The Inverse Gambler's Fallacy: the Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes

Abstract

The point of this paper is far less formidable than its title. I present an elementary fallacy in probability reasoning. It seems not to have been noticed previously. An analogy with the so-called gambler's fallacy leads me to call it the inverse gambler's fallacy. Its interest is twofold. Firstly, the most popular objection to the traditional argument from design for the existence of God commits this fallacy. In exposing the error I do not advocate the design argument. I note only that the most common ground for dismissing it is facile. Secondly, I observe that one use of the recently propounded anthropic principle commits the same fallacy. This use is connected with an idea of John Wheeler's about sequential universes. The anthropic principle as used by Brandon Carter for coexistent universes does not commit the fallacy. The argument from design for the existence of God begins with a premiss of the following sort: Our world is orderly, complex, law-governed, and with a fine adjustment of means to ends. Such order and adjustment, the argument continues, form far too delicate a balance to have arisen by mere chance. The explanation must lie elsewhere. We should infer the existence of an intelligent designer and creator of the universe. The argument was at its apogee in the Established Church of England between i68o and i8io. Royal Society divines (as they have been called)1 found this the most comfortable proof of God. But the argument-or ways to circumvent it-has recently provoked some interest among cosmologists and students of the life sciences alike. Their most assiduous and faithful interpreter for philosophers has been John Leslie.2 There are surprisingly many interesting questions to ask about the premiss for the argument from design.3 To what extent is the universe 'fine-tuned'? That is a matter for cosmology, geophysics, and biology. There are also