Fine-Tuning and Natural Theology

This new academic year I’m participating in one of those academic-residential “live and learn” communities that have been quite popular at colleges and universities in the United States. In my college, the program manifests itself by grouping several small first-year student classes under a broad theme. Students in the program live in the same residential space, and several activities are organized throughout the year to build community and have students connect what they’re learning in (at least one of) their classes with a broader theme. The college started piloting this program approximately five years ago with a few linked courses and quickly ramped up to 100% participation of all incoming students. My first-year chemistry class (with only incoming first-year students) is one of six classes linked by the theme “Faith and Reason”. Three of the classes are in the sciences; three are in the humanities.

Since the General Chemistry curriculum is very tight, I won’t be able to give up too much class time to exploring the intersection of faith and reason. We will certainly have some discussions about the “scientific method”, how science approaches trying to answer questions about the natural world (particularly in the context of chemical discovery) and compare/contrast this to how faith-based approaches get at knowledge. I look forward to including a little bit of philosophy, and a little more history into my classes, in lieu of the theme. However, I’m hoping that much of the interesting discussion will take place outside of class-meeting times through online blogging and discussion. I’ve had students write blogs in two of my classes prior, using the university’s Learning Management System (LMS) platform. I must admit that I don’t like the way our LMS handles blogs and so this time around I’ve created a Blogger group for multiple authors. I hope this works more robustly.

To prepare for class I’ve been doing some reading last semester and this summer at the intersection of faith and science (since science is my domain, and I don’t have as much philosophical training). I’ve read maybe five books in the last six months, the latest of which is Alister McGrath’s A Fine-Tuned Universe, subtitled The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Given my interests in Origin of Life research, I was looking forward to chapter 10 where the author addresses the origins of life. I was a little disappointed. There is the usual broad sweep from nucleosynthesis to biological life stopping at anthropic signposts such as the carbon resonance (Hoyle and Fowler), the uniqueness of phosphate in life (Westheimer), the “curious chemistry of water” (the subtitle to chapter 11), and examples of convergent evolution (Conway Morris). The phrase biological fine-tuning is used in a number of places to knit together a range of phenomena.

Alister McGrath has an interesting background. An atheist who became a Christian, he has doctorates in molecular biophysics, theology and intellectual history. He currently holds a professorship in Science and Religion at Oxford. I was expecting a book that would focus on arguments related to the anthropic principle but instead I got a very thoughtful treatise about the intellectual history of natural theology.

Most discussions I have come across about natural theology or the anthropic principle seem limited (at least to me) in terms of building some sort of a bridge between scientific and philosophical approaches. But McGrath’s broadening of this area, by considering the many contributors to its intellectual history, is enlightening. The most enlightening part was for me to learn how Paley’s (in)famous watchmaker argument (usually assumed as the archetype whenever the word “natural theology” is mentioned), is actually a narrow slice of Enlightenment (the era) influence on intellectual ideas at that time in history. McGrath traces a variety of natural theology approaches over different eras, back to Augustine’s rationales seminales. The other very helpful principle that McGrath reminded me is that fine-tuning “arguments” do not have to be made deductively – and he lays out a vision using an abductive argument. Consonance rather than proof seems to be the goal.

I appreciated McGrath’s approach of using abductive reasoning (“inference to the best explanation”) since I approach science as a pragmatist. I’m no philosopher, but I’m happy to broaden my reading interests – and as a practicing scientist and teacher, it’s a good thing for me to think about the intellectual history and philosophy of science. I don’t know if fine-tuning will come up in a discussion with my students (I’m not teaching a physics or biology class) but we’ll most likely have some interesting and lively discussion when we hit a unit on radioactivity, and therefore radioisotope dating methods related to the age of the earth). I’m also reading up in this area to prepare myself. I’m certainly enjoying learning new things – I hope the students do too!