Explanation of this blog post series:
A few days ago, I received my copy of Stephen Meyer’s new
book: Return of the
God Hypothesis, Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the
Universe. In his book, Meyer provides powerful scientific evidence for
the existence of God. Meyer is gifted at explaining complex topics in ways that
non-experts can understand them. I highly recommend the book. Still, his
book is a bit long and a bit technical for some people’s taste. So, I intend to
write some blog posts summarizing and somewhat simplifying the material in his
book for a broader audience. Much of what I write will be based on his book and
wherever you see something like this (pg. #), that refers to a page in Meyer’s
book where the topic is discussed or a quote may be found. Some of what I
write, including the next section of this blog post, is not based on Meyer’s
book. These sections are designed to help a wider audience understand the
importance and application of these topics.
The Multiverse is Popular these Days (this section is
not based on Meyer’s book)
Many science fiction movies and TV shows include some
type of “multiverse.” We live in the universe, and people used to use the word
“universe” to include everything God created in the natural world (everything
except the heavenly realm where God and angels are seen to live in the Bible).
However, in many TV shows and movies there are multiple alternative universes.
Often, these alternative universes are similar, but not identical to our own.
For example, there might be a version of me in another universe that is like me
in almost every way except that the alternate me sings well (I know that seems
unrealistic, but remember, it’s science fiction!). All of the alternate
universes put together are called “the multiverse.” If you don’t believe in a
spiritual realm, then the multiverse would include all that exists.
Examples of movies/TV shows that involve some type of
multiverse (I haven’t watched all these, and their mention does NOT mean I
recommend them):
The whole set of Star Trek TV shows
The
CW DC Comics world including shows like Flash, Supergirl, and the new Superman
and Lois series
Spider-man:
Into the Spider-verse
The
Avenger’s movie Endgame
Doctor
Who
Netflix’s
“Dark”
The
Movie, Mr. Nobody
The
TV series, “Fringe”
Obviously, these movies and
shows are fiction. However, they can subtly influence people to get used to the
idea of some type of multiverse and be more open to other universes actually
existing. Some of these shows and movies are super-popular all around the
world. They have more influence on how people think than you may realize.
Why does any of this matter?
Well, many scientists believe that a multiverse containing a vast number of
universes actually exists. For them, the multiverse is not science fiction, but
science. And some of these scientists have promoted this idea in popular books.
Ok, that’s weird, but why should we care? We should care because the
existence of a vast number of alternate universes is often used to explain away
an otherwise astonishingly powerful scientific argument for the existence of
God.
So, are atheism-promoting scientists
and science fiction writers secretly conspiring to keep masses of people from
believing in God? I doubt that they have secret meetings for this purpose. But
I do believe that they are in fact working AGAINST faith in God.
Now, let’s turn to the content
of Meyer’s book, which works FOR faith in God.
Extreme Fine-Tuning of the
Universe for Life as Evidence for God
(This section of the blog post
is based on chapter 7, “The Goldilocks Universe” and chapter 8, “Extreme Fine
Tuning – by Design?” of Meyer’s book)
Our physical universe is
governed by laws of physics (which I believe in turn were created by God).
These laws of physics include some constants such as: the strength of gravity
and the other three fundamental forces (the strong nuclear force, the weak
nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force). There are other constants like
the mass of the electron, the mass of up and down quarks, and the mass of other
elementary particles. As far as scientists can understand, these constants (1)
never change and are the same everywhere throughout our universe, and (2) could
have had different values (there is no known reason why these constants have
the values they do – unless like Meyers and I you believe that God purposely
chose them for a reason).
In addition to physical constants,
scientists believe that there was a set of initial conditions at the beginning
of the universe at the time of the big bang. These initial conditions have to
do with things like how much matter and energy was in the universe and how this
matter and energy was distributed throughout space (was it spread out very
evenly and smoothly or was it lumpier with high density clumps of matter in
some places and far less matter in other places?). As far as the scientists can
tell, the amount and distribution of matter could have been far different at
the beginning. There is no known reason that it had to start out the way it
did.
Beginning around the 1950’s,
scientists began to discover something amazing and unexpected. Many of these physical
constants must have very precise values, the exact values they actually do
have, or our universe would not be capable of supporting life like us. Also,
the initial conditions in the universe had to be very precisely (super,
amazingly precisely) right in order to produce a universe that would allow life
to exist. Even very tiny changes in these constants and/or initial conditions
would result in a universe that could not possibly support life of any kind.
What would the universe have
been like if the initial conditions and constants were not just right? Well, in
some cases the universe would have immediately crunched back into a singularity
that would be like a super black hole. In other cases, the universe would produce
no stars or galaxies, only atoms of hydrogen and helium spread out over vast
spaces. In still other cases, the universe would be full of black holes and
have no stars. With other combinations of physical constants, there might be
stars, but there would be no elements (or at least no significant amount of
elements) other than hydrogen and helium and perhaps one or two others. Without
elements like oxygen and carbon, there could be no life of any kind. (You can’t
even have water without oxygen, since water is H2O!). These aren’t universes
where it would be difficult to have life, these are universes where there is no
way life could exist.
This situation, where the
constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe are just right to
permit life, is called “fine tuning.” If you don’t believe in God, then it
appears that we got really, really lucky. How lucky? If someone buys a single
lottery ticket and wins, they are lucky. If they did that five times in a row,
that would be super-incredible-lucky, so lucky that it would be justified to
call for FBI investigations to see if the lottery was rigged. What if the
lottery goes on for a long time and they won a billion times in row, each time
by buying just one lottery ticket? That really is not a good analogy for how
“lucky” our universe is to have the right numbers to allow life. The reason it
is not a good analogy is that it would be far more likely to win the lottery a
billion times in a row by buying just one lucky ticket each time than it would
be for our universe to, just by chance, have all the physical constants and
initial conditions just right to allow for life. In fact, it is trillions and
trillions of times more likely to win the lottery a billion times in row. Our
universe is not just fine tuned, it is extremely fine tuned.
One of the first scientists to
discover fine-tuning was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (pp. 130-135). Hoyle was not
initially looking for fine-tuning. At the time of his initial discovery, Hoyle
was a hard core atheist. What he found shook his atheistic worldview. Hoyle was
just trying to figure out where all the carbon in the universe came from. It
was thought that elements heavier than hydrogen and helium might be produced by
fusion building up elements inside of stars. But there was a problem getting to
carbon and heavier elements. Hoyle realized that only if carbon had a very
specific higher energy state might fusion in stars be able to produce it in
significant quantities. He predicted that carbon must have such a state and his
prediction was later confirmed. But Hoyle also began to realize that for carbon
to have the right energy state other, more fundamental, values in physics had
to be very precise. He also realized that without carbon and oxygen and other
elements being produced there could be no life. Later, after more and more
fine-tuning discoveries were made, Hoyle stated:
A
common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are
no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from
the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond
question. (pg. 139)
Hoyle was among the first, but
far from the only, physicist to be awestruck by the fine-tuning of our universe
for life. In fact, before reading Meyer’s book which supports a theistic
worldview, I read two earlier books by scientists who do not believe in God (as far as I can
tell), but do believe in incredible fine-tuning:
The
Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies
Just
Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe by Martin Rees
The incredible fine-tuning of
the laws of physics and initial conditions of the universe is a fact widely
recognized by many scientists. In fact, even some of the most anti-God atheism
promoting scientists recognize the problem (well, for them it’s a problem) of
fine-tuning.
Meyer provides lots of
detailed examples of fine tuning and many quotes from scientists. Unlike this
blog post, Meyer’s book is heavily footnoted and documented so that those who
desire can look up books and papers from a host of scientists on the topic of
fine tuning. He does a good job of explaining how things like the mass of
quarks, the initial entropy of the universe, the cosmological constant, the
fundamental forces of nature, the mass of an electron, and more are fine-tuned.
If you like science, you will love reading Meyer’s explanations.
No one thinks that we could
have gotten lucky enough to get all the fine-tuning factors right in our
universe so that it can support life. That much luck is unbelievable.
Fine-tuning seems to point to a Fine Tuner. Fine tuning suggests that there is Someone
Who existed before the universe and Who established the laws of physics and
initial conditions to achieve a goal: to create a life-friendly universe where
we can live. This points to the great wisdom of God and also to His great
power. After all, none of us can change the strength of gravity or cause a universe
to come into existence with the right amount and distribution of matter. This should
lead to worship. And thankfully, there are indeed Christian scientists who
worship God as the great Creator of our fine-tuned universe. Indeed, many of
the men who started modern science were also Christians, or at least theists (in
other chapters, Meyer’s writes about the Christian foundations of modern
science).
Tragically, there are other
scientists who are committed to a materialistic worldview, where matter and
energy is all there is. Some of these scientists aggressively attack
Christianity and zealously promote atheism. Do these scientists not know about
fine-tuning? They do, but they believe that something other than God can
explain the fine tuning of the universe. The most popular alternative to God
among these God-denying scientists is the multiverse.
How the multiverse is used
to explain fine-tuning
(Most of the rest of this blog
post is based on chapter 16 of Meyer’s book)
Imagine if instead of someone
buying one lottery ticket and winning the lottery, they bought a trillion
tickets, each with a different number, and won. We would no longer consider
that luck. If you bought enough lottery tickets at the right times (many
trillions) you could even expect to win many lotteries in a row without the
need for luck (of course you would be spending more money than you would win).
Some scientists say that the multiverse can work the same way to explain fine
tuning. In order for the multiverse to work this way:
1. There must be an incredibly
huge number of separate universes (way more than a trillion trillion trillion) and
2. These universes must have
different values for the physical constants and different initial conditions
for the amount and distribution of matter
In such a multiverse, the vast
majority (way, way more than 99.9999999999999999%) of them would be lifeless
and totally incapable of supporting life. But every now and then, just by
chance, we would expect there to be a “goldilocks universe” like ours where all
the numbers are just right to allow life to exist in it. Do scientists
seriously believe this is how it works instead of believing in God using His
wisdom and power to create one universe, our universe, the right way? Yes, some
do. In fact, you might be (sadly) surprised at how much they have studied,
written about, and lectured on this possibility. They seem really devoted to suppressing the
truth seen in nature that points to God (see Romans 1:18-22). Indeed, this
(crazy) belief has spread to many non-scientists as well.
Meyer explains multiverse
mechanisms (this section of the blog is unavoidably technical, so feel free to
skip it and go to the next section which explains why the multiverse doesn’t
explain fine-tuning)
In order to provide a
plausible sounding alternative to God for explaining the fine tuning of our
universe, some physicists have not only suggested the multiverse, but have
attempted to explain mechanisms for how the multiverse is produced (pg. 327).
Fine tuning has lots of scientific support. Without a scientific basis for the
multiverse, it would not be very useful as an explanation for something that
does have a strong scientific basis: fine tuning. Also, if the universes in a
multiverse are not causally connected by some multiverse generating mechanism,
then what happens in one universe could not possibly effect anything in another
universe, including probabilities (pg. 328). So, for the multiverse to work as
an explanation for fine tuning, mechanisms are needed.
The two most common proposed
mechanisms are (1) the inflationary multiverse and (2) a model based on string
theory. Some scientists combine these two mechanisms.
The multiverse model based on
eternal chaotic inflationary theory has been used to try to explain “only the
fine tuning of the initial conditions, not the laws and constants of physics,
since the laws of physics would be the same in all bubbles within the larger
universe” (pg. 329). So on it’s own, the inflationary multiverse model fails
miserably at explaining fine tuning.
String theory is complex.
Meyer spends some time giving an explanation to help us non-experts understand
it. Basically, some physicists believe that all elementary particles are made
of super-tiny vibrating strings that exist in six or seven extra dimensions of
space that we cannot see in our macroscopic world. These strings exist in
little structures called compactifications. The shape of the compactifications
and the way the strings vibrate determine the characteristics of the elementary
particles, which in turn determine the characteristics of everything else,
including the laws of physics and the constants associated with these laws (pp
330-331).
String theory was not
initially developed to create a mechanism for the multiverse. Instead, they
hoped string theory would create a grand “theory of everything”, a single
theory that accounts for everything in nature at the most fundamental level.
However, string theorists ran into “a theoretical difficulty” when their math
produced an infinite number of solutions corresponding to an infinite number of
possible compactifications. All these compactifications taken together are
called the “string landscape.” While the total landscape may be infinite, the
more relevant landscape of solutions with a positive cosmological constant has
a mere 10500 to 101000 different compactifications (pp 332-333).
This is where the multiverse
comes in. Meyers explains:
But some
string theorists attempted to turn this vice into a virtue by using the
multiplicity of possible solutions as a way of addressing the fine-tuning
problem. They proposed that each solution to the equations of string theory
corresponds to a different universe with different physical laws and
constants of physics. (pg. 333)
The string theorists then
speculated that if we began with a high-energy compactification based universe,
as the energy decayed perhaps lesser-energy compactification based universes
would form and then those compactifications would in turn decay and produce
more and more different universes resulting in a multiverse containing a vast
number of universes, each with different physical constants (pg. 333). This is
similar to a ball that starts at the top of a mountain (the top of the mountain
represents high energy) and then rolling down a mountain and bouncing off rocks
lower and lower down the mountain as it goes (except that somehow each time the
ball bounces off a rock it forms a whole universe, which is kind of weird).
Four of the reasons Meyers
thinks that the multiverse is not as good an explanation for fine tuning as God
is
#1. The principle of Ockham’s
razor states that “when attempting to explain phenomena we should, as much as
possible, avoid ‘multiplying (theoretical) entities’” (pg. 335).
The God hypothesis requires just
one explanatory entity that we cannot see – God. The multiverse requires a vast
number of unseen (and unseeable!) universes plus universe generating
mechanisms. Indeed, in order to explain both the variation in initial
conditions of the universe and also the variation in the laws of physics some
believe that the mechanisms of inflationary cosmology and string theory need to
be combined. In order for this to work, one must believe in all of the
following unproven postulates:
1. An inflation
field exists.
2. The decay of
inflation fields will produce new bubble universes with different initial
conditions.
3. The process of
inflation will continue eternally into the future.
4. An infinite
number of bubble universes exists (or will eventually exist).
5. Unimaginably
small vibrating strings of energy exist.
6. Six or seven
hidden spatial dimensions exist
7. The vibrating
strings of energy within string vacua [vacua are another name for the multidimensional
compactions that contain strings] create the physical phenomena we observe
8. Lines of flux
around the compactifications of space exist, making them quasi-stable with a
positive cosmological constant.
9. Supersymmetry
applies to fundamental strings, so that both gravitons and gravitinos exist and
their different vibrational modes correspond to all forms of radiation, matter,
and the fundamental forces of physics.
10. Every
mathematical solution to the equations of string theory corresponds to an
actually existing universe with different laws and constants of physics (i.e.,
the string landscape exists).
(this list is
copied from pg. 337)
Or you could believe in God. Keep
in mind that none of the ten postulates above is anywhere near proven by
physics. It’s all theoretical at this point and many physicists are very
skeptical of string theory and other aspect of this whole system. Meyer says
that philosopher of physics Bruce Gorden “likens all these postulations to
believing “six impossible things before breakfast,” as in the Alice and
Wonderland story – with, that is, a few more impossible (or at least
implausible) things thrown in for good measure” (pg. 337).
#2 We should prefer
explanations that match “what we already know about the causal powers of
various kinds of entities” (pg. 338)
We already know that intelligent
beings can finely tune things: instruments for an orchestra, a race car engine,
a computer for maximum performance, etc. It makes sense that an intelligent
Creator could fine tune the universe for life. We have no experience with
non-intelligent entities like inflation fields or vibrating strings being able
to fine tune things.
#3 The multiverse cannot
explain fine tuning because the various mechanisms proposed for causing the
multiverse themselves would require a huge amount of fine tuning (pp 339-343)
In my opinion, this argument is
very strong. Remember, the question is not merely whether or not the multiverse
exists, but whether or not it removes fine tuning as evidence for God. If the
multiverse itself requires fine tuning to produce life permitting universes,
then we still have strong evidence for God. This applies to both inflationary
cosmology and string theory (two commonly proposed mechanisms for the
multiverse).
Meyers gives a lot of details
about the fine tuning required. I will briefly summarize some (but not all) of the
different examples of fine tuning in multiverse mechanisms here, but my summary
is not a substitute for reading Meyer’s book:
a. For an inflation field to work
it needs a minimum initial energy, the right amount of decay, and a finely
tuned “shutoff” energy to produce life permitting bubble universes. Also, the
shutoff interval must be precisely fine-tuned (pg. 339). These factors alone
get us back to a situation which is analogous to winning a billion lottery
games in a row when only buying one lottery ticket for each game.
b. Inflationary cosmology requires
more fine tuning of initial entropy, not less (pp. 340-341) than just the basic
big bang model of the universe without inflationary cosmology would require.
This is one of the factors involving the most extreme fine tuning.
c. String theory requires a highly
fine tuned choice of a compactification of space with “an extremely high-energy
quantum gravitational field” (pg 341) to begin the process at the top of the
mountain (see above) of compactification energy levels. Again, this issue alone
puts us back in the situation of requiring hugely unrealistic levels of luck to
work.
d. Just as a ball bouncing down a
mountain would not be expected to hit every rock on the mountain, quantum compactifications
decaying to lower energy compactifications and (theoretically) producing new
universes along the way should not be expected to produce anywhere close to all
possible combinations of physical constants in different universes. A
finely-tuned tumble down the mountain is required if it is to include the
super, extremely rare, life permitting universes (pg. 341).
note: The lottery analogy in this
blog post is my own. Using this analogy to explain points c and d above,
imagine that a lottery company sells lottery tickets numbered between 1 and 1 quadrillion
(a quadrillion is three orders of magnitude higher than a trillion). I don’t
suggest you play such a lottery, although the chances of winning would be vastly
higher than the chances of any given universe with random constants of physics
and initial conditions being life permitting. However, let’s say you have a tricky
and vague method using strings to somehow get one ticket that would include not
only the number on your ticket but some of the lower numbers as well.
Unfortunately, you cannot pick the number (that would be like invoking God to
design the multiverse) nor control what percentage of tickets with lower
numbers it will cover. All of that is done by chance. In order for this one
special ticket to work you would need for the initial ticket to be a very high
number (this is roughly the equivalent to the fine tuning example c above) and
also you would need it to include a large percentage of the lower numbers and
not merely 1/100th of 1% of the lower numbers (this is roughly the
equivalent of fine tuning example d above).
#4 The cosmological models
(inflationary cosmology and the string landscape) that multiverse generating
mechanisms are based on might not even be correct
Some of the above arguments are
basically saying that even IF there was a multiverse based on string theory
and/or inflationary cosmology that fact would not eliminate God as the best
explanation for fine tuning. But please don’t think that Meyer (or myself)
thinks it is actually likely that there really is a multiverse. We don’t. Not
only that, but the theories that underlie commonly proposed multiverse
generating mechanisms are far, far from widely accepted, well established, proven
theories. Here are some examples of specific issues with these theories:
a. Inflationary theory was
initially designed to explain the degree of homogeneity and flatness we see in
our universe. But it is not necessarily a better explanation than standard big
bang cosmology without inflationary theory (pg 343).
b. Meyer gives examples of several
predictions of the simplest inflationary cosmology model that have so far not
proved accurate. This has led some top physicists (including Roger Penrose) to
reject inflationary cosmology. (pg. 344).
c. String theory requires
something called supersymmetry if it is to explain both matter and energy. This
supersymmetry predicts the existence of certain particles that should have
been detected in experiments like those performed by the Large Hadron Collider,
but those experiments have failed to detect those particles. (pg. 344)
Why do some physicists promote
the multiverse so vigorously if it has so little evidence to support it and it is
such a poor explanation for fine tuning?
Meyer briefly addresses the question
of why some scientists continue to promote the multiverse as an explanation for
fine tuning. He provides quotes that indicate that part of the motivation may
be a desire to avoid acknowledging that fine tuning points to God. Here is a
quote that Meyer shares:
“If, for some
unforeseen reason the [string] landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for
mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation [then] as things
now stand we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of
nature’s fine tuning we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent
design] critics.” – Stanford Physicist Leonard Susskind, an architect of the
string-theory multiverse quoted on pg. 345 of Meyer’s book.
I wish men like Leonard would see
how wonderful it is if science supports belief in God especially if the Creator
is the Christian God because this in turn opens the door to the possibility of
forgiveness of sins leading to eternal life in a world of pure joy.
Here is a second quote from Meyer’s
book:
“Our willingness
to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an
understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We
take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism
. . . moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot
in the door.” – Retired Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin.
I wish men like Lewontin would see
that framing the issue as science vs. God creates a false dichotomy. This
should be obvious as many of the founding fathers of modern science believed in
God. Moreover, I wish people would realize that a divine foot getting into the
door of our lives and our world is actually the best thing that could ever happen
to us.
I would go further than Meyer. Perhaps
part of the reason that some people prefer outlandish explanations like the
multiverse over God is that a multiverse does not have authority to tell us how
to treat our enemies, how to use our money and time, or who we can sleep with.
God does.
Concluding Thoughts
Here is my best effort to
summarize the arguments in this blog post, which in turn summarize several
chapters of Meyer’s book:
The fine tuning of the laws of
physics and the initial conditions of our universe provides stunningly strong
evidence for God, and the main scientific counterargument, namely the
multiverse, utterly fails to provide a better explanation.
This blog post has summarized
parts of Meyer’s book. There are many chapters that I have not even touched
here. Some of those chapters have additional information that is relevant to
the issue of the multiverse. I did not include here Meyer’s critique of the
Multiple Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum cosmology. If multiverse
explanations based on a theoretical inflationary string landscape are
unlikely true and a poor explanation for fine tuning, the MWI is just plain
crazy. Nevertheless, Meyer gives a careful and reasoned response to that view.
Read his book.
With regard to Meyer’s excellent
book, Return of the God Hypothesis, I hope that this blog post will (1) serve
as a helpful summary of some of the material for those who are unlikely to read
the book and (2) motivate others to read the book.
Now let’s step back a minute. You
don’t have to be a scientist to see evidence for God in nature. Our dog Sadie
takes me on a walk through nearby fields most mornings. As I see the stars
(when we leave on the early side), or a beautiful sunrise, or see geese flying above
me, or watch Sadie chase some deer, I am often moved to worship the great
Creator who is responsible for all this. I feel His great power and
wisdom. Even those scientists who are atheists generally realize that the world
appears to have been created by a super intelligent, super powerful Creator.
But these scientists claim that science provides evidence that all the
appearance of design and purpose is an illusion. What Meyer and other
scientists in the intelligent design movement do is show that far from undermining
nature’s witness to God, when properly understood, science actually strengthens
and affirms this witness. So, the next time you’re enjoying nature go ahead and
worship the God who created it all, and as you give Him thanks, know that your
worship and thanksgiving are supported by lots of scientific evidence.
Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .
Related blog posts for further reading:
Michael Behe has also given strong scientific evidence for God in a series of three books. I summarize the arguments of those three books here:
Behe’sThree Mighty Blows Against Darwinism
I’ve written posts about how the following
show evidence of design and give glory to God:
The
Sun
The
Earth
The
smallest cells
Cells
in general
Viruses
And here are a few devotional
blog posts inspired by the natural world God created:
Sunflowers and Sonpeople
Spiritual Lessons from Elephants and Water Buffalo
Three
Lessons from the Beautiful Bloom of the Ric Rac Plant
