Are Atheists More Intelligent?

Showing your Christian convictions online leads to some people assuming you are probably irrational and so unable to think critically and logically. Now, as someone with an undergraduate degree in Computer Science, and two post graduate degrees in other fields (and a career in the development and application of embedded software) I’ve always scratched my head at this state of affairs. Why would anyone I don’t know, automatically assume that I am not an analytical or critical thinker? That I’m stupid? This feels like … bias. And maybe even raw prejudice. But is it generally true? Are atheists just generally smarter people?

One helpful person on Twitter assured me that the majority of Christians today are “poor and ignorant” souls. Well, a very recent study was done by Zuckerman and Miron, and their conclusion may bear out this Twitter opinion. The study says that “our findings support the view that intelligent people are less religious because they are more rational.”[1] Atheists are more rational that believers.

This is a fascinating conclusion. I think it struggles to account for a broad range of contemporary evidence suggesting atheists are generally no smarter than believers.

Let me explain.

First – because recent history is full of influential critical, scientific thinkers who were professing Christians.

Did you know that in the twentieth century, over 65% of Nobel Prize winners in science believed in God? That’s between 1901 and 2000. The majority were Christians, receiving awards for advancements in physics and medicine. Surely these fields require analytical, critical and logical thinking, and these individuals were at the very top of this game?[2]

Throw the net further afield, and the most recent study that explored the relationship between scientists and religious faith shows that over 51% of currently active professional scientists in the last 10 years have a religious belief.[3]

Clearly this data makes a compelling case that it is not a disadvantage to have a religious belief when it comes to an analytical job like a field of science. Actually – as an aside – I would argue that ALL people have a faith position. Everyone. We just disagree on the identity of the real God.

In summary then, I feel the assumption that atheists are smarter than Christians is not borne out in the field of science. In fact, the data might suggest the opposite conclusion, as more religious believers are Nobel Laureates.

Second – because there is evidence that the conclusions of the Zuckerman study were driven by skewed data and (ironically) incorrect correlations between data and their conclusion.

The problems with this recent study are discussed in the video, “Are Atheists More Intelligent”[4] and they make a rational, analytical and critical case. They argue that there is evidence that:

  1. The higher our IQ, the more likely we are to have a blind spot on our personal biases.
  2. The Zuckerman study defines religiosity in a confusing way, focussing on extreme viewpoints rather than the mainstream and conflating different viewpoints. On mainstream religiosity the data does not suggest Christians are disadvantaged regarding intelligence.
  3. The study does not quantify how much more intelligent atheists are compared to religious believers.
  4. Believers outnumber atheists in this study by 9 to 1. The equations they use does not work on this sort of skew in the data, so it generates misleading results that suggests atheists IQ was significantly higher. Yet this is not seen in the data they used. This renders the study results meaningless.
  5. Their measure of intelligence was completely non-standard, and ignored the gold standard measurements – Wechslier Adult Scale of Intelligence (WAIS) and Stanford Binet Test. They didn’t properly correlate religiosity to these gold standards.
  6. When they included university GPA scores, the difference in intelligence between atheists and believers was virtually non-existent and too small to have any practical significance. Did they choose not to include this measure because it adversely affected their misleading conclusions to the study? I wonder.

The folks analysing this study suggest that what is happening here is that Zuckerman et al are actually shoe-horning their own anti-Christian biases into this data.

Third – because there is mounting evidence that Christians in post Christian cultures are smart people.

Inspiring Philosophy also cite another recent study which makes an interesting observation about Christians in post-Christian cultures. In countries like England (where I happen to live), the link between analytical thinking and religiosity reverses. Here, it’s the atheists who tend towards less analytical thought. Why? Because for most people, there is a desire to conform to the mainstream, which may be atheism. The deeper thinkers are the ones who choose a different view on religiosity.

“In cultures where institutional religion is waning and where acceptance of atheism arises from tendencies to conform, it is possible that cognitive reflection may predict the rejection of atheism, a matter for future investigation.”[5]

This seems to suggest that people with low analytic intelligence tend to confirm to the majority view, whatever that is. This study suggests that to be a Christian believer in post-Christian England clearly takes work and the application of intelligence.

Conclusion

Atheists aren’t smarter than Christians. Contrary to the bullying and intimidation that happens online, and the prejudice that is sometimes shown against Christian believers, there is no convincing reason to suggest that higher levels of analytical thinking lead to atheism. So Christians should not feel any need to feel intimidated by those who are simply going along with the crowd, and repeating old atheistic ideas. When you take a good look at them, these ideas really do not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[1] Zuckerman, Miron, et al, The Negative Intelligence-Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, October 2019, 10, quoted in “Are Atheists More Intelligent?,” Inspiring Philosophy, 17th January 2020, accessed 26th January 2020, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WUr58HiCM.

[2] John Lennox, How Many Nobel Prize Winners Believed in God, 23rd January 2019, accessed 26th January 2020, https://www.johnlennox.org/resources/145/how-many-nobel-prize-winners.

[3] Scientists and Belief, Pew Research Center Religion & Public Life, November 5th, 2009, accessed 26th January, 2020, https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/.

[4] “Are Atheists More Intelligent?,” Inspiring Philosophy, 17th January 2020, accessed 26th January 2020, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WUr58HiCM.

[5] Gervais, Will M. et al, Analytical Atheism: A Cross-Culturally Weak and Fickle Phenomenon?, 2017, 272, quoted in “Are Atheists More Intelligent?,” Inspiring Philosophy, 17th January 2020, accessed 26th January 2020, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WUr58HiCM.

Evolution and the Origin of Information Problem

My smartphone pings and the screen lights up. What do you do when you notice a message? Well, if I know the language it’s written in, I can’t help but read the message so I can understand what it is saying to me. What do I assume about this message? “Someone wrote it for a reason.” What thought NEVER crosses my mind? “This message arrived out of the ether without someone having written it first.” I’ve never ever considered that as a possibility. Even automated messages from my phone carrier company Vodaphone…were originally conceived by a person, even if they were sent automatically.

The message was from my wife. “What time are you home tonight for tea?”

It seems to me we make consistent assumptions about the personal source of messages, and this holds in virtually every area of life … except maybe one. Biology.

I was having a conversation with someone recently about the Darwinian theory of evolution and I brought up the problem of the origin of the information that is embedded in life’s biological structures. “Where does this information come from? Doesn’t this matter?” These questions seemed to be no barrier to believing that life occurred in a naturalistic evolutionary way for my friend. The origin of the information did not seem an issue, biological change and adaption of different species was the important thing to him. He seemed happy to accept that life developed naturally, simple single celled organisms all the way up to complex animals with skeletal structures and body plans.

One of my big problems with naturalistic evolutionary models is the origin of information problem. We know so much more than Darwin did in the 1860s. We’ve discovered that life carries a staggering amount of digital information around within it. Instructions like DNA, managing the production of proteins, systems to correct the errors that occur in the copying of the genetic code through natural means, and the hardwired instructions for building a particular animal body plan. This is a problem for evolutionary theory.

I’m not alone in being sceptical about naturalistic evolution as an explanation for the presence of life on this planet. Stephen Meyer puts it like this:

“Whenever we find functional information – whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, etched on a magnetic disc, or produced by an origin-of-life scientist attempting to engineer a self-replicating molecule – and we trace that information back to its ultimate source, invariably we come to a mind, not merely a material process. For this reason, the discovery of digital information in even the simplest living cells indicates the prior activity of a designing intelligence at work in the origin of the first life.”[1]

It seems to me that the issue is not whether genetic mutations and natural selection both occur. They certainly do. There is much natural evidence of both of these phenomena, although mutations tend to have a negative influence on particular beings (one dreads a cancer diagnosis in a family member). No – the question is, can random mutation and natural selection account for the rich volumes of digital information that scientists read and interpret in the various genome projects underway today?

Information theorist Henry Quastler observed this – “The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”[2] Information can’t find it origin in naturalistic processes. This is simply a category error. There are multiple categories of explanation available to us when explaining anything. Something may happen as a result of natural causes – or an agent may cause the event to occur. When it comes to explaining the origin of information, the rational way to go here – is to assume the originating influence of a conscious agent.

Lennox is fond of explaining it this way. To explain the car engine, we might discuss the physics of internal combustion, or we might talk about Henry Ford. Both are rational explanations and both are necessary for accounting for an engine. In terms of life origins, we can therefore expand out the analogy to say this. God no more competes with science as an explanation of life than Henry Ford competes with science as an explanation of the car engine. God’s an Agent-Creator explanation of the universe, not a scientific explanation.[3]

Evolutionary theory has great influence on how people think about and understand the world and its history. There are many different forms of this theory, and not all struggle with the problem I am pointing to in this blog – the origin of information. But naturalistic evolutionary theories – the ones that want to render God unnecessary in nature – certainly do. It’s a headscratcher for sure.

[1] Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, (London:Harper Collins, 2013), 72

[2] Quastler, “The Emergence of Biological Organization,” 16, quoted in Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, (London:Harper Collins, 2013), 72.

[3] John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything, (The Good Book Company, 2019), 384.

1917 as a Metaphor for Christian Commission

This hits me hard. The unwavering commitment shown by Schofield and Blake to get the truth thru to the right people in time. If you are a Christian who has ever felt inadequate in the face of the task of sharing the Christian good news…this story presents a useful analogy.

 

There is truth.

Truth is real. If we say, “There is no truth,” then we are contradicting ourselves because we are making a truth claim even as those words leave our mouths. No – truth is a daily human experience. These soldiers received the truth in the form of army intelligence and the consequences it has on the lives of others.

Christianity is about receiving truthful intel from the person who is responsible for putting people in this universe in the first place. The ultimate General. If we are people who deal in the currency of truth, then he made us that way. So truth exists and must be grounded in him. God.

 

They don’t doubt how vital the truth is.

When the soldiers hear the vital news, these guys buy it. Why? Because it’s their General that’s speaking to them. Their commanding officer’s commanding officer. There’s a look of utter resignation and horror in the officer’s face as he gives them their mission. And the stakes are high. They could not be higher. There’s an urgency in the truth. And these guys are the only ones tasked with acting on it.

What’s happening is – they are being trusted as carriers of the truth. And – if they don’t get the truth through – then a lot of people are going to suffer and die. The General trusts them with this truth – this causes them to grasp the message tightly. Whether or not the General actually believes they will succeed in the mission or not – is irrelevant for them.

That’s not to say Schofield and Blake have doubts. What’s the best way to embark on this mission? What happens if there are details we have been told aren’t quite right? Should we wait for more favourable conditions, or go now?

This is like a metaphor for the truth claims of Christianity. Truth is grounded in Jesus Christ. If the Jesus-message is true, then all people’s eternal lives are at risk. Whether the conditions are favourable or not, those of us commissioned to carry the truth need to get there to explain what is really going on, and what the truthful message is. When he was teaching, Jesus was like a General. Commissioning his friends with the vital truth.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV)

We’ve only got a narrow margin for error here, guys. We need to tell people to aim for the narrow safe gate. It’s the only safe way through for everyone! The stakes are high here.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6, NIV)

 

They don’t allow the chaos of war to make them doubt the relevance of the truth for their audience.

As soon as Schofield and Blake leave the General’s bunker, they are faced with distractions. The film beautifully captures the chaos and horror of war. I use the word beautiful not to describe what it shows, but how it does it which looks and sounds exquisite to me. War is seen as moments of boredom punctuated with periods of utter terror, hope and despair. Periods where progress is made, and times when the pain is so raw that all one can do is weep.

But the machine of war is complex. All these different teams working hard on their assigned duties. Chains of command and reporting structures between people. Yet these two young guys are commanded to cut across all of it. They are told to ignore the machine of war and get to one person who is making the bad strategic decision. Because they accept that whatever is going on, their message is RELEVANT for the survival of many people. And this means they have to do two things.

First – ignore much of the activity around them. The voices that tell them to go a different way or even stay behind and do something else. No – as much as they do work to help other people, and do what they can, they cannot stop. They have a singular mission and they must achieve it or the results will be catastrophic.

Second – they must confidently engage the right people with the right questions. They need to ask the right questions to succeed on their mission. And they’ve got to be selective about who they speak to.

There is so much churn in life around about us today. We have jobs, mortgages, and the planet is in uproar about climate change, political upheavals and the impact of terrorism. It all matters. And yet – there’s a particular truthful message that has got to get through about Jesus. The narrow way. He is the only one that will ultimately get us through. So – we’ve got to avoid letting the complexity of life confuse or distract us. Maybe there is one person who really needs to hear this vital news in our life. Today. Yes we’ve got to be sensitive to the current needs of people in our lives, and we have tasks to perform now. But the ultimately important message about Jesus has to get through to that particular person. It just has. And maybe we are involved in getting the message to them.

 

They don’t allow the confusion of the people around about to cause them to lose a grasp on the truth for themselves.

One of the characters in this story has real skin in the game. His brother is bound to die unless this message gets through. So this message has relevance. Not just for people … but for family. And there are moments in their journey that could rightfully cause them to stop and to give up. To go back the way they came and stop carrying the message. But – they don’t stop. They keep going. Because this truth isn’t just about saving others. It is vital for their own lives and futures too.

Christianity is similar. Being a follower of Jesus is about being the carrier of vital news. Whatever happens around us – this remains true. However much life has tried to blow the stuffing out of us, we remain carriers of the good news. It is in us. God himself lives within us. And so yes, we may need to rest and heal, but then afterwards we must continue our mission. It is of utmost importance that we do this.

 

They keep going even though they feel inadequate to the task.

The whole point of this mission is that it is a launch out into the unknown. No one would feel adequate in these circumstances.

Jesus Christ commissioned his friends in a similar way to the General commissioning Schofield and Blake.

“Go out and train everyone you meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this …” (Matthew 28:18-20, The Msg)

No one would feel adequate for this task. But Jesus is better than a military General ever could be. Because he joins us on our perilous journey.

Jesus isn’t just a great teacher trying to add useful helpful ideas that people can benefit from. He has a lifesaving message that needs to get thru.

“This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.” (John 3:16-18, The Msg)

The “Faith” of Dracula

In their new adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss have said they continued to respect the Christian themes that run through the original novel. The Count still cringes at the sight of the cross, and the church is central.  By the way – if you are thinking of watching the new Dracula series – be warned that it is not for the feint hearted. There are some very gruesome scenes in there.

I am a fan of Gatiss and Moffat. But I must say, while I agree that they have included Christian characters and situations, I don’t think they really understand what Christianity is. They may claim they are building on Christian history in this story. I’m skeptical. Tho I agree they absolutely are building on the tradition of horror cinema from the past 40 years.

One of their most interesting characters is Sister Agatha, played by Dolly Wells. She appears to be a snarky and disillusioned Catholic Nun with an analytic mind. I enjoyed the way she worked to outwit the infamous Count. The story, particularly in the first episode, is masterfully crafted by Moffat and Gatiss. BUT- I was bemused by their understanding of the word “faith.”

At one point in the first episode, Sister Agatha rolls her eyes at the seeming naivety of the other sisters in her religious order. “Have faith,” they encouraged her. Agatha’s reply is piercing.

“Faith is a sleeping draft for children and simpletons. What we must have is a plan.”

The phrase “sleeping draught” comes from Stoker’s original novel, and I think it refers to the shot of whisky or strong spirit that people may take to help them fall sleep at night. What Agatha is saying is that faith is dangerous because it lulls us to sleep. Faith causes us to lose our creative edge, and that is dangerous for intelligent people who are true problem solvers. If we are wise, we will avoid religious faith.

I would suggest that this shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of Christian faith. While it’s dramatically powerful to show Sister Agatha as a disillusioned Nun, to hear her confusion about Christianity is – well – rather odd. It’s the current post-Christian cultural confusion about the roots of Western society … placed into a devout character in a historical setting. That’s weird and anachronistic to me.

 

What’s Faith?

Well – it’s not a complicated or even a particularly religious idea. Faith simply means – confidence, trust and reliance.

 

What’s the Misunderstanding Today?

The problem is, our culture has swallowed the idea that there is a disconnect between faith and evidence and reason. In fact, people today (including the writers of Dracula) think faith is the OPPOSITE of reason. We get that from Sister Agatha. When we learn about something, the need for faith vanishes. But more than that, our culture dismisses Christianity because it they don’t think it contains anything knowable…the need of faith betrays the pointlessness of religion. “One needs faith in religious or moral claims because there is no knowledge that these claims are true, no evidence either way for them.”[1] If that’s the sort of religion that Sister Agatha is embroiled in, then no wonder she is disillusioned and wants to run from it. It’s pointless and, in the face of a cunning enemy, highly dangerous. But you need to know – this is not – and never has been – what Christianity is about.

Quite the opposite. If “faith” is really about confidence, trust and reliance then in those terms, knowledge is absolutely crucial. Why? Because we cannot trust something or someone we do not know anything about. Knowledge is essential in the building of that trust! Do you see the misunderstanding about faith in the words of Sister Agatha?

 

Replying to Sister Agatha

Is faith about being simple, and not knowing?

Not at all. Faith is about knowledge. The Greek word “notitia” refers to the CONTENT of faith. This is learning about how to develop a Christian understanding of the world, and what the Bible teaches. I’ve spent many years on this task, and there is so MUCH to know and contend for. In fact, it inspired this blog. The Jude in the New Testament wrote:

“I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”[2]

Clearly there is much to KNOW and apply in life. And more than that, we must proactively stand up for this in culture around us.

Is faith about turning off our rational faculties?

In my experience, the opposite is involved when growing in faith. Why? Partly because of “notitia,” the knowing element. But it is also because of a second element.

Faith is about agreement, or “assensus.” Personal agreement to live this way. This means that its not enough to rationally grasp and know the contents of Christianity. We also have to ACCEPT this teaching as true.

There may be very good reasons why we may not want to do that. Maybe the teaching is hard! Why? Because it challenges some deeply held patterns of behaviour in my life that are wrong, but I do not want to give up. I know its right to change. I just don’t want to. Or, maybe my prior experience has left me struggling to accept what Christianity says. If I grew up in an abusive home environment, accepting God as father may be really hard for me!

Is faith is about becoming passive and not acting?

Again – absolutely not. The Greek word “fiducia” is used to describe this in faith terms. We have to wilfully choose to commit to, and partner with God in every aspect of our lives. Christianity isn’t a set of abstract terms. Its actually an engagement with a God who we can know. And its about actually having a life that reflects what Christianity is.

 

So – does faith involve an absence of rationality, engagement and action? Absolutely not – it requires the most from us in all three areas!

 

How would I reply to Sister Agatha? “We don’t need faith … we need a plan,” she said. Can you see now that a proper understanding of faith involves gathering all the resources for approaching life and its challenges? (I’m assuming this also applies to the undead but I’ve not tried it) And even more than that, it is about facing these challenges together with God, not on our own.

 

“To trust Him is not a leap in the dark, but it is a venture none the less. It is a venture of courage and not of despair, of insight and not of bewilderment.”

P. T. Forsyth, The Creative Theology of P. T. Forsyth

 

[1] J. P. Moreland and Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith Overcoming Barriers to Trusting in God, (Downers Grove:IVP, 2008), 18.

[2] Jude 3.

 

Is it “Special Pleading” to Propose an Eternal God?

The Twitter conversation was a fun and polite exchange of opposing views.

We had been talking about “fine-tuning,” the observation that many coincidences have occurred to set the initial conditions and the subsequent nature of the universe to allow life to exist. I pointed out that there are three options to understand this observation. Either, the universe simply HAS to be this way by necessity, or we just lucked out by chance, or it was designed to be this way intentionally. As he homed in on his own explanation for fine-tuning, my friend seemed to like the idea of a multiverse. I think he was saying this:

“An increasing number of universe would give the probabilistic resources to allow our particular universe to eventually appear. We just happen to live in a life permitting universe. We know the universe exists, things happen by chance and the idea of a multiverse is rational. A God that we cannot prove either way is just not a good explanation of the universe.”

I pointed out a problem with this idea. In the same way that cosmologists tell us that our universe required precise initial conditions to form, a multiverse would also require its own set of precise initial conditions. And so the fine-tuning problem returns. Who or what fine-tuned the multiverse to eventually form a life permitting universe? The idea that the cosmos created itself from nothing is just an incoherent idea. “Not if the multiverse is eternal,” he replied. “In that case, it has always existed and so there are no initial conditions to be concerned with. The universe never had any.”

I replied. “But you are suggesting the existence of an actual infinite in nature. The problem is, natural infinities cannot exist.” He shot back. “But Stuart, you have claimed God created the universe and he is eternal. Your God would therefore be infinite. You have just claimed that actual infinities do not exist! You are therefore engaged in a special pleading fallacy, Stuart. So, I don’t find your argument convincing at all.” I explained why God must be a special case in this discussion, and then we parted on good terms. As I reflected, a few things occurred to me about our exchange of views.

First – what actually is this informal fallacy that he leveled at me – special pleading? We are at risk of this type of fallacy when we apply principles or rules to other people, yet refuse to also apply them to an area of interest to ourselves. But there’s a big caveat to this statement. If we provide sufficient reason to support the exception we are making, we aren’t guilty of the special pleading fallacy.[1] Usually people who fall into special pleading have simply got a blind spot when it comes to themselves, and they don’t even attempt to formulate an argument for a special case to be made! It’s laziness. As I thought about our conversation, it occurred to me that I had tried very hard indeed to explain my understanding of God and why he can be eternal while natural infinities do not exist. I sure wasn’t being lazy as we spoke.

So – I would ask the question – who is it that may be guilty of special pleading in our discussion?

Second – there is abundant evidence that the Universe is not eternal, but rather has a finite age. I summarise some of this evidence in this blog. While for many centuries human’s have assumed the universe is eternally existing, evidence was gathered in the 20th century that point to the conclusion that this is not the case. It is generally inferred from the data that the age of the universe is around 14 billion years old. The universe is not eternally existing. It had a beginning called the big bang.

Third – it is generally agreed among cosmologists that any universe, or multiverse, which is expanding must therefore have a beginning. We infer that the universe is expanding based on the cosmological data we gather. The multiverse is simply a theory at this point, but the working theories around bubble universes would suppose an expanding multiverse and so the same rule would apply. The multiverse would not be eternal, it would also have a beginning.

Fourth – my friend seems to assume that God’s nature is comparable to the nature of objects and beings that we find within nature. And so, when I say natural infinities do not exist, I am inconsistent by failing to applying these arguments to an eternal God who I claim is infinite. But this seems a very odd thing for my friend to claim! It makes me think that his view of God is more akin to the mythical Greek gods, Thor, Zeus and Apollo, than the Christian conception of God I’ve been talking about.

A powerful being who inhabits the universe like we do is not the Christian conception of God at all. Because God created the universe, he is therefore immaterial, timeless and space-less. He would by definition exist outside of nature, and so he is not subject to the constraints within nature. That is, unless he chose to enter nature and visit with people as a human being. Also – as he is eternal, then unlike the universe which does have a starting point, by definition God does not have a point of creation.

 

Conclusion

SO – is it special pleading to appeal to God as the eternal/infinite designer?

No, because God is by definition the ultimate exception to all the rules that operate within the universe he caused. He defined and set these rules in motion. To suggest that he is constrained by these rules himself is to misunderstand the Christian conception of God. I’m not dealing in double standards here. Rather, I’m saying you cannot compare apples and oranges. They are two very different things. God is necessarily a special case in our discussion of nature.

 

Of course, my friend may disagree that this is a sufficient reason for treating God as a special case, so I am special pleading. But in doing so, he seems to be stuck with the idea of an eternal multiverse. Were he to stay there, he would distance himself from the most reasonable inferences made by most scientists today. Namely, that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it is not eternal. But then he is making an exception of his idea.  Does he have a sufficient reason for doing so? If not, it may just be his thinking that is logically fallacious.

[1] T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 3rd edition, 122-123, summarised.