Is the Fine-Tuning of the Universe an Argument for Theism?

Why seeing in fine-tuning a “divine intervention” is, paradoxically, an unaware form of materialism.

Dear friends, this is a quite long essay. For the next posts, I will do my best to be more concise. Meanwhile, I suggest you take this as a long read for the weekend.

---

In cosmology, the so-called “fine-tuning problem” refers to the fact that several fundamental physical constants—such as the mass of the electron or the proton, their electric charge, the speed of light, the strength of gravity or the electromagnetic radiation, etc.—and that precisely determine the properties of the universe, seem to be ‘fine-tuned’ for the emergence of life. That is, a small change in at least some of these fundamental constants, would have catastrophic effects on the existence of life. Because this slight modification would determine a completely different structure of the universe, if any, and also very different properties of matter. The formation of galaxies, stars, and planetary systems would not have been possible and, thereby, even less so life.

For example, the most cited case of fine-tuning cosmologists talk about is that of the cosmological constant, which quantifies how fast the universe expands. If it were not almost perfectly equal to zero, the universe would either collapse onto itself (negative cosmological constant) or expand too fast (positive cosmological constant) preventing anything with some complexity from having time to form. We know that the universe expands and, thereby, that we are living in a universe with a positive cosmological constant. But it is extremely tiny, almost zero, and seems to be perfectly fine-tuned to make this expansion slow enough to give galaxies, stars, and planets time to form. It is like throwing a needle and seeing it landing on the floor in perfect and exact balance on its tip. Just an extraordinary coincidence?

As a further example, and which is my preferred one, even though much less known, let us consider the fine-tuning of the fine¹ structure constant (α), which tells us how strong the electric and magnetic fields couple to charged particles—that is, the physical constant that determines the strengths of the electromagnetic radiation. It is less known because it is more complicated to illustrate, but if you make the effort to go through my summary explanation, you can see much better how fine-tuning is relevant to the existence of life.

There is a relation between the fine structure constant with the molecular structure of the water molecule. Here, again, if it were slightly different from what it is, it could have potentially made the emergence of life impossible. Here is why.

As everyone has sooner or later learned, the water molecule is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom—that is, H2O. However, these three atoms are not aligned randomly or in a straight line, rather the angle that separates the two hydrogen bonds is about 104.45°, as shown in the figure left. When water molecules come together to form the molecular lattice structure of ice, they bind into a 3D tetrahedron crystal structure.

Left: The ice molecule and its molecular crystal lattice. Right: Ice can float on water only because of fine-tuning.

The curious fact is that the most efficient way to arrange three atoms to form a crystal lattice that maximizes its volume is, indeed, a tetrahedron structure. There is a slight difference between a perfectly tetrahedral structure that would need a 109,5° angle between the hydrogen bonds, but the 104,5° angle in the real water molecule is, nevertheless, sufficiently near to the optimal value to ensure that, when water freezes to ice, it almost maximizes the intra-molecular volumes, which implies that when liquid water is cooled down and transitions into the solid phase its volume increases, instead of decreasing. Let me say this again in another way: When water is liquid its molecules randomly zigzag due to the thermal Brownian motion, but once the temperature reaches °0 Celsius the water molecules crystallize to the tetrahedral molecular structure that is volume maximizing and, thereby, take up more space. Thus, a cube of liquid water, once cooled down below the freezing point, expands and becomes less dense (or, the same cube of ice shrinks if warmed up to the liquid aggregation state.)

Contrary to all other substances that, once frozen, shrink and occupy less volume this is an exquisitely unique property of water. And, it is precisely this unique property that makes ice float above liquid water. Anything that has less density than water floats, while any other thing that is more dense than water sinks. That’s why Icebergs float, they don’t sink to the ocean ground. The frozen surface of a lake—which has also good thermal isolation properties—still allows liquid water to exist beneath, together with all fish and other life forms that don’t risk being frozen to death. This is an extremely important property of water for the existence of life. Because if, instead, ice would sink down to the ocean floors and the bottom of all lakes, it would have quickly frozen them from the ground upwards and transformed them into gigantic and dead blocks of ice. Lakes, seas, and oceans would have become completely frozen during winter or, at least during the ice ages, without allowing life to survive beneath.

Fortunately, this is not the case because the angle between the hydrogen bonds that allows for this peculiar property of water depends on the intensity of the electric forces—that is, the value of the fine structure constant α. This determines the electron’s cloud structure around the hydrogen and oxygen nuclei and, thereby, the 3D tetrahedron structure, and finally is the ultimate cause of ice’s floating property. If the fine structure constant had a different value, the molecular structure of ice would be different, and ice would sink to the ground instead of floating above water, with all its deadly consequences for life. Finally, we must conclude that the specific value of the fine structure constant allowed for the emergence of life (don’t forget that life first emerged from water, probably oceans.)

Many other examples of this sort of fine-tuning could be made. Similar things could be said about the mass of the electron or proton, the gravitational force constant, the value of the nuclear forces constants, etc.

The question at this point is, what determines the values of these physical constants? The short answer is: We don’t know! They are just there. Nothing according to our known theories explains why these constants have the value they have. There is nothing in our presently known laws of physics that prevents them from being otherwise, or even from being completely random. The values of the physical constants that we observe are only one set of the infinite possible ones. The probability of being fine-tuned just by pure chance seems to be very unlikely. But without that incredible coincidence, the universe would turn out to be a mess. Stars could not form, the universe would be a completely dark, chilling, and lifeless place, or could even collapse into a gigantic black hole.

And that’s why some people will tell you that the physical constants of nature are literally ‘God-given.’ Especially among creationists and Christian scientists, fine-tuning is seen as a sort of proof of intelligent design and ‘God’s fingerprint.’ The claim is that there must exist a higher Intelligence that fine-tuned the constants of Nature in order to allow order and life to arise in the universe.

It is now more than half a century that people have been discussing this issue but without tangible progress. There is no agreement among scientists and philosophers on how we should deal with this state of affairs. But I will explain why jumping to theistic conclusions is not only unnecessary but, paradoxically, even a sign of a materialistic mindset that betrays a strange conception of divinity.

However, before coming to the point I would like to make, let us see some of the possible answers that scientists have come up with that could potentially explain the fine-tuning without resorting to theistic arguments.

One objection is the famous ‘anthropic principle’:

“The observed values of the physical constants couldn’t be otherwise because, if they were different, we couldn’t observe it.”

Why? Well, obviously because if the constants were different, life could not emerge, and we couldn’t be here asking ourselves these questions. The universe must obviously be fine-tuned because otherwise we could not exist and couldn’t observe the fine-tuning.

I don’t know about you, but for me, this is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen in science. Because it explains nothing, and only restates the known fact that led to the question in the first place. It is one of those obfuscating word plays based on a circular logic that sometimes philosophers or scientists resort to when they don’t know the answer to a difficult question, but are not willing to admit that they are clueless. Something that, by the way, one sees being frequently the case in the debate on the nature of consciousness as well. The anthropic principle presents itself as an answer to a difficult question while it only restates the obvious without furnishing any deeper insight into the real problem: What made that coincidence occur and that allows us to be here to debate the very same coincidence? Answering that without that coincidence we wouldn’t ask the question isn’t helpful. As Wolfgang Pauli would say: It is not even wrong!

I also wonder about the wording ‘anthropic,’ which means ‘pertaining to mankind or humans,’ not to life in general. Isn’t this a quite outrageous form of anthropocentrism? The fine-tuning relates to the emergence of structures and life in the universe as a whole, it isn’t more relevant to our existence than to any other form of life (terrestrial or extraterrestrial.)

Let us consider a few other attempts to explain the fine-tuning.

Another very popular argument is that of the ‘multiverse theory.’ Imagine that our universe is only one of the many universes that exist “out there.” Suppose that there are not only 2, 3, 100, or 1000 universes but eventually trillions of trillions, each with a different set of physical constants. If so, almost all universes must be an empty, or dark and cold place completely devoid of life. The chance that one universe acquires by a pure coincidence exactly the right physical constant to allow for life, is extremely low. But one out of many may hit the nail by pure chance. It is like winning the lottery: your probability of winning is meager, but if you buy lots of lottery tickets and do so throughout your life, sooner or later, you may hit the jackpot (and, finally, will have lost much more money than what your win will be.) There is nothing miraculous in having at least one universe being fine-tuned after a gazillion of Big Bangs. Sooner or later one will win the lottery of life.

The multiverse theory is an attempt to get rid of any theological and teleological speculations. From a strictly logical point of view, it isn’t an impossibility and could, indeed, furnish a plausible answer to the fine-tuning problem. There are, however, a few caveats that make several scientists and philosophers nervous about this argument.

First of all, it is wild speculation itself. We have not the slightest idea whether other universes beyond our own exist. And even if so, we have even fewer ideas on how to prove or disprove such a hypothesis. If other universes exist that are completely unobservable, how are we supposed to test this theory? Paradoxically, while the multiverse theory is aimed at eliminating metaphysical speculations, it is itself more a metaphysical than physical and scientific theory since it posits the existence of something unobservable. For this reason, some simply brand it as ‘pseudo-science.’ It isn’t clear how this argument could be helpful in clarifying the universe’ (apparent or real) fine-tuning for life. The multiverse theory remains an utterly unfalsifiable theory.

As for myself, I remain agnostic. I don’t agree with labels of ‘pseudo-science’ for the reasons you can read here. The multiverse theory could be correct or also wrong. And, who knows, maybe one day we will find out a way to test it. If you believe this to be impossible recall history. For example, it was considered absolutely impossible, even not in principle, that one day we could determine the chemical composition of distant stars, let alone of galaxies billions of light years away. But nobody expected that the chemical composition of a material object is already encoded in the light it emits and reflects. Spectroscopy would have quickly obliterated this disbelief opening a huge window into the universe that nobody considered possible.

But, for the time being, everything indicates that we are … well, literally, light years away from finding any ‘window’ into parallel universes, if they exist at all. Therefore, the multiverse theory isn’t conclusive and doesn’t shed much clarity on the issue (for an update see also the article of Philip Goff.)

Next step…

Notice that I assumed all the time that the probability that the universe possesses the exact physical constants necessary for the emergence of life is an extremely improbable occurrence. But on the base of what rationale can we make such a statement? What is this extremely low probability? One over 100? Or 1/1000000000000000000……?

The point is that we can’t state that something is likely or unlikely to happen unless we know the probability laws that stand behind the processes that determine it. For example, suppose you know nothing about dice. You even don’t know how many faces a dice has. Let’s say that someone tosses the dice and tells you it showed up with the number three. Can you infer from this simple chance event the probability of the outcome of getting the face upwards with three dots? You can’t not even in principle. Because, if you roll the (fair) dice only once and even don’t know how many sides it has, you simply don’t have sufficient information to state that the chance of getting each number is 1/6. And that’s precisely the situation we find ourselves in with the fine-tuning of the universe. We don’t have any theory that tells us how probable it is to get any combination of the physical natural constants and, most importantly, we know of only one ‘toss’—that is, only one universe with only one outcome.

At this point, how sensical is it to state that there is any fine-tuning in the first place? Maybe, the processes of creation at the time of the Big Bang, and about which we don’t know anything, provide some mechanism that automatically nicely fine-tunes everything. Maybe one day we will discover some completely new mechanism, phenomena, and processes that could explain inside a future unified theory of physics (presumably a theory of quantum gravity), not only how the present physical constants came into being, but even that they could not be otherwise. Perhaps there are some hidden and still unknown physical phenomena that must inevitably lead to the fine-tuning of the universe with probability one—that is, certainty—and explain away everything that, otherwise appears to be so improbable and miraculous.

If this sounds implausible consider another more cosmological and less ‘casino-like’ example.

Assume you know nothing about the law of gravity and wonder why all the planets are round. Isn’t it an extraordinary coincidence? Leave out the law of gravity and explain the spherical shape of the Earth. If, in its origin, all the pieces that form our home planet were stuck together in a random and chaotic manner it would be an extraordinary coincidence that they positioned themselves in an almost perfect spherical shape. In fact, people once believed that the sphere was some sort of divine Platonic geometrical structure that Nature reflected in the physical realm.² But, of course, the reason why all planets take this apparently improbable shape is easily explained by the laws of gravity. Gravity is an isotropic force—meaning that it acts equally in all directions—there is no direction that is privileged over another. First, the primordial protoplanetary material that collapsed under its own weight fell into a mass of ‘rubble’ that, later, flattened out all its own irregularities in all directions equally because of its own gravitational pull and, finally must therefore lead to a round object.³

An irregularly shaped hydrogen gas cloud (the Orion nebulae) will form spherical stars and, later, planets.

So, there is nothing miraculous or extraordinarily coincidental in having such a nice spherical shape. What previously seemed an extremely improbable event, because of our ignorance of the underlying process and laws of Nature, now becomes not only perfectly understandable but also turns out to be inevitable.

We can’t exclude the eventuality that when we look at the universe and discover it to be fine-tuned we are in a similar situation. Our universe seems to be an extraordinary coincidence only because of our ignorance that can’t see how things couldn’t be otherwise.

Is this the real answer to the fine-tuning problem? Well, this is my preferred line of reasoning. I feel that invoking the fine-tuning as evidence for divine causation sounds like yet another ‘God out of the gaps’ argument, while opting for the ‘gaps out of ignorance’ argument seems to me a more reasonable attitude. But the honest answer is that we simply don’t know. Maybe theists are right and the constants are really ‘God-fine-tuned.’

However it may be, at this point, what are we left with? Unfortunately, with not much. As usual, when it comes to the question of divine causation, intervention, creation, and similar theological speculations, science remains strictly agnostic and mute. Fine-tuning seemed to be a good argument, an almost invincible proof for purpose and direction in Nature, that, nevertheless, can be circumvented with other arguments, speculations, and conjectures. Which side you prefer to take and are inclined to support is up to your personal belief system, preferences, subjective character, culture, or religion.

But this shows us, once again, that science and reason, can’t give us definitive answers about the existence or absence of final causes, purpose, or direction in and of the universe. Mind, analytic reason, science, and the mere observation of the material realm didn’t furnish us any satisfying answer in this regard for centuries, and nothing indicates that any fine-tuning argument will make an exception.

I would say that it is even worse than that. Science did not make an inch of progress when it comes to the deeper philosophical and existential question about the true meaning and purpose of life. I call these the ‘no-progress’ quests. It remained and continues to remain perfectly agnostic. Every time we believe we have found some evidence that suggests a solution to the philosophical question of meaning and purpose, always and inevitably someone else comes up with a counterargument that invalidates or could potentially invalidate our argument. We have seen this so many times and in so many contexts, and there has never been a single exception to this rule.

What we have always seen is that the boundaries were shifted. For example, we no longer look for meaning and purpose in life believing that we are at the center of the universe. But the fact that we are just one planet twirling around an ordinary star that has no whatsoever privileged position in the universe, isn’t proof that life has no meaning and purpose either.

This doesn’t mean that if you don’t believe in the purpose and final causes in the universe you will necessarily embrace a multiverse theory (there are a lot of naturalists that don’t believe in teleological arguments and consider it nonsensical nevertheless), or that, if you believe in divine causation (like me) you must necessarily believe that the natural constants of Nature have been fine-tuned by the Almighty for us (in fact, as I said, I opt for the future theory that will explain why there is fine-tuning without having to invoke metaphysical entities.) But the point is that all attempts based on reason and science to argue for or against a divine origin of and in things, always land in (a fine-tuned) nowhere zone in-between that dissatisfies all sides.

To all those who believe so strongly that fine-tuning is a sort of ‘signature of God’ I can say only this: I suspect that God will not allow us to find Him “out there” with science and reason. Simply because He is in us. He is beyond science, reason, and matter and is not only in us but also is us. Thereby it is futile to search for Him with fine-tunings, quantum physics, particles, directedness in evolution, irreducible complexities, or whatever contrived theories desperately searching for some material evidence. From the perspective of spiritual practice, these intellectual activities are a distraction and a waste of time.

That’s why I say that the religious- or spiritually-minded scientist who looks for final causes written in the book of Nature, has been affected by the virus of materialism. It is all and always about looking outside of us, in things, in objects, in dead matter, or physical phenomena, and which is not the search for the Spirit in us.

Thus, the fine-tuning problem is fascinating and will continue to keep people busy for a long time. But science and reason will not even in principle be able to prove or disprove God, the Divine, Allah, Krishna, or whatever you might call Him/Her/It.

This might sound a too negative conclusion. Should we give all up and become dry pragmatists who limit themselves to a “shut up and calculate” attitude?

No, because this state of affairs hides a marvelous dichotomy. While the mind will never be able to get there where only a higher knowledge that is beyond the mind can go, it is also true that the mind has a unique power that no other preceding form of cognition in the history of evolution had. If we don’t shut ourselves into some delusional narrative or state of denial and are honest with ourselves, then the mind can clearly see what it doesn’t know. The mind has the power to recognize its ignorance, it can know what it doesn’t know, and can clearly recognize what its limits are. In practical terms, this means that, while science will never prove certain metaphysical ideas, theories, speculations, and beliefs, it nevertheless has a tremendous power to disprove and reveal fallacies, misconceptions, and falsehoods. I will never be able to show you that God exists, but my mind will always be able to reveal your fallacious metaphysical ideas, theories, speculations, and beliefs that try to disprove the existence of God. I can’t show you that something beyond matter and physics exists, but my mind will lay bare your erroneous misconceptions that claim that matter and physics are all there is. You may one day disprove any teleological argument based on the fine-tuning but you will never be able to take this as conclusive evidence that there is no purpose, meaning, aim, and final causes in the universe. Because the mind is powerful enough to falsify every such claim. Always.

And, if there is a mysterious fine-tuning, it is that the universe has been built in such a way that whatever scientific, rational, philosophical, and metaphysical argument tries to validate one or the other theistic or atheistic position, Nature always responds with a perfect and absolute agnosticism. Isn’t that strange? Nature has been perfectly fine-tuned to present itself to human cognition in such a way that whatever theistic or atheistic argument and conjecture you advance, the mind will be able to falsify it, always and invariably. It is futile to insist and persist in looking for supernatural signs in the outer Nature. These signs exist and can be experienced by, again, a turn inward and by an inner spiritual form of perception. But not with reason, the purely analytical mind, a strictly empirical science, and outward physical sensory observations alone. At the end of the story, we will always be forced to look inside of us. Perhaps this is the only true sign of the existence of final causes intelligible to a superficial rational mind. The universe has precisely an ‘agnostic structure’ with an aim: To force us to look inside.

Anyway, that’s why I always take a very different approach in arguing with scientific and metaphysical terms for a metaphysical reality. I don’t pretend to prove it but rather disclose the fallacy of the opposite argument. For example, if someone tells me that neuroscience has shown that consciousness is just a brain epiphenomenon, I answer with these arguments. Or if someone else tells me that vital forces have been demonstrably falsified by science I answer with these arguments. Or if someone tells me that we have no free will because we live in a deterministic universe I answer with these other arguments. Every naturalistic claim can be deconstructed.

And this is why I invite all those who are spending so much of their time in trying to show that there is design, purpose, and aim in Nature, not to limit themselves to theories based on ‘evidence’ that supposedly confirms a divine intervention. Most of the time it ends in endless arguments that can be deconstructed with the skeptic’s mind as well. Rather I suggest devoting our intellectual energies to uncover and expose the misconstructions of the opposite side. Because what we have to do at this stage and historical period isn’t so much to put God into the gaps of science but to deconstruct four centuries of materialism and blind rationalism that have been implanted into our brains, precisely to distract, obstruct, and weaken any effort to go inside. For the time being, what really is necessary, isn’t so much about discovering future mental architectures that will prove extrasensory realities but is that of unveiling, deprogramming, and cleaning our present mental, cultural, and scientific assumptions, preconceptions, and presumptions that prevent us to get into contact with those realities. Only once this has been fully achieved can we eventually progress towards something that goes beyond mind and matter.

1. In order to avoid confusion: The word ‘fine’ in front of the ‘fine’ structure constant has nothing to do with the fine-tuning problem. It has a historical origin related to the fine splitting of the hydrogen spectral lines.

2. Our scientific mind may laugh at such naive beliefs, but if we go beyond a merely analytical materialistic way of seeing, we could reconcile both perspectives. But this is a much too delicate issue that I may discuss in another future post.

3. Things are much more complicated than that. The gravitational collapse starts from a protoplanetary nebula that first forms an accretion disk from which, subsequently, a planet forms, etc. However, these are technical details that aren’t relevant to our discussion here.