Stephen Fry on The fine-tuning argument

Fry has addressed the fine-tuning argument in various interviews and public discussions, typically by pointing to the absurdity of calling the universe 'designed for life.' The observable universe contains roughly two trillion galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, the vast majority of which are surrounded by conditions instantly lethal to any form of life. If this is a universe fine-tuned for life, it is spectacularly wasteful — like building an entire continent to house a single bacterium.

He approaches the argument with his characteristic literary sensibility, noting that the fine-tuning argument is a modern version of an ancient human tendency: the narcissistic assumption that the universe was made for us. Pre-Copernican humans thought the earth was the centre of the cosmos. Modern fine-tuning proponents think the cosmos was designed for earth. The assumption is the same; only the sophistication of the argument has changed.

Fry also notes that we have no way of knowing whether the physical constants could have been different. The fine-tuning argument assumes that other values were possible, but this is an assumption, not an established fact. If the constants are necessary features of any possible universe, the argument collapses entirely.