The Templeton Foundation [1] is promulgating a set of short essays by twelve prominent thinkers and writers. I’ve recently noticed these essays in several magazines. Templeton asked the following question to its panel: “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” [2] The answers ranged from “yes” to “not sure” to “unlikely” to “no.”
Here’s what interested me about the project. Most of the respondents jumped in without pointing out any problems with the highly ambiguous word “purpose.” There were several notable exceptions (Paul Davies, Peter William Atkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson). Most of the panelists, however, blithely ignored this conspicuous problem.
I reacted to the Templeton question by thinking: “Does the universe have a what?” Obviously, stars and space dust don’t think. If the “universe” (everything that exists, taken as a whole) doesn’t think, or if something big out there doesn’t think, how can the “universe” have a purpose?
Most of the panelists must have assumed that a universe could think (or that something big out there thinks). Those panelists seems to be alluding to God. Indeed, the Father of the Universe often slips in the back door when people discuss the “Purpose of Life.” This tactic is always a cop-out, though. In sum, here’s the problem with the question: The vague Templeton question seems to be either nonsensical or it is an invitation to sneak an unexplained (and equally vague) God into the explanation.
For them, the question became: “Is there a God?”Those who invoke God as an explanation almost never consider how God Himself might have come into existence. They take only the first small step of an eternal regress (God is responsible for X) and then they call it quits. Nor do they produce any evidence showing how God was really responsible for the phenomenon they are attempting to explain. The people who rely on God as an explanation typically fatigue easily. [3] They are marathon runners who drop out at the third mile. Those of us who consider “God” to be a human projection (rather than an independent reality) are inclined to press this issue further, until God falls back out of the equation. Of course, not everyone sees God to be a human projection. If we’re not careful, discussions about “purpose” end up being hidden arguments about the existence of God. And as we’ve seen over the past several thousand years, these arguments almost never resolve on the basis of real evidence.
In my opinion, “God” often serves as a token for other deep concerns for most Believers. I suspect that many of the panelists who concluded that the universe has some sort of “purpose” are nonetheless trying to answer some question–a real question. What question are they really answering when they suggest that the universe has a “purpose?” I suspect that they are translating the hopelessly vague “purpose” question into something they do understand, something amounting to one of these questions:
- Do you find your world interesting? (See the essay of Bruno Guiderdoni).
- Do you find the world to be beautiful or having grandeur?
- Is there a big invisible Sentient Being out there?
- Are you fascinated by the elegance and widespread applicability of natural laws that can be rigorously studied and tested?
- Are you happy?
- Are you terrified?
- Are you capable of an overall love of life that seems genuine?
- Would you fight to protect what you have?
- Do you want, in some vague way to the question to be “yes” because it feels right in some ineffable way? (see the answers of John Haught, Jane Goodall & Eli Wiesel).
- There’s yet another potential translation of the Templeton question—this one’s only for deeply honest people who don’t frighten easily. It is a view put forth by Albert Camus, who stated [4] “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.” Put into the form of a question, “Do you find enough purpose in the universe, with enough confidence, that you will refrain from committing suicide? Perhaps the less threatening way to ask this is to ask “Do you love life?”
These are questions I actually (more or less) understand. Based on a careful reading, it seems like many answers to the “purpose” question are really addressing a wide variety of important concerns. That the answers are so different could suggest that the panelists are actually answering different questions.
Cognitive science has shown that any real answer any deep question must ultimately be anchored in metaphor (see here [5], here [6], and here [7], and here [8]) and emotion (see here [9] and here [10]). The Templeton panelists barely mentioned these deep anchors, however, and this failure constitutes a lost opportunity to make something interesting out of a flowery yet incoherent question.
“Philosophical” questions are almost always questions about the nature or limitations of language. Questions about the ostensible purpose (or “meaning”) of life are thus, at bottom, questions about the meaning of “purpose” (or the meaning of “meaning”). To really answer such a question requires a discussion of the nature and limits of language, as well as a discussion of the limits of the brains that use language. Most writers lack the courage, the patience, the neuroscience or the humility to chase down these deeper issues, however. Purpose? “Yes, of course” (or “No, of course not”). Now what’s for dinner?
It’s just too tempting to splash at the surface when a nonsensical question is constructed with proper syntax. The proper syntax fools us into thinking that it’s a meaningful question. Combine this with the constant temptation to anthropomorphize the universe and then endow it with a human version of “purpose.” These approaches are especially likely when panelists are paid by a well-endowed foundation that prefers its panelists to find some sort of “purpose” in the universe. [11]
“Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” [2] looks like a real question at first glance, but it has no coherent meaning, no real world traction. With this question Templeton showed that it’s reach is greater than its grasp. The Templeton question proved to be merely an invitation to emote or (as three panelists recognized) a request to help Templeton re-write its question.
“Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” The correct answer is “Huh?”
Print this post [12]
[13]