough, this state was later experimentally verified. This was often used as a prime example of fine-tune. It turns out, later studies suggest that if the energy level had been a bit higher or lower, the process would still work. So it's not as miraculous as it might have seemed.)
In other cases, there may be a more fundamental reason why a parameter just has to assume a very particular value. So there is nothing miraculous about that either. (For instance, the universe seems to be precisely balanced between closed and open -- in other words geometrically flat. In fact the observations matches the critical density to fifty decimal places. One explanation is to imagine an earth, only much much larger (say, 1 followed by twenty 0s times larger), we will believe it is very flat too.)
In any case, reminded the author, the sophisticated architectures of plants and animals were once used as an evidence for intelligent design (Paley's watchmaker argument). Personally, I think everybody is free to believe in a supernatural being. But neither fine-tuning nor watchmaker is a good evidence to *convince* others.
Camp 1 dismisses the "strangeness" of it. Since the universe has to be able to support conscious life before said conscious life can wonder about such problems, whatever parameters are, are. Period.
Camp 2 wonders if this means many (perhaps infinitely many) other universes exist.
Camp 3 believes that fine-tuning is the result (maybe even proof) of some sort of intentional design or tuning by a designer (aka God).
At the moment, all these positions are beliefs/opinions. There is no cogent hypotheses (that I'm aware of) that allow testing. The author of the book clearly doesn't fall into camp 3 and is particularly annoyed about some members of this camp putting forward bad arguments and even facts to further their beliefs. Not all of the author's counter arguments are easily understandable as sometimes, the devil's in the detail. If you don't break out your quantum mechanical equations to calculate yourself, you have to basically trust the analogies are not distorted. But basically, he is saying the universe is not as fine-tuned as some (those people want you to join camp 3) would have you believe.
In some cases, later research found a wider range of parameters that earlier thought to be much narrower and more miraculous. (For instance, in Carbon fusion, Helium ions/alpha particles do not directly come together to form a carbon ion -- they do but with very very low probability. Instead they do so via beryllium-8 which requires the presence of a very specific excited state of carbon-12 (7.7MeV). Sure enough, this state was later experimentally verified. This was often used as a prime example of fine-tune. It turns out, later studies suggest that if the energy level had been a bit higher or lower, the process would still work. So it's not as miraculous as it might have seemed.)
In other cases, there may be a more fundamental reason why a parameter just has to assume a very particular value. So there is nothing miraculous about that either. (For instance, the universe seems to be precisely balanced between closed and open -- in other words geometrically flat. In fact the observations matches the critical density to fifty decimal places. One explanation is to imagine an earth, only much much larger (say, 1 followed by twenty 0s times larger), we will believe it is very flat too.)
In any case, reminded the author, the sophisticated architectures of plants and animals were once used as an evidence for intelligent design (Paley's watchmaker argument). Personally, I think everybody is free to believe in a supernatural being. But neither fine-tuning nor watchmaker is a good evidence to *convince* others.
December 1, 2011
Overall, I think the author did a good job at trying to address all the fine-tuning points that people try to make, but in the end I wasn't convinced that he was right and "they" were all wrong. Most of his arguments had a lot of assumptions or weren't truly supported by theory or experimentation. I've read books about both sides of this argument and neither side can make a compelling argument, so I'm still up in the air about it.
Oh, and another thing: many parts became very mathematics and physics dense, so the average reader most likely would not be able to follow. He tries to sum it up and make it more concise, but he usually fails. All in all an ok book.
Oh, and another thing: many parts became very mathematics and physics dense, so the average reader most likely would not be able to follow. He tries to sum it up and make it more concise, but he usually fails. All in all an ok book.
February 6, 2012
If this is the clearest possible explanation of how the universe is not fine-tuned, it's not surprising that some people think it is. I agree with Stenger's conclusion, and I think there's some good info here to back it up, it's just not presented in a way that the average reader can look at it and say 'Ah, of course!' - which is what's needed in a book like this. Sure, I suppose that's pretty hard to do, just pointing out that Stenger didn't manage to achieve it here. I'm a reader of writers like Brian Greene, etc., and that's the level of "popular" physics I expected - so unfortunately I can't really recommend this one to anyone who's not a physicist.
February 11, 2012
Honestly, the math in this book was mostly over my head, and I don't have enough expertise in physics to seriously evaluate most of Stenger's arguments. This book has received some intense criticism from other physicists, but those other physicists seem to all by Christians who already support the fine tuning argument. It was an interesting read, none-the-less.
August 27, 2011
Thank you, Victor Stenger, for this book. I knew fine tuning was likely false, based on what I know about biology, but I don't know physics, so this was helpful to me. The math was way beyond me, but the explanations and summaries were good. If I were smarter I would give it 5 stars :)
July 5, 2012
Though I thoroughly enjoy Stenger's work, and made it through the primary arguments and summaries/conclusions in this one, the physics and math are simply far too advanced for me to tackle. If only I'd paid more attention in Dr. Freudenrich's class, I would've gotten a lot more out of this one.
April 22, 2013
It's so hard to rate this book. On the one hand, I always really enjoy Stenger's writing. It is straight-to-the-point and cuts like a knife. On the other hand, the physics in here are definitely not easy, and I don't think he made it any easier.
July 12, 2011
The content was quite good, but I thought it suffered from somewhat poor organization.
May 28, 2018
A number of scientists have proposed the idea that if the values of a number of physical constants were any different, the universe could not exist. The speed of light, Planck's constant the the gravitational constant are examples, but as many as thirty constants have been considered.
As the values appear to be the only workable value, they are said to be "fine-tuned". The suggestion is, then, that some agent must have purposely set these values. This argument appeals to those who are religious, but it is still a valid scientific question. Early in the book. Stenger provides references to both religious and non-theistic scientists who have written on this subject.
Stenger argues that the constants could have a much wider range than is commonly supposed. He makes the point that many arguments for fine-tuning assume that all other constants are fixed, whereas he shows that variation in one constant allows more latitude in other constants.
To illustrate the lack of fine-tuning, Stenger had created a simple model (MonkeyGod) where one could vary the electromagnetic force, the nuclear force and the masses of the electron and proton to calculate the stellar lifetime - a first cut as to whether a viable universe could be created. The model demonstrated that a wide range in the values worked.
The author's uses university level math and physics to outline his arguments, but one would need an advanced background in physics to evaluate his reasoning. The book is interesting to read even without such knowledge in that it gives good insight into issues issues in physics and cosmology. Early in the book, he reviews the Standard Model of particles, quantum mechanics and the current thinking in cosmology.
Counter-arguments to Stenger's work appear in the paper "The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life" by Luke A. Barnes (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf). Stenger's rebuttal, "Defending 'The Fallacy of Fine Tuning'", is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf.
As the values appear to be the only workable value, they are said to be "fine-tuned". The suggestion is, then, that some agent must have purposely set these values. This argument appeals to those who are religious, but it is still a valid scientific question. Early in the book. Stenger provides references to both religious and non-theistic scientists who have written on this subject.
Stenger argues that the constants could have a much wider range than is commonly supposed. He makes the point that many arguments for fine-tuning assume that all other constants are fixed, whereas he shows that variation in one constant allows more latitude in other constants.
To illustrate the lack of fine-tuning, Stenger had created a simple model (MonkeyGod) where one could vary the electromagnetic force, the nuclear force and the masses of the electron and proton to calculate the stellar lifetime - a first cut as to whether a viable universe could be created. The model demonstrated that a wide range in the values worked.
The author's uses university level math and physics to outline his arguments, but one would need an advanced background in physics to evaluate his reasoning. The book is interesting to read even without such knowledge in that it gives good insight into issues issues in physics and cosmology. Early in the book, he reviews the Standard Model of particles, quantum mechanics and the current thinking in cosmology.
Counter-arguments to Stenger's work appear in the paper "The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life" by Luke A. Barnes (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf). Stenger's rebuttal, "Defending 'The Fallacy of Fine Tuning'", is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf.
December 1, 2024
I enjoyed reading the book very much, it reminded me of physics courses in college. The book is of course very well-founded, the reason I give it 4 stars is that all the equations presented are incomprehensible to the average hallelujah who believes in "god" and fine tuning.
What strikes me is people's need for a "god" to control everything, and they don't understand that they are manipulated by the elites and that religions really "deify" to obtain financial and personal advantages at the expense of the people, it is something similar to what happens now with the poor on the right.
I love that implies that Physics-Math is a human description of reality, not reality itself, that we can't get easily rid of from fine-tuning. Moreover, that there's a subjacent reality that we can only describe, not know doesn't mean that there's a "god", it means that so far those are the tools we find to describe what we "see". Can we ever know the subjacent reality? Without falling into the techno-mind that we can "know" everything the best that I can say, time will tell, as in the last two hundredth years we we're able to discover new things about the reality.
Book Cities:
“two nonoverlapping magisterial” (NOMA), leaving science to deal with studying nature and religion to deal with morality"----> If Religion is so moral why do all Christians do as the bible says "Sell Everything and give it to the poor" even the Pope and its golden throne….it's just because is a lie and there's no moral at all.
Our universe is “life-friendly,” ----> Not after 5 extinctions, and living in the 6th.
Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being---> If Dinosaurs hadn't been extinct human beings would not exist, if "god" extinct dinosaurs for us to exist, he/she would be a perverted, evil being, since would destroy them? And Why the other extinction events.
What strikes me is people's need for a "god" to control everything, and they don't understand that they are manipulated by the elites and that religions really "deify" to obtain financial and personal advantages at the expense of the people, it is something similar to what happens now with the poor on the right.
I love that implies that Physics-Math is a human description of reality, not reality itself, that we can't get easily rid of from fine-tuning. Moreover, that there's a subjacent reality that we can only describe, not know doesn't mean that there's a "god", it means that so far those are the tools we find to describe what we "see". Can we ever know the subjacent reality? Without falling into the techno-mind that we can "know" everything the best that I can say, time will tell, as in the last two hundredth years we we're able to discover new things about the reality.
Book Cities:
“two nonoverlapping magisterial” (NOMA), leaving science to deal with studying nature and religion to deal with morality"----> If Religion is so moral why do all Christians do as the bible says "Sell Everything and give it to the poor" even the Pope and its golden throne….it's just because is a lie and there's no moral at all.
Our universe is “life-friendly,” ----> Not after 5 extinctions, and living in the 6th.
Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being---> If Dinosaurs hadn't been extinct human beings would not exist, if "god" extinct dinosaurs for us to exist, he/she would be a perverted, evil being, since would destroy them? And Why the other extinction events.
July 10, 2021
Christian apologists often refer to the "fine-tuning argument" as evidence for god. They claim that certain physical parameters have been fine-tuned for the existence of our universe and the development of life as we know it. In this book, Victor Stenger debunks this argument by explaining the physics behind these parameters. He goes into the mathematical details and assumes a lot of prior knowledge. And in some sections, he just refers to other books or papers without providing further explanation. This makes it difficult to really grasp his arguments. I got the general picture of why fine-tuning is a fallacy, but I need to read more to understand the details. In general, the Christian apologists make several mistakes:
- They focus on one parameters while multiple could be changed at the same time.
- There is often not a single value, but a range of possible values.
- Some parameters are just the outcome of modern physics.
- They misunderstand or misrepresent modern physics.
A sentence in the conclusion perfectly captures the errors of Christian apologists: "With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science we have seen exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than truthful scientific inference." Indeed, these apologists have a fixed conclusion (god exists) and selective pick "evidence" to support this. That is not science, but (self-)delusion.
- They focus on one parameters while multiple could be changed at the same time.
- There is often not a single value, but a range of possible values.
- Some parameters are just the outcome of modern physics.
- They misunderstand or misrepresent modern physics.
A sentence in the conclusion perfectly captures the errors of Christian apologists: "With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science we have seen exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than truthful scientific inference." Indeed, these apologists have a fixed conclusion (god exists) and selective pick "evidence" to support this. That is not science, but (self-)delusion.
December 6, 2017
I don't usually like reading philosophy. This one had just enough physics to keep me going.
I fail to see how the fine-tuning argument applies to any gods. It definitely does not make the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God any more or any less believable. Whatever the case, though, the argument itself is well refuted in this book, point by point.
Many reviews of this book state that he falls back to the anthropic principle and the concept of the multiverse. That is simply not true. While he mentions both of them and how they would render fine-tuning unnecessary, his discussions on the variables which are supposed to have been fine-tuned is not related to either. The same is true for not-carbon-based forms of life.
I fail to see how the fine-tuning argument applies to any gods. It definitely does not make the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God any more or any less believable. Whatever the case, though, the argument itself is well refuted in this book, point by point.
Many reviews of this book state that he falls back to the anthropic principle and the concept of the multiverse. That is simply not true. While he mentions both of them and how they would render fine-tuning unnecessary, his discussions on the variables which are supposed to have been fine-tuned is not related to either. The same is true for not-carbon-based forms of life.
May 16, 2017
Stenger lays out the gross errors committed by supernatural fine-tuning proponents. For me the most egregious of these is their claims rest on the practice of varying a single parameter while keeping the rest fixed. Stenger points out in detail that changes in one parameter can be compensated for by changes in another, and this indicates that the parameter space where viable life-sustaining is much larger than fine-tuners know or admit. The end result is that the claimed improbability of universes that can sustain life such as ours (let alone different life) is bogus.
March 14, 2025
While the physics in this book were somewhat interesting, the math started going way over my head, and the arguments with the folks who insist that the Universe was set up by some intelligent designer (who, by amazing coincidence, happens to be just like the one described in the new and old testaments), seems like a futile exercise. Who is really going to be convinced?
The idea that the Big Bang banged into multiple different spacetimes, with different arrows of time, is pretty cool, though.
The idea that the Big Bang banged into multiple different spacetimes, with different arrows of time, is pretty cool, though.
May 14, 2017
Good:
* Completely debunks the fine-tuning rubbish.
* Illustrates very well why it's really hard to counter conspiracy theories and non-sense beliefs. Most people just don't have the full knowledge and ability to debunk them while it's so easy to cook up those garbage.
Bad:
* Some effort and knowledge of maths and physics required to understand the book fully.
* Completely debunks the fine-tuning rubbish.
* Illustrates very well why it's really hard to counter conspiracy theories and non-sense beliefs. Most people just don't have the full knowledge and ability to debunk them while it's so easy to cook up those garbage.
Bad:
* Some effort and knowledge of maths and physics required to understand the book fully.
February 19, 2018
The book disappointed me because the equations were too unintelligible for me for me to appreciate them. Also, Stenger seems to have his own god and his name is Physics. The book had a clear agenda. I guess my disappointment is my fault. My expectations were too high. So if you are really, really into Physics, I would skip this one or just read the conclusion.
June 16, 2021
As good as its arguments are, this book as popular science lacks some readability.
I'm an atheist myself and many times I found myself confronted not by the data but the lack of sympathy for the reader.
I'm an atheist myself and many times I found myself confronted not by the data but the lack of sympathy for the reader.
September 16, 2024
A thorough and dense refutation of the fine-tuning argument. Not being a mathematician or physicist, I had to skim over some of the equations by which the author reached his conclusions - but his reasoning seemed sound and I was able to follow much of it.
3.5 stars rounded up to 4.
3.5 stars rounded up to 4.
July 11, 2020
difficult read
October 20, 2020
Not bad, not great, but not his best work. I think Stenger has done better and think he could have done so in this book too. Still, recommended.
January 1, 2021
Extremely confusing for anyone without a rudimentary knowledge of physics [i.e. me]
July 6, 2023
It's been 11 years since I read it, and I wanna say that I DNF'd this book. It's a good topic that should have been 1/3 the length.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews