The multiverse or Why produce a simple solution to a problem, when a complicated one will do?

In their attempt to escape the implications of the fact that the universe we exist in is improbable, some physicists (and others) have reified the notion of possible worlds into that of multiverses. One example is provided by Martin Rees in his Simonyi Lecture, Oxford, 2003:

In the same way that we might marvel at the chances that the Earth supports life, we might marvel at the chances that the laws of physics support such a complex universe.

One possible answer, which is currently purely speculative, is that there may be infinite universes – or several universes packed into the same space in such a way that we are unaware of them because of an extra dimension that we cannot perceive. In the same way that, with zillions of stars, it is not surprising to find at least one biofriendly planet, if there had been zillions of big bangs it would not be surprising to find at least one complex universe. 'This is not metaphysics, but science – albeit speculative science'.

One wonders what happened to that principle so beloved of scientists, occam's razor? We have been told by physicists, mathematicians and others for decades that the simplest solution is best. Now that they fear this might let God in, some seek to avoid this difficulty by reference to what we might call 'occam's snake oil'. After all, why produce a simple solution to a problem, when a complicated one will do?

Is this, to quote William Grassie, 'the 21st century equivalent of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin'?

Atheism and the Simonyi Chair at Oxford

In 1995 Oxford University accepted money from Charles Simonyi (previously of Microsoft) to establish the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science. It's first holder (to 2008) was Richard Dawkins. The current holder is Marcus du Sautoy. Both are declared atheists. This latter fact is not coincidental, because this professorship is actually a chair in atheism. It's just that Simonyi and his friends at Oxford didn't have the guts or the honesty to admit that this is what it was. They sell this position as one which has the commendable aim of helping people understand science. But actually, its purpose is to mislead people into drawing unscientific conclusions concerning matters outside the sphere of the natural sciences, on the misunderstanding that the natural sciences can address questions such as the existence of God. It is, to be more precise, a Professorship for Promoting Atheist Category Errors.