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:
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
No comments:
Post a Comment