When I asked Sean if he was going to turn the lectures into a book, which I believe is expected, he said he already had. Kudos on the organizers for starting to include nonbelievers, who, after all, probably have something more substantive to say. You can see that there are some lecturers, like Haldane, Sagan, and Pinker, who weren’t espousing natural theology at all, but talking about straight naturalism. They include, for example, William James, whose talks became The Varieties of Religious Experience. Other lecturers included Paul Tillich, Hannah Arendt, Arthur Eddington, Reinhold Neibuhr, Carl Sagan, J.B.S. That lectureship, originally endowed to promote the study of “natural theology” (the observation of nature as evidence for God), has had some prestigious honorees.
I should add that Sean is giving the prestigious Gifford Lectures in October of next year in Glasgow. He goes on in his post to explain his own intentions and to dissect Craig’s responses. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed.The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.Here are his five arguments (in his words) why the FTA doesn’t prove theism: Carroll is a fluid and eloquent speaker, anticipating and then answering his audience’s objections before they’re even uttered.Ĭarroll’s written summary of the debate, including the fine-tuning argument, can be found in his post at Preposterious Universe.
0 kommentar(er)
