A Fine Tuned Universe? 4 (RJS)

RJS,

Thanks again for such a clear and accessible description.

This anthropic principle fascinates me and I do think it is one of the major facts of life to be explained. And I agree with McGrath that the multi-universes theory is speculative and only a mathematical probability, and it takes the same kind of faith in that theory as one needs to believe in God. That second theory is a wonderful piece of postmodernity but it doesn't work for me because we are dealing with facts that are testable in many ways.

Yes, the anthropic principle could be coincidence but the bottom line for any of us ought at least lead to the position of Einstein -- some kind of profound awe at the vastness and intricacy and marvel of life. That awe, so I think, leads us also to the God who created and summons us to look and learn and believe and wonder.

Anyway, I'm an amateur in this stuff.

I think it points to or suggests God, but doesn't compel belief in God.

I also think the multiverse (if true) does not challenge Christian belief. So what if there are billions of universes that are nothing but boiling gas or inert cool matter or emptiness or whatever and we live on the one little habitable island. We already know that; we are surrounded by lifeless suns and dead, scorched planets, with no other life that we know of, just in this universe.

McGrath hits the nail on the head IMHO. But I'm going to quibble with this characterization: "But this is a faith statement. It is not a science statement. And I will suggest that this is the way God intends it to be."

McGrath's overall "scientific theology" project is an effort to modify this "faith statement vs. science statement" duality. The statement that "the anthropic principle reflects God's providential ordering of the universe to produce life" is first neither a "faith statement" nor a "science statement": it is a truth claim about the nature of reality. This statement is interdisciplinary: it ties together things that can be known through "faith" (or better, "theology") and things that can be known through "science." The tools and methods of "science" can describe the cosmological constants and their importance for life as we know it, but they cannot offer any insight on the metaphysical meaning or purpose of those data. The tools and methods of "theology" supply metaphysical context for these scientific observations. Here we have what seems very much to be an excellent example of the consilience of methods that together provide a more fully-orbed explanation of reality than either can alone.

Scot McK, yes, that sense of profound awe should lead us to think theologically. But does it or can it without the prompting of the Holy Spirit? Like McGrath, I think I lean more towards Barth's reading of Romans 1 here. The heavens declare God's glory, but without the Holy Spirit, people refuse to see that. This is why the strong ID program fails theologically, IMHO.

Would the biblical narrative allow for multiple universes containing humans who have sinned? I understand there to be one eternal God and one Christ event. So either the other universes would be without redemption or they would all have to point to Jesus' atonement in our universe; neither seems likely.

"...the other universes would be without redemption or they would all have to point to Jesus' atonement in our universe..."

I feel like this is Star Trek meets C.S. Lewis. ;^)

RJS,

I have very much appreciated this series. I'm not a scientist and so I benefit from your clear explanations.

I have one little question. You use the term 'empirical explanation' a few times in this post. What do you mean by this? Put another way, how does an empirical explanation differ from an ordinary explanation? When I read the term I think testable, but then we couldn't really say the existence of God is an empirical explanation, so I'm no doubt missing something.

MatthewS,

I think that the multiverse hypothesis is a bit farfetched - but...

If there are a multitude of universes with different constants, and if other universes are capable of sustaining life, I expect that God will have dealt with each on their own terms and it is nothing for us to worry about. Since the essence of the Christian story is that God became like us and atoned for us so that we could be "like him" I would expect that this is confined to our space-time universe.

If we take the discussion of angels and demons from the pages of scripture - do all of them also come to God through the atoning work of Christ?

Thanks RJS for this very helpful series. I think that the "fine tuning" we observe is a powerful pointer towards God. I also agree that God doesn't force us to believe and so it isn't dispositive of the question of his existence.
But, if we have a single universe the "coincidences" necessary for us to exist are piling up pretty high. (and, this is not like the president of US example--where the system requires that we have a President, so it makes the existence of someone with that title very likely. Here we have no scientific basis to think that the universe needed to create us specifically or even create life in the broadest sense, so the fact that it is tuned so it did is something we all have to grapple with.
I think the multiverse explanations sound mostly like a desperate attempt to avoid addressing the problems above, with a beautiful, unproveable, and empirical evidence free "answer." To me it is basically a faith statement--"I can't believe in a super (or extra) natural cause, so I'll imagine a world where everything could happen and so does happen somewhere (and ignore the problem of first causes)." I'm not saying all multiverse theorists think this, but many people who point to multiverse theories are using them in more or less exactly the same way that YECs use Genesis--here is something that supports what I already believe.

The third explanation seems rather unlikely -- even if the Big Bang (etc.) were to separate several 'bubbles' that wouldn't see eachother, the physics across them should still stay the same. After all, distance from our planet to the sun doesn't change physics, why would any distance?

As another note, people interested in this could also check out Sproul's "Not a Chance" over here: http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Modern-Science-Cosmology/dp/080105852X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246586428&sr=8-1.