Why believe in the Multiverse Instead of God?

So we should believe in a cosmological theory because doing so makes believers behave better, or at least behave in a less beastly fashion? First of all, there are many, many religions that don't have violent adherents and, in fact, lead to pacifism. I haven't heard of any Quakers blowing up buildings, nor even any Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists or other mainline Protestant groups. Second, even if it did, would that be a reason to believe in it, or should we be convinced that it is valid? As a matter of fact, I'm reading a book right now by Bernard Haisch, and astrophysicist with a good reputation as a scientist, who prefers the "anthropic theory" to the multiverse theory, and it's obvious to me he does so in very large part because he thinks that belief in a purposeless universe leads to anomie and demoralization. I know too many atheists to believe that, but it's no more a false stereotype than your warlike believer theory, and again, a proposition is not necessarily valid because it produces good behavior. (Although I'd argue it can play a part in placing a bet if the believer knows what (s)he's doing).

 

So your saying that believing in a grand purpose to the universe and the existence of our people helps the morale and feelings of those people? Sounds kind of fishy. What if there is no purpose, not one? What if people can get along fine with the found fact that they have no real purpose, and neither does the(this) universe? Sure there might be a few more suicides, but hey...if they cant handle the truth, then let it set them free. Religion and theories of everything are pure speculation, once one is proven to be true I'll believe in that. If it doesn't happen before I die, I die in a humble cloud of unknowing...and that's just fine with this guy.

I don't believe in the multi verse theory first of all. Second, even if I did...I wouldn't do so because of the behavioral characteristics of the followers of that theory. I would do it because its more a scientific inquiry than an arrogant belief in a deity, who's existence cannot be proven or verified. The question in the title of the thread demands contrast and comparison. I was just making the obvious comparison that people who leave an organized religion for a theory and some left over spirituality are less likely to be violent. This appeals to me. So that is why I would believe in the multiverse theory as opposed to god...even though in reality I believe in neither.

 

How stupid is that title question? I believe in neither.

You might as well ask why most people are full of utter stinking BULLSHIT.

Why are we humans such lying, contriving, selective memory twisting, fantasizing, hateful, stupid dick heads?

If you believe in God you might as well ask why he's not perfect either.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. Some believers, e.g., Haisch, have that idea and from my observations it helps them a lot, but some Cosmic Superpower's grand purpose per se isn't enough for me. It matters to me that the purpose is good as well as grand, and although I'm persuaded that there's enough evidence to place a informed bet on God and goodness, and it works for me, I'm also willing to concede that there are other ways of finding transcendant meaning (ie., one beyond personal appetites and survival instincts). I think Carl Sagan found it, and he was an atheist.

There is certainly at least one purpose--if only a personal, subjective one that we (or some of us) choose to give meaning to our lives. Existential psychologist and Nazi concentration camp survivor, Viktor Frankl, noticed that the people who made it through the concentration camp experience were the ones who were able to give positive meaning even to that experience. It could be the memories of loved ones, a ray of light slipping in between the cracks of the walls, etc. The quest for meaning, he argued, was the most basic human drive and need. But he also believed that not just anything will do. Lots of people try to find meaning in all the wrong places--the desperate quest for wealth, status, power, getting laid, getting high. The Buddha call these "attachments" and argued that they ultimately cause misery. And he didn't base this on a belief in God. Just before I came in here to write this, I was talking to my ninety year old neighbor, and he was reflecting on the same thing--that over his lifetime he's seen so many of his friends destroy themselves with alcohol, drugs, sex, divorce, etc. And how, when he said that he was a Christian and found it consistent with a satisfying life, they dismissed him as a crank. He observed that lots of people have the same outlook as the dogs that I was walking--no sense of purpose beyond immediate gratification.

Belief in a deity isn't necessarily arrogant, unless it's done on the basis of "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" (which it often is). My belief in a Higher Power is simply a willingess to bet my life tentatively on certain beliefs on the basis of my admittedly fallible perceptions, reasoning, personal experiences, and the best evidence available to me--allowing for the possibility that I'm wrong and that other people can make reasonable bets on different propositions. One of my favorite episodes of the Outer Limits was about a man in a space ship on a mission to bring vaccine to settlers on a planet in the grip of a plague. When he lands, he is attacked and bitten by giant spiders, but manages to make it back to the ship, where he passes out from the toxin. He wakes up seemingly in a hospital years later. But he keeps having flashbacks that he is still on the way to deliver the vaccine. The viewers begin to wonder which is the true reality. At the end they find out that neither is. The man is in a cocoon about to be slowly devoured by the spiders, and his thought processes are delusions resulting from the toxins. I allow for that possibility for my own beliefs and those of others. But what's a human to do?

Since there are indeed scientists and atheists (e.g., Dawkins) who draw upon the mulitverse theory to explain away fine tuning, I think the question is legitimate. It's perfectly possible and acceptable to believe in neither. I addressed my question to atheists who believe in the multiverse.

Calvinists would say because Adam and Eve ate that apple, making us all depraved. I say it's an illusion, and that all humans are imperfect reflections of God's perfection . WEe all have our flaws. I think you may be projecting your own mindset onto other people. Before taking such a jaundiced view of others and their imperfections, you might examine yourself to see if maybe a log might be obstructing your vision. Hell is a bad attitude. When I read your rants, I'm aware that you've been badly wounded, but you're a good father. Concentrate on the beauty of your son, and maybe your outlook will improve.

 

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Quantum physics can get pretty hypothetical and faith-based as well - in a matter of speaking. So what is a non-believer to do? Keep on not believing I guess - or learn to embrace cognitive dissonance
.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. I was referring to a situation in which the multiverse theory is invoked to explain away fine tuning, as has been done by Richard Dawkins. It is always possible that a perceived regularity can be explained by something as yet unknown to us. For example, there are professors holding chairs at major universities who believe that what we perceive to be reality is a computer simulation run by aliens or robots--a la The Matrix. And that could be. It could also be, as Haisch and practicing Hindus believe, that physical reality is an illusion. Or that we were created a few seconds ago with complete memory tracks and whiskers. It could all be, but what is real? I'm willing to go out on a limb and assume that the things I can feel, smell or taste are actually real and that physical reality is not an illusion. I know some will dismiss this as the unsophisticated notions of a backwoods bumpkin, but given the need to decide among those alternative views of reality, I'm betting on my senses. I got into an argument several months ago with a guy who was arguing there is no material reality. I told him to prove it by jumping off the top of a high building. Haven't heard from him since.

Having made that decision, I'm on a roll. It seems to me that the world I encounter through my senses is amazing. That there are other life forms who are smart enough to figure out the laws of physics, theories of multiverses, etc., blows me away. Why should that be? One of the biggest influences on my thinking is Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary biologist, staunch atheist, and opponent of any idea of purpose in the universe whatsoever. Gould, rolling in his grave, convinced me that the fact that we're here is astronomically improbable. There are so many forks in the evolutionary road that could have led to some other results than intelligent beings that our existence here is quite remarkable. Gould would say, yes that's true. It's highly improbable, but a matter of pure chance, and if intelligent life forms didn't evolve something else would. That might be true, but I find that hard to believe that something as amazing as conscious intelligence is just a matter of extraordinary luck.(Yes, I know, the Blind Watchmaker, but Gould is taking that into account. Given the choice between that explanation and the notion that something else was involved, I'm inclined toward the latter view. Same goes for the anthropic principle. The apparent fine tuning of the universe might be a statistical product of infinite dice rolls in the multiverse, or it might be the result of something resembling a purpose. My inclination is toward the latter view, although I must say I'm not willing to go much further and say what the purpose is, or whose it might be. I suspect that people who endorse the multiverse are afraid that if they take the other route they'll end up at the Vatican or the 700 Club. The something else might be something entirely different than anybody has thought of yet--like those giant spiders in my earlier post.

 

Head hurt.

 

I think the question boils down to mind and matter. If you haven't explained conscious experience, even a multiverse hasn't explained everything. If for some reason mind has control over matter or the two can't exist separately, what's the difference between that and God anyway?

That kind of mind may not have deliberate creative processes, but instead emotional creative processes.

 

I reckon there are a lot more universes, I just do.

 

why not believe in a multiverse AND a god?
more to the point, what makes anyone think anything has to be known or even imagined in order to exist?
what makes anyone think that if what they individually or collectively imagine exists actually does, that it has any more then that to do with whatever else they believe, usually based on what another human said or wrote?
that's the thing. if all sets are subsets, that would be one explanation for where god itself could have come from.
i mean neither christianity, nor anything else has to have the slightest idea what it is talking about, for a real god, that has little or nothing to do with what they think they own, to exist.