Shelley and the romance of other worlds

While theists point to the cosmos as evidence of God, materialists point to it as evidence that there is no God. An example of the latter is the poet Percy Shelley. These are tricky arguments, and people (on both sides) can easily make mistakes, as they project onto this canvas their own wishes.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Queen Mab for instance, uses the vastness of the cosmos and the plurality of worlds as an argument in favour of Shelley’s own atheism: ‘the plurality of worlds, – the indefinite immensity of the universe is a most awful subject of contemplation. He who rightly feels its mystery and grandeur, is no longer in danger of seduction from the falsehoods of religious systems, or of deifying the principle of the universe.’ [1.]

- Shelley (not a favorite of mine) talks of the 'seduction' of Christianity... and how the vastness of space innoculates him from these temptations. You wonder what the man meant. I suppose the argument goes something like; since space is so big there can't be a god. This makes no sense to me. In his defense I don't think people then had any idea of how big a universe needs to be; that the parameters of expansion vs collapse demand a huge universe, etc. This was a very popular idea at the time however, and still is.

I suppose people like Shelley also imagined this vast universe was populated with poets and dandies like themselves... and that this somehow disproved God, or better yet, disproved the christian god. I suppose the idea is that the bible gives us an earth-centric vision; and that the newly discovered (if it was newly discovered or perhaps rediscovered) vastness of space disproved this narrow focus on earth. i.e. that the huge universe of the telescopes disproved the small universe of Jesus and the apostles.

- How does Shelley know what it means to 'rightly' know the mystery of this vastness? I guess he takes his own sentiments to be the standard.

- Shelley claims that the Christian God is merely a 'deifying' of the universe; or what he calls the 'principle' of the universe. (What he means by that I'm not sure.) But how does he know all this? If God isn't the cause what is? Nothing? What is this 'principle' he's put his faith in? It's easy to argue against the plain word of the Bible, but how can we argue against this whiff of a principle? How do we even know what it is? He's replaced something solid with a speculative mist.

- I get the impression it's the 'plurality of worlds' that is the most influential component in this new cosmology for S. I get the further impression it's the idea these worlds are populated by poetic aliens that is the deciding factor; that all rests on this imagined reality. This seems a slender thread to base one's worldview on; and a slender defense against the 'seductions' of Christianity. (By speaking of seductions he shows us he has a reason to want to believe in this plurality of worlds.) After all, there is no proof these things exist, and why should we believe (without evidence) that they do. The case against Christianity was based on critiques that various doctrines had no evidence to support them, but here he believes in aliens without any evidence... and that's perfectly okay. This seems hypocritical; you have no right to use x critique on your opponent if you're not willing to apply it to yourself.

- Shelley seemed to believe (or Roberts) that there is some kind of rational or logical argument here; but I don't see one. i.e. why should a plurality of world disprove Christianity? As I said before; we don't have any evidence aliens exist; and even if they did this still wouldn't disprove Christianity, although I agree that it would seem to create great difficulties for it. But it's a weak argument indeed, since it's based almost solely on wishful thinking, of merely hoping for evidence rather than evidence. The 'idea' seems to be; since space is so huge it simply must contain other peoples such as ourselves. Must? I think not. This isn't a logical argument, it's an emotional (or poetic?) one. To put it in a logical form you'd have to say; 'Any true god would only create one intelligent race. There is more than one intelligent. race; therefore there is no god. (You could put it in the form; the Christian God claimed to have created only one race; there are more than one; therefore the Christian God has been disproved. The trouble with that is that the bible doesn't make this claim.)

B. Let's look at a current view of the cosmos, and see if it sheds any light on this issue.

"Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in [10 to the 10th power],
the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop." - Stephen Hawking [2.]

- So we might say that his atheism was based on a failure to correctly understand the cosmos. (This being ironic in that he thought it was his up to date understanding of cosmology that led him to abandon theism)

Notes;
1. History of science fiction - Adam Roberts/91
2. Finely tuned universe - Alister McGrath; Gifford Lecture#2
- Along the same lines, the 'new atheism' is (in my opinion) based in large measure on a fallacious belief in M2M evolution.