The Idea of God Has One Major Flaw
By: Ella Alderson
Tags: Philosophy, Religion, Faith, Science, Christianity

But in the scientific community I have confronted time and again the unsavory truth that if a multiverse can never be falsified then it has no place in science. We must test the fabric of the theory (and I do believe we will be able to do this in the future) in ways where the results will either point us to a multiverse or disprove the theory altogether. Throughout all this the important fact remains: theories must have a way to be tested and proven. Otherwise you have nothing.

“It is hard to write theories that survive the proof of reality. Few survive. By means of this filter, we have been able to develop modern science, a technological society, to cure illness, to feed billions. All this works thanks to a simple idea: do not trust your fancies. Keep only the ideas that can be tested. If we stop doing so, we go back to the style of thinking of the Middle Ages.” — theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli.

This stretches to religion as well. I do not mind the idea of a Christian God, a Hindu God, an Islamic God. In fact, if these religions help people cope with life and if they inspire their followers to be gentler and kinder to one another then they are in some ways beneficial to mankind. What I mind is that these religions have no way out of them. They seem to me like traps. Pray for change and if it happens, it was God’s blessing upon you. Pray for change and if nothing happens, it was not in God’s design. What we know of the world is because God allowed us to know it. What we don’t yet know of the world is because God declared that we needn’t know it. Everything in life can be traced back to God and explained through him; everything in life serves only to strengthen a follower’s faith in him.

There is something terribly wrong with this. No system that is so self-assuring can claim to seek the truth. What religion needs is doubt. It is so often taught that one’s faith must remain strong in God even in times of great suffering. Yet it seems to me that the opposite is true in science — doubt is encouraged. It is only through doubt and through constant stressing of our scientific beliefs that we can arrive at an ultimate truth.

And perhaps the multiverse and God are alike in another way.

I hold onto the idea of the multiverse because it is a dramatic display of fantasy. Every possibility manifests itself on some foreign version of this wet and flowery Earth. These many lives I am leading overwhelm me in the best sense of the word — I can spend hours imagining how the many versions of me are choosing to spend their time, somewhere out in that incandescent cosmic ocean. It is a better story, I believe, than the story that there is only one universe and this is the only life I get to lead.

And so it goes with religion that there is an omniscient, nurturing God in the heavens and he beckons for his followers with open arms. In this story we are protected and guided, our suffering has purpose, our biggest questions needn’t be answered because some things are meant always to remain a mystery. In this story a beautiful paradise awaits many of us after death. In a non-religious view of the world nothing awaits us after death and no one is watching over us as a protector or parental figure. In both instances we live out our full and unpredictable lives, navigating its rough earthy terrain as best we can. In both instances we approach death unsure of what to expect on the other side but hoping that it will bring us peace.

Which is the better story? That’s the one we will tell ourselves, and that is the one we will choose to believe.