Q&A: The Atheistic Tea Party
The Atheistic Tea Party
Question
I called the multiverse theory “the atheistic tea party.” I thought about it, and in my opinion that isn’t a correct claim—the multiverse posits only one entity, namely the mechanism that creates the universes. The universes are only a result of the mechanism’s existence. An analogy: there is a discussion in cosmology about the size of the universe; according to the Rabbi, we should take the minimal estimate, because it posits fewer entities (stars, etc.). That isn’t right—the discussion is about the size of the universe, and everything else is just derived from that. And likewise regarding anything else—we should always take the theory that yields conclusions that are as little out of the ordinary as possible.
What do you think?
Answer
Absolutely not correct. The multiverse posits the existence of many universes, and from that you might perhaps infer a factor that created them. That is the situation, not the other way around. Beyond that, if you are talking about an interpretation of quantum theory, that is not my discussion at all. In my opinion it is nonsense there too, but I was dealing with this in the context of the physico-theological proof, and there, if you posit that there is a creator of those universes, you have simply come back to God. So what have you gained?
Discussion on Answer
It definitely adds something, because the need to resort to a multiverse is itself problematic: to assume the existence of countless universes when we do not have the slightest hint that they exist.
Why do multiple universes undermine the argument from design? There are infinitely many universes, and we know of only one of them, and it has life in it. What is the probability that precisely this one that we are in (the only one we know) would have life? Practically zero. So it turns out that multiple universes add nothing and do not refute the argument from design.
You roll a die and it comes up 6. What is the probability that precisely on this roll it would come up 6? 1/6. So apparently it is not fair.
The probability that there would be life on our particular planet is 1. If there were no life on it, we would not be here.
If one says there is no multiverse, then the world must have an intelligent creator who specifically intended to create life. By contrast, the creator of the multiverse is “stupid,” and I don’t think such a God adds anything for us.
And if you say that a mechanical creator itself needs a cause, then you have already returned to the cosmological proof, and the physico-theological proof adds nothing for us.