The Church in other universes
The notion of alternate universes (colloquially: “the multiverse”) is not a new one, though it has mostly been confined to the realm of speculative fiction…at least until recently. The multiverse concept has enjoyed more general recognition in the last few years, in its use by the New Atheists as an attempt to argue against those who maintain that our universe shows evidence of design (specifically: fine tuning). The atheistic argument, as I understand it, is that the apparent fine tuning of the cosmos is really just an illusion, a fortuitous coincidence. Our universe, the New Atheists maintain, is just one among many, and then the one in which things just happened to align in favour of the emergence of life as we know it.
Now, let’s separate the discussion a bit. I’ve no problem accepting the multiverse hypothesis, and I’ll even grant that various calculations support it, when done with certain assumptions. String theory touches on this matter, and evidently derives some value from it.
That’s all well and good, of course, but there’s a wee bit of a problem with how the New Atheists make use of the multiverse. Essentially, they assume too much, by which I mean that they step past the somewhat demonstrable existence of other universes and begin to speculate as to the nature, order, and operation of those universes.
These latter points are essentially unknowable by any means open to us, so it’s a bit odd that self-styled rational materialists make use of the hypothesis at all. Positing that other universes a) exist, b) are substantially different from our own, and c) show no evidence of design is a statement of conspicuously blind faith.
Or: it is equally reasonable to posit that any other extant universes a) are not radically dissimilar from our own, and b) show evidence of design, and then perhaps more obvious evidence than can be found in our own universe.
John C. Wright explored this idea somewhat, as I previously noted, albeit only tangentially; the principal point of his post focused more on the ruinous effects the expansion of Islam had on the course of human development:
Only in our timeline, where the southern half of Christendom was raped by the an obscurantist and legalistic heresy called Mohammedanism, the resources of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment was wasted in wars, resources that otherwise would have been used for civilization and progress. The amounts absorbed and lost in the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire cannot be calculated.
However, he did touch on the issue of how, in every universe in what he called the chronocosm, Christ was found to exist:
Historians are not merely shocked, they are angered, to discover that Christ exists in every timeline, including the Narnia-like world where lions rather than human beings are the dominant form of life.
Where Wright didn’t go, and where my own thoughts have tended to wander, is to the corollary of the above: if Christ is present in every other universe, then so too must be the Church. This is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be as damaging to Protestantism as the discovery of Christ in other universes would be to atheism. Because where Christ is, His Church — his true Church — must necessarily follow, with her body of Sacred Tradition and her glorious sacraments.
What would the sacraments be like on other worlds, in other universes? I suppose that would depend on the nature of…well…everything, really. Sacraments are both outward signs of God’s grace and an actual means by which that grace is poured out on us; there is necessarily and always a natural component to them, in addition to the spiritual. So I suppose, in a sense, the sacraments we might find in other universes would depend explicitly upon the nature of those universes, on whether life in them is similar to or different from life in our own.
Which is a topic worthy of exploration, I think. That’s good: I need some practice with writing, not to mention an excuse to get the creative juices flowing again.
“These latter points are essentially unknowable by any means open to us, so it’s a bit odd that self-styled rational materialists make use of the hypothesis at all. Positing that other universes a) exist, b) are substantially different from our own, and c) show no evidence of design is a statement of conspicuously blind faith”
Who makes these claims? I can’t recall anyone saying these things. It is a bad argument.
-
“The atheistic argument, as I understand it, is that the apparent fine tuning of the cosmos is really just an illusion, a fortuitous coincidence. Our universe…”
There is another aspect to the ‘fortuitious conincidence’ observation, which looks at the history of life on our planet.
If the dinosaurs did not go extinct, you and I would not be here. If the early atmosphere of the earth did not increase on oxygen centent, you and I would not be here. If our ancestor of 500,000 years ago died during child birth, you and I would not be here. If a different individual sperm fertilised our mothers eggs, you and I would not be here(see fraternal twins). If your grandfather decided on the spur of the moment NOT to go to that party, you would not be here. An uncountable number of fortuitious conincidences happened so that you and I are here. And in each of those other uncountable scenarios, someone/something (not you or I) would be saying “how special I am, that the history of the earth and universe contained a trillion^trillion coincidences such that I could exist”.
Such an observation shows that we are in fact not special.
To be fair, I’m kind of summarizing various sources here. Richard Dawkins, in particular, has drawn upon the multiverse hypothesis at times, for example, as an argument against design.
But you miss the essential point of the statement: the multiverse hypothesis is basically just a wild conjecture that is only supported with some highly speculative math and a few other experimental models that rely on a plethora of unproven (and currently unprovable) assumptions.
So it’s a bit odd when self-styled “rationalists” rely on such arguments against immensely reasonable design arguments. And they accuse theists of acting on blind faith!
Only one aspect?
But they did. And we are here.
But it did. And we are here.
But they did not, or they adapted. And we are here.
But that’s not what happened. And here we are.
But he did. And I am here.
An uncountable number of specific events happened so that you and I are here. But to classify them as fortuitous coincidences assumes far too much! You’re slipping a metaphysical conjecture into your sentence and attempting to pass it off as nothing.
The truth is: this sequence of events happened. That much we know. Whether it was just a pile of coincidences, essentially random, or ordered toward some end, we simply cannot know. We cannot know (empirically) whether these events were guided or unguided…we can simply know that they transpired.
Worse still, non-believers cannot ever know (by any means, empirical or other) that these events were purely unguided, save by strictly natural forces and processes. Believers, on the other, can know that these events were guided to some extent, though the type of knowledge and the basis therefore is somewhat different than knowledge informed by the merely empirical.
In short: speak more carefully, Boz. You’re building entirely too many assumptions into even the most basic of statements!
No, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence provided, because you beg the question as to the nature of the evidence itself. You dismiss these events as nothing more than coincidences, uncontrolled and unguided, with no higher purpose behind them. I, on the other hand, admit the series of events but deny that they are merely coincidental. If I am a being “fearfully and wonderfully made,” it would only be expected to see the sort of meticulous detail in my creation that you describe above.
The challenge to you, Boz, is to demonstrate — by evidence or by reason — that these events are merely coincidental, rather than guided or ordered toward some specific end. Otherwise, you’re just spewing metaphysical claptrap and hoping I’ll mistake it for reasoned discourse.
To suggest that your particular sperm was wondorously chosen out of 500billion others is not only unevidenced, it shows your hubris.
Furthermore, you are inapropriately trying to shift the burden of proof. I take the negative position on this issue of directed events.
Your response reminds me of this cartoon. http://godlesspaladin.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/logic.jpg
—
Do you have a link to an article where richard dawkins, or someone else claims “Positing that other universes a) exist, b) are substantially different from our own, and c) show no evidence of design”? My memory of his writing suggests that he wouldn’t say something like this.
Your statement is true if, and only if, such a wonderful choosing did not, in fact, occur. If it did, well…there’s nothing hubristic in noting the truth of the matter, is there?
Now, I’m not 100% sure that I share this view in particular, but I will note that some theologians hold that the issue is not so much that any one sperm is particularly chosen, but instead that God (who can see all ends) nevertheless designed man, designed his body to function in specific ways, and loves all men and woman who are born. So even if there is some randomness in the conception process, the end result — a human person bearing the image and likeness of God — is still an intended result, and a recipient of grace and love from on high.
As noted, I’m not 100% sure I share this view — I am not sure if it entirely squares with what one can find said in the Bible about the hairs on one’s head, or about the sparrow that falls — but the point is that even the argument from randomness is not necessarily an argument against design, against God, or against a teleological world.
As to evidence, well…there is evidence I could present. But before we can have that discussion, we need to establish what your standard of evidence actually is. So the ball’s back in your court: please define a rational standard of evidence that we can use in any ongoing analysis of this matter.
Actually, I’m not trying to shift anything. You made the claim that the events leading up to my existence were, in your words, “fortuitous coincidences,” and so suffer the burden of having to conclusively establish that point. Otherwise, you’re just playing the role of the theist in the cartoon you linked to.
If you say so, but the nature of my response is different that simply saying “you can’t prove it isn’t so.” The nature of my response, Boz, was to note that your own response had several unsupported metaphysical conjectures built into it; it was sufficient to point out that opposite but no less equally valid theistic conjectures also existed.
And we come back to burden of proof again. And again: what stands, at this moment, is your statement that the events leading up to my existence are nothing more than fortuitous coincidences. That’s your claim of holding a baseball, so let’s see the baseball.
I don’t have a link, because I believe it was buried in one of his books. As I’m literally a thousand miles from my bookshelf at the moment, I’ll see if I can’t dig up a reference for you by other means.
Five minutes of Googling later: still no chapter and verse reference, but here’s another example of Dawkins using the argument against the anthropic principle (a design argument). And lest you complain that I’m quoting a biased (theistic) blog, here’s the atheist blog which summarizes a presentation given by Dawkins.
Funnily, in the presentation, Dawkins accuses creationists of being “lazy.” That I found this example in five minutes, via Google, whilst sitting in a hotel room, unbreakfasted and in my underwear…rather suggests to me that in this case, it’s not the one who believes in design who’s being a bit lazy.
See, Boz? Not that hard, is it? I made a claim about a particular argument that Dawkins had used, and when challenged was able to provide evidence.
Now, where’s that baseball of yours? Please…do cite some sort of supporting evidence for the claim that the events leading up to my existence were nothing other than “fortuitous coincidences.” I can’t promise that a comment lacking in at least an attempt at providing evidence…or a good supporting argument…will get posted.
Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan! (November 7, 2009, 5:18 pm).
[...] HYNEK & CO. PONDER The Church in other universes …. [...]
It seems that you misunderstand the burden of proof.
There was nothing paranormal that occured when you or I were conceived.
There was nothing paranormal that occured when the earth’s oxygen levels rose ~2 billion years ago.
There was nothing paranormal that occured when the dinosaurs became extinct.
Nope, I’ve got a decent grasp on it: he who makes the claim is under burden of proof. I don’t know what your own views on this are, Boz, but it really is as simple as that. Are you one of those atheists who assumes that theists are always under burden of proof? Do you perhaps believe Sagan’s claptrap about “extraordinary claims?”
You’ve made a claim. You have to provide proof for it now. This comment got published because its ignorance amused me; the next one had better provide something of substance.
You know what’s funny? If you hadn’t brought it up thinking that you could nail me to the wall with it, this whole issue of proof would never have become an issue. But since it’s the hill you have elected to die on, please…provide what proof you will, or admit your inability so to do.
I didn’t say that anything paranormal occurred. No hand stretched out from Heaven and tapped one sperm on the shoulder to the exclusion of all others.
You’re moving the goalposts here, changing the categories. Paranormal activity is a far different thing than design.
That, and I presume you can substantiate this claim?
I didn’t say that anything paranormal occurred. No hand stretches out from Heaven with an air hose hooked up to a divine Air Liquide tank.
You’re moving the goalposts here, changing the categories. Paranormal activity is a far different thing than design.
That, and I presume you can substantiate this claim?
I didn’t say that anything paranormal occurred. No hand stretched out from Heaven and personally took a mallet to the skull of every dino.
You’re moving the goalposts here, changing the categories. Paranormal activity is a far different thing than design.
That, and I presume you can substantiate this claim?
You know what’s really sad, though, Boz? You actually don’t know what you’re arguing against. I accept every one of the claims above; nothing paranormal happened in conjunction with any event leading up to my existence. But I have never claimed otherwise, either. Design is a far different thing than the merely paranormal, and in fact the realization of design is entirely within the realm of the natural.
I’ve never been able to understand how I, as a Catholic, can accept this, while atheists whom I have met always seem to demand or expect that God only works by putting on a highly visible show; if no show is perceived, then no show can be said to occur, and no God can be said to exist.
This is nothing more than a kind of sly positivism, no more correct in its conclusions than are the Young Earthers in theirs.