Atheism and Theism 21planets, life and intelligence. We are obviously not in one of the vastly more
common ‘crystals’ or sub-universes that are not ‘fine tuned’ in this way.
I am of course not competent to assess or even properly understand Linde’s
theory. However, I have mentioned it as a possible way in which something
like a ‘many universes’ theory could get some independent justification. But
Carter’s and Linde’s theories both have the additional advantage of restoring
symmetry in the large, Carter’s in the world ensemble and Linde’s in his total
super-universe. This symmetry comes from that of randomness. (But not
complete randomness. There are the symmetrical proto-laws, the unified force
and scalar field, which by symmetry breaking crystallizes out into the different
relations between the four fundamental forces.) This leads me on to a purely
metaphysical supposition, that of a completely random universe, without laws
or even proto-laws.
Here is the idea. Suppose that the universe was infinite and completely
random in the large. Then our huge, apparently ordered universe could be
just one infinitesimal part of a disordered whole. We would be living in a
Humean world: we would have no reason to suppose that in the next micro-
second everything around us would not go into a total chaos rather like a puff
of smoke. We of course would do well to suppose that the pseudo-laws, the
temporary apparent regularities, would continue to operate. If they do not
then no matter – nothing we do matters. But if they do continue to operate
it is as well that we plan according to them.
Is not this a chilling thought, that our huge and beautiful universe (as it
seems to us) might be a mere speck, a mere infinitesimal random fluctuation
into apparent orderliness in what is really an infinite chaos? The image of
a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter to produce Shakespeare’sHamlet
would pale into insignificance beside the awful reality. Carter’s and Linde’s
hypotheses do not quite have the chilling quality of this hypothesis but it
is still true that they lack some of the emotional appeal of the design hypo-
thesis. Still, emotional appeal is not proof or rational persuasiveness, and so it
is time now to turn to theistic explanations of the ‘fine tuning’ and to examine
their credentials as an argument for the existence of God.
6 The Argument from the Appearance of Design
Contemplating the beautiful laws of nature, many physicists have quite
understandably taken them as evidence of design, and, as has been noted
above, the apparent ‘fine tuning’ of the fundamental constants of nature has
lent additional weight to this way of looking at things. It should be clear of
course that this talk of ‘fine tuning’ is not to be taken as by itself implying
a fine tuner: if so the argument would become both quick and circular. This