Posted on 12/31/2002 7:57:45 AM PST by dead
In a famous conclusion to his book The First Three Minutes, physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "The more the universe appears comprehensible, the more it also appears pointless." This comment echoes the sentiment of many contemporary scientists. Though they may wax lyrical about the awesome beauty, majesty and subtlety of the natural world, they nevertheless deny any point or purpose to the universe.
Appealing to science to bolster the doctrine of cosmic pointlessness is by no means new. Bertrand Russell used the second law of thermodynamics in a trenchant attack on theism. This law states, in effect, that the universe is dying, descending inexorably into chaos as its reserves of useful energy are squandered. Russell reflected on the "vast death of the solar system" that will follow when the sun burns out in several billion years, and concluded that these depressing facts were consistent only with a philosophy of "unyielding despair". His position seemed to be that if the universe as a whole is doomed, physical existence is ultimately pointless; even human life and endeavour are, in the final analysis, futile.
The argument, however, is bogus. First, it assumes that chaos is the appropriate indicator of cosmic change. Russell picked it because it paints a bleak picture of a doomed universe. But there are other ways to describe cosmic evolution. We now know the universe began in a state of almost total blandness. The richness and diversity of physical systems we observe today have emerged since the beginning through a long series of self-organising processes. Viewed this way, the conspicuous story of the universe so far is not one of decay, but of unfolding enrichment.
Second, it is wrong to claim that a system with a finite life span cannot have a point. Humans have all sorts of goals and purposes. To claim there is no point to human life because we each will one day die is clearly ridiculous.
Weinberg's thesis of cosmic pointlessness has been supported by a number of biologists, such as Stephen Jay Gould. Darwinian evolution is based on purely random accidental changes, some good, some bad. Nature, being blind, cannot look ahead to anticipate solutions to evolutionary problems. Hence, says Gould, there is no direction to evolution, no "progress". It is not going anywhere, just meandering purposelessly through the vast space of biological possibilities. Gould concludes that if evolution is blind, the universe is pointless.
Is Gould right? Taking the biosphere as a whole, its complexity has clearly risen since life on Earth was restricted to a few microbes. The issue, however, is whether there is a systematic trend towards greater complexity. On this score, the fossil record is somewhat ambiguous. Some trends are discernible; for example, the ratio of brain mass to body mass escalated persistently during hominid evolution. Some contemporary biologists, such as Simon Conway Morris, of Cambridge University, make a case that, at least within certain lineages, there are trends towards greater complexity.
Recently, some cosmologists have attempted a catch-all argument for cosmic pointlessness by invoking the multiverse concept. This is based on the theory that what we have hitherto considered to be "the universe" is but a small component in a vast assemblage of universes. The universes may co-exist in parallel, so that they are physically disconnected, or they may connect to each other in remote regions of space or through "wormholes". Universes may differ in their physical laws, in such a way that all conceivable laws are represented in a universe somewhere. The overwhelming majority of the universes would go unseen because their laws and conditions would not be conducive to the emergence of life and conscious beings. Only in a tiny subset where, purely by chance, things fell out just right would observers arise to marvel over the ingeniously contrived appearance of their universe.
The relevance of the multiverse to cosmic pointlessness is easily grasped. If some aspect of nature suggests an underlying purpose, then this superficially amazing fact could be shrugged aside as a random accident that is observed only because that very same accident is a prerequisite for our existence.
The multiverse explanation suffers from a number of problems. In most versions, the existence of the other universes cannot be verified or falsified, even in principle, so its status as a scientific theory is questionable. Second, if the peculiar bio-friendliness of the natural world were the result of randomness, we might expect the observed universe to be minimally rather than optimally bio-friendly. But the degree of bio-friendliness observed in the universe is far in excess of what is needed to give rise to a few observers to act as cosmic selectors.
Cosmic pointlessness has also been argued on philosophical grounds on the basis that the very concept of a "point" or "purpose" cannot be applied to the universe because it makes sense only in the context of human activity. But scientists often project onto nature categories rooted in human society. Each culture uses technological metaphors to describe cosmologies. The Greeks built a cosmological scheme based on musical harmony and geometrical regularities, because musical and geometrical instruments were the current technological marvels. Newton's universe was a gigantic clockwork mechanism. Russell's was an imperfect heat engine - a sort of Victorian industrial contraption writ large and running out of fuel. Today it is fashionable to describe the universe as a gigantic computer. Information theory, which certainly stems from the realm of human discourse, is nevertheless applied to physical problems in science.
All these designations capture in some imperfect way what the universe is about. It is not a clockwork mechanism or an information processor, but it does have mechanistic and informational properties. Living organisms have goals and purposes, and I see no reason why we may not use the organism as a metaphor for the universe, as did Aristotle 2 millenniums ago. I am not suggesting that the universe is alive, only that it may share with living organisms certain properties, such as possessing "purposes", in the same way it shares with a machine the property of having interlocking parts, a finite fuel supply, etc.
Science is founded on the notion of the rationality and logicality of nature. The universe is ordered in a meaningful way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is pointless, then it exists reasonlessly. In other words, it is ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are then invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are grounded in absurdity. The order of the world would have no foundation and its breathtaking rationality would have to spring, miraculously, from absurdity. So Weinberg's dictum is turned neatly on its head: the more the universe seems pointless, the more it also seems incomprehensible.
Paul Davies is with the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His latest book is How to Build a Time Machine.
Then why does Davies use the words "good" and "bad" - they are meaningless in a godless universe.
Oh come on. He used them once. And he didn’t put moral value on them:
Darwinian evolution is based on purely random accidental changes, some good, some bad.
He’s obviously talking about whether a change creates an advantage towards survival or a disadvantage. You are the one trying to apply moral meaning to his statements. He did not.
You seem to see some dichotomy in the idea that man, after gaining consciousness through evolution, can unilaterally apply “good” and “evil” values on actions, but you see no dichotomy in the idea that a supreme being just popped into existance and unilaterally applied “good” and “evil” values on actions.
That’s the dichotomy you are looking for.
The key word here is "empirical." Empiricism is presupposed as fact. That, my friend, is not science. It is faith.
I don’t know what dictionary you are using. But the definition of empiricism that I’m using is - something that can be tested and proven through experimentation. There is no room for faith in that equation.
If a black hole can destroy the past, does the future exist?
It did.
‘And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God’ (Micah 6:8)
"The temptation to think better of ourselves than we ought is notoriously powerful. To some degree it is a reflex action against the aggression of others. In youth it can be wrought by fear of new experiences. We are anxious not to be seen to be afraid, so we train ourselves to misjudge our true condition. We eat up praise when we get some, and minimize criticism."
"Developing pride... forges habits---that conceal from us the truth of ourselves."
"Usually it takes a shock such as personal loss or misfortune to tear down the props we have built up around our false self. Grief and shame can be wonderfully liberating as they facilitate the emergence of a self that acknowledges the supremacy of God, and the need for constant dependence upon him."
"Nothing is more suited to the maintenance of this disposition than frequent meditation on Christ; his story; his teaching, life, death, and triumph. In Christ's presence the masks we shelter behind are taken away. We are left open to the gaze of God. We are seen for what we are. More, we are loved despite what we are. Higher, nobler possibilities are presented to us in the Son of God. Self renunciation and service are seen as the pathway to self realization at its highest level. We are fitted to 'walk humbly with our God'."
Why should it? Just because you say so?
I posted the article.
I didn’t write it.
You wrote: There may be a God. There may not. But one isn’t necessary for humans to recognize concepts of good and evil...
Really? Then perhaps you would like to explain what standard you are using to measure good and evil. There must be one or the words are absolutely meaningless. What is your standard of measurement?
The only way something can be good or evil is for there to be an objective standard. What is that standard in a material universe? Let me tell you - there can't be any moral values at all in a material universe, just personal tastes and that is what morals are reduced to in your world. I like vanilla (murder is bad), you like chocolate (murder is good). Marquis de Sade saw the logical conclusion of a godless universe. He understood that morals cannot possibly exist without God. Thus cruelty and non-cruelty are equal. He said, "What is, is right." And that is what you are left with.
Good and bad are meaningless to Davies, so he should choose his words more carefully. Good and bad connote moral value. How can an evolutionary change be bad or good? Besides, I can go into the article and find more inconsistencies - it is chock full of them!
...but you see no dichotomy in the idea that a supreme being just popped into existance and unilaterally applied “good” and “evil” values on actions.
I see you haven't thought this thru. You are applying materialistic philosophy to God. God is not a material being and He didn't just pop into existence. If God created the universe and all that is in it, and He created man in his own image, and God is the measure of all that is good, and if all truth and goodness flow from God directly, then it makes perfect sense and perfectly explains the mannishness of man. You, on the other hand, have no explanation for the mannishness of man in a material universe. Do you really think it is more believable to assume that a personal conscious human being just "popped" into existence by chance? It is obvious to any objective observer which is more credible and consistent with reality that we observe and experience.
I don’t know what dictionary you are using. But the definition of empiricism that I’m using is - something that can be tested and proven through experimentation. There is no room for faith in that equation.
Atheists take empirical one step further and hold that reality is confined to what can be observed. They must because this is the only way they can be consistent with materialistic beliefs (all is matter). The problem with believing that "all reality is confined to what is observed" is that this statement cannot be proven empirically.
I'll take that to mean we should build a manned moonbase and start a settlement on Mars at the earliest opportunity.
Atheists take empirical one step further and hold that reality is confined to what can be observed. They must because this is the only way they can be consistent with materialistic beliefs (all is matter). The problem with believing that "all reality is confined to what is observed" is that this statement cannot be proven empirically.
I was not using that definition, because I certainly don’t believe it. I’m not even sure atheists (which I am not) believe that definition. They simply don’t believe in an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-creating god.
And they don’t believe (and neither do I) that one is necessary for there to be moral absolutes. If man is the only sentient being, then a consensus on what is good is all that is necessary. Excluding some of our Islamic friends, most humans conceive of good as those things which are productive, helpful, honest, selfless, just, etc. (The human concepts don’t get much more into the specifics than the religious ones. For example, is taxing a rich man to feed the poor moral?)
Assigning these moral absolutes to God is a spiritual step, which doesn’t imply that it has no value. But it doesn’t give it any more empirical weight than to assign it to the collective rationalization of the universe’s only proven sentient being.
Anyway, nice chatting with you. My work charade has ended for this truly pointless (from an office perspective) day. I’m going home.
You just defined relativism, not absolutism. Moral absolutes cannot come from man. Different men have different opinions on what is right and wrong. Which man is right? How do you decide which men decide moral absolutes? hmmm? Second, what is a moral absolute to you? To me, a moral absolute states something is wrong or right irregardless of what an individual believes, e.g. murder is wrong. Period. Now, with that definition in mind, perhaps you would like to tell me how murder could be wrong unless it is a moral rule from God. And don't tell me it is wrong because man says it is - many men don't think it is wrong! Which man is right? If I am a man and I say it is okay to kick you in the knee and steal your stereo, how can you say it is wrong if man decides moral absolutes. Indeed, if man decides, then ANY man can decide what is right or wrong! You need more thinking on this.
What a great in sight.
I have a working theory that God owns a Corvette. I'm convinced of this because of the spirutual experience my wife and I had this past year in driving the back roads of NE with the top down. (with a nice wine buzz on)
That seems to assume that the animals that live in the beautiful forest don't have the capacity to appreciate that forest. If animals have souls, I'm not sure that the perception of humans is necessary to give purpose to the forest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.