Anthropic Principle and its Role in Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument: A Review and Critique of Views

Safaeipour, Hamed; Hojjati, Sayyed Mohammad Ali; Azadegan, Ebrahim; Nabavi, Lotfollah

Document Type : .

Authors

Abstract

The primary aim of the current paper is to critically examine the Standard Objection to a new revision of Design Argument. It refers to an epistemic challenge based on a philosophical interpretation of the Anthropic Principle (AP), i.e. Anthropic Objection (AO) to the Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument (CFTA). According to AO, being surprised by observing the Life-Permitting Universe (LPU), which has a very low antecedent probability, is improper, because human cannot find himself in a universe which is not compatible with his existence. The argument, therefore, is accused to infer results that arise from the Observation Selection Effect (OSE) and has no other value. To respond to this objection, we point out and clarify two mistakes: first, an epistemological one, and second, a methodological one. First, we will show that AO is rooted in Hume’s criticism of Analogical Design Argument (ADA), according to which the source of abstraction of the notion of Design is a kind of illusion. We claim that AP is not tautological or trivial, but rather it is verifiable, and corresponds to reality and state of affairs. Secondly, we argue that stepping out from Argument from Design to Argument to Design is a methodological mistake committed by Elliott Sober. Finally, we defend the rationality of CFTA against the Standard Objection

Keywords

References

منابع

آپیا، آنتونی (1388). درآمدی بر فلسفۀ معاصر غرب، ترجمۀ حسین واله، تهران: نگاه معاصر.

هیوم، دیوید (1388). گفتگوها دربارۀ دین طبیعی، ترجمۀ حمید اسکندری، تهران: علم.

اکرمی، موسی (1377). از دم صبح ازل تا آخر شام ابد (تبیین کیهان‎شناختی آغاز و انجام جهان)، تهران: بنیاد دانشنامۀ بزرگ فارسی.

فطورچی، پیروز (1380). «تأملی دربارۀ‌ رویکردهای جدید در الاهیات طبیعی با نگاه به حکمت اسلامی»، نامۀ علم و دین (نشریۀ علمی ـ خبری پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی)، س 5، ش 5-6، پیاپی 11-12.

سوئینبرن، ریچارد (1380). «چگونه وجود خدا جهان و نظم آن را توضیح می‎دهد؟»، ترجمۀ بتول نجفی، نامۀ علم و دین (نشریۀ علمی ـ خبری پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی)، س 5، ش 5-6، پیاپی 11-12.

ژیلسون، اتین (1384). «خدا در فلسفۀ جدید و تفکر معاصر»‌، ترجمۀ شهرام پازوکی، ارغنون، س‌ ۲، ش‌ ۵ و ۶.

Barrow, J. D.; and F. J. Tipler (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bostrom, Nick. (2002). Anthropic Bias, Observation Selection Effect in the Science and Philosophy, New York London: Routledge, (Also Available in: http://www.anthropic-principle.com (2014).

Bostrom, Nick. (2005). ‘Self-Location and Observation Selection Theory - an Advanced Introduction’. (Also available in: http://www.anthropic-principle.com (2013).

Carter, B. (1974). ‘Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle’, In Cosmology, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Data. M. S. Longair, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Carter, B. (2004). ‘Anthropic Principle in Cosmology’, LuTh, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, Contribution to Colloquium Cosmology: Facts and Problems, College de France.

Collins, C. B.; and S. W. Hawking (1973). ‘Why is the Universe Isotropic?’ Astrophysical Journal 180.

Collins, Robin (2003). ‘The Teleological Argument’. In Paul Copan and Paul k. Moser: The Rationality of Theism, Routledge.

Collins, Robin (2005). ‘Evidence for Fine-Tuning’. http://www .anthropic-principle.com (2013).

Craig, William Lane (1988). ‘Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38.

Craig, William Lane. (1990). ‘The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle’, (today In) The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays, Edited by Wm. L. Craig and M. McLeod, Problems in Contemporary Philosophy 24, Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen.

Craig, William Lane (2003). ‘Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe’, In: Manson, Neil. A. (2003). God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, London New York: Rutledge.

Davies, Paul (2003): ‘The Appearance of Design in Physics and Cosmology’, In: Manson, Neil. A. (2003). God and Design; The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, Rutledge.

Hacking, I. (1987). ‘The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy: The Argument from Design, The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes’, Mind 76.

Hawking, S. W. (1973). ‘The Anisotropy of the Universe of the Large Time’, In Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, Longair, M. S. (1974). Bostron - U.S.A. D: Reidel Publishing Company.

Hellaer, Michael (2009). Ultimate Explanation of the Universe, Translated by Teresa Baluk-Ulewiczowa, from Polish, London New York: Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht.

INTERS: Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science, Edited by G. Tanzella-Nitti and A. Strumia (2005). “Anthropic Principle”. http://www.inters.org/anthropic-principle.

Kernis, M. H.; et al. (1993). “There's more to Self-Esteem than Whether It Is High or Low: The Importance of Stability of Self-Esteem”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No. 65.

Manson, Neil A. (2000): “There Is No Adequate Definition of Fine-Tuned for Life”, Tayior and Francis.

Manson, Neil A. (2003). God and Design, the Teleological Argument and Modern Science, Rutledge.

Palmer, Michael (2002). The Question of God (an Introduction and Source Book), Rutledge.

Paul, Copan; and k. Paul (2003). The Rationality of Theism, Rotledge.

Peterson, M.; et al (2013). Reason and Religious Belief; an Introduction to the Philosophiy of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, Alvin (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies? Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Ross, Hugh (1991): “Design and the Anthropic Principle”. http://www. reasons.org (2009).

Smart, I. I. C. (2009). “The Argument from the Appearance of Design”, In: Zabzebski, Linda; And Timoyhy D. Miller (2009). Reading in Philosophy of Religion; Ancient to Contemprory.

Smith, Quentin (1985(. “The Anthropic Principle and Many-World, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68.

Smith, Quentin (1990), “A Natural Explanation of the Existence and Laws of Our Universe Cosmologies”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, No. 63.

Sober, Elliott (2003): The Design Argument, In Manson, Neil. A. (2003), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, London New York: Rutledge. (Also available in: http://www .anthropic-principle.com (2010).

Stenge, Victor J. (2000). “Natural Explanations for the Anthropic Coincidences”,

http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger (2010).

Swinburne, Richard (1996). Is there a God, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Science and Religion Studies

Anthropic Principle and its Role in Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument: A Review and Critique of Views

References

References

Volume 4, Issue 8 - Serial Number 8
July 2014
Pages 77-109

Anthropic Principle and its Role in Cosmological Fine-Tuning Argument: A Review and Critique of Views

References

References

Volume 4, Issue 8 - Serial Number 8July 2014Pages 77-109

Volume 4, Issue 8 - Serial Number 8
July 2014
Pages 77-109