God, the Multiverse, and Everything: Modern Cosmology and the Argument from Design

220 Pages·2004·9.38 MB·English

by  Rodney D. Holder

GOD,
THEMULTIVERSE,
AND EVERYTIllNG
In memory ofm y father
God,
the Multiverse,
and Everything
Modem Cosmology and the Argument from Design
RODNEYD. HOLDER
Priest in Charge 0/ the Parish 0/ the Claydons,
Diocese o/Ox/ord, UK
First published 2004 by Ashgate Publishing
Published 2016 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 ThirdAvenue, New York, NY 10017, US
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © Rodney D. Holder 2004
The author has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be
identified as the author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Holder, Rodney D.
God, the multi verse and everything : modem cosmology and the argument from design
1. Intelligent design (Teleology) 2. Cosmology
I. Title
215.2
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Holder, Rodney D.
God, the multi verse, and everything : modem cosmology and the argument from design I
Rodney D. Holder.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7546-5116-9 (alk. paper)
1. God - Proof, Cosmological. 2. Plurality of worlds. I. Title.
BTl03.H652004
213-dc22
2004053820
ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-5116-1 (hbk)
Contents
Preface vii
1 Scientific Naturalism and the Alternative ofDesign 2
2 The Origin and Evolution ofthe Universe 15
3 Cosmic Fine-Tuning 29
4 Avoiding the lnference ofDesign 42
5 How to Evaluate the Fine-Tuning-Probabilistic Framework 69
6 Comparing the Alternative Hypotheses 88
7 The Multiverse--a Viable Alternative to Design? 113
8 Inflation to the Rescue? 130
9 The Realization oflnfinitely Many Universes in Cosmology 144
10 Conclusion 155
AppendixA The Probability Ca1culus and Bayes's Theorem 161
AppendixB The Principle ofMaximum Entropy 164
Appendix C The Ravens Paradox 170
Appendix D The Self-Samp1ing Assumption and
the Doomsday Argument 173
Appendix E The Principle ofMaximum Entropy
Applied to Cosmology 184
Glossary 190
Bibliography 197
Index 206
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
One of the most vibrant fields of scientific research today is undoubtedly that of
cosmology. This is also a subject which excites the non-specialist, since it seeks to
answer some of the most fundamental questions of human existence. How did the
universe begin? What processes were going on in the very earliest moments of the
universe's existence? What did the conditions have to be like for the universe to
evolve intelligent life forms? Are there likely to be universes other than our own, and
if so what are they like?
It is no surprise, with a briefto answer questions like this, that cosmology is also
of interest to professional philosophers and theologians. Indeed it would seem that
cosmology raises profound metaphysical questions, which cannot necessarily be
answered from within its own domain.
The question Itreat in this book is whether the universe as we know it from
cosmology can be said to exhibit design and so point us to a Designer-one whom
followers of the great monotheistic religions would call God. The values taken by the
fundamental constants ofp hysics, and the initial conditions obtaining at the beginning
ofthe universe, are at least suggestive that this is so.
lexamine the hypothesis, namely theism, that the universe is in fact designed,
against what has come to be theism's main explanatory riyal, the notion that there do
exist many universes and that one like ours, conducive to life, is bound to show up
sooner or later. On this latter, multiverse hypothesis we should not be surprised to
discover the very special features required for our own existence because these are the
only ones we could observe, and they are certain to be among the many and varied
properties, albeit mostly inimical to life, occurring in the grand ensemble of universes.
My treatment of these alternatives is intended to be rigorous, and so inevitably
involves discussion at a certain level oftechnical detail. For example, we need to try
and understand some of the concepts from cosmology and particle physics. Then we
need a rigorous method for comparison of hypotheses, and that takes us into some
knotty issues in the philosophy ofprobability. There are also issues surrounding the
mathematics of infinity to grapple with.
I have tried to keep symbols and equations to a minimum in the main text and to
provide as full an explanation as possible where these are retained. Most of the
mathematics is banished to appendices, and there is a glossary where technical terms
and symbols are explained, but a few equations do occur in the main text as being
central to my argument. My hope is that I have provided sufficient information for the
non-special ist to be able to follow my reasoning.
The apparent design of the uni verse presented to us by modem cosmology has
interested me for a number of years, and I touched on it in my first book on the
relationship between science and faithNothing ButAtoms andMolecules? (Monarch
1993). More specialized work on this topic began as an extended essay for the Final
viii God, the Multiverse, and Everything
Honour School of Theology in the University of Oxford (Hilary Term 1996). I am
gratefiIl to MT Hugh Rice of Christ Church, Oxford, who supervised that work, and to
Dr John Taylor and the Revd Dr Patrick Richmond for helpful conversations about the
subject matter, both then and since. Whilst in Oxford I was also able to benefit from
the wisdom of Professor Richard Swinburne, the influence of whose writings on the
present work will be easily traced, and who has encouraged my further endeavours in
this field.
My subsequent research resulted in several published papers, and I am grateful to
the publishers of Nous (Blackwell Publishing Ud), Religious Studies (Cambridge
University Press), and Science and Christian Belief (Paternoster Periodicals) for
permission to reproduce material from those papers, now substantially enhanced. I am
grateful to the various anonymous referees who commented on my work for these
journals, and to Professor Quentin Smith who made his most helpful comments by
name.
I am indebted to those who commented on earlier drafts ofthe book, notably the
Revd Dr David Wilkinson, Dr Peter Hodgson, and Professor Roger Trigg, but also
anonymous commentators. I am most grateful for the comments and support of the
Revd Dr John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS, another author who has been a great influence
on my work, and whom I was privileged to get to know during my time as Chaplain
ofthe English Church in Heidelberg.
I have benefited from correspondence with Professors Timothy and Lydia
McGrew, Professor Neil Manson, and Professor Jeffrey Koperski, all working in the
USA, and all of whom have been kind enough to send me drafts of their own work.
I have been thankful for opportunities to speak about my work, and to engage with
a discerning audience, especially at the Durham Conference of the Science and
Religion Forum (1999), with former colleagues atEDS (2001), and atthe lan Ramsey
Centre for the Study of Science and Religion in Oxford (2002).
I should also like to record my immense debt to an inspirational teacher of an
earlier period of my life, namely my doctoral supervisor, the late Professor Dennis
Sciama.
Interaction with all the above has sparked many ideas and especially the honing
of the work into its present form. Remaining errors and weaknesses are of course my
responsibility entirely.
My thanks go to Sarah Lloyd, commissioning editor at Ashgate, and the rest ofthe
publishing team, for seeing the work through to completion.
Last, but by no means least, as when I wrote my first book, I owe an immense debt
of gratitude to my dear wife Shirley. She has taken on many responsibilities, not least
in the ministry which we share, so as to enable me to fmd time for this project within
the busyness of parish life. We are both of us grateful for many people's support
during a self-initiated 'sabbatical' between full-time stipendiary posts, which included
our time in Germany, and provided the welcome breathing space required to make
substantial progress towards producing the book.
Chapter 1
Scientific Naturalism and the Alternative
ofDesign
Ofthis fair volume which we World do name,
Ifwe the sheets and leaves could turn with care,
Ofhim who it corrects, and it did frame,
We dear might read the art and wisdom rare;
Find out his power which wildest powers doth tarne,
His providence extending everywhere,
His justice which proud rebels doth not spare,
In every page, no, period of the same.
(William Drummond [1585-1649], Sonnet, The Book ofthe World.)
The Challenge of Scientific Naturalism
Many people today believe that science has removed the need for God as an
explanation for the existence of the universe or the arrival of ourselves in it. They are
encouraged by some notable present-day scientists who propagate such a view, often
with a vehemence which transcends the sober and rational atmosphere of debate
normally obtaining within their own scientific disciplines. Thus Professor Richard
Dawkins believes that, in the light ofthe theory ofbiological evolution, 'we don't need
to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe' .1
Peter Atkins argues that 'the universe can come into existence without intervention,
and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous
manifestations '.2 Professor Stephen Hawking, whilst less militant, sees God as purely
a First Cause, the need for which is obviated if we can explain how the universe has
no boundary in space-time.3
It might seem that in the light of modem science there is no room for God. On
being asked by Napoleon why the Creator was nowhere mentioned in his system ofthe
world, the French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace (later the Marquis de Laplace)
is famously said to have replied, 'Sire, I have no need ofthat hypothesis. ' Was Laplace
right to exclude God as an explanation, or was his colleague Lagrange more to be
commended in commenting, when the Emperor told him ofthis incident, 'Ab, but that
is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many thingS.'?4
In fact, matters are not so simple. After all, Laplace was hirnself a practising
Roman Catholic, so his remark can hardly have been made with atheistic intent.