If Not The Multiverse?

In the short time that I have had my DThM degree (Doctorate of Theology and Ministry), I have realized that writing about theology can be quite hard. You must know the theology, but you also must have some background in philosophy. Since I am interested in the intersection of science & faith, then I must be as accurate as possible when discussing science. I try to do my best here.

Thus, I came across this interesting article, “Opposing the Multiverse” (G. Ellis), which is a 2008 article published in Astronomy and Geophysics. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, so perhaps you can read it through a local library or university.

Ellis is a mathematician at the University of Cape Town, and his essay criticizes the science behind the idea of the multiverse. Although he is a mathematician, he criticizes the multiverse from a scientific perspective as it is simply an untestable idea. In the multiverse, other universes would be beyond an observational boundary. How could inductive reasoning occur?

image from Smithsonian Magazine

As an example, if galaxies in our own universe are beyond visualization but still are present, then perhaps even more complex entities (other universes?) fit exactly the same criteria — beyond visualization but still present. As case in point, as our telescopes get better, we our finding more and more galaxies farther and farther away. “Beyond visualization but still present” would be defined as indirect evidence. Of note, JADES-GS-z14-0  is the farthest galaxy that we can see with its light reaching us after 13.4 billion years.

Per Ellis, “If each link in a chain of evidence is well understood and tenable, then indirect evidence such as this carries nearly as much weight as direct evidence.
But not all the links in the chain are tenable.”

If cosmic inflation is true (for which there seems to be much evidence) and if the inflation was anisotropic, then perhaps the non-uniformity of cosmic inflation caused a multiverse. Fascinating idea — if true.

cosmic microwave background

How does this relate to theology? I have absolutely no problem with ideas surrounding the multiverse, Everettian quantum mechanics, and string theory. I think such ideas advance human knowledge, are necessary, and require funding. However, I think that many of these ideas border on (and perhaps are) metaphysics. If you have read my blog, you know I think metaphysics is important.

My point is that I think metaphysics can work well in a day-to-day, perhaps utilitarian perspective when it has one foot in the imaginable and one foot in reality.

We should consider this idea in theology. We should have one foot in the metaphysical aspects of God and one foot in reality. Biological evolution is indeed true (with the complexity of environment change and other epigenetic phenomena present and involved in time). This is one foot in science. The other foot, if one considers theology, is placed in the ideas surrounding process theology. Specifically, God is present in real time, is experiencing change, and perhaps is desiring change. These two feet then consist of good metaphysics.

On a more personal level, if altruism is biologically true, and God has told us to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:39), then we have one foot in biology and one foot in the theology of love. This is good metaphysics.

Such an idea is not Cartesian dualism. Such an idea is not the God of Aristotle. This idea of God is both pleomorphic and actual, both primitive and present, both science and poetry if both are based in goodness. Metaphysics involving God then involves change and the priority of time.

Perhaps metaphysical ideas of the “two feet” can be used to help religious people who don’t have a scientific background begin to understand how science has the ability to get a further awareness of God.

image created by Gemini Advanced