in Calvinist traditions, I guess it is important to stress that it is God who reaches down to us thankless souls. Somehow, God reaches us through the myriad channels of our lives. … but this is where I wrestle most between my Arminian leanings and the reformed traditions. Yet it is interesting that we can know even anything at all about God. At any rate, our own survival really does depend on there being something far greater than ourselves and our own foolishness to sustain us. Call it “luck” (for those who don’t believe in God), but we sure need mountains of it every day! It takes a very limited intelligence to demolish an entire nation, it takes ages of wisdom and understanding to build one.
It takes many “school of hard knocks” lessons to learn, and we probably never really arrive, but, to be a real scientist, I would say that the humility switch should be in the “on” position all the time.
As someone who is trained as a physicist but has put most of his efforts on understanding biopolymers and evolution, the topic of multiverse is largely at my limits of understanding. It would take quite a lot of study to really understand even the arguments for or against the multiverse. The best thing for most of us on the sidelines to do is wait (something hard to do these days with high speed internet, next day delivery, etc.).
The one thing that does concern me is that funding is intimately tied to who is allowed to do research these days. As a result, much of this happens in intellectual silos and fiefdoms, where various lords quarrel over patches of ground. Hence, and again, not to pose judgment on the ideas either way, Lee Smolin pointed out in “The Trouble with Physics” that string theory took a dominant position in research at the expense of everything else. If it was a matter of geocentricism, I reckon the case is (pretty thoroughly) closed, but intellectual arguments about the nature of the universe are hardly well established. Rather, arguments of this complexity must be parsed and examined carefully and thoughtfully; not to decide who will be funded this time around, but to get to the truth. So some of the ugliness of scientists (the hype, the despotic control, the arrogance, etc.) is a product of their personal struggles with self-importance and the grace they have received in their successful careers (some greater than 90% of which is well out of anyone’s personal control), as well as it is the forces from above who have played these warped egos and excused themselves from the real duty and responsibility of “leadership”.
So the best thing is to wait and see. We cannot control how the system has become corrupted and is lost in a feedback loop, but we can learn to listen and mull over the findings we do receive ourselves.
That said, I also don’t see any issues with the Christian faith and a multiverse, other than that we will have to refine our theology accordingly (which seems to be part of a different thread).
Some of the greatest scientific advancements have come about by people struggling to do impossible things. The iPhone is a produce of a nation setting out to do the “impossible” task of sending people to the moon. We had to make an entire industry that was open to anyone creative and imaginative enough to push the limits of semiconductors, which opened the door to “stoners” and “deadbeats” like Jobs and Wozniak to acquire and use that technology. Imagine what the neighbors would say these days in Los Altos or Palo Alto; they even violated the zoning laws. Innovation is also the workings of God’s Grace.
Indeed, let the scientists try their best at this. If they find something, then we have to look at the theology again and refine it. If they never find anything, we will probably still benefit in unforeseen discoveries and developments in technology, and we will have to look at our theology again and refine it.
by Grace we proceed