Scientism[1] and Blind Faith
I was listening to a talk between Sean Carrol and Alex O’Connor, arguably two of the most effective atheists that challenge the existence of God. I have observed that they generally can hold their own even against the top Christian apologists.
They were specifically discussing what they deemed the most challenging argument from the theists they face — the argument from fine-tuning. Their talk was trying to counter it.
To me, however, they were basically doing exactly what they accuse those who pose a creator of the universe do. They were embracing a worldview based upon their faith, not upon what they can observe or reason. I think that will become obvious when I briefly explain the argument that they find formidable and analyze their response to it.
The fine-tuning argument asserts that the fundamental constants and the laws of the universe fall into a narrow range that permits life to exist. The possibility of that occurring by chance is essentially zero, for even the most miniscule alteration in any one of many constants would make life impossible.
What is challenging for these atheists is that they can’t deny the precise fine-tuning of the universe but feel challenged reconciling it with their naturalistic worldview. A finely tuned universe arising by chance is just astronomically improbable. Here is what they pose in response.
“The Multiverse Hypothesis: Critics propose that if our universe is just one of many, it is not surprising that one—ours—happens to have the right conditions.” [2]
Let me put my own twist on how untenable this claim is.
Just consider that if everything is happening by chance, then what is the chance that even the next word I put on the page follows reasonably? If just a single orderly occurrence like a word on a page exponentially increases the improbability that the universe is haphazard, then what is the probability that all the almost infinite orderly occurrences moving systematically throughout time are random and not intentional?
The multiverse hypothesis, that our complex and intelligently designed universe arose and continues to evolve by chance, is thus almost more than implausible.
A friend of mine said it best in a tongue and cheek way.
“It makes more sense that the universes come from the body of Mahā-Viṣṇu than that this universe happened by chance.”
In fairness, I guess it can be argued that within the scope of an infinite (or near-infinite) number of universes and an incalculable amount of time, anything is technically possible by chance, even a highly complex universe. But doesn’t such reasoning in support of their multiverse hypothesis border on the absurd? I think that in terms of probability, such reasoning is less believable than a poker player being dealt fifty straight royal flushes and trying to convince the other players that it happened by chance rather than intentional cheating.
In other words, a theistic explanation of fine-tuning, a transcendent and intentional cause to the origin of the universe, has far more explanatory power to make sense of the intricately designed universe than the non-theistic explanation that it happened by chance.
But the real point I am making here, is that these brilliant atheists who espouse their theories of origins are basically the ideologues they accuse theists of being. They simply use their cognitive agility to rationalize irrational beliefs that serve their pre-conceived conclusion rather than seeking objective truth. This Monday I just couldn’t help strongly pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking the religious for their faith while at the same time holding beliefs unsupported by observation and reason.
[1] Scientism is when scientific theories are extrapolated into metaphysical or ontological categories.
[2] This definition is precisely what appeared when I googled the term.