an argument for fine tuning

The goose says

all the parts of the universe I have an interest in, the earth serves me to walk upon, the sun to light me, the stars have their influence upon me; I have such an advantage by the winds and such by the waters; there is nothing that yon heavenly roof looks upon so favourably as me; I am the darling of nature! Is it not man that keeps, lodges and serves me? T’s for me that he both sows and grinds; if he eats me he does the same by his fellow men and so do I the worms that kill and devour him

from the Apology of Raymond Sebond by Montaigne

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

18 thoughts on “an argument for fine tuning

  1. Reminds of this bit from Hamlet:

    18 At supper! where?

    19 Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
    20 convocation of politic worms are e’en at him. Your
    21 worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
    22 creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
    23 maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
    24 variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
    25 that’s the end.

    26 Alas, alas!

    27 A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
    28 king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

    29 What dost thou mean by this?

    30 Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
    31 progress through the guts of a beggar.

    Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 3


    • makagutu says:

      It is quite appropriate


    • fojap says:

      I wanted to look up to see if Montaigne was writing during the wars of religion. He was. His own family may have been descended from converted Marrano Jews and his mother was a protestant. He was a courtier in the court of Charles IX who was King at the time of the Saint Bartholomew Day’s Massacre. I’ve often thought that the wars of religion in Europe did more than anything to sow doubt in the minds of the populace.

      But, I think it was the Wikipedia page that described Montaigne as being a possible influence on Shakespeare. It’s hard to say for certain that he read this person or that person, but it’s pretty clear that he was plugged into current intellectual trends. On the one had, I thought that Howard Bloom’s Shakespeare: the Invention of the Human overstated the case, but I do think there was at this time a major change in the way people viewed their place in the universe and it’s no coincidence that everyone is busy quoting Shakespeare.


      • makagutu says:

        Reading that apology for Raymond Sebond, Montaigne confuses me. One moment he seems skeptical and the next apologizing for Catholicism.


        • fojap says:

          Yes, after reading it, it might be necessary to read a bit about it. Many skeptical things were left partly hidden because often not conforming to the dominant creed could be illegal.


      • I agree with Bloom on many points. He’s a good writer, but his almost deification of Shakespeare I find idiotic. I think in The Invention Of the Human, he makes a claim that King Lear is so good, it should never be performed as to perform it “right” is impossible. Shakespeare wrote plays for the sole purpose of playing them. Guys like Bloom fail to see that The Bard was just a dude who liked theater, acting, writing plays, and making $ from it all. He was better at it than anyone else, IMO, but he was just a guy. Any way, sorry for the off topic rant. $Amen$ and may Allah bless you with many puppies and cats. 🙂


  2. shelldigger says:

    Funny, I was talking to a dung beetle a couple days ago. It said much the same as the goose. We were standing just outside of a church, so it seemed appropriate.


  3. fojap says:

    Every being that is even in the slightest bit self-aware probably thinks the same thing. I’m absolutely certain cats do. In the case cats, they might be right. Tribal hunter gatherers had dogs. Cats aren’t found living with people until we get “civilizations.” I think this entire edifice of civilization was built to better serve cats.

    The geese, on the other hand, are delusional.

    Actually, I was going to do a big post about geese. I’d been watching a goose on her nest. Park workers destroyed the nest. She laid more eggs. They destroyed those too. I’m not sure that goose thinks the universe was made just for her. Now, I have all these goose photos, but the story doesn’t have a happy ending, so I didn’t want to post it.


  4. A Guy Without Boxers says:

    Silly goose! It’s nice to see that there’s a fowl who’s just as much an idiot as the deists! Thank you, my Nairobi brother, for winding the week down on such a positive note! Have a terrific day! Love and many naked hugs! 🙂


  5. Just checking to see if I can still comment.


  6. […] Seeing that his arguments lack substance, Jones then calls as a witness to his god the fine tuning argument. Any argument that depends on an inference of design a posteriori was dealt a blow by Hume many years ago. Maybe if Jones had read Hume, he might not have called this witness to the stand. This is the only fine tuning argument I am willing to get behind. […]


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s