Noted Physicist Says Multiverse Theory Of Creation Is Religion, Not Science

Strike up a conversation with folks around Capitol Hill about their view of how and why the universe came into existence and odds are very good you will sooner or later hear the theory ours is just one of many universes.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. (Screen shot from YouTube.)

This is the “multiverse” explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, and it is a concept that in recent years has gained numerous advocates within the scientific community and disciples in the popular press.

I’m also quite certain that more than a few knowing nods of the head would be seen in any gathering of congressional aides who could be asked if they are aware of the multiverse concept. And some of them could explain it, at least in basic terms.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder studies things like quantum gravity, but she goes against the flow on the multiverse issue. She is also an accomplished author of books, technical articles, bylined pieces in magazines like Scientific American and Forbes, and posts on her blog, Backreaction.

Is she a Christian? I don’t know, but I doubt it. My guess is she has her own unique views on the issue of the literal resurrection of Jesus and related matters, but has not shared them for prudential or strategic reasons.

If somebody reading this knows to the contrary, please advise me of such in the comments, or via email at mt.hillfaith@gmail.com. In the meantime, check out this fascinating video of her discussing the multiverse question:

And, if after watching the video you want to pursue the subject further, go to her blog and to her many YouTube videos. This woman, besides being incredibly intelligent, is also a prolific writer and an accomplished public advocate. Whatever her faith/non-faith might be, more like her are needed.


Now, How  About Some Coffee And Conversation?

.

Did the post above make you think of some uncomfortable questions ? Or maybe deliver a gut-punch to your intellectual or faith solar plexus? Let’s talk about it. Coffee is on me. Totally off the record. See the “Office Hours” schedule in the sidebar to the right.

HillFaith founder and editor, Mark Tapscott

If you wonder how such a unique blog as HillFaith came about, check this out.  And if you think you’d like to see what’s being posted from day to day, click the Follow tool in the upper right corner of the homepage, so you will get an email each time something new appears.

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here: https://hillfaith.blog/about-hillfaith-2/

19 thoughts on “Noted Physicist Says Multiverse Theory Of Creation Is Religion, Not Science”

  1. Essentially, the narrow range of possible values for more than a dozen fundamental constants makes accidental creation terribly improbable, so some posit an infinity of universes, and we are just lucky to be in one that is feasible. Easier to believe in a Creator.

    Like

  2. Hossfelder isn’t supporting your claims of creationism. She is saying that there isn’t enough evidence to believe the multi-universe hypothesis. All of her arguments also work well in showing that gods don’t exist.

    Like

    1. Your point about her arguments can also be applied to gods is correct, as I think she says in the video. But where do you see a claim in my post that she is supporting creationism? It’s clear she doesn’t, which is in part why I pointed out that I don’t think she is a Christian.

      Like

      1. Well, Mark, let me ask you: why do you think people should watch that video? Your reason why aren’t stated as far as I could see, though I could have missed them.

        Are you trying to convince others that as long as scientists disagree that means your god has to exist?

        Like

      1. Steve, perhaps if you also ask why Mark says this video is interesting you might get your answer on why I pointed out that Hossfelder isn’t supporting claims of creationism. He hasn’t answered me yet when I’ve asked him this question.

        In my past experience, creation Christians like to try to claim that if a scientist doesn’t agree with other scientists this has to mean that they agree with creationists or that this somehow shows that scientists are wrong. In this case, it seems that this is what Mark wants people to assume. I’ve asked him to clarify what he intends. I’m more than happy to apologize if my assumption is wrong.

        Like

    2. “Hossfelder isn’t supporting your claims of creationism.”

      The above is a nice example of the straw man argument.

      You are either dishonest, addled, or perhaps dishonest and addled.

      Like

      1. Shall we wait for Mark to explain why he finds the video so interesting then? If I’m incorrect, I’ll be more than happy to apologize. If you can come up with a reason why a creationist would post a video like this, please let me know what it is.

        Like

      2. Did you miss this, which I posted earlier today?
        Note to Clubschadenfreude: Actually, I did respond to your question, at 12:57 yesterday. See above. Not sure why, but WP put my reply above your original query.

        Like

  3. In the sense she means: The multiverse, leprechauns, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Spagetti Monster, and God are “logically equivalent”.

    Like

  4. Not at all. Folks, especially those working on Capitol Hill, will benefit from watching the video, thanks to Hossenfelder’s emphasis on the logic, or lack thereof, in much of the advocacy for the multiverse concept. She makes it quite clear that she’s not rejecting the concept.

    Like

    1. is this “Not at all. Folks, especially those working on Capitol Hill, will benefit from watching the video, thanks to Hossenfelder’s emphasis on the logic, or lack thereof, in much of the advocacy for the multiverse concept. She makes it quite clear that she’s not rejecting the concept.”

      your response to this “Well, Mark, let me ask you: why do you think people should watch that video? Your reason why aren’t stated as far as I could see, though I could have missed them.

      Are you trying to convince others that as long as scientists disagree that means your god has to exist?”?

      If so, and you appreciate logic, why do you believe in creationism?

      Like

      1. Speaking for myself:
        This statement by the scientist, that belief in multiverses is a form of faith, does not negate faith in multiverses, nor prove out the existence of God. Rather, it is a word of caution to those who look down on faith in God, treating it as inferior to belief in Science. The point is that both positions are based on faith.
        Still speaking for myself: the story of the Big Bang is silly. First there was nothing, and then it blew up? Equally silly is the story that God spoke the universe into existence. The difference between the 2 is that the Big Bang gives no reason to exist: we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here. In contrast, a Creator gives meaning to existence. I choose meaning. And for the sake of consistency and loyalty to my Maker, if He says it took 6 days about 7000 years ago, I’m not going to quibble.
        The multiverse theory doesn’t answer any question: instead of turtles all the way down, it’s turtles all the way out.

        Like

      2. in that there is no evidence for any gods, there is reason to disregard the claims of people who make baseless claims in order to try to make others think that they are special. The acceptance of science is based on that it works. For instance, I trust that antibiotics work. I do not trust that some god will heal me since it never does.

        Well, you’ve shown that like most Christians who try to attack the BBT, you have no idea what it is. It does not say that there was nothing and it “blew up”. It says that there was a singularity (something) and that it expanded. It would be nice if theists would know what they are attacking.

        We don’t need some external reason to exist. That was made up by theists who needed a job for their god, same with insisting that morals have to be objective.

        How does a creator give meaning to existence?

        All you have is a presupposition that has nothing to show that it is true, and then a loyalty to something that can’t be shown to exist. You blindly accept nonsense without thought because you think this thing wants you to.

        Like

  5. We should acknowledge and proclaim that Science itself is a religion. Who witnessed the Big Bang? Who has reproduced it in a lab?
    For that matter, who had created life in a lab?
    And yet, the adherents to the faith of Science neither waver nor doubt.

    Like

Comments are closed.