« Your Servant, the Dog
Main
Iron Age IIB Potsherds from the Temple Mount »
October 20, 2007
Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
The Templeton Foundation asked a group of intellectuals if the universe has a purpose. You can read their varying responses at the Templeton website. Answers range from "no" to "certainly" with "unlikely," "perhaps," "not sure," and "I hope so" making up the muddled middle.
The explanations for some of these answers seem weird in the extreme. For example, Jane Goodall answered "certainly" but seemed confused about what that purpose was. "Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed," she said. Some how there is a purpose; but Goodall has no idea what it is.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said he was "not sure" but nonetheless wrote this in his explanation:
So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.
That sure sounds like a "no" rather a "not sure" to me. At best, it is a very weak "not sure" based only on a vague possibility rather than a probability much above zero.
And Nancey Murphy, who answered "Indeed," concluded her discussion with this paragraph:
So while the study of the natural world cannot show that it has a purpose–the fine-tuning is not an adequate argument for the existence of God–it is indeed indirectly relevant to the question of the universe's purpose.
"Indirectly relevant?" If "fine-tuning is not an adequate argument for the existence of God," (and it isn't) than how can it have anything to do with purpose, particularly when she begins her answer with,
But it is not possible to know that (a purpose -des) by looking at the natural world alone. The question of purpose is closely related to the question of whether something like the God of Western monotheistic religions can be known to exist by studying the order, goodness, and grandeur of the universe.
She does tell us that the answer to the question of purpose is just too complicated to spell out, presumable within the confines of the Templeton format, but it has something to do with "detailed comparisons of competing traditions on the basis of the support they draw from their own peculiar kinds of evidence." But exactly what is that evidence and how is it more persuasive and/or different from evidence from the "natural world." These traditions exist in the natural world. If we can't look at the "natural world," of which these traditions are a part, where can we look? And do "competing traditions" really have "their own peculiar kinds of evidence?" Is she saying that some traditions have their own facts?
The Templeton Foundations didn't ask me, but I thought I'd try an answer the question anyway. No, the universe does not have a purpose. It is the result of a random process even if, within that randomness, significant consistencies and structures are discernable. Some of those consistencies and structures make life possible; none of them makes any particular life form, including intelligent life, the kind that worries about purpose, inevitable.
But there is purpose in the universe. We give it purpose. This purpose arises from our own biologically structured concerns for our family, friends and loved ones'; for our countries, the earth, the universe and, of course, for ourselves. On an individual basis, this purpose can be noble or wretched. When driven by an ethic that looks only to the self and the self's in-group, it is nearly always wretched. When driven by an ethic that looks beyond those with whom we most closely identify to the whole of life, that purpose can be wonderful indeed. And it is exactly here, in the realm of ethics that the purpose in the universe is neither arbitrary nor relative.
I do agree Christian De Duve who not only said "No" but also noted this, "I should mention first that this is a loaded question, with several hidden implications."
That is why I chose to answer two, not too closely related, questions. First, does the universe have a purpose? No. Second, is there purpose in the universe? Yes, all the purpose we want to give it.
Via Sandwalk and Pharyngula
Posted by Duane Smith at October 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2292
Comments
I agree with you, Duane.
Posted by: Aydin at October 22, 2007 8:39 AM
I had a similar reaction to it, and posted something on my own blog on the distinction between meaning and explanation. I doubt that, however elegant the equation may be that ultimately unifies the laws of physics, anyone will find it gives their lives meaning.
I am not persuaded that the available evidence proves that existence has no purpose - how could any human being living in our time hope to demonstrate such a thing about the nature of existence? - but I agree with you that meaning is something that we give to our lives by living them in meaningful ways, and not something that depends on how or even whether one can explain the universe in which we live our meaningful or meaningless lives.
Posted by: James McGrath at October 23, 2007 3:21 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.