Taking Multiverse on Faith

According to Alan P. Lightman's article, "The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith," published in December 2011 in Harper's Magazine, theoretical physicists are experiencing what seems to be a crisis of faith.  Discoveries in physics in the last two or more decades have not led to the hoped-for "Theory of Everything," which would distill our understanding of all of reality into one simple, elegant principle.  Instead, discoveries in quantum physics and astronomy have taken physics in opposite directions and suggest that there may not be a unifying principle that explains everything.  Most disturbing, apparently, is the theory of multiverse, which holds that there seem to be a limitless number of universes besides the one that we live in, which can have an infinite variety of configurations.  The fact that our universe is uniquely constructed to permit life on Earth thus is not caused by anything in particular.  We live in an "accidental" universe.  That being the case, the search for a unifying first principle that explains everything is a waste of time because "everything" is always going to be accidental.

The problem is that the theory of multiverse can't be proven and may never admit to proof because we are locked away in just one of that infinite number of universes.  We can't observe the rest because they don't exist in our universe.  The configuration of our universe suggests that they exist without offering any way to validate that they do, which means that the physicists have to take them on faith.  Yes, on faith.  This is a crisis, of sorts, because science is not about taking things on faith.  It is about research leading to empirical conclusions that are demonstrably true irrespective of what one believes about the subject under investigation.  However, it just may be that at the end of it all, empirical scientific investigation cannot lift the veil on the true nature of ultimate reality because its tools and techniques are too limited to do so.

Welcome, dear friends, to our world—the world of faith!

Theoretical physicists also usually cite the theory of multiverse to demonstrate that there is no intelligent creator of the universe.  Their thinking is that since this universe is accidental, there necessarily could not have been a divine designer of it.  There seems to be a fallacy in the argument so simple that this non-scientist must be missing something.  The fallacy is that if there are an infinite number of universes, then the one we live in is not accidental.  It is inevitable.  It had to happen.  One could argue, logically, that an intelligent creator (God) chose this method of creation as a way to insure that our universe, solar system, planet, and race would eventually come into existence.  Now, we're not talking about the Grandaddy in the Sky, which is what theoretical physicists seem to mean by the word, "God."  We are talking here about a Beyond, which we cannot imagine (anymore than we can imagine an infinite number of universes) that stands outside of the totality of the multiverse and set the whole shebang going in the first place.

For people of faith, the origin of our faith is not in the speculations of theoretical physics but in personal and communal experiences, which we believe point to a Creator God.  So far as we are concerned, whether physicists can craft a theory of everything or they believe in multiverse is neither here nor there.  Our faith is non dependent on their findings one way or another.  We would observe that if God is indeed who we believe (and trust) God to be, we are not surprised that science does not have the tools necessary for dealing with ultimate reality—i.e. God—because we have been wrestling with these same human limitations for as long as we have believed.

There's another thing I don't understand.  Why do those who think that the idea of God is far-fetched latch onto ideas like multiverse, which so far as I can see is just as far-fetched if not more so.  Where we point to experiences, they point to some vaguely conceived, half-formed mathematical formulations, which they admit they can probably never prove.  But, then, what do I know?  I'm "just" a theist.