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

From: Merv <>
Date: Fri Dec 05 2008 - 09:02:36 EST

Thanks --I hadn't seen the various universe/multiverse possibilities
tabulated that way before, and I'm reminded of misplaced smugness and
finality that still eludes any pithy analogies such as this one.

And realizing the offensive tone my previous conclusion may have with ID
adherents, I also hasten to add that my comparison of "strong ID" to a
mere foyer through which some may travel to reach "more mature faith",
is not meant as commentary on the scientific status of any ID, weak or
strong. I was only strongly suggesting that ID, while initially
attractive to some, will not make a permanent theological pillar that
bears much weight. So in theological life, the Christian who did have
this as a stepping stone had best keep moving, though it is always
appropriate to keep an attentive ear to developments on how much support
is found for a general design conclusion.


Schwarzwald wrote:
> 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 08:58:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 05 2008 - 08:58:10 EST