The Meaning-Full Universe

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

[Heartlander]

From the bottom of the article:

He is also currently working on a book titled The Meaning-Full Universe.

[RightWhale]

We ought to question the motives of those who hyphenate perfectly good words as if that will extract extra meaning. The full length book may not be required reading if it ignores the importance of nitrogen and makes no mention of Kierkegaard.

[newheart]

Good questions.

"If there is meaning, surely it should be possible to uncover some of it."

If we are talking about meaning in a limited sense, such as Aristotle's 'virtue', there is no doubt that we can uncover meaning. But if we are talking about a truly larger sense of meaning, such as the purpose (telos?) for the whole enchilada, it is difficult if not impossible, to derive that from the accidental and random nature of the universe as materialist reductionism would imply. But you are right, even in that case it should be possible to uncover some meaning. Or at least hints of meaning. Perhaps the creator left fingerprints on his creation?

'...what the source is (is) a question independent of whether creation was meaningful.'

That could be true, but it doesn't seem to be a necessary distinction. I would think 'source' in the materialist reductionist scenario would simply be matter and energy plus time (oversimplified, I'm sure). (And you might have to argue for the 'eternity' or at least preexistence of acouple of those.) Here there would either be no meaning, or perhaps only limited, parochial meanings. The meaning of a sperm cell is to carry genetic material for the impregnation of an egg. If by a happy accident that occurs, the species continues. If it doesn't happen, oh well.

But it strikes me that for there to be an overarching meaning (apart from saying that there is no meaning which, in itself, is a kind of meaning) there must be something or someone from outside the system to which things within the system refer for meaning.

Wouldn't the question of what meaning is be prior to whether creation is meaningful? (And I have to admit that defining meaning is a very, very difficult task.)

Yes, Weinberg knows a lot. But there is much more to be known and it would perhaps require an infinite mind to take Everything into account. (Hmmm?) So to take only one's own finite understanding (however broad it may be) and draw the ultimate conclusion of meaninglessness strikes me as making unfounded and probably unprovable assumptions about the rest of the universe beyond one's own knowledge base.

It can be argued that coming to the opposite conclusion (that there is meaning to the universe) based on that same set of data is subject to the same criticism. Hence, our conclusion must be a matter of faith. At this point we could raise the question of revelation, but in deference to Ockham, I will refrain. ;-)

[boris]

"Meaning" implies something or someone to give meaning to it. The entire thrust of the article--by a theologist, no less--is that meaning exists inherently in the universe, independent of human attempts to give it meaning, purpose, or meaningfull-ness.

Who or what defined the meaning? May as well call this agent "God".

Is the Universe contingent or non-contingent? Careful how you answer.

As for pain being "made up", I happen to be a diabetic, with severe diabetic peripheral neuropathy. I know pain; it is an old friend. If I invented it, I must have a pretty fertile imagination. Evolutionists will say that pain serves as a survival mechanism: creatures will move away from pain-causing things, situations, behaviors. A friend of mine who died of colon cancer described the pain as "someone dragging red-hot barbed wire through your guts." Somehow he was unable to magic that away via the power of positive thinking.

--Boris

[boris]

"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."

See my point 2.

If we are the end-point--the purpose--of the universe, then there is certaily a lot of wasted motion. Heck, were I God, I could whip up humanity and nothing else with condescending ease.

Our position in time/space is suspicious because we are entirely mediocre. If we were truly 'special' then one might expect Earth to really be the center of the Universe! This reasoning has been used to argue that there are lots of intelligent ETs...but the Fermi Paradox and its extension (i.e., Rare Earth) pretty much give the lie to that. Nobody knows anything "for sure", but the best of our knowledge right now says we are alone.

--Boris

[Heartlander]

Frankly, I have no desire to go tit-for-tat here –
Bottom line:

I do not believe we live in a universe void of design, purpose, and meaning.
I do not believe our consciousness came from mindlessness.

The question, “Is the Universe contingent or non-contingent?” is as meaningful as “Is a car contingent or non-contingent?” in this regard.

Now, I am truly sorry about your health (honestly) but my question was in reference to ‘emotional pain’ not physical pain. I do not mean to be crass but if you reject the notion of “God” you should not feel blame is necessary towards God or believers in what you have rejected and I am not stating that you are doing this... As you have pointed out, “ Evolutionists will say that pain serves as a survival mechanism: creatures will move away from pain-causing things, situations, behaviors.”

Evil is the absence of good as darkness is the absence of light – no good can come from ‘only evil’ and no light can come from ‘only darkness’. Neither evil nor darkness would exist without good or light, as one would never ‘know’ the difference.

Still, I hope you have better health and have a Good Friday.

[D Rider]

Guess what! All your questions have been answered in great depth in a very old collection of books that is called the Bible. If you are serious about your questions, go ahead and take a gander at it.

[D Rider]

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

the problem with that, is what you consider real, is what you perceive in 4 dimensions. Modern science confirms what was clear from studying the bible, that there are more than 4. A rabbi in the 12th century said he believed there were 10 based on his study of the first verse of Genesis, 4 that we could discern directly and six that we could not.

Also the God of the bible said that he confirmed his word by telling the end before the beginning, which if true could only be done by someone altogether outside of the time domain. Just food for thought.

[Moonman62]

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.

Hi beckett. The problem is that some creationists and even those from the intelligent design camp tend to look for gaps in science that are either nonexistent, very small, or are likely to be filled in the future. There are some very real gaps in science. I'm reminded of Feynman's statement that we really don't know what energy is even though we can describe its behavior with equations very well. There are the atoms of consciousness that we can't explain, and there is the question that you have posted before: Why is there something rather than nothing? For some reason, creationists seem to be all hung up on biology and evolution.

[r9etb]

If we are the end-point--the purpose--of the universe, then there is certaily a lot of wasted motion. Heck, were I God, I could whip up humanity and nothing else with condescending ease.

You're assuming an awful lot about God, aren't you? The fallacy there is that you're requiring God to think the way you do and, because things are not as you would do them, God must not exist....

Our position in time/space is suspicious because we are entirely mediocre.

If we're unique (as you think we are) then "mediocre" makes no sense -- there's literally no comparison!

If we were truly 'special' then one might expect Earth to really be the center of the Universe!

Once again, you're projecting your opinion, and using it as a form of evidence against the existence of God. If Christianity followed your druthers, Jesus would have been a Roman emperor instead of an obscure rabbi in a dry little backwater. The parable of the mustard seed springs to mind....

[st.smith]

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).

You are setting up a dichotomy between a common sense type knowledge and scientific knowledge. Any understanding is always grounded in empirical knowledge- otherwise we would have no access to it. It certainly surpasses common sense knowledge, but even in the most technical and scientific discovery, there is still the role of the observer who comes from a specific empirical and epistemological situation. The concepts we use are always rooted in empirical experience.

I think you are correct that knowledge surpasses sense data. Otherwise we would be forced into a Humean style empiricism. We know things that we cannot 'see.' However, I would argue that this goes for all of reality. I think love is something real, even though I can't see it or measure it.

[boris]

"You're assuming an awful lot about God, aren't you? The fallacy there is that you're requiring God to think the way you do and, because things are not as you would do them, God must not exist...."

God is omnipotent, no?

An omnipotent being can do anything...by definition. Even miracles, like making the entire Earth and all its inhabitants, a Sun to warm it--and nothing else. Else He is not omnipotent.

QED.

--Boris

[st.smith]

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)?

Well apparently you are well enough designed to have to discovered the secrets of reality which you are trying to convey to us ignorant theists. Just where exactly do these 'useful suggestions' come from. Perhaps, you are better made than you think.

[boris]

"Well apparently you are well enough designed to have to discovered the secrets of reality which you are trying to convey to us ignorant theists."

Actually I am a believer. I just have little patience with teleological fallacies.

--Boris

[st.smith]

Meaning" implies something or someone to give meaning to it. The entire thrust of the article--by a theologist, no less--is that meaning exists inherently in the universe, independent of human attempts to give it meaning, purpose, or meaningfull-ness.

Who or what defined the meaning? May as well call this agent "God".

I agree with you that the author gives a sense of meaning as something ready-made and waiting to be found. Whereas, in reality, the experience of meaningless is very real and profound. However, I believe this is precisely what gives human beings such dignity. We are faced with a task- we can bring meaning to our, at-times, meaningless existence. But, why can we do this at all? Why can we discover truth? Why is there beauty, love, etc? It is a mystery. It is essential that we keep the sense of mystery-we don't have all the answers, but neither are there none.

[pending]

Why isn't inferring no intelligent design also dismissed,
as a theory with no proof?

it seems concluding "design" or "no design" involves something of a leap?

The most we are able to really know or see is a description of a process. Would you agree with this?

****
I like the explosion in the junkyard analogy.

I find the conclusion of "no design" to require much more "Huh?", then not. That is not scientific, but is common sense "reality" to me.

[r9etb]

An omnipotent being can do anything...by definition.

An omnipotent being need not, and can choose not, to do everything, however.

QED

I must have missed your point, as I don't quite see what you've demonstrated.