Does the Universe Have a Purpose?

[Charlemagne_III]

One might begin to answer the question by asking whether, if there is a great Mind behind the universe, as Einstein believed, that Mind would have perceived some purpose in creating the universe: in other words, the purpose to provide in the first stage of the existing universe that “ground” from which the later stages of the universe must evolve.

Assuming that no such Mind exists, then no such purpose would exist, and therefore no such universe would exist. But the universe does exist. And, we are told, it was indeed created.

Therefore, is the universe hollow, as de Koninck asks, or is it pregnant with purpose?

 

[Bradski]

If the universe has a purpose, what is it?

I’ve made something for you, Charles. You can’t get to it. You can’t gain any information about it. You can’t even see it.

Does it serve any purpose as far as you are concerned?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ve made something for you, Charles. You can’t get to it. You can’t gain any information about it. You can’t even see it.

Does it serve any purpose as far as you are concerned?

Yes. The gift is meant to keep me searching for it rather than to believe it isn’t there.

On the other side I hope I will get to it, gain information about it, and see it.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ve made something for you, Charles. You can’t get to it. You can’t gain any information about it. You can’t even see it.

Does it serve any purpose as far as you are concerned?

Not Charles here; but in my view it might serve a purpose just knowing that you made it for me (and for so many others), and I would thank you for doing so. Further, perhaps together–you and I–this might make it possible for me to gain some information about it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If the universe can be likened to a house, it makes sense that, according to an intelligently designed plan, first the foundation should be poured. Hence the first billions of years in which the elements were formed and scattered throughout the universe. Then you have to have walls floors and walls (suns and their planets) after several more billions of years. Then you’d have to have occupants for the house … living things … us, for example after a few more billions of years. It turns out that everything has been created not helter skelter, but for a purpose. It surely cannot be the business of science to discover that purpose, but rather for philosophy and theology, which deals with first causes and teleology.

Nature did not create itself. Nothing comes from nothing. As Voltaire asked, Why should something exist, rather than nothing? Purpose pervades all. The only approach to purpose is through wonder (philosophy) and worship (religion).

By comparison, science is pedestrian.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So purpose is subject to a subjective awareness of purpose?

No. Awareness isn’t the deciding factor, intent is. If you want to argue that intent always implies awareness that’s fine, but you may not characterize my point as being contingent on awareness.

When the human heart is beating, it’s purpose is to keep us alive.

Does the heart has an awareness of its purpose?

Does a monkey have an awareness of the purpose of its beating heart?

In the colloquial sense, I have no problem using that kind of language. In the philosophical sense I have already told you that I deny that the heart has that kind of “once and for all” purpose. That the heart beating does actually keep us alive is not the same thing as the heart beat having the purpose of keeping us alive. I submit that making this leap is a kind of is/ought fallacy. If you want to demonstrate that the heart actually has the purpose of keeping us alive, you’ll need to do more than simply assert it.

 

[Bradski]

On the other side I hope I will get to it, gain information about it, and see it.

Ok, we are agreed. It serves no purpose here. Which I assume is what is you meant by your question. And the only purpose that you think it serves in heaven is…well, you can look at it.

 

[Bradski]

Not Charles here; but in my view it might serve a purpose just knowing that you made it for me (and for so many others), and I would thank you for doing so. Further, perhaps together–you and I–this might make it possible for me to gain some information about it.

I obviously told Charles that I made something for him so that he could have the opportunity of answering the question posed. But the scenario is more thus:

‘There may be someone that created something for me of which I am not aware, which I cannot access and which I will never be able to gain any information about whatsoever’.

I’m not sure it is even remotely possible to assign purpose to that which you know nothing about.

I’m reminded of a poster I encountered years ago who was something of a young earth creationist. He stated that God had put the stars in the firmament so that we’d have something to look at with our telescopes.

Charles wants to compare the universe with a house. Implying that this is where we live. Ye gods and little fishes, there is so much of this tiny rock that is completely inhospitable, let alone the rest of our rather miserable solar system.

And the size of the system is too large too imagine. We might, just might, be able to access some of it at some time. But then we are stuck in the outer suburbs of a galaxy which we will definately not be able to access. Some of what we see isn’t even there any more.

And then we have the observable universe, which is what I assume Charles means. Most of which is dissapearing even as you read this. If we actually manage tomsurvive as a species, then whatever part of the galaxy we find outselves in, eventually it will all dissapear. There will be nothing ‘out there’ at all. And people want to suggest it servs a purpose.

And incidentally, the probable size of the universe itself (everything we can’t see) could be over 250 times what we can see. And if space is flat, then that number becomes infinite:

‘According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). A flat universe is an infinite universe; thus the size of the universe is infinite.’ space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

And yeah, some people think that it’s all for us. I find it difficult not to laugh out loud…

 

[inocente]

If the universe has a purpose, what is it?

If the universe has no purpose, why did it come to exist?

Can science answer either of these questions?

If not, is science severely limited in how it serves our need to know?

Can philosophy or theology answer either of these questions?

Can it answer them more fully than science can ever hope to answer them?

If science, philosophy, and theology cannot answer these questions, what then?

Shall we then just wonder at why we wonder?

Your thoughts?

Modern science is based on a strict division from metaphysics, so answering that kind of question involves metaphysical interpretation of scientific theories.

Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in our galaxy, which is one of millions upon millions of galaxies. The age of the universe is estimated at 13.8 billion years, while Homo sapiens have only been around for 200 thousand years.

So humans occupy a vanishingly tiny part of the universe and have only done so for a fleetingly small part of its history. The universe is so big and so old that nothing noticed our coming, and nothing will notice our going.

The metaphysical interpretation seems to call for great humility - how arrogant we are to even imagine we could know if there’s a purpose, let alone understand it if we did. Maybe we should try to stick to smaller questions such as the purpose of our own lives.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Not to hear atheists talk. The universe is so large and we are so nothing in it.

This in spite of the fact that the universe cannot think but we can.

I would argue that size does not dictate importance. A star may be large, but it knows neither love or contemplation. If the space around us were not much larger than us we would have nowhere to go. That does not mean the space is more important than us. If the universe were not seemingly endless we should feel cramped.

If such a vast universe puts us in awe and makes us feel small, imagine how much greater is the one who created it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. Awareness isn’t the deciding factor, intent is. If you want to argue that intent always implies awareness that’s fine, but you may not characterize my point as being contingent on awareness.

In the colloquial sense, I have no problem using that kind of language. In the philosophical sense I have already told you that I deny that the heart has that kind of “once and for all” purpose. That the heart beating does actually keep us alive is not the same thing as the heart beat having the purpose of keeping us alive. I submit that making this leap is a kind of is/ought fallacy. If you want to demonstrate that the heart actually has the purpose of keeping us alive, you’ll need to do more than simply assert it.

What other purpose would the heart have than to keep us alive?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I obviously told Charles that I made something for him so that he could have the opportunity of answering the question posed. But the scenario is more thus:

‘There may be someone that created something for me of which I am not aware, which I cannot access and which I will never be able to gain any information about whatsoever’.

I’m not sure it is even remotely possible to assign purpose to that which you know nothing about.

I’m reminded of a poster I encountered years ago who was something of a young earth creationist. He stated that God had put the stars in the firmament so that we’d have something to look at with our telescopes.

Charles wants to compare the universe with a house. Implying that this is where we live. Ye gods and little fishes, there is so much of this tiny rock that is completely inhospitable, let alone the rest of our rather miserable solar system.

And the size of the system is too large too imagine. We might, just might, be able to access some of it at some time. But then we are stuck in the outer suburbs of a galaxy which we will definately not be able to access. Some of what we see isn’t even there any more.

And then we have the observable universe, which is what I assume Charles means. Most of which is dissapearing even as you read this. If we actually manage tomsurvive as a species, then whatever part of the galaxy we find outselves in, eventually it will all dissapear. There will be nothing ‘out there’ at all. And people want to suggest it servs a purpose.

And incidentally, the probable size of the universe itself (everything we can’t see) could be over 250 times what we can see. And if space is flat, then that number becomes infinite:

‘According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). A flat universe is an infinite universe; thus the size of the universe is infinite.’ space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

And yeah, some people think that it’s all for us. I find it difficult not to laugh out loud…

More scientism here, as if science tells us all and only what we need to know.

That’s like writing an essay.

As Chesterton would likely put it, the whole of Creation is a fantastic story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Life is an adventure that is going to end as a comedy, a tragedy, or a tragicomedy, or a problem play. For all of us it is at one time or another a problem play, but it is still an adventure. Is the universe our temporary home, as Christians would have it, or is it all there is with no ultimate explanation of why it is all there is, and with only the lurking suspicion that life is ultimately meaningless and absurd.

No wonder at all why the suicide rate among atheists is predictably higher than among theists. And no wonder that Nietzsche ended his days in a madhouse.

Atheism offers no adventure … only the sure fate of nothingness at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So humans occupy a vanishingly tiny part of the universe and have only done so for a fleetingly small part of its history. The universe is so big and so old that nothing noticed our coming, and nothing will notice our going.

The metaphysical interpretation seems to call for great humility - how arrogant we are to even imagine we could know if there’s a purpose, let alone understand it if we did. Maybe we should try to stick to smaller questions such as the purpose of our own lives.

God will notice our coming and our going. For that we owe humility and thanksgiving.

 

[meltzerboy]

More scientism here, as if science tells us all and only what we need to know.

That’s like writing an essay.

As Chesterton would likely put it, the whole of Creation is a fantastic story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Life is an adventure that is going to end as a comedy, a tragedy, or a tragicomedy, or a problem play. For all of us it is at one time or another a problem play, but it is still an adventure. Is the universe our temporary home, as Christians would have it, or is it all there is with no ultimate explanation of why it is all there is, and with only the lurking suspicion that life is ultimately meaningless and absurd.

No wonder at all why the suicide rate among atheists is predictably higher than among theists. And no wonder that Nietzsche ended his days in a madhouse.

Atheism offers no adventure … only the sure fate of nothingness at the end of the tunnel.

Not only does religion, as distinct from atheism, offer a bright light at the end of the tunnel, but also lights which are somewhat dimmer within the tunnel.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What other purpose would the heart have than to keep us alive?

You’ve asserted several times before that there is some “need” for there to be a purpose, and here you heavily imply that the heart must have some purpose. Can you explain why you think it is impossible for the heart to be without an inherent once-and-for-all purpose?

 

[meltzerboy]

You’ve asserted several times before that there is some “need” for there to be a purpose, and here you heavily imply that the heart must have some purpose. Can you explain why you think it is impossible for the heart to be without an inherent once-and-for-all purpose?

Do you believe the heart is similar to the appendix in this regard? Don’t all of our organs have an inherent purpose? Why else would we have them? You don’t have to necessarily be religious to believe this: biology and evolutionary psychology make similar claims.

Am I missing some broader philosophical argument you are making?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not only does religion, as distinct from atheism, offer a bright light at the end of the tunnel, but also lights which are somewhat dimmer within the tunnel.

Like all those twinkling stars!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you explain why you think it is impossible for the heart to be without an inherent once-and-for-all purpose?

Perhaps you could clarify the question?

The heart can be viewed both as a physical organ and as a spiritual organ.

In the first case, it has a physical function.

In the second case, as a metaphor for that part of us which desires, it has a spiritual function.

Even scientism cannot deny that the spiritual heart exists, that the desire to know and love more than we can see with the physical eye really does exist; hence the power of imagination and love to discover what we desire to know by love, what we cannot see with the physical eye … God himself.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Do you believe the heart is similar to the appendix in this regard? Don’t all of our organs have an inherent purpose? Why else would we have them? You don’t have to necessarily be religious to believe this: biology and evolutionary psychology make similar claims.

Am I missing some broader philosophical argument you are making?

Science sort-of makes such claims, with philosophers of science frequently finding the use of such terms to be inappropriate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

I would argue that the use of “purpose” in science is the same kind of colloquial use I indicated that I was comfortable with. That is to say, its fine when used in situations where the distinction between “purpose” and “simple function” doesn’t matter.

If a scientist were to say to me "my paper found that the purpose of such-and-such a gland was X, therefore we have a moral obligation to do Y, I would definitely call him out. That would be an instance of taking a discipline where purpose is used as a kind of shorthand, and applying it to a discipline with much more strict definitions and implications of “purpose.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Perhaps you could clarify the question?

The heart can be viewed both as a physical organ and as a spiritual organ.

In the first case, it has a physical function.

In the second case, as a metaphor for that part of us which desires, it has a spiritual function.

Even scientism cannot deny that the spiritual heart exists, that the desire to know and love more than we can see with the physical eye really does exist; hence the power of imagination and love to discover what we desire to know by love, what we cannot see with the physical eye … God himself.

Why are you even talking about the metaphorical heart at all? We were strictly speaking about the physical organ before this.