The Meaning-Full Universe

Discovery Institute ^ | April 7, 2004 | Benjamin D. Wiker

[Heartlander]

Hope everyone has a Good Friday!

[Support Free Republic]

KEEP AMERICA FREE

DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[AMDG&BVMH]

and a Blessed Easter!

Thanks, good article.

[TopQuark]

It seems to be obvious good sense that the less we understand about something, the more pointless it is.

The author is not a scientist, and has never experiences a scientific discovery. That "good sense" is from everyday experiences; they are not a good guidance in what we now know about, or do with, the universe.

[newheart]

I may be a little dense this morning, but I don't understand your comment. Or perhaps I should say it doesn't make sense to me. ;-)

[boris]

Some problems:

1. We seem to be quite alone. See Rare Earth. If we are a 'special creation', why should we be alone? The universe seems almost designed to prevent contact between intelligent species--even if there are any out there.

2. What is the purpose of building a 13-billion-year-old mess of gas, dust, stars, black holes, planets, radiation, etc...just so homo sapiens can emerge on a backwater planet of a third-rate star in the outskirts of an average galaxy?

Building an entire universe just to come up with us seems, well, profligate and wasteful. If God wanted us around, He could have simply produced us wherever He liked, without the accompanying clutter. Think of The Little Prince, for instance.

2a. This brings up the old conundrum of the 'Hiddenness' of God. If we are here for His purposes, and he has a Plan or direction for us, why does he not speak up and introduce Himself?

There sits Andromeda, bigger than ours. Are there intelligences there? We will probably never know. Suppose there are not. What is the 'purpose' of Andromeda?

3. We are badly designed. We are mayflies, existing for only a bare instant in the history of the Universe. We fall apart. Our own genes and bodies betray us. Designed to die. As (I think) Voltaire put it, 'had I been present at the Creation, I would have made some useful suggestions.' Why has the Almighty made us so poorly? Made us so short-lived? Filled our lives with pain and sorrow (as well as joy)?

--Boris

[TopQuark]

I may be a little dense this morning, but I don't understand your comment. Or perhaps I should say it doesn't make sense to me. ;-)

Not at all: it is my fault entirely; the point is much bigger than the couple of lines I devoted to it.

What I was trying to say, poorly, is that most of the things science deals with cannot be experienced with our senses. Nobody has seen an atom or a molecule; nobody has been in space and most cannot even comprehend the distance between the Moon and the Earth, let alone the mind-bogling distance between galaxies.

To be sure, this is not entirely new. Consider the law of intertia, known before Newton but now considered The First Newton's Law. It says that an object will remain in its current state if it is not a subject to forces acting on it. Well, if you rely on common sense, where have you seen that? Where have you seen an object in complete isolation from the rest of the universe? Nowhere. And for that reason, nobody on Earth has observed behavior predicted by the Law of Inertia.

Had the scientist relied on common sense and having never seen the law in action, he would REJECT that law. We learn to UNDERSTAND it rather than rely on senses (in this case, as a limit of the magnitude of forces tending to zero).

To give another example, how does the author utilize his senses in the area of quantum mecnanics? How can you "justify" an electron being everywhere at once and then turning up in a particular point with some probability. That simply does not happen around you, to the objects that you can see.

In other words, it is patently wrong to even apply the criteria used by the author to what Weinberg said. The author did not even understand a word of the quoted thought. Yet, it did not preclude him from characterizing it as infamous.

[frgoff]

Point 1. We don't know if we are alone.

Point 2. This is a conclusion based on point one. If point one is false, point two falls as an argument.

Point 2a: This is a post hoc fallacy. You are basically saying that because God has a plan for us, it must follow that he must clearly announce that plan to us. As a side note, perhaps he has announced it, and you just aren't listening.

Your point about Andromeda is conjecture posing as an inconsistency.

Point 3 suffers from the fallacy of subjectivism. You are presenting your opinion as fact. Let me give you an alternate perspective that will show we are superbly designed.

Mortal existence was designed as a learning experience, and therefore only needs to be temporary. Suffering is introduced so that joy may be comprehended. All of a sudden, the poor design doesn't look so poor, does it?

The goodness or badness of a design depends on the purpose of the designer. Without knowing that purpose, you can't make a judgement as to the merits of the design.

[boris]

"Point 1. We don't know if we are alone."

We almost certainly are. The Fermi Paradox. Read Rare Earth and get back to us. It's on Amazon.

--Boris

[boris]

"Mortal existence was designed as a learning experience, and therefore only needs to be temporary. Suffering is introduced so that joy may be comprehended. All of a sudden, the poor design doesn't look so poor, does it?"

Here you are presenting your opinion as a fact. Why, for example, did not an Eternal God design us for, say, a 1000-year lifetime? No skin off His nose...a thousand years or three-score plus ten--what's the difference?

--Boris

[Marie]

Well you're filled with bright sun-shiney cheer this morning! LOL!

[boris]

I am--or try to be--a realist.

[beckett]

I read this article last week, thought about posting it on FR, and in the end decided I didn't want to deal with the sourpuss know-it-alls here who would claim that Wiker is not arguing reasonably, that he's "unqualified," that he's a prisoner of superstition, etc.

These people think the end of science is at hand, and that all the important questions have been answered, apparently. When I read their stuff I don't engage with them anymore. I just shake my head and laugh.

[newheart]

Thanks for the clarification.

I suspect that the author would not argue your point that most of the things science deals with cannot be experienced with our senses. At least not directly.

And I don't think his argument equates common sense with a raw and direct empiricism.(Common sense tels me that Paris exists even though I have never been there.) I think his brand of common sense is a kind of straightforward reason which does not intentionally choose to ignore the larger patterns surrounding the subject being observed when those patterns may give us a clue as to the 'purpose' of the subject.

Of course here is where I might have to part ways with the author myself—but only a little, given that his sense of the word 'purpose' seems to be fairly close to the meaning of virtue for Aristotle. In that case, the 'virtue' or 'function' would seem to be limited only to a relatively closed set of interactions, and not necessarily indicative of a larger 'directed' sort of design. But neither would it preclude the possibility of the larger design. In fact, if the universe is the product of intelligent design, then we would certainly expect to see evidence of that in precisely the way he describes in Harold's hierarchical levels of order.

I really think the conflict has to do with first premises. If we take as our first premise, the materialist reductionist approach, it will be nearly impossible to find any 'meaning' in the universe. But that materialist reductionist approach is an article of faith to no less an extent than the first premise that the universe has been created by an intelligent, loving designer.

[r9etb]

We almost certainly are.

Then you don't know for sure, right? Which is to say, you don't know.

At any rate, if we assume we truly are alone, then we are almost forced to conclude that we are not an accident. The existence of abundant life would be much a more defensible "proof" of the "accidental universe" explanation for the origin of life.

[TopQuark]

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post. I'd like to comment on its last paragrpah:

I really think the conflict has to do with first premises. If we take as our first premise, the materialist reductionist approach, it will be nearly impossible to find any 'meaning' in the universe. Why is that? To the contrary, it there is meaning, surely it should be possible to uncover some of it.

But that materialist reductionist approach is an article of faith to no less an extent than the first premise that the universe has been created by an intelligent, loving designer. I think these two are different issues: what the source is a question undependent of whether creation was meaningful. The third question (if the second is answered in the positive) is what that meaning is.

I read Wienberg's observation as a statement of rather considerable experience --- and there few people who know about the universe as much as he does: even after obtaining that knowledge and that experience it is hard to find any trace of purpose. He did not say that this purpose is nonexistent.

[r9etb]

Why, for example, did not an Eternal God design us for, say, a 1000-year lifetime?

God designed us for eternal life, and you're talking from the perspective of a cynical caterpillar, who doesn't believe in butterflies.... ;-)

[r9etb]

I am--or try to be--a realist.

If I'm reading you properly, being a "realist" in this case apparently means you are "compelled" to conclude that there is no God, because you know reality, and He's not part of it.

There's an underlying assumption in that position, which is that you have an a priori -- not to mention innate -- understanding of what consitutes "reality." Think about that for a moment. Are you sure you can support that position?

[RightWhale]

I have not the space in so short an article

Right. LOL. Bwahahahahahaha

[Heartlander]

Strange, I did not see the word “God” anywhere in the article.

1. We seem to be quite alone. See Rare Earth. If we are a 'special creation', why should we be alone? The universe seems almost designed to prevent contact between intelligent species--even if there are any out there.

You are asking a philosophical --- “If God - then why?” question. Anyway, if we are a 'special creation', why should we not be alone?

2. What is the purpose of building a 13-billion-year-old mess of gas, dust, stars, black holes, planets, radiation, etc...just so homo sapiens can emerge on a backwater planet of a third-rate star in the outskirts of an average galaxy?

Building an entire universe just to come up with us seems, well, profligate and wasteful. If God wanted us around, He could have simply produced us wherever He liked, without the accompanying clutter. Think of The Little Prince, for instance.

Again, this is philosophical in the “If God - then why?” category. These questions are countless. Here is one:
If God loves everyone and is capable of anything - then why doesn’t He make sure everyone who is driving drunk will get home safely?

2a. This brings up the old conundrum of the 'Hiddenness' of God. If we are here for His purposes, and he has a Plan or direction for us, why does he not speak up and introduce Himself?

There sits Andromeda, bigger than ours. Are there intelligences there? We will probably never know. Suppose there are not. What is the 'purpose' of Andromeda?

Again, “If God - then why?” Beyond this, many people do not think He is hidden and has not revealed a plan. Look, I am not trying to make you believe ‘something’ because quite honestly I know that ‘I’ can’t make you believe anything. These are questions that you need to find the answer for if you are truly truth-searching... like, "What is the 'purpose' of no Andromeda?"

3. We are badly designed. We are mayflies, existing for only a bare instant in the history of the Universe. We fall apart. Our own genes and bodies betray us. Designed to die. As (I think) Voltaire put it, 'had I been present at the Creation, I would have made some useful suggestions.' Why has the Almighty made us so poorly? Made us so short-lived? Filled our lives with pain and sorrow (as well as joy)?

OK… So let’s say that this whole universe is void of design, purpose, and plan. If we are not designed then we are not badly designed. The appearance of design is an illusion as well as the relative term ‘bad’. Emotional pain and sorrow are just made up illusionary feelings by man and non-existent in the universe. Man has only himself to blame for these ‘emotions’. Why doesn’t man just choose to feel joy and let the guilt and sorrow go? (Nietzsche) Why would we not expect death to be final in this ‘mayfly’ existence we call life? Why are we cursed with this consciousness from a mindlessness universe?

There is no need to answer these questions for ‘me’ – I’m not looking for answers to ‘these questions’… You could, if you wanted, actually write an article and call it “The Mindless Universe and How We Became Mind-full of this Fact”

Regardless, I hope you have a Good Friday.