It's an Accident

A Mere Drop in an Ocean of Chance

Harper's Magazine, in the December 2011 edition, carried an "emperor has no clothes" piece by Alan P Lightman entitled The Accidental Universe: Science's Crisis of Faith. 

The crisis of faith is occurring amongst the high priests of scientism--that religion-cum-philosophy which asserts that only matter exists and the study of matter alone reveals truth and knowledge.  And it is the high-priests of scientism who are in crisis.  The high-priests, of course, are the theoretical physicists. And the crisis is one of existence being so random that ultimately nothing has meaning.
 

Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.

Now this is not at all surprising to the Christian.  All Unbelieving rational thought ends up in a rational-irrational dichotomy, which is precisely where the theoretical physicists are today.  Lightman explains how they work:

Theoretical physics is the deepest and purest branch of science. It is the outpost of science closest to philosophy, and religion. Experimental scientists occupy themselves with observing and measuring the cosmos, finding out what stuff exists, no matter how strange that stuff may be. Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy. 

So far, so good.  But a problem arises when the same phenomena can "explain" many different universes.  Or, when endless universes have to be conjectured to exist in order to "explain" our own.  Actually, the existence of many different universes (a multiverse) is a giant cop-out.  The more sub-atomic physics confronts the inordinate complexity of matter, the more it leans over into irrationalism.  The conjecture that there must be many universes is the last desperate throw of the Unbelieving rationalist.  Meaninglessness rules. 

However, two theories in physics, eternal inflation and string theory, now suggest that the same fundamental principles from which the laws of nature derive may lead to many different self-consistent universes, with many different properties. It is as if you walked into a shoe store, had your feet measured, and found that a size 5 would fit you, a size 8 would also fit, and a size 12 would fit equally well. Such wishy-washy results make theoretical physicists extremely unhappy. Evidently, the fundamental laws of nature do not pin down a single and unique universe. According to the current thinking of many physicists, we are living in one of a vast number of universes. We are living in an accidental universe. We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.

How on earth did theoretical physics get to this point?  It is a cautionary tale--one we have seen many times before in Unbelief.  Theoretical physics worked out that this universe is a "near run" thing.  Change just one parameter, even slightly, and life could not exist. 

. . . the multiverse idea does explain one aspect of our universe that has unsettled some scientists for years: according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine­tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.

Enter the Intelligent Design rationalists.  See--they argue--the parameters and the variable are so precise and fine, the existence of a "Designer" is demanded as a scientific hypothesis.  If you won't go with us down this road, then you must be deeply prejudiced.  You must have an axe to grind, they argue.  Now Intelligent Design is just a throwback to rationalistic eighteen and nineteen century Deism.  But Unbelief has taken such a brute grip upon the modern mind that even that cannot be contemplated.

 If such conclusions are correct, the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”

No, a far more congenial conjecture that the existence of a Designer is that there has to be an endless number of universes, and at least one has randomly developed to the point where life could happen.  

Intelligent design, however, is an answer to fine-tuning that does not appeal to most scientists. The multiverse offers another explanation. If there are countless different universes with different properties—for example, some with nuclear forces much stronger than in our universe and some with nuclear forces much weaker—then some of those universes will allow the emergence of life and some will not. Some of those universes will be dead, lifeless hulks of matter and energy, and others will permit the emergence of cells, plants and animals, minds. From the huge range of possible universes predicted by the theories, the fraction of universes with life is undoubtedly small. But that doesn’t matter. We live in one of the universes that permits life because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

Now this appears to ward off the threat of coming face to face with the Living God.  Anything rather than that.  But at what cost?  Irrationalism.  It has to be embraced with a vengeance, despite the fact that it makes everything--yes, everything--meaningless in the end. Rather that, than courageously face up to the Living God.  How truly the Scripture has spoken: "the fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God' ". 

The multiverse offers an explanation to the fine-tuning conundrum that does not require the presence of a Designer. As Steven Weinberg says: “Over many centuries science has weakened the hold of religion, not by disproving the existence of God but by invalidating arguments for God based on what we observe in the natural world. The multiverse idea offers an explanation of why we find ourselves in a universe favorable to life that does not rely on the benevolence of a creator, and so if correct will leave still less support for religion.”

 Unbelieving scientism reasons that if "science" can explain some phenomenon in the creation, there is no need for God.  Of course the dichotomy is false, but that hasn't stopped Unbelief nursing its bitter rebellions.  Multiverse theory "explains" away the data, but the cost is a rising tide of irrationalism.  Unbelieving rationalism would rather kill off its children and make itself sterile than bow the knee.

Put it another way--irrationalism has to be welcomed into the world of theoretical physics in order to preserve its rationalism, its belief in its Unbelief.  Without grasping the nettles of meaninglessness and irrationality, theoretical physics can offer no meaning at all about anything.  The only way it can explain rationally the natural order is to assert that meaninglessness and irrationality rules. 

Back to the intelligent fish. The wizened old fish conjecture that there are many other worlds, some with dry land and some with water. Some of the fish grudgingly accept this explanation. Some feel relieved. Some feel like their lifelong ruminations have been pointless. And some remain deeply concerned. Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

As always, things in Unbelief eventually come to a pretty pass--both predictable and pathetic.