GOD REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, BUT SO DOES THE MULTIVERSE

Carl Sagan had famously written: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This makes a lot of sense. If my neighbor claims that he had just been voted the “Man of the Year,” I would be skeptical. However, if he had merry claimed that his wife regarded him as her “man of the year,” I would be satisfied without any evidence.

However, should the same skepticism also apply when my neighbor claims that God is the explanation of consciousness, life, freewill, and the fine-tuning of the universe? Admittedly, this is an extraordinary claim, but let’s just examine one aspect of it – the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe. Some have calculated the chances of having a universe fine-tuned for life to be one chance in 10 followed by 100 zeros.

I want to argue that any explanation of fine-tuning requires an extraordinary explanation – either supernatural (ID) or a natural explanation. This consideration therefore transforms our question into, “Which paradigm is best?”

The natural explanation invokes the multiverse, reasoning that if there are an infinite number of universes, it is likely that our fortuitous universe would be one of them. However, this seems to be the most extraordinary claim:

1. There is no scientific evidence for even a second universe, let alone an infinite number.

2. There is no known mechanism that can generate universes out of nothing.

3. There is no evidence that anything has ever been caused naturally and without intelligence.

4. It can provide no answer for the elegance, universality, and immutability for our fine-tuned laws of science.

In light of these problems, rather than the ID paradigm as extraordinary, it would seem that naturalistic paradigm requires more support and represents a desperate attempt to remove God from the picture. Science writer, John Horgan, confessed that:

·       “Multiverse theories aren’t theories; they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by science.”

Theoretical physicist, Paul Steinhardt, confessed the same concern:

·       “The key thing that distinguishes science from non-science is that scientific ideas have to be subject to tests. Some people are nowadays thinking, no, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case.” (Regis Nicoll; Salvo Magazine; Summer 2017, 38)

Tim Folger, writing for Discover Magazine, claimed that the multiverse is the “only viable non-religious explanation”:

·       “Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life….The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non-religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. (“The Multiverse Theory,” Dec. 2008)

Perhaps the multiverse requires even more extraordinary evidence than ID. As a naturalistic theory, it only can serve to explain the “fine-tuning problem.” In order to explain life, consciousness, DNA, the first cell, the existence of natural causal agents, the first cause, and freewill, naturalism must invoke entirely different theories for each. And with each additional theory or postulate, it makes itself even more improbable, thereby violating Occam’s Razor. However, ID has only one necessary postulate – God!

Columbia University mathematician and atheist Peter Woit has expressed serious doubts about the multiverse:

·       …The idea of assuming a Multiverse and using it to make statistical predictions doesn’t work. But instead of drawing the obvious conclusion (this was a scientifically worthless idea, as seemed likely to most everyone else), the argument is that we need a “revolution in our understanding of physics” that will make the idea work.

According to science writer, Denise O’Leary, “Woit blames the Templeton Foundation [for funding and purveying this meritless idea]. It appears to have given $15 million to physicist to pursue these questions, and $10 million to the publishing group Nautilus…And he does not understand “why the rest of the physics community is staying quiet.” (Salvo Magazine; Summer 2017, 50)

Why the quiet? Why the tenacious grasp of the multiverse? Perhaps this represents a desperate attempt to keep God out of the picture. According to evolutionist and geneticist Richard Lewontin:

  

·       We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism [that nothing exists apart from matter and energy]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, …Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Clearly, the presence of God is unwelcome in the bastions of science, even at the expense of adopting science-less theories and purveying them as facts. O’Leary writes:

·       Vast evidence supports the view that our universe and our planet are fine-tuned for life, which suggests a cosmic scheme based on some type of meaning, purpose, or intelligence. By contrast, no evidence supports the multiverse.

Rather than proposing the highly unlikely multiverse, it is more reasonable to claim that we are very limited in our understanding about the origins of the universe and fine-tuning.

While this is true, we have to observe that we are also very limited about our understandings of the fundamentals – light, matter, energy, time, and space. However, this limitation should not prevent us from doing science or from going where our limited evidence leads.

GOD DID IT OR DID NATURALISM DO IT?

Does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design explain anything? Some argue that the idea of an uncased Causer is necessary. Others retort that to say that “God did it,” is a cop-out, which explains nothing.

Interestingly theists and non-theists do science the same way and invoke the same immutable and elegant laws of science to both explain and predict. However, when we try to account for these laws or regularities, the very foundations of science, we separate into warring camps, one side invoking “naturalism,” the other “supernaturalism” (ID).

Can naturalism explain the existence, immutability, and elegance of the “natural” laws better than ID? It would seem that neither hypothesis should be summarily dismissed.

“God of the Gaps” Fallacy

What is the “God of the Gaps” argument? Here is how atheism.wiki.com explains it:         

• God of the Gaps is a concept that comes from the fact that God is being squeezed into an ever smaller series of existential gaps… At one time, all the phenomena in the universe could be ascribed to God. The stars, the rain, the seasons etc. With time, and improved scientific explanations, the number of things for which "God did it" was a good explanation was reduced, and god was equally reduced to inhabiting ever smaller gaps in human knowledge… It should be remembered however, the fact that science has no present explanation in no way means that god (or Uranus, Zeus, Odin or any other god/goddess) exists or that the God/Gods of any other Mythology exist. Indeed, if we were never to answer these questions it still wouldn't mean that Allah created the Universe or that Thor causes it to thunder.

Through this incoherent thinking, atheists hope to demonstrate that any possible argument in favor of God is being pushed into the gaps or margins – those areas where science has not yet been able to provide an explanation. Once these areas have been scientifically explained, there will remain no further argument in favor of the existence of God.

However, there is a hidden and fallacious assumption here that has construed science to favor atheism – that scientific findings/understandings undermine the existence of God rather than validate the existence of God. It assumes that “God is being squeezed” out of consideration by science rather than being placed in stage-center.

The central question is this: “Who did it?” Do natural, undersigned laws account for scientific knowledge or do designed, purposeful laws account for them?

Of course, we cannot put God (ID) in a test tube. However, we are equally unable to put the concept of natural causation into a test tube. Both go beyond experimentation and replication. Instead, we have to examine them from a higher more philosophical perspective and ask:

• Which theory best accounts for the findings: naturalism or supernaturalism (intelligence, ID)? 

Here are some considerations in favor of ID:

1. There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that these laws are natural and unintelligent in origin. Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the natural hadn’t been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they find their origin and unity in the single transcendent Mind of God. 

2. Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion, naturalism can’t account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can! Only a transcendent (outside-of-this universe) God is impervious to change. Only transcendent laws can effect phenomena in this universe in a universal and uniform way.

3. Reason, logic, and the laws of science are uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter and energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.

4. The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism is unable to postulate such a cause. And there are also so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many desperate theoretical leaps into muliverses and the emergent properties of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. In contrast, ID need only postulate the Creator to explain all. Only He is adequate.

5. Our experience with causal agents informs us that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused - a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than His creation.

6. Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the laws of science. Nor can it explain how the laws work harmoniously and do not destroy one another. However, ID can!

Perhaps, then, we should be thinking in terms of “naturalism of the gaps.”

Western Civilization: Its Self-Contempt and Demise

A group neutrally named Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (IEET) must be relatively reliable, right? Wrong! In an article entitled, “Psychological Harms of Biblical Christianity,” IEET claims:

• Humanity has been going through a massive shift for centuries, transitioning from a supernatural view of a world dominated by forces of good and evil to a natural understanding of the universe. The Bible-based Christian population however, might be considered a subset of the general population that is still within the old framework, that is, supernaturalism… In the biblical view, a child is not a being that is born with amazing capabilities that will emerge with the right conditions like a beautiful flower in a well-attended garden. Rather, a child is born in sin, weak, ignorant, and rebellious, needing discipline to learn obedience. 

IEET is committed to philosophical naturalism – the belief that phenomena originated, are sustained, and work by strictly natural and mindless processes. However, there is not one shred of evidence for this belief. There are no experiments, findings, or observations that have been able to rule intelligence out of the equation.

From the perspective of this belief system/religion, Christianity is therefore antiquated. However, IEET takes their criticism to another level, claiming that Christianity is destructive.

IEET, in their zeal to prove their case, consistently misrepresents Christianity. Contrary to IEET’s claims, we do believe that children are extraordinary. If fact, we have a higher regard for children than they do. We believe that they are created in the image of God, endowing them with unalienable rights – something that naturalism has no rational basis to embrace.

Of course, we believe that children sin and that sin must be addressed, but does this make it wrong? If the child has a fever, shouldn’t that be addressed? Problems need to be addressed. If we didn’t do so, IEET would accuse us of neglect!

• Because the child’s mind is uniquely susceptible to religious ideas, religious indoctrination particularly targets vulnerable young children. Cognitive development before age seven lacks abstract reasoning. Thinking is magical and primitive, black and white. Also, young humans are wired to obey authority because they are dependent on their caregivers just for survival. Much of their brain growth and development has to happen after birth, which means that children are extremely vulnerable to environmental influences in the first few years when neuronal pathways are formed.

There is no alternative but to “indoctrinate” infants. They must be socialized and learn their ABCs. All schools are agents of indoctrination. Admittedly, children should be taught to reason for themselves as they are able. However, any Einstein must first learn the ABCs, addition and subtraction.

However, IEET gives the mis-impression that they are able to bypass the inculcation of the basics, while we abusively force our children into mental strait-jackets.

Naturalists also convey the idea that they support science, while we distort children’s minds with myths:

• If you are good and that 2000 years ago a man died a horrible death because you are naughty. Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Rapture, and hell, all can be quite real. The problem is that many of these teachings are terrifying.

Is it more scientific to believe that the world naturally jumped into existence uncaused out of nothing, even before there were such things as the laws of physics, than to believe that a Transcendent Being created?

Indeed, some teachings are terrifying, but does this make them wrong to teach? Should we not teach our children about sexual predators, Ebola, warfare, and evil? Of course we should! However, the Christian has a resource that the naturalist lacks to mitigate the terror. We also teach that God is totally forgiving and protecting – that even if we are killed, we go to be with Him!

If IEET is so concerned about the abuse of “teachings [that] are terrifying,” they should either teach denial or the Christian God!

• When assaulted with such images and ideas at a young age, a child has no chance of emotional self-defense. Christian teachings that sound true when they are embedded in the child’s mind at this tender age can feel true for a lifetime. Even decades later former believers who intellectually reject these ideas can feel intense fear or shame when their unconscious mind is triggered. 

There is some truth to this. When we live unrepentantly in a way that violates God’s commands, this can produce “intense fear or shame.” However, this is a good thing when it leads to confession. The murderer should experience “intense fear or shame” if his conscience is healthy. Society would then be healthier and safer.

It is noteworthy that one of the authors of this article “describes herself as cosmist, cosmicist, upwinger, socialist-libertarian, hedonist and abolitionist. Khannea is transgendered.” It is therefore understandable that she would feel contempt for the Christian faith, regarding it as the source of her “intense fear or shame.”

• Home schoolers and the Christian equivalent of madrassas cut off children from outside sources of information, often teaching rote learning and unquestioning obedience rather than broad curiosity. 

But what are the facts about homeschooling? Dr. Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute conducted a nationwide study of homeschooling in America. He collected data for the cross-sectional, descriptive study in spring 2008. The 11,739 participants came from all 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The findings read:

• In the study, homeschoolers scored 34–39 percentile points higher than the norm [50%] on standardized achievement tests. The homeschool national average ranged from the 84th percentile for Language, Math, and Social Studies to the 89th percentile for Reading.

These findings prove that statistically children fare far better with their home-schooling parents. Also, instances of abuse are far lower.

• Fear of sin, hell, a looming “end-times” apocalypse, or amoral heathens binds people to the group, which then provides the only safe escape from the horrifying dangers on the outside. 

Are these fears unrealistic? IEEP must first prove that these teachings are destructive myths – something they haven’t even begun to do. However, we insist that it is beneficial to prepare our children for eternity. Of course, if there is no eternity, then we have done our children a disservice. However, if there is an eternity, then the naturalist is guilty of criminal neglect.

• In Bible-believing Christianity, psychological mind-control mechanisms are coupled with beliefs from the Iron Age, including the belief that women and children are possessions of men, that children who are not hit become spoiled, that each of us is born “utterly depraved”, and that a supernatural being demands unquestioning obedience.

This too represents libelous distortion. Instead, the Bible teaches that we are caretakers and have a great responsibility to our wives and children. The husband is called to greater forms of self-sacrifice for his family – loving his wife as Christ did the church, even to the point of giving his life for his wife.

One of my students had sent me this article. I’m glad that she did! These misrepresentations need to be addressed. We live in a culture experiencing a severe auto-immune response – attacking itself and everything that it values. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex-Muslim, ex-Dutch Parliamentarian, and atheist, seems to understand this better than most Western intellectuals. She even promotes Christianity, not naturalism, as an alternative to Islam:

• The Christianity of love and tolerance remains one of the West’s most powerful antidotes to the Islam of hate and intolerance. Ex-Muslims find Jesus Christ to be a more attractive and humane figure than Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

• I have a theory that most Muslims are in search of a redemptive God. They believe that there is a higher power and that this higher power is the provider of morality, giving them a compass to help them distinguish between good and bad.  Many Muslims are seeking a God or a concept of God that in my view meets the description of the Christian God.  Instead they find Allah. They find Allah mainly because many are born in Muslim families where Allah has been the reigning deity for generations… (p. 239)

• The Christian leaders now wasting their time and resources on a futile exercise of interfaith dialogue with the self-appointed leaders of Islam should redirect their efforts to converting as many Muslims as possible to Christianity, introducing them to a God who rejects Holy War and who has sent his son to die for all sinners out of a love for mankind… The Vatican and all the established Protestant churches of northern Europe believed naively that interfaith dialogue would magically bring Islam into the fold of Western civilization. It has not happened, and it will not happen…. To help ground these people in Western society, the West needs the Christian churches to get active again in propagating their faith. It needs Christian schools, Christian volunteers, the Christian message… The churches should do all in their power to win this battle for the souls of humans in search of a compassionate God, who now find that a fierce Allah is closer to hand. (Nomad, pp. 247, 249, 250, 251)

Naturalism and moral-relativism will never win hearts. Meanwhile, it has blindly set itself against the one resource that can!