An Astronomical Perspective: Challenging Beliefs in Science

"You might be surprised to learn that I, a professor of astrophysics, do not believe in the law of gravity. I also do not believe in black holes. I don't even believe that the sun rises in the east," began Brian Keating in his speech.

Keating serves in the physics department at the University of California. His area of expertise is the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang. He has won numerous awards, leads research projects, and is the inventor of several important patents. He is the son of James Burton Axe, one of the world's leading mathematicians. He received a solid scientific education. Later in life, following his parents' divorce, he was raised in the home of a Jewish man, yet he still identified as an atheist.

As he advanced in the scientific world, doubts arose in his mind about the accepted truths in mainstream scientific education, materialism, and a general intellectual rigidity. He realized this perspective comes from the top down: fostering thinking that confirms the existing worldview. In his book, "Losing the Nobel Prize," he describes how Nobel Prizes encourage not innovative thinking, but rather the entrenchment of existing ideas.

And so he opened one of his famous speeches: "You might be surprised to learn that I, a professor of astrophysics, do not believe in the law of gravity. I also do not believe in black holes. I don’t even believe that the sun rises in the east.

"I don't believe in any of these things because I don't have to... I have evidence for them. For hundreds of years, scientists have used evidence to test their ideas about the physical world. This is the scientific method, and it's the most powerful tool humans have ever invented.

"In contrast, it's common to use the word 'belief' when discussing the Creator. Although the universe appears designed for our existence, even believers don't always present this as definitive proof of a designer's existence. They sometimes take it as 'faith,' due to the lack of clear data...

"So how do secular scientists explain our existence without a Creator? Many cosmologists believe the explanation lies in a new theory called multiverse. According to these scientists, what we used to call 'the universe' is not the whole picture... far from it. In the multiverse theory, our universe is accompanied not just by one or two other universes, but perhaps by an infinite number of other universes, most of which do not resemble our own. Some may be too cold to support life; others too hot. But with an infinite number of possibilities, some must be suitable for life.

"To multiverse supporters, our existence is an accident that had to happen in the vast cosmos. What's surprising is that even scientists who believe in the theory admit there is no data supporting it...

"Despite contrary stereotypes, we scientists are human too. Sometimes we want to believe in things that fit with our theories and dismiss other data, a phenomenon known as 'confirmation bias.' Scientists also represent some of the most revered authorities in society. Unfortunately, the combination of authority bias and confirmation bias misleads science away from where it should be, particularly concerning this multiverse theory.

"Take Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg for example. For Weinberg, the infinite stretches of numerous universes are good news, offering a reason that 'we find ourselves in a life-friendly universe not dependent on the grace of a Creator, and thus less support remains for religion.'

"But it's also bad news when it comes to the scientific method. As physicist Paul Davies said: 'Talking about an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as philosophically problematic as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may dress itself up as science, but fundamentally, it requires the same leap of faith.'

"Since all data, even in the absence of data, can never disprove this idea, this model is untestable. For this reason, some of its opponents refer to the idea as a 'theory of everything,' which reminds me of Chesterton's saying: 'When people stop believing in Hashem, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.' In the case of the multiverse, Chesterton’s wisdom truly hits home: those scientists who reject the Creator's existence due to insufficient evidence have embraced a theory that seemingly disregards the scientific method...

"Now, when scientists support bizarre theories simply to avoid acknowledging a Creator's existence, they need to honestly admit their motives: they believe just like others do; only they cannot believe in a Creator. It just takes honesty to admit it."