26 J.J.C. Smart
As a possibly misleading analogy consider the way in which three at first
sight unrelated numbers, i the square root of minus one, πthe ratio of a
Euclidean circle to its diameter and the Euler number eshould be related by
the simple formula eiπ=− 1 .Once one knows the proof it becomes almost
obvious, though still beautiful. Could the fine tuning one day be deduced
from some simple laws, the constants in which do not have an arbitrary
appearance? The trouble is that the ratios of the fundamental constants do
not look mathematically significant, as do i,e and π. This consideration of
a possible theory to explain the fine tuning is more parsimonious than the
design hypothesis and than the many universes hypotheses. It partakes, how-
ever, of an appearance of wishful thinking, ‘something may turn up’, to which
a theist could rightly object. Furthermore, since i,eandπ are all mathematic-
ally significant (π can indeed be defined analytically, without geometry) they
could be expected, antecedently of the proof, to be related somehow, even if
not so beautifully. One trouble with the fine tuning is that the constants
involved do not have importance in pure mathematics, and this does support
the design hypothesis. There are pros and cons in this part of the debate.
7 God as an Ethical Principle
I now pass on to another concept of God, namely that of God as an ethical
principle, namely that value ought to come into existence. This view has been
much canvassed by John Leslie, who traces it back to neo-Platonism and
indeed back to Plato’s Form of the Good itself in the Republic.^46 Leslie calls
the theory ‘extreme axiarchism’. Leslie thinks of ‘ought’ in ordinary ethical
talk as signifying a sort of ‘requiredness’, which is plausible enough. Unfortu-
nately we often do not do what we think that we ought to do, and so the
ethical requiredness in question does not ensure the occurrence of the required
act. Still, thinking analogically, Leslie thinks of the axiarchic principle as one
which explains the existence and nature of the universe.
The axiarchic principle seems too abstract to account for the details of
existence. If God is an axiarchic principle is there anything comparable to
a blueprint? Surely not. Simplicity is a virtue in an explanatory posit, but if
it is too simple it cannot do the job. The theory also runs up against the
problem that disvalue (evils) comes into existence. Another problem arises
from the fact that Leslie sees value only in consciousness: a stone or a star
cannot have intrinsic value. At first sight one would expect, on the axiarchic
principle, that the world would not contain anything other than pure minds.
I myself do not believe in pure immaterial processes: I contingently identify
conscious states and processes with brain states and processes, but I would say
that pure minds are logically possible, and would have expected that if the