Thu 30th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 30th Oct 2014 at 15:12pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

Did you know that it is the Times newspaper’s official view that a creator God doesn’t exist? Neither did I

To make matters worse, the paper is a starry-eyed Dawkins-supporting organ

By on Thursday, 1 September 2011

The Times rolls off the presses (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

The Times rolls off the presses (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

I was going to write about something else today, but had to change my mind: sitting reading the Times (that’s the London Times, for any transatlantic readers) over breakfast on my Kindle this morning I came across one of the most outrageous (from a Christian point of view) leading articles I have ever read in an English newspaper. Times leaders are usually safe enough: they’re not a bad place to start after you’ve had a look at the front page: you usually get, with a bit of fairly bland and inoffensive comment, three well-informed short pieces which include what Americans call the “backstory” (Oxford dictionary definition: “background information about a … person or thing that promotes fuller understanding of it”.)

The opinion part of a leading article is important if you want to know where a paper is coming from. The leader gives a paper’s official position: and the official position of The Times newspaper, it seems, stated today with an absolute and contemptuous certainty (in the middle of an article which is not far from being in effect a puff for a newly published children’s book by Richard Dawkins), is that the Christian God (and the Muslim God and the Jewish God for that matter) does not exist and also that the belief that he does has been, intellectually, conclusively disposed of:

The argument that creation requires a sentient creator – the teleological argument – had been ably sunk long before Professor Dawkins’ hero Charles Darwin began to fret whether a benevolent deity would have wilfully created a parasitic wasp that lays its eggs inside the body of a living caterpillar. David Hume perhaps scuttled it best, pointing out that if something as complex as the Universe required a creator, then that creator, being more complex, must have required one, too.

Charles Darwin, however, though he did indeed fret about parasitic wasps, was no atheist: “The mystery of the beginning of all things,” he wrote in his autobiography, “is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” He may be Dawkins’s hero: but he would have greatly disliked Dawkins’s belligerence: “Why should you be so aggressive?”, he said to the atheist Edward Aveling: “Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?” “I hardly see”, he wrote “how religion & science can be kept as distinct as [Edward Pusey] desires… But I most wholly agree… that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness.”

He was quite clear that the theory of evolution did not in any way tend towards disproving the existence of God: to one correspondent he wrote: “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.” He went further: “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

As for Hume having “scuttled” the teleological argument for the existence of God, Darwin certainly didn’t think he had: he was confused by the problem of suffering in nature, but was still (wasps notwithstanding) inclined to believe that nature depended upon “designed laws” and he supported his disciple Asa Gray (who published the first American edition of On the Origin of Species) when he asserted that Darwin’s work supported the teleological argument for God’s existence rather than undermining it.

So much for the Times’s ignorant, Dawkins-worshipping opinions, which appeared, as I say, not in a personal opinion piece written by an author entitled to his or her views (Matthew Parris, for instance, is a convinced atheist and anti-Catholic, but I usually enjoy and admire his Times articles): these views appeared as the paper’s official religious outlook. The declared philosophical assumptions of The Times newspaper, that is to say, include the belief that the universe had no “sentient creator”: a creator God does not exist. What else in the paper’s philosophy is shot through by this atheistical certainty, but in a more hidden way? Who knows? In the Guardian, I would expect it: that’s one reason I don’t read the Guardian. Well, it’s now one reason why I won’t in future be reading the Times: over my boiled egg I require a certain fellow-feeling with my daily newspaper (I was, come to think of it, already aware of a certain unease). I now know not only that I haven’t presently got it, but that the Times just doesn’t care.

As for the teleological argument which the Times thinks (if that’s the word) that Hume “scuttled” (hah!) it may be worth recalling that Aquinas put it forward as his fifth logical argument for the existence of God in the Summa; it’s not absolutely required that Catholics accept it, I suppose, but I don’t see why one wouldn’t: “The fifth [argument]”, says St Thomas, “is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it (referring to the Summa): “The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason” (§286). This argument was good enough for Darwin, it seems; I don’t see why it shouldn’t be good enough for me.

  • SteveO

    Rational is based on reason which, as your statements show quite plainly, you fail to use. So, by your own admission, your belief is an offense to Rational Thinking.

  • SteveO

    So now you use assumption to support your point? What happened to reason and logic? Thank you for judging me through your own personal agenda, really. I don’t know what your morals are either, only that you base them on Christian values. But that could mean you are a very pious and generous person, or it could mean you are very harsh and rule your house with threats of punishment and wrath – both can be based on Christian texts.

  • SteveO

    Evidence? You should already know what he said, if you are going to use his theories as a basis for your arguments. An article on it can be read here, but it is reported on in other sources too (not the Catholic Herald, obviously) http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/behe_disproves_irreducible_com_1.php

  • ms catholic state

    All rationality and logic is on the side of Theists.  As all rationality and logic come from God! 

  • Jonathan West

    Your morals are most likely emotion based and serving of your own personal agenda.

    And yours of course are not.

  • Little Black Censored

    God does not exist. Fact.
    You forgot to say, “End of”.
    Such arrogant certainty can only be born of stupidity.

  • Little Black Censored

    Whether there is a God or not is the most basic question man can ask.
    But in practice it is not the first question. Credo ut intelligam.

  • Peter

    Modern science supports the notion that knowledge of an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient creator can be acquired through reason.

    The multiverse is an infinite array of successive and co-existing spontaneously-occurring spacetimes, of which our universe is just one.

    The multiverse exists because of fundamental laws which vary slighly to create the different spacetimes.

    What is the source of these fundamental laws without which neither the individual spacetimes nor the infinite multiverse itself would exist?

    Stephen Hawkings said “Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..”

    So the creation of our particular spacetime, and that of all the spacetimes that comprise the multiverse, depends upon a the existence of a fundamental law like gravity.

    What is the source of that law?  Where does the information come from to make that law behave in the way it does?   Where does the power come from to cause that law to operate?

    The multiverse is infinite and therefore a fundamental law like gravity must operate infinitely.  The source of power which causes that law to operate infinitely must therefore itself be infinite.

    Why does a law like gravity behave like a law like gravity?  It is because it contains information which establishes its behaviour.  What is the source of that information?  By its nature that source must be external to the multiverse and, since the multiverse represents everything that is material, that source cannot be material.

    So we have an infinitely powerful, immaterial source of information which establishes the fundamental laws of the multiverse.

    The multiverse is infinite, and therefore the source of information which establishes laws which operate infinitely throughout the multiverse must be an source of infinite information. 

    To possess infinite information is to possess infinite knowledge, and to possess infinite knowledge is to be omniscient.

    Therefore we have an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient source of the existence of the multiverse, without which the multiverse would not exist.  To cause something to exist where it would otherwise not exist is to create.

    We therefore have an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient Creator.

  • Little Black Censored

    “…I seem to have higher morals…
    “I thank thee that I am not as other men are…” – but the new Pharisee don’t even know who to thank.

  • Little Black Censored

    SteveO, you have Christian morals and standards because of centuries of Judaeo-Christian culture that originated in religious belief. Modern secular society is kicking away that ladder, and our Christian inheritance is now wasting away. We are living on our hump.

  • SteveO

    That is your belief, it is not a provable fact. That you cannot see this is your undoing.

  • SteveO

    And it just so happens that pretty much any religion ends up with the same set of morals, morals that can be shown to be based on survival instinct and reasoning as opposed to handed to us on a plate (tablet).

  • ms catholic state

    It is a logical fact…..while atheism is an illogical untenable position. 

  • ms catholic state

    Certainly not.  My morals…ie those of the Catholic Church are of the highest standard, highly logical coherent and perfect.  Well they do come from God so what can you expect.

  • ms catholic state

    My beliefs….ie those of the Catholic Church….are rational coherent and true.  Atheism is an offence to rational thought.

  • ms catholic state

    That is because our common beliefs are tried tested and true.  Typical illogical atheism to reject them.

  • Anonymous

    I was an atheist for most of my life. I studied zoology to PhD level, yet I am now a Catholic. I want to thank Dawkins, Hitchens, Adams etc.for their help in opening my eyes to the truth.

    God is Love.

  • Anonymous

    Because some questions cannot be answered using logic alone. 

  • W Oddie

    Strange: Darwin thought that he DID agree with the teleological argument: but he will no doubt be relived to be told posthumously that he didn’t. He doesn’t of course now need arguments: he knows.

  • W Oddie

    Do I detect a certain insecurity here? I think I do.

  • Jonathan West

    No. I base my opinions on evidence, not on authority. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the evidence that Darwin is correct concerning the mechanisms for evolution is similarly overwhelming, and the probable evolutionary mechanisms for both the blood clotting cascade and Behe’s bacterial flagellum have been worked out.

    There is no need to believe God has a part in this, the complexity and variety of life has a wholly convincing natural explanation. if you want to discern God’s hand at work in this, then you essentially have two choices.

    The first is to deny all the evidence concerning natural processes, rely solely on your favoured biblical or other religious sources, and build a little ghetto of ignorance round yourself and your religion.

    The other alternative is to accept the evidence for evolution, accept that Darwin is right concerning the mechanism,, but then say that God has deliberately guided the process to result in us, and has done so in such a subtle way that nobody can distinguish the guidance from a wholly natural process. In essence, this idea is what “theistic evolution” is all about.

    You can believe in theistic evolution if you want to. There’s no evidence that it isn’t true, simply because the proposition has been stated in such a way that it is impossible (even in principle) to disprove it. there is no evidence that can conceivably be brought to bear on the subject that would enable you to distinguish between the natural process and the theistic guided process.

  • Jonathan West

    In yourself, naturally. By the way, have you had any second thoughts on Fr Kit’s metanioa?

  • Jonathan West

    Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you.

  • Little Black Censored

    …morals that can be shown to be based on survival instinct and reasoning as opposed to handed to us on a plate…
    It doesn’t need to be either-or. There is a certain laziness about reductionism – a human being is so many pints of water, etc. He is that and more, and the more is what is important.

  • Bernardesque

    Westley — Because the question itself implies the answer. i.e: The universe had to come from somewhere. It can’t, logically, come from something in the universe. It must therefore come from outside the universe of time and space, and that necessary entity which is not limited by time or space but is, in fact, infinite and eternal, we call “God”.

  • David Devinish

    Mr Richard Dawkins made a very clever and reasoned business decision when he denounced God because he attracted the attention of, and sold his books to loonies, head bangers conspiracy theorists. I have read and studied all of Richard Dawkins work, and I am not at all impressed, because rather than being FOR science, he is AGAINST religion and against God. In so doing he has made a critical error insofar that he has allowed his emotions to interfere with his scientific objectivity in the interest of selling his books. However, Richard Dawkins being against God gives rise to discussion and argument, but what is worse than Dawkins attitude is indifference to religion. That is the attitude to many politicians and newspapers, that they don’t care one way or another and with nonchalance declare ‘who really cares’. The Times Newspaper still reflects significant opinion and is very informative and rational in it’s stance, but God and religion are very low down in matters of importance. I certainly accept God, but not the biblical God as depicted in the bible; that is nonsensical. It is a sad thing that “The Son of God” phenomena is no longer seen as rational or reasonable, and that is why people do not believe it.

  • Bernardesque

    In any case, Westley, you have missed my initial point, which did not concern whether religion’s answer to the question was right or wrong.

    My point was that Science and Religion are two separate domains, with different scopes and limitations.

    The natural sciences cannot answer the “whence existence?” question because it is not a scientific question but a philosophical one.

    Likewise, religion cannot answer questions about evolution, the cosmos, etc, because these are scientific questions, not religious ones.

    Both Science and Religion get into trouble when they exceed their own scope of inquiry.

  • Anonymous

    Good for YOU!! That crowd would have driven me to drink, but your becoming a Catholic was a much  wiser choice.

  • Anonymous

    good comparison–like it!!!

  • Anonymous

    My suggest is for those  who follow  Darwin to examine his history/bio. He had many flaws and his theories were not always his own. I have found that putting fellow  humans on a pedestal and giving them idol attention is a serious mistake. None are infallible on any subject except the Pope and only when  it comes to Faith and morals.

  • Bill Wilkinsin

    Mr Dawkins is not a stupid man and discovered a niche in the market to promote his books and TV programmes. It must not be overlooked however that religions also attract loonies, head bangers and conspiracy theorists. Some of the opinions expressed in these Catholic Herald blogs are ‘far out’ when it comes to rational and reasoned judgment. It is little wonder that ‘The Times’ is a bit God-shy when one considers some of the bizarre religious beliefs expressed.

  • Anonymous

    Well, Bill, militant atheism does not corner the market when it comes to looney tunes or fanatics but this tendency seems to be in the glare of media publicity through the pronouncements and works of Dawkins.  He starts off from an unreasonable standpoint by making ad hominem attacks on religious believers who do not share the nihilistic materialistic worldview that he espouses.  What do you mean by “bizarre” religious beliefs?  You make a generalized assumption about religion without giving any concrete examples of what you describe.

  • James H

    My reaction to this headline: No s**t, Sherlock!

    The surest indication of the geriatric decline of our civilisation is the drivel spouted by that quote from the Times. Someone asking ‘So who created God?’ is like some smart-alec kid in the back of the class piping up with the question ‘Yeah, right, so what’s the speed of dark?’ after you’ve explained about the size of the Universe and the time taken for light to cross it. It’s so stupid, it’s not even wrong!

  • James H

    You ask for proof of a creator, yet cannot provide evidence of a creator-less creation. If you’ve convinced yourself that something can come from nothing spontaneously, you’re going to have to come up with pretty extraordinary evidence for such a bizarre belief.

  • James H

    The evidence for evolution is only circumstantial. No-one knows how it proceeds (Natural Selection? Genetic Drift? What?), it’s never been demonstrated in breeding experiments, we don’t see it occurring in nature. Heck, biology is such an imprecise science, there isn’t even any agreement about the definition of a species!

    Evolution is great for understanding the relationship between life-forms, but too nebulous to base your philosophy on it.

    I don’t know if anyone else has noticed it, but the classical illustrations of evolution I grew up with (late 70s-80s) have all just quietly slipped away.
    The Tree of Life? Discarded after genetic evidence gave no clear evidence of definite relationships.
    Archaeopteryx? Wasn’t a bird, or even a proto-bird, but a feathered dinosaur, which wasn’t even on the way to birds.
    The evolution of horses from Eohippus? Likewise, the family tree collapsed under the weight of actual fossil evidence.

    Yes, I’d like to believe in evolution, it makes a lot of sense, and accounts for the change of life over time - but please let’s not call it a fact.

  • James H

    I would LOVE to hear that story!

    Do you have a blog?

  • D Corrigan

    Thanks to modern communication and intellectual enlightenment it is becoming clear that the whole story of Jesus as told in the gospels and in the code of canon law is nebulous at best and fictitious at worst. All the words reputedly spoken by Jesus could be stated in about five minutes; ten at the most. Everything that Jesus reputedly said could be written on one page of foolscap; two at the most. The Nicene Creed “Symbolum Nicaenum” was not an academic or scholarly enterprise, it was a contrived edict from the Emperor Constantine who insisted that Christianity was the official religion of Rome and was the law that must be obeyed. When people still doubted the story of Jesus crucifixion, Constantine reputedly sent his ninety year old mother all the way to Jerusalem to find the proof. Low and behold she returned with all the evidence of the true cross, the place of Jesus birth and all the other places he visited. The antics of Helena, Constantine’s mother and the discovery of true cross were meant to give validity to his edict, and now proves to have been statistically impossible, because crosses were used over and over again, using the ‘crossbeam’ system. Not to mention the millions of crucifixions that had occurred in three hundred years after Christ , and also that Marcus Aurelia had Golgotha completely excavated. The church has used stunts and scams to validate the existence of Christ such as the Shroud of Turin, when radio carbon dating proved beyond any doubt that it was dated between 1260 and 1390. It is not Christ’s face, but the church still insists in the face of scientific logic that it is. There is a plethora of other such pseudo miraculous occurrences as miracles at Lourdes, Fatima, and several other such incidents that now in the face of empirical clinical and archaeological evidence and application of logic that these things are so incredulous that people parody them as see them as money making scams for Catholic Church coffers. The sad thing is that the people have found that out.

  • Jonathan West

    I suggest you read some textbooks on evolution rather than merely reading religious critiques designed to demonstrate that evolution is false (and by extension, that God did it after all)

    For instance, I’ve noticed that as a general rule, those who most gleefully describe Dawkins as militant, nihilistic, condescending or belligerent (to use some of the adjectives in this thread), are those who haven’t actually read any of his books, but have only read others who oppose him.

    And William Oddie in the article also completely misunderstands the situation when he talks of “Dawkins-worshipping” followers. He speaks as if there are hordes of atheist scientists who have discovered evolution as the new religion, appointed Darwin as their prophet, chosen The Origin Of Species as their sacred text, and have declared war on all competing religions. If you think that way, you won’t ever understand what scientists are all about.

    Some time ago, on my blog I issued an invitation to any religious believer. Leave aside whether you think Dawkins is strident or militant or whatever, and instead offer your evidence and line of reasoning which demonstrates that Dawkins is wrong on his key point as described in chapter 4 of The God Delusion, “Why there almost certainly is no God”.

    That invitation remains open.

  • Anonymous

    ms catholic state

    If your logic holds true, who created the creator?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ITWGHDTDQ65STHO754O4CJQ7YU Gabriel

    Do people in England still take Richard Dawkins seriously? I thought that Mary Midgeley’s carving up his theories [and in THE GUARDIAN!] some years back had settled the matter. Mr. Dawkins’ reply was that she was a meanie.

  • Jonathan West

    Mary Midgeley got savaged in the comments, because she had failed to understand a very basic point about Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. She thought that the idea that genes are “selfish” (in that the genes that are good at replicating are the ones which tend to survive and get replicated) means that only selfish behaviour can explained by genetics and evolution, and that altruism is therefore impossible to explain scientifically by this theory. (By all means go and read Midgeley’s original articles if you think that I have unfairly paraphrased her.)

    But what her incorrect and simplistic notion failed to take into account was that genes will replicate if they support co-operative behaviour which makes for a better envivonment for reproduction, either by the genes in the host organism or (and this is the bit that Midgeley most spectacularly failed to understand) copies of the genes in other organisms nearby. Altruism is thus easily explained in terms of advantage to kin (in that until very recent historic times, your neighbours would almost certainly be your fairly near kin) and in terms of reciprocal altruism. The fact that it is expressed as unconditional altruism is neither here nor there, provided it has these effects.

    Midgeley made this mistake in public, and Dawkins explained the misunderstanding, also in public. And Midgeley went right ahead and wrote another article making precisely the same mistake.

    If you want to, you can decide that you prefer to believe Midgeley over Dawkins. That’s your right, and I shan’t try to prevent you. But I think it would be better if you decided to examine the evidence.

  • D. Corrigan

    Mr Dawkins is an accomplished academic and scientist. I have met him and he is most affable. I have read all of his work and seen his TV programmes. He does have a very moral stance inasmuch that he can clearly see that so many pious, benign and stupid people are being duped and exploited by religious ideology. He does right to challenge why a group of elderly men dressed in medieval gowns and without experience of coitus, of family relationships are allowed dictate faith and morals to the peoples of the world. He is very aware that ancient and recent history shows that these religious leaders are very poor role models in terms of their criminal activities and their behaviours are certainly far removed from the demeanour and conduct of Jesus Christ. Mr Dawkins is not indifferent to religion as many other scientists and academics are. I was discussing Dawkins work with a good friend, and he said “I never give any religion a second thought, to me it is all flummery, melodrama and theatricality, why else would they dress up in funny gear. Well done Honeybadger  You never miss an opportunity to malign another human being, just because they think differently from you. Such ungraciousness is incongruous to the eight commandment, I think.

  • Anonymous

    First of all, D. Corrigan, The Nicene Creed was the direct result of the mutual work between theologians and bishops from the Western and Eastern halves of the Church universal.  They teased out the realities both explicit and implicit in the Divine revelations from the gospels and encapsulated them in Creedal form. Emperor Constantine did indeed call for this great Council of Nicea but this did not in the least invalidate it’s necessity during a time of great strife and threatened divisions within Christendom.  He was merely exercising his prerogative as emperor of the once pagan Roman empire and  the positive results from that great assembly has lasted right down to our present age. 
    His mother Helena went of her own accord on a personal pilgrimage to the sites associated with Jesus in the Holy Land. She reputedly found the location at Golgotha where the three crosses were once installed and found a fragment of the true cross. Looking at such claims from the perspective of the modern, scientific age the default reaction would seem to be one of skepticism.  But again Faith is required to bridge the gap between a limited materialism and a metaphysical dimension beyond our sense.  Your attempt to dismiss the fascinating phenomena that the Shroud of Turin as a ‘scam’ does not hold water when we consider the problematical evidence produced by the assiduous work of the “Shroud” researchers. For example, pollen spores and limestone dust have been found on the shroud and these have been carbon-dated to 1st century Palestine.   Similar tests on samples of the cloth which found that the shroud dated to the middle ages were later found to be invalid as they were removed from rewoven material used by nuns in the 16th century to mend damage caused by a fire.  Later tests using samples of the original shroud fabric found it to be at least 1500 years older than the earlier estimates Also the image of a crucified man found on the cloth has been found not to have been caused  by any primitive form of photography or human artistic endeavor due to the very complicated nature of the 3 dimensional image.  Your crass dismissal of the authenticated Marian apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima again has to deal with the first hand accounts of witnesses who were present during the unfolding of these extraordinary events that the empiricism of science has not debunked.  Science can only explain to us the material nature of our world but it’s remit is limited to this and  Religious belief can enlighten us to the Divine realities that are situated beyond it.

  • Oconnordamien

    That reasoning could be used to prove the existence of baal, horus, allah or the FSM.
    Or indeed any god that I just make up on the spot.

    To quote the wise and sage philosopher Homer:

    “But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder.”

  • JonnyB

    There is a bit of the ‘chicken or egg’ in the origin of morals, though, which (I believe) is what SteveO is alluding to. Did the morals originate from religious belief, or did religious belief originate from the morals (in part, as a way of explaining the need for, or reinforcing, them)?
    Either way, as you mention in your subsequent post, there is no need for reductionism – a man, any man, has the capacity to be so much more than _just_ a man. This includes holding himself to moral values without the necessity for belief in a (particular) deity.

  • JonnyB

    As you seem so sure,it should be easy for you to, please, describe why/how atheism is either illogical or untenable?
    (I prefer the scientific method and, from this, am fully aware that it is nigh on impossible to prove a negative, so will accept proof of the positive (i.e. that God exists), but beware that “because I say so” will not suffice)

  • Peter

    You can call an omnipotent, immaterial and omniscient Creator whatever you want.

    Whatever name you use does not diminish the Creator’s omnipotence, omniscience and immateriality.

    I together with many others prefer to call the Creator God.

  • Oconnordamien

    I think you missed my point. The four names I used were four different gods, not four different names for the same entity. The christian god made it clear in the bible how followers of baal should be treated. So it is important which entity you choose. Your reasoning proves just as clearly the existence any of those as much as the god you chose to believe in.

    As an aside, omnipotence is a way of proving that such a creator could not exist. A childish but perfectly valid question would be, “Could god make a vindaloo so hot that he couldn’t eat it”. Silly but it clearly demonstrates the problem of omnipotence. In fact I never heard any answer to the question except excuses such as “why would he?” or “he wouldn’t waste his time”.

  • Peter

    And you missed my point that the latest scientific thought establishing the existence of an infinite multiverse leads inevitably to an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient Creator.

    I never mentioned the Bible, you did.

    Here I am talking only science and reason, not faith or scripture.

    Why are you muddying the waters.

  • Jonathan West

    I think you need to realise two things

    1. The multiverse is scientific speculation at this point, there isn’t yet any evidence for it. Scientists do speculate. It is part of the job, because speculation can lead to new ideas for observations and experiments which might turn the speculation into something more solid.

    2. There is no more reason to think that a multiverse must be the work of an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient Creator than that a single universe has such a cause. Claiming otherwise is the logical argument known as the Fallacy from Bare Assertion.

    The fact is that we don’t know the original cause of the universe. It is not right to add “and so it must have been created by an infinitely powerful, immaterial and omniscient Creator. It is right to say “but we are still looking to see what we can find out about it.”