WHAT would you rather believe in, God or the multiverse? It sounds like an instance of cosmic apples and oranges, but increasingly we are being told itās a choice we must make. Take the earlier this year between Richard Dawkins and physicist Steven Weinberg in Austin, Texas. Discussing the fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for our existence, Weinberg told Dawkins: āIf you discovered a really impressive fine-tuningā¦ I think youād really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.ā
Weinberg went on to clarify that invoking a benevolent designer does not count as a genuine explanation, but I was intrigued by his either/or scenario. Is that really our only choice? Supernatural creator or parallel worlds?
It is according to in this monthās Discover magazine. āShort of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation,ā writes journalist Tim Folger. āOur universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.ā Folger quotes cosmologist Bernard Carr: āIf you donāt want God, youād better have a multiverse.ā
Advertisement
There are plenty of reasons to take the multiverse seriously. Three key theories ā quantum mechanics, cosmic inflation and string theory ā all converge on the idea. But the reason physicists talk about the multiverse as an alternative to God is because it helps explain why the universe is so bio-friendly. From the strength of gravity to the mass of a proton, itās as if the universe were designed just for us. If, however, there are an infinite number of universes ā with physical constants that vary from one to the next ā our cosy neighbourhood isnāt only possible, itās inevitable.
But to suggest that if this theory doesnāt pan out our only other option is a supernatural one is to abandon science itself. Not only is it an unfounded leap of logic, it suggests intelligent design offers as valid an explanation as a cosmological theory does, and lends credence to creationistsā mistaken claim that the multiverse was invented to serve as scienceās get-out-of-God-free card. Indeed, Folgerās article was immediately referenced on creationist websites, including the Access Research Network, an intelligent-design hub, and Uncommon Descent, the .
To make matters worse, physicists are also dragging morality into the picture. In about the multiverse that aired on the History Channel, physicist Michio Kaku asked: āWhy should I obey the law knowing that in some universe if I commit a crime Iām going to get away with it?ā The ID community has already tried to draw lines from Darwin to the Holocaust in their attempt to paint rational people as Satanās minions. Are physicists really suggesting that the multiverse gives us licence to commit evil? Itās an absurd notion, which moral philosophers have already killed off in other guises.
Pitting the multiverse against religion presents a false dichotomy. Science never boils down to a choice between two alternative explanations. It is always plausible that both are wrong and a third or fourth or fifth will turn out to be correct.
āScience never boils down to a straight choice between two explanationsā
What might a third option look like here? Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. Itās an idea that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too. Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
Thatās speculative, but at least itās science.
