آیا استدلال از طریق تنظیم ظریف خداباورانه است؟

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشجوی دکتری فلسفۀ علم، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

استدلال بر وجود خدا از طریق توسل به تنظیم‌ظریف کیهان، تنظیم‌شدگیِ ظریف جهان را به منظور شکل‌گیری حیات انسانی، شاهدی بر وجود خداوند تلقی می‌کند. بر خلاف باور رایج، استدلال تنظیم‌ظریف، در صورت‌بندی مرسوم، نه موفق است و نه خداباورانه. استدلال خواهم کرد که (1) اگر تنظیم‌شدگی ظریف جهان بیشتر از حد مورد نیاز باشد، این حقیقتی نخواهد بود که خداباور مایل به استفاده از آن برای حجت آوردن له وجود خداوند باشد. (2) از دید خداباور دو اشکال به استدلال تنظیم‌ظریف وارد است: نخست، اشکال «زیاده‌روی»، که بیان می‌دارد این استدلال رویدادهای نامحتمل دیگری را نیز شاهدی بر وجود خدا تلقی می‌کند، که خداباور از آنها چنین تفسیری ندارد. دوم، اشکال «شلیک‌به‌خود»، که بیان می‌دارد استدلال تنظیم‌ظریف نقض‌غرض خداباور است. سوم، در استدلال تنظیم‌ظریف فرض شده است که به وقوع پیوستن رویدادی نامحتمل نیازمند تبیینی متفاوت نسبت به تبیین وقوع رویدادهای محتمل است، که پیشفرض نادرستی است و به اعتراض «خدای رخنه‌ها» دچار می‌شود. خداباور نیز مستقلاً این تمایز را نمی‌پذیرد. بنابراین، استدلال تنظیم‌ظریف مبتنی بر مفروضاتی است که با خداباوری، در معنای متعارف، سازگار نیست.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Is The Fine-Tuning Argument Theistic?

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Ebrahim Maqsudi

Ph.D. Student, Department of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

I intend to show that the fine-tuning argument is not a theistic one, and is therefore not desirable for the theist. I will argue that (1) if the fine-tuning of the cosmos exceeds that which is required for the existence of human beings, it would not be helpful to the believer to prove the existence of God. (2) From the theist’s point of view, there are two objections to the fine-tuning argument: first, the extravagance objection, which states that this argument also includes other improbable events as evidence for the existence of God, though the theist does not mean that. Second, the backfire objection, which states that the advocate of fine-tuning reasoning defeats her/his purpose. Third, the fine-tuning argument assumes that the occurrence of an unlikely event requires a different explanation than the occurrence of probable events, and this is a false presupposition, which leads to the “God of the gaps” objection. The theist independently does not accept this distinction; she/he believes that the explanation of both probable and improbable events equally requires assuming the existence of God. So, since the fine-tuning argument is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with theism, the theist should not find it worrisome that the fine-tuning argument is not a successful one.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Argument from Design
  • Fine-Tuning
  • Theism
  • God of the Gaps  
زارع، روزبه، و فرح رامین. 1395. «طراحی هوشمند: طرح و بررسی دیدگاه الیوت سوبر». پژوهشنامۀ فلسفۀ دین (نامۀ حکمت) 28: 123-148.
گیلیز، دانلد. 1386. نظریه‌های فلسفی احتمال. ترجمۀ محمدرضا مشکانی. مؤسسه انتشارات علمی دانشگاه صنعتی شریف.
محمدی، قاسم، فرح رامین. 1399. «برهان تنظیم‌ظریف و چالش ʾاندازهʿ». فلسفۀ علم 10(2): 251-272.
Adams, F. C., and E. Grohs. 2017. “Stellar Helium Burning in Other Universes: a Solution to the Triple Alpha Fine-Tuning Problem.” Astroparticle Physics 87: 40-54.
Barnes, L. 2012. “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29(4): 529-64.
Barnes, L. A. 2017. “Fine-Tuning in the Context of Bayesian Theory Testing.” Euro. Jnl. Phil. Sci. 8: 253–269.
Carroll, Sean. 2005. “Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists.” Faith and Philosophy 22(5): 622-635.
Collins, R. 2009. “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.” pp. 202–81, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland. Blackwell.
Collins, R. 2016. “The Fine-tuning for Scientific Discovery.” pp. 141-168, in God and Cosmology, edited by Robert Stewart. Fortress Press.
Colyvan, M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest. 2005. “Problems with the Argument From Fine Tuning.” Synthese 145: 325–338.
Deakin, Michael. 2006. “The Wine/Water Paradox: Background, Provenance and Proposed Resolutions.” The Australian Mathematical Society Gazette 33: 200-205.
Dembski, William A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge University Press.
Dembski, William A. 1999. “The Third Mode of Explanation: Detecting Evidence of Intelligent Design in the Sciences.” In Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Wethersfield Institute Proceedings. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Halvorson, Hans. 2018. “A Theological Critique of the Fine-Tuning Argument.” pp. 122-135, In Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, edited by Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne, and Dani Rabinowitz. Oxford University Press.
Hand, David J. 2014. The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles and Rare Events Happen Every Day. Scientific American.
Harnik, Roni, Graham D. Kribs, and Gilad Perez. 2006. “A universe without Weak Interactions.” Physical Review D 74(3): 035006.
Koperski, J. (2005). “Should We Care about Fine-Tuning?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56(2): 303–19.
Loeb, Abraham. 2014. “The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe.” International Journal of Astrobiology 13(4): 337-339.
McGrew, Timothy, Lydia McGrew, and Eric Vestrup. 2001. “Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: a Sceptical View.” Mind 110, no. 440: 1027-1038.
Monton, Bradley. 2006. “God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence.” The British journal for the philosophy of science 57(2): 405-424.
Priest, Graham. 1981. “The Argument from Design.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 422–31.
Priest, Graham. 2000. Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Rees, Martin. 2003. “Other Universes: A Scientific Perspective.” In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, edited by Neil A. Manson. Routledge.
Roberts, John T. 2012. “Fine-Tuning and the Infrared Bull’s-Eye.” Philosophical Studies 160(2): 287-303.
Smolin, Lee. 2001. Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. Basic Books.
Stenger, V. 2004. “Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?” pp. 172-84, in Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, edited by M. Young and T. Edis. Rutgers University Press.
van Inwagen, Peter. 2003. “The Compatibility of Darwinism and Design.” In God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, edited by Neil A. Manson. Routledge.
Weinberg, Steven. 1993. Dreams of a Final Theory. Vintage Books.
Weinberg, Steven. 1999. “A Designer Universe?” The New York Review of Books 46 (21 October 1999): 46–8.
Weinberg, Steven. 2015. To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science. Harper Collins Publishers.