This blog is the third in a series. To make full sense of it you need to go back and read the two previous blogs first. I am reviewing a chapter of the book The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Although Hawking does not profess to be a believer, toward the end of the book (in a chapter entitled "The Apparent Miracle") he gives the most brilliant defense of the anthropic principle I have ever encountered. The anthropic principle has been used by the intelligent design crowd as evidence that the universe is uniquely fine-tuned for human existence, and therefore designed by a higher power.

In the first of these three blogs I have summarized Hawking’s argument that the earth’s position in the universe is finely-tuned for life as we know it. If the earth orbited more than one sun, if that sun were slightly larger or smaller, if the earth’s orbit were slightly more oval in shape than it is, if the earth were slightly closer or further from the sun, life as we know it could not exist. As impressive as this argument is, the weak anthropic principle is explainable as chance in that there are multiplied billions of stars, many with planets. So the chance that just one of them might be "just right" for life as we know it seems a reasonable proposition.

In the second blog Hawking unpacks the "strong" anthropic principle, which demonstrates the idea that the entire universe is finely-tuned for human habitation. The very laws of nature have to be exactly the way they are (out of an almost infinite variety of possibilities) for even carbon to exist. There is a whole chain of improbable sequence necessary, grounded in laws that could easily have been different, for life to appear in exactly this place at exactly this time. Take almost any law in the universe, modify it even slightly, and the universe would be a very different place. Building on Aristotle and the biblical accounts of creation, Aquinas argued that the order in nature points to the existence of a Designer who created and sustains the universe in exactly the form that we experience it. The much, more recent work of cosmologists provides evidence for design that is far more overwhelming than anything Aquinas could have known.

How is it, then, that Hawking still does not believe? Because, in his words, science now knows what Aquinas didn’t. The earth is not the center of the universe, it holds no privileged place. It is an average planet, toward the edge of an average galaxy. But at the same time the cosmological evidences for design of the whole are far more impressive than anything Aquinas knew. So what is Hawking’s answer to the problem of the strong anthropic principle? Building on the observation that countless galaxies, stars, and planets would eventually result in one just like earth, Hawking concludes that our universe must be one of a countless number and variety of universes, each with different laws and different outcomes. Ours appears finely-tuned simply because it happened to be the way it is. It is the outcome of an almost infinite rolling of the dice. Our observable universe is only one of many, just as our solar system is only one of many. If the present makeup of the universe is the outcome of one chance in 10⁵⁰⁰, then there must be 10⁵⁰⁰ number of universes. To quote Hawking, "In the same way that the environmental coincidences of the solar system were rendered unremarkable by the realization that billions of such systems exist, the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes." The multiverse concept explains the fine-tuning of natural law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.

The multiverse theory is grounded on a variety of theories of modern cosmology, theories that arose before the strong anthropic principle was discovered, so it is not invented out of whole cloth. But the reality is that we are in no position as human beings to explore these other supposed universes and verify the truth of these things. We cannot apply scientific method to any alternate universe, much less all of them. The multiverse theory is in the end an educated guess, but can never be compelling in the way that observable natural law is.

I find the following quote from the Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Sachs, helpful: "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They are different intellectual enterprises." We don’t have to accept Hawking’s conclusion that we have to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in conflict. Laws of physics do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. According to Oxford mathematician John Lennox, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. The laws of physics explain how a jet engine works, they cannot build one of themselves."

So in the end it comes back to what you will put faith in. If you put your faith in scientific theories that cannot prove or disprove the existence of other universes or even of God Himself, you have chosen your standpoint in the philosophical universe. If, on the other hand, you put your faith in the Bible as evidence of a Designer God, who not only fine-tuned the earth and the universe as we experience it, but was active in human experience, you have taken a different standpoint. If, furthermore, that God has left footprints in your own life and experience that cohere with the evidence of Scripture, you will probably have less faith in a multiverse explanation for life as we know it and more faith that there is a God who not only designed and sustains this universe, but leaves traces of His presence. "Faith. . . is the evidence of things we do not see." (Heb 11:1)

For the non-scientific believer, like me, the anthropic principle is certainly evidence that science not only cannot disprove the existence of God, at times it almost seems to require it. For the scientific believer, I realize things are more complex than I am capable of sharing here, but one can still hold onto faith, knowing that it opens us to evidence that science can neither demonstrate nor disprove. Faith and certainty do not have to be the same thing. When it comes to matters of science and religion, both believers and unbelievers need a good dose of humility.

Whether you believe or not, you can still be interested in the discoveries of science. Either way you can contribute to theories and experimentation. A great scientist, believer or not, is compelled by evidence rather than pre-conceived theories. But where the evidence falls short of proof, faith takes over and provides the meaning that science cannot provide. There I stand. To quote Lennox again: "Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise (sic). For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation."

Thank you, Stephen Hawking, along with your co-writer Leonard Mlodinow. I appreciate your refreshing honesty and subtle humor. I appreciate your willingness to introduce the complexities of quantum mechanics and cosmology in language a non-scientist can understand. And I pray that you will leave yourself open to detect the evidence of God’s footprints in your life.