Universes [Paperback]

John Leslie (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 28, 1996 | ISBN-10: 0415139554 | ISBN-13: 978-0415139557 | Edition: New edition

Universes discusses the alleged evidence of fine tuning; mechanisms by which a varied set of Universes might be generated, and whether belief in God could be preferable to accepting universes in vast numbers.

Editorial Reviews

Review

John Leslie ... has written far and away the best book about the anthropic principle.
–John Polkinghorne, President of Queens College, Cambridge University

It is important . . . to have the fruit of Leslie's work, across two decades, summarized in one accessible book of manageable length, seriously argued but neither overly technical or esoteric . . . Written with a good deal of philosophical courage and much originality, virtues rather rare in contemporary philosophy.
–Zygon

A highly original, powerfully argued book that reveals a thorough knowledge of contemporary physics and cosmology.
–Quentin Smith, Nous

An exciting and important book. For, by developing a new and far more powerful form of Argument to Design, it effects a revolution in or . . . a resurrection of National Theology.
–Anthony Flew, Philosophical Books

About the Author

John Leslie, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, is the author of The End of the World (Routledge, 1996) and Value and Existence (1979) and the editor of Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (1982).

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Routledge; New edition edition (March 28, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0415139554
• ISBN-13: 978-0415139557
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.4 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,262,702 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

57 of 59 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The DEFINITIVE book on the Anthropic Principle, January 4, 2000

By 

D. Roberts "Hadrian12" (Battle Creek, Michigan United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Universes (Paperback)

This book is truly wonderful. Not only that, it is perhaps the only book that I know of that is endorsed by BOTH atheists and theists alike. Yep, that's right boys and girls. Quentin Smith is one of the most die hard atheists on the planet and Peter Van Inwagen of the university of Nortre Dame is one of the biggest defenders of theism. Both rave about this book and their comments can be read on the back cover. So, what is this book all about, you ask? Well, it's something known as the Anthropic Principle. It was first introduced in the early 1970s by a physicist by the name of Brandon Carter. It basically states that we are not just lucky to be here, but rather we are REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky to be here. Why? Because from the first instant of the big bang onward, an incredible and highly improbable slew of things HAD to go right in order for the possibility for life to exist anywhere in the universe. So much so that it seems that the universe was "fine tuned" just for life. Sir Fred Hoyle (an atheist) was led to comment that the universe looks like a "put up job." Now, this set of circumstances led to a ressurection of the Argument from Design by the theists with renewed vehemence. Meanwhile, the atheists have their own responses, which basically take up two camps. First Response (also known as the Weak Anthropic Principle or WAP): "Of course the universe has laws which allow life to exist. If they didn't we would not be here. Therefore, the odds are irrelevant except perhaps for some latenight philosophic mental gymnastics." Now, there is a problem with this response in that it is nothing more than a tautology. That is to say, it does not EXPLAIN why the universe supports life despite so many constricted laws of physics and chemistry. It is like someone asking why the Dallas Cowboys won the superbowl and having a person respond "because they scored more points than the other team." That answers nothing. The question is: WHY did they win? Were they better than the other team? Did they get lucky? Did they have a better coach? Did the other team have injuries? Were turnovers a factor? etc. etc. Saying that "they scored more points" only states the obvious: "of course they scored more points, or else they would not have won the game..." Now, the second camp is known as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and it goes something like this: "Since the odds of our existing in a universe with the PRECISE physical laws necessary for us to do so are so slim as to be intellectually unacceptable (in the order of 10^10^123 according to Roger Penrose) there must then be a whole slew of other universes (perhaps an infinite number) to JUSTIFY this one. That is to say, in an infinite number of universes, virtually anything can happen. The majority of them would have random, weird laws of physics and be lifeless but EVERY SO OFTEN you would get one which could support life (in some form or another)." Now, this is an interesting argument, but it has a fatal flaw. There is not a SHRED of evidence that even one other universe exists besides our (much less an infinte number of them). Yet they seem to HAVE to exist in order for the numbers to come out right. Hence, if one chooses to believe in these alternate universes (no matter what his scientific credentials) he MUST do so on faith alone. Obviously, most atheists are not comfortable with this conclusion, but that is the way it goes. Leslie's book engages the subject objectively and he tells wonderful, fun stories that offer both the atheist (multiple universe) and theistic (one universe with a designer) perceptions of the debate. A remarkable book. I think that Mr. Pierson missed the point when he read it as it is not about Darwinian evolution at all (nor does Leslie ever say it is). It is well worth reading the whole thing, too. What Mr. Pierson said about atheists being willing to believe in multiple universes but are not willing to believe in God is precisely one of Leslie's points. However, I also would endorse the other books that Mr. Pierson recommended as I have read them too. Also, I would suggest for those who like this book Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith and William Craig Lane.

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Cosmology made Fun and Exciting, February 13, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: Universes (Paperback)

Philosophy professor John Leslie does a supurb job of presenting evidence that our cosmos may have been "fine-tuned" for life. The basic argument is that a life-premitting cosmos requires the existence of a very large number of highly specific and seemingly unrelated facts. Were any of these facts changed even modestly, life could have never have arisen. Further, since the probability of all the facts being what are is thought to be vanishingly small, some have suggested that our cosmos may have been "fine-tuned" for life. For some this has seemed a strong argument for the existence of God. But Leslie points out that an equally good explanation is that our portion of the cosmos is only a small part of a vast Universe. The great majority of this Universe is disorded and non-life-premitting, but entirely by chance some portions are life-premitting. That we see a life-permitting cosmos should come as no surprise, because mere chance indicates that at least some areas should be life-premitting and we can exist only in these areas.

While Leslie's work is fun and exciting, and while Leslie clearly knows a great deal about physics and cosmology, from a philosophical perspective some of his conclusions seem a bit naive. For example, he defends a bizarre neoplatonic notion that a life-premitting Universe may exist solely because its existence is ethically required, i.e. that an abstract ethical principle may somehow have created everything. While this is a possible cosmogony perhaps on par with the God hypothesis, its implausable nature seems to suggest that we adopt a healthy skepticism about the ultimate origins of the Universe rather than seriously entartain it as a possibility. Leslie also makes some unwarranted assumptions about the possibility of alternative laws of nature. Nonetheless, the book is fun and informative. I highly recommend it. --Greg Klebanoff

14 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Some good facts - a hard read & unrealistic major concept, October 3, 1998

By 

Rick L Pierson - See all my reviews

This review is from: Universes (Paperback)

Not believing in Darwinian evolution, I find the Anthropic Principle (the core concept of the book) compelling - it does seem to me that the Universe has been fine-tuned for life. And some of the examples were quite pertinent. However, I quit reading about 1/3 of the way through the book for three reasons. 1) I found that the same facts and arguments seemed to be repeated over and over. 2) I found the book to be a "hard read" - the logic did not seem easy to follow (this may be because I have a "scientific" mind rather than a "philosophic" mind and most of the arguments are presented from a philosophical reference). 3) Multiple universes with different laws of nature, which the author believes to exist, are needed to explain the fine-tuning of our Universe only because scientists refuse to accept an "intelligent desinger" because "He" can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured, and is not constrained by the laws of nature as we know them. Yet, these same scientists have no problem believing in other universes that can not be seen, felt, heard, touched, or measured , and which do not follow the laws of nature as we know them. For those who are looking for scientific arguments against Darwinian evolution, I suggest these recent works by two Ph.D.'s: DARWIN'S BLACK BOX;THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION and THE SCIENCE OF GOD:THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM.