Re: [asa] Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Fri Dec 05 2008 - 00:11:42 EST

I believe David Heddle, sometimes-list-contributor, dealt admirably with the
puddle comparison on his blog:

That said, I think it's a mistake to believe we can 'prove' God with science
- I'm almost tempted to believe that the multiverse is even more
'God-friendly' than fine-tuning. Even inferring God (as opposed to 'some
kind of designer') is difficult empirically. But, particularly when it comes
to comparing against a modern atheist materialist perspective, there's such
a thing as too much humility. I more and more suspect that the enlightenment
vision of a world so many thought science would inevitably discover is gone
forever, and that unspoken realization (along with some other changes since
the Enlightenment era) is one reason there is such renewed tension between
religion and science.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Merv <> wrote:

> Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
>> Those who ascribe to physicalism realize that it is next to impossible to
>> explain the fine-tuning other than the aid of the concept of the multiverse.
>> That is their last rope. Absent that, they believe they must succumb to
>> theism.
>> Moorad
> I know that current fine-tuning arguments from physicists aren't so easily
> dismissed as their simpler predecessor arguments involving various
> "Goldilocks zones" like sun-earth distance, atmospheric compositions, etc.
> And yet the philosophical similarity may bear some reflection. To that
> end.... If there is a celebrated atheist whose contributions could
> possibly be appreciated by theists, I would nominate the late Douglass
> Adams, despite having Dawkins or other fellows in the same fan club. Adams
> (in a speech to some scientists, I believe --don't remember this from his
> books) once compared humanity to a puddle of water that woke up one morning
> in the bright sunlight and began to marvel on how well it fit the cavity it
> was in. In fact, so perfect was the fit, that the water became convicted
> that it had been designed specifically for the hole, and surely the hole had
> been painstakingly prepared for it! Or (as I have heard the argument put
> another way) is a good thing my parents named me "Merv" because that
> sure is what everyone keeps calling me.
> For all his mockeries (whether gentle or not) of our human and religious
> foibles, I think Adams gave us a gift of brilliant wit. And we Christians
> can be sharpened by considering the powerful thrust of his humor here. It
> is one thing for me to worship God for His creation as it is found in the
> complete package deal (as Job persisted in doing), and quite another to
> attempt standing on creation in an effort to reveal God. Should these
> multiverse enthusiasts who are so frightened of fine-tuning ever become
> Christian converts, they would be most obnoxious ones because of their
> entrance into the strong I.D. foyer where they might stubbornly wish to
> remain. But if the Spirit uses that tool, then perhaps they can also be
> drawn further along until their initial reasons for conversion are
> overwhelmingly superseded by deeper relational aspects, and they will be
> able to look back in more sober, mature, and even humorous reflection on the
> quirky road they (and many of us) are traveling to deeper faith. That could
> be our prayer. And for an answer to Adams' wit we might reply: "as
> a matter of fact, that hole really was gloriously designed, indeed! and
> yes, we do praise God for all of it!"
> --Merv
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 5 00:12:21 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 05 2008 - 00:12:21 EST