How do we get around fine-tuning in particle physics?

Neurosurgeon, Dr Eben Alexander, whose NDE related on YouTube, was I believe linked in one of BA77's posts some time ago, spoke to the UK Catholic Herald recently about it. Here is a brief excerpt, with the link, below it. 'The conventional neuroscientific view of the brain – the view to which I subscribed before my experience – has been held back by materialist science, an approach to science that assumes everything is no more than the sum of its measurable physical parts. Materialist science posits that the brain creates consciousness. It asserts that everything we have ever experienced, every beautiful sunset, every gorgeous symphony, every hug from our child, is merely the electrochemical flickering of neurons in a three-pound gelatinous mass. Our choices, too, are not made of our own free will; they are merely chemical and mechanical reactions to stimuli. And, it says, we are no more than our physical bodies; when they die, we cease to exist. The problem with that model, the materialist brain-creates-consciousness model, is that even the world’s top experts on the brain don’t have even the first idea how the brain could create consciousness. It’s the modern equivalent of scientists thinking, well, it certainly looks as if the sun rises and sets around the earth, so the sun probably revolves around the earth. Mainstream neuroscience just hasn’t been doing its homework.' http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/december-19th-2014/im-a-man-of-science-but-ive-seen-heaven/ Isn't it surreal that this corporate-funded, atheistic, anti-science pathology has infected science right up to the present day - more than 80 year after quantum mechanics quite simply knocked, so-called, 'naturalism' on the head, utterly and definitively? At minimum, reconciling science with theism. Indeed, it seems to be regularly confirmed in disparate ways by new research, e.g. the centrality of each observer in the universe at the macro level vindicated the redefinition of 'objectivity' by philosophers of science a long time ago, as 'inter-subjective; imo, indicating that we each of us live in a little world of our own, coordinated by what can only be an infinitely powerful God. Complete madness, especially when they pose as the champions of reason ! Axel

From the conclusion: "It is still possible that nature is “natural”, in the sense of ’t Hooft. Future runs of the LHC might provide evidence for supersymmetry, warped extra dimensions, or some variant of technicolor. But the current experimental situation raises the unsettling possibility that naturalness may not be a good guiding principle. Indeed, naturalness is in tension with another principle: simplicity. Simplicity has a technical meaning: the simplest theory is the one with the smallest number of degrees of freedom consistent with known facts." The alternatives to "Naturalness" are "SuperNaturalness" and "TeleologicalNaturalness", Exciting times at the boundaries of scientific knowledge:) ppolish