In Puebla Mexico, the newly dubbed Ciudad de las ideas, (City of Ideas) the third annual Festival Internacional de Mentes Brillantes (International Festival of Great Minds) took place this past weekend. Along with two other theologians, I was assigned a daunting and fascinating task: to argue about whether the universe has a purpose. On one side stood Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley and Michael Shermer -- respectively, the biologist and scourge of religion, the science writer and the editor of Skeptic magazine. In my corner of the sky were William Lane Craig, scholar and author, and Doug Geivatt, author and professor at Biola University. We said yes, they said no.
Now, you might be thinking the proper answer is "no one can know." That might be so, but none of us was willing to let it rest there. At first glance we could all agree that the universe has a purpose the way the kitchen has a meal -- it offers the ingredients. You can make purpose in your life from the raw materials that the universe gives you. But the question was not plural -- not does the universe contains purposes, but does the universe have a purpose?
The festival brings together thinkers and writers from all over the world. How eclectic? At dinner the first night, I sat across from David Buss, expert in human sexuality, Phil Zombardo, psychologist who has written extensively about evil and heroism, and at my side was Henry Markram, a scientist from Lausanne who is painstakingly building a computer model of the brain. He spoke captivatingly about the degree to which our senses are only the beginning of interpreting the reality we see; when someone receives a retinal transplant, they first see nothing, then white and only gradually, when the brain begins to interpret the signals, do they see shapes, colors, the world. So by recreating the brain, building it from the ground up, Markram and his team hope to understand how we see the world. There was much more to the conversation, but he stayed away from the purpose of the universe. We agreed that the brain, however, might be the universe's way of understanding itself.
The festival is the remarkable brainchild of Andreas Roemer, who in addition to his other accomplishments is an entrepreneur of ideas. He succeeded in interesting Ricardo Salinas, the businessman who is one of the wealthiest men in the world, in his dream. Not only did Salinas underwrite the festival, he attended all the events, including the meals, and appeared to be genuinely interested in the exchanges. It seemed to me an ideal collaboration of vision and resource.
And the universe debate? Everyone was vigorous but it was mostly high toned. It is true that Richard Dawkins (who had given a witty and combative talk the day before ridiculing religion) derided people of faith as childish and lazy, while scientists rolled up their sleeves to figure out the world, but it was in the larger context of religion being not thoughtful but wishful. He also, along with Shermer and Ridley, made the point that the ascription of purpose to the universe from our little corner could be seen as arrogant. (More in a moment on how the remarkable Sean Stephenson turned that argument on its head.) Shermer, characteristically forceful, gave practical advice on how to inject purpose into one's life without the unnecessary illusion of religious belief. Ridley was urbane and persuasive, arguing that the existence of mystery was not equal to purpose and the fact that there are things we cannot explain certainly does not require God or faith to rush in and fill the gap.
Michio Kaku, the physicist and futurist, Amir Aczel, mathematician and writer, Jerome Friedman, Nobel laureate physicist and Daniel Schacter, cognitive scientist and memory expert, all weighed in. Essentially they argued no one could know, and it depended on how one defined purpose.
My own argument was first: The universe is delicately poised on nothingness; change one of many cosmological constants by just a fraction and our world could not exist. In other words, it is extravagantly improbable for everything to be balanced perfectly for existence and yet it is so. Perhaps it was meant to be so. Moreover, it is astonishing that the universe has laws we can actually grasp. Indeed, the very practice of science presupposes there is some purpose, aim or meaning to all this. How can we investigate or understand nonsense or meaninglessness? I also argued that reason is not the only tool for investigation of reality. Our most basic beliefs are the rock upon which our reason is built, not the product of it.
My compatriots, Craig and Geivett, hammered home the point that if there is a God the universe has a meaning, but if not, we would agree with our opponents that it was empty and doomed. They also carefully marshaled arguments for why God was the best explanation of the phenomenon of life. These included everything from the mystery of consciousness (how do you get self awareness if everything is just matter, stuff, the same as a rock) to C.S. Lewis' claim that if we have yearnings that are not satisfied in this world, it is possible that is because this world is not the only one.
Sean Stephenson, a speaker at the conference who has struggled with tremendous physical disabilities in his life but worked in The White House and has become a renowned inspiration speaker, asked a question from the floor: Is it not arrogant, he said, to imagine that something as puny as a human being can have a purpose, but to assert that something as grand as the universe cannot? Nobody answered this powerful point and we were delighted to have such an eloquent ally.
Who won the debate? Well, you can judge it for yourself now that it is posted on the festival site and on YouTube. The short answer is: the audience. It involved people who care passionately, believe deeply and expressed their beliefs clearly. Bravo to the festival, its organizers and attendees. Universe aside, it more than validated its purpose.
Here is the original english video of the debate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8
Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Dawkins on militant atheism | Video on TED.com
Richard Dawkins | Science | guardian.co.uk
David Wolpe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens: The Great God ...
“the brain...might be the universe's way of understanding itself.â€
One can make a fantastic meal or a dog’s dinner. Which brain shall we use? By the former we would be selecting that which gives a pre-determined result; that which is the most desirable. Pre-determination is the basis for religious, not scientific, belief .
“by recreating the brain...his team hope to understand how we see the world.â€
Based on whose perceptions – a physicist’s, a poet’s, a schizophrenic’s? Which is the correct one, and why?
"Is it not arrogant...to imagine that something as puny as a human being can have a purpose, but to assert that something as grand as the universe cannot?"
What is his rational basis for presuming size is a/the criterion?
Regarding the animal food chain, the strongest will devour the weakest to survive and generate.
Assume there are ten animals in the chain. At any point on the scale only two animals are necessary for the survival of one, so why have ten? What is the purpose? Indeed, why such diversity in the totality of nature? I would suggest this is more an indication of lack of intelligent design, on both religious and laws-of-nature bases.
Scientists and theologians – never the twain shall meet.
“it is extravagantly improbable for everything to be balanced perfectly for existence and yet it is so.â€
A house could be regarded as such by way of analogy. However, if the house is demolished, it still exists but in a different form. It is not a house, it is rubble; but it hasn't disappeared.
Biological has purpose of self-propagation, no meaning.
Sentient invents meaning.
You mention the universe, as it is, being "extravagantly improbable." Maybe, maybe not. If it is, then that is the anthropic principle -- we see things as they exist because the circumstances allow us to exist, no purpose necessary.
This question deserves an answer - the arrogance is on both sides. We are arrogant to assume that we or the universe has a purpose in the first place. Until there is evidence for either us or the universe to have a purpose, the assertion of purpose for either is meaningless.
If you want to make assertions like this - show evidence! There is no evidence for any purpose beyond what each of us makes for ourselves - the universe apprears to be without "meaning" - trees don't have a purpose beyond their biological function - and neither do we.
I see this question as a red herring - it is answered by the "god of the gaps" argument, I think.
the religious see themselves as the center of that universe and chosen people.
take your pick between these two or do something different. find your own path and discover for yourself. dont let others tell you what is and what is not. they do not know but pretend to know.
both sides want to be known for knowing. ie ego thing.
the infinite hides its truths in a very secret and safe place. within you. the last place most look for answers into these mysteries of life.
I suggest we make the best of it.
We're programmed to want that. Movies and fantastic religions are a result.
Too many people in the world think "better for ME" is the be all and end all, no matter what the cost to others.
What is it about humans that we need a "daddy" figure to look up to?
I'm of the belief it is simply that most of us are afraid of the dark.
Its the thing that is holding us back: The "it" is the Cultural Meme called: RELIGION
In America, religion is: Chris.tianity
Chris.tianity is flailing into the Gaps because there is no where left for it to run. It has to scream louder and louder, and attack science to slow its inevitable demise.
Chris.tianity is INCOMPATIBLE with human survival, because human survival at this point will need every bit of scientific innovation we can muster to solve the one problem that is unavoidable:
Oil Depletion
I've seen lots of dead people, and we're all headed to the same place, and that's just the brutal and hopeless truth. I'm happy to have existed, but unless someone has evidence I haven't seen, I'm going to keep assuming that I'm not that special, and this universe though wondrous, isn't all that remarkable. Everything I see and have experienced, and everything I know about life through science, tells me we just happen to be here. No flowery words necessary.
What is outside of this universe and how it all began, are great questions that I'm very interested in, but I don't expect us to find anything that gives my life or the universe a purpose for being here. And even if that did happen, our lives would still be just as arbitrary and ultimately meaningless.
Why can't we just enjoy life and be happy with what we have and that we're here, and work toward a world where everyone else can enjoy life as well? If there is a purpose to life, that's it. Doing anything less is a waste of a life.
But what if parts could order themselves?
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/23/self.assembly.nano.rotors
If our being here is strictly mechanistic.
If we do not have free-will, then this conversation never happened.
But if the brain is a material object and obeys the known laws of the universe, then its behavior is certainly not random. I would use "chaotic" in the mathematical sense to describe it; a system so complex and rich in self-feedback that it can't be predicted mathematically. So that would mean that as "free-willed" creatures we are a presence of chaos in a chaotic universe (which doesn't seem all that interesting) and this conversation did happen.