Philosophical Studies

, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp 287–303 | Cite as

Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s-eye

  • John T. RobertsEmail author


I argue that the standard way of formalizing the fine-tuning argument for design is flawed, and I present an alternative formalization. On the alternative formalization, the existence of life is not treated as the evidence that confirms design; instead it is treated as part of the background knowledge, while the fact that fine tuning is required for life serves as the evidence. I argue that the alternative better captures the informal line of thought that gives the fine-tuning argument its intuitive plausibility, and I show that the alternative formalization avoids all of the most prominent objections to the fine-tuning argument, including the objection from observation selection effects, the problem of old evidence, the problem of non-normalizable probability measures and a further objection due to Monton. I conclude that the alternative formalization is the one that attention should be focused on.


Fine-tuning Design Natural theology God Elliott Sober Bradley Monton 



I am grateful to Matthew Kotzen, Bradley Monton, and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Barrow, J., & Tipler, F. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, R. (2003). Evidence for fine-tuning. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. 178–199). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colyvan, M., Garfield, J., & Priest, G. (2005). Problems with the argument from fine-tuning. Synthese, 145(3), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eddington, A. (1939). The philosophy of physical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. McGrew, L., McGrew, T., & Vestrup, E. (2003). Probabilities and the fine-tuning argument: A skeptical view. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. 200–208). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McMullin, E. (1993). Indifference principle and anthropic principle in cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24(3), 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Monton, B. (2006). God, fine-tuning, and the problem of old evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(2), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sober, E. (2003). The argument from design. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design: The teleological argument and modern science (pp. 25–53). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Sober, E. (2009). Absence of evidence and evidence of absence: Evidential transitivity in connection with fossils, fishing, fine-tuning, and firing squads. Philosophical Studies, 143(1), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Weisberg, J. (2005). Firing squads and fine-tuning: Sober on the design argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(4), 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations