There is an article in The Australian today that is supposedly a reply to another that had originated in The Wall Street Journal in this case arguing the case for atheism. I dealt with the earlier article here under the heading, And who created the God particle? But this latest effort is so superficial that if this is the best that the atheist community can come up with, there is no case to answer for any of us who cannot see how the world we inhabit ever came to be. You don’t wish to believe in even the possibility that we are the conscious outcome of something in the universe, that made the world as it is so that we could have a home to live in, then don’t. But your belief is a matter of will, not of evidence and probability.
The title is typical of someone arrogant enough to believe that everything that has been brought together must absolutely have been for the benefit of humans. It is a reflection of the article itself, Why did the almighty create mosquitoes? Since he cannot think why mosquitoes were created, he does not believe there was a conscious attempt to allow the world to exist. Instead he comes down to this:
As Steven Weinberg, a Nobel-prize winner in the field, put it at the turn of the century, the more plausible, if daunting, hypothesis is that we are part not of a “universe” but of a “multiverse”, in which universes come and go with infinite variations. We just happen to be in one in which things worked out this way.
Instead of some creator, we have a fantastic expansion of what is out there that has allowed us to have come into existence, built on a will to believe that it just happened by itself. This is what he is forced to resort to:
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or “alternate universes”.
He thus finds it more plausible that there are an infinite number of universes – in some versions an infinite number of parallel universes that exist even at the same time as our own – but in one of these, simply by chance, things turned out just so, which has allowed you and I to come into existence. There is a will to disbelieve. He finds it preferable to believe that it just happened by itself, in one of the trillions of universes that have meandered through time. That is a belief system, based on no evidence at all.
So let me again mention the famous Higgs boson. The wikipedia discussion of the Higgs boson, the “God particle”, is hilarious because it never actually gets around to explaining what its hypothesised existence is needed for, or why it got the name it has. Here’s why it has been hypothesised:
The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter.
Got that? The issue is how did pure energy become matter. The big bang was all energy but no mass. The Higgs boson apparently existed at the moment of the big bang and allowed at least some of that energy to be turned into mass, into matter, into the things we are made of. You can hypothesise this as yet undiscovered particle so that you can live without the thought that we are here by design, for reasons unknown to us, and probably never knowable. Why the universe should be created with this embedded principle is a question that anyone with an inquiring disposition would immediately turn into the notion of a presence that had something in mind when the process was begun.
To live in certainty that we are not the conscious creation of some other presence in the universe is so empty that I cannot understand how anyone cannot see just how improbable such a belief must be. Certainly more improbable that assuming some creator, whose characteristics, and original aims and intentions are unlikely, ever to be known.