Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
210 J.J.C. Smart<br />
question. In a review in which he has many disagreements with me, William<br />
Lane Craig justly remarks, ‘It is a testimony to the power of the new theological<br />
argument that a naturalist like Smart should adopt an ontology so<br />
bloated <strong>and</strong> so little warranted scientifically as the World Ensemble in order<br />
to avoid theism’. 19 I agree that the multiple universe hypothesis is little<br />
warranted scientifically. Carter’s hypothesis in particular looks ad hoc. Still,<br />
in various forms, multiple universe hypotheses have a little bit (even though<br />
little) going for them. Cosmology is a conjectural business. (Even though it is<br />
far more testable than it was. An outst<strong>and</strong>ing example of this was the rejection<br />
of the steady state theory in favour of the big bang theory, which came<br />
about by the discovery in 1964 of the cosmic background radiation.) Physicists<br />
seek symmetry <strong>and</strong> the multiple universe hypothesis restores symmetry.<br />
Similarly Linde’s inflationary universe with different regions with different<br />
symmetry breakings <strong>and</strong> (so different fine <strong>and</strong> not so fine tunings) not only<br />
restores large-scale symmetry but has some independent theoretical motivation.<br />
So also does the also very conjectural theory of L. Smolin according to<br />
which baby universes, with their own separate space–times are spawned<br />
out of black holes. 20 Smolin holds that there is a Darwinian selection for<br />
more complex universes, because it is part of his theory, in perhaps an unclear<br />
way, that the baby universes differ from <strong>and</strong> yet resemble their parent ones,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the more complex universes are more prolific of suitable black holes.<br />
So the multiple universe theories (including ones in which the ‘universes’ are<br />
part of one huge space–time or of one topologically complicated space)<br />
are not entirely ad hoc to explain the fine tuning. They have some independent<br />
motivation.<br />
Still, I largely concede William Lane Craig’s point here. Rather than<br />
having to believe in multiple universes I would hope for some future physics<br />
which will directly explain the fine tuning. Though, as I suggested, on FE<br />
p. 26, this may be a forlorn hope. Certainly, in FE I was trying to do my best<br />
for the theist’s use of the fine tuning argument <strong>and</strong> to concede that it has got<br />
a lot going for it. Nevertheless no less than the multiple universe hypothesis,<br />
it also has a lot going against it. 21<br />
The multiple universe hypothesis restores symmetry in the super-large.<br />
We are familiar with our universe (or sub-universe) <strong>and</strong> the other members<br />
of the multiplicity are in a sense more of the same, their differences being<br />
due to the breaking of symmetry in more fundamental laws. The hypothesis<br />
of creation by a Deity is not more of the same: it has an obscurity <strong>and</strong><br />
mysteriousness which may lead an impartial theist to be sceptical of it. (This<br />
is no conclusive objection, of course. The world as revealed to us by quantum<br />
mechanics is a rum place anyway by common-sense st<strong>and</strong>ards, <strong>and</strong> we<br />
should not expect theology to be commonsensical either.) Thus the notion of<br />
God’s creating the universe out of nothing, even though consistent with his