Philosophical Studies

, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp 287–303

Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s-eye


DOI: 10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0

Cite this article as:
Roberts, J.T. Philos Stud (2012) 160: 287. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0


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 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations