Astrophysicist and neuroscientist Casper Hesp wrote a piece at BioLogos, reviewing physicist Peter Bussey’s Signposts to God. Hesp thinks that fine-tuning of the universe is not a good argument for theism. After all, despite massive evidence and the utter improbability of other approaches, we could find out some day that we are wrong.
From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz:
Last week I posted on what I see as a growing (and concerning) trend among BioLogians: the gravitation towards full-on naturalism (even beyond cosmology). I also speculated that Bussey’s arguments had been badly misrepresented. I decide to ask Dr. Bussey directly about some of the Hesp’s claims. In a really splendid way Bussey has offered a response. I am cut-pasting it below. More.
Excerpt:
It will not do to “avoid making definite statements about something we do not understand completely”. This is an unrealistic perfectionism, and would mean that we can never really discuss anything at all! We have to proceed on the basis of our best present understandings of the science, knowing that the situation may change. All the scientific argument in the book is mainstream, although in the case of cosmology the stream is rather wide! These understandings, right now, suggest that the First Cause argument holds. However, as I say in the final section of that chapter, which addresses most of Hesp’s concerns about the subject, a First Cause argument does not in itself tell us about the nature of God and needs to be supplemented by other considerations. Also, I do not claim that the matter is “proved”, merely that this is where the arguments lead right now. Somehow Hesp ignores this.
Hesp says he is “sceptical” about fine-tuning parameters but he seems to rely in the end on vagueness. More.
In post-Christian churches, vagueness sells. People only feel the need for clarity if they think they are onto something.
See also: Rossiter: The philosophical missteps in the “ignore fine-tuning” argument at BioLogos.
Follow UD News at Twitter!