OPINION | The marvel of our universe

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect those of The Collegian.

"God does not play dice with the universe."
     - Albert Einstein, 1926

The multiverse theory, largely perpetuated by movies in the last decade and undoubtedly salient in American culture, in all its fun and exploratory possibilities, asks us to consider the nature of our universe critically. 

From Marvel’s “Doctor Strange” to the cosmic narrative in “Everything Everywhere All At Once”, American cinema has turned the multiverse into a cultural phenomenon. Yet, as captivating as these stories are, they point us back to a deeper marvel: our universe’s origins. 

The multiverse, the core narrative component of these stories, lies at the intersection of science and philosophy.

This underscores the profound questions that Stephen C. Meyer’s book, “Return of the God Hypothesis,” tackles. At the University of Richmond, a community immersed in critical thought and the quest for meaning, Meyer’s work invites us as scholars to reconsider the implications of cutting-edge scientific discoveries, arguing that theism offers the most coherent explanation for our finely-tuned universe.

Meyer’s extensive work elucidates the historical interplay between a scientific quest for knowledge and a biblical perspective of the world, underscoring three pivotal discoveries: the universe’s finite beginning, the precise fine-tuning of physical constants necessary for life, and the complex information encoded in DNA. 

Finding himself at odds with contemporary scientific wisdom, Meyer suggests from these observations that the universe is better explained by an intelligent Designer than by materialistic alternatives—like what the multiverse theory posits.

In “Return of the God Hypothesis,”, Meyer explains that a universe must maintain a few necessary conditions for existence. The first is the concept of fine-tuning, the idea that the universe’s physical constants are calibrated to a degree that makes life possible. As Meyer illustrates, if the cosmological constant were minutely stronger, the universe would have expanded too quickly for matter to coalesce. Conversely, if it were even marginally weaker, gravitational collapse would have made stars and planets impossible. As Durham University philosopher Philip Goff underscores, this "Goldilocks" precision is hard to dismiss as mere chance.

Proponents of the multiverse argue that an infinite number of universes could render the appearance of fine-tuning inevitable and that we simply (or serendipitously) inhabit one of the rare "winning" universes. 

Meyer, however, dismantles this attempt to evade design implications on multiple fronts. First, the multiverse is unfalsifiable; we simply lack observational access to other universes. Second, the mechanisms proposed to generate universes, such as eternal inflation or string theory landscapes, would themselves presumably require fine-tuning, thus merely pushing the need for design back a level. Finally, Meyer cites Ockham’s Razor as a scientific reason not to favor the actual existence of a multiverse in the first place, since its existence would necessitate several complex and unprovable postulates, rather than embracing a much simpler hypothesis that explains the same data. The multiverse’s "bloated ontology" burdens it with speculative assumptions that ultimately undermine its credibility. 

A subtle but profound flaw in materialist arguments against design is the implicit reliance on Ian Hacking’s Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy. Just as materialists often argue at the biological level that the unlikely emergence of life was inevitable given enough time, so critics of design theory also often argue at the cosmic level that the emergence of a life-inhabiting universe was inevitable given enough trials. This reasoning reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how probability itself works. The improbability of fine-tuning in our universe cannot be dismissed as a "lucky outcome" without invoking intentionality, as Meyer notes.

To better understand the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy, imagine walking into a saloon and observing someone winning 50 straight pPoker games by getting a royal flush each time. Of course, you would think he was somehow cheating (i.e., winning by design rather than chance). 

Now, imagine he offers you the explanation that there very well may be millions of such saloons out there where such games are being played and that, apparently, you just happened to walk into the lucky one. Presumably, you would not be persuaded by such an attempt to avoid such obvious design conclusions, as you would, of course, understand that the possible existence of other saloons out there does not change the nature of how probability works in the saloon that you are in, nor does it alter your ability to detect clear design when you see it. This is the mistake in reasoning that the materialist makes when he speculates about other possible universes to explain away the clear design that we see in our universe.

These debates resonate beyond the lecture hall where college students navigate a culture steeped in scientific materialism. The rise of the "nones,” or those unaffiliated with any religion, is closely tied to the unfortunately prevalent misperception that science undermines belief in God.

Meyer’s arguments challenge this narrative, suggesting that belief in transcendent Intelligence is rational and deeply aligned with modern science’s findings. For students balancing academic rigor with personal exploration, the God Hypothesis offers a framework that cogently harmonizes empirical evidence with existential meaning.

Stephen Meyer’s “Return of the God Hypothesis” is more than a rebuttal to materialism. Rather, it is an invitation to think deeply about the metaphysical implications of scientific discovery. For the UR community, it is a timely reminder that science and belief in God, far from being adversaries, can enrich and illuminate one another. As we grapple with the origins of the universe and our place within it, perhaps it is time to heed the evidence and embrace the profound rationality of belief in designing Intelligence. 

As Marvel's multiverse captivates audiences with its imaginative exploration of alternate realities, it also serves as a metaphor for the more profound questions at play. Just as the multiverse invites us to reflect on the nature of existence, Meyer challenges us to critically examine whether the intricate fine-tuning of our universe points to chance or to a purposeful Designer, rooting these cosmic narratives in questions that bridge science, philosophy and a historically biblical understanding of the world we live in.

Contact contributing writer CJ Blastos at cj.blastos@richmond.edu