A few years ago, I stumbled upon an online exchange between leading scientists and scholars, hosted by the John Templeton Foundation, attempting to answer a self-described "Big Question: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?" This conversation is captured in a collection of thought-provoking essays that I found both intellectually challenging and stimulating. Reading through these again inspired me to capture my own thoughts on the subject, specifically the question of whether the universe, and life itself, has a purpose.
Picture two men standing one on each side of the issue. The first categorically agrees that the universe, and his life, exist for a reason, and thus have purpose. The second categorically denies that any evidence exists to empirically assert or suggest the possibility of purpose. One on each side of the grand debate, and I submit, both exactly the same. Each takes a stand on the question based on a belief arising out of the context of their human condition, bound by a perspective that cannot transcend that essential barrier that limits their ability to objectively interpret the reality around them. (A complex system cannot be properly observed when the observer himself is part of the system). Can either of them possibly know the truth? One looks at the empirical data without, and draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that scientific reasoning allows. The other also looks at the empirical data without, yet also puzzles over the experiential data within, and too draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that faith allows. One puzzles over the nature of man, the other puzzles over the matter of man in nature. One views religion as an invention created by man to fill some misguided need. The other wonders why he has "need," and wonders why others so easily dismiss that need.
What of logic? Logic is insufficient to explain the workings of the natural world and the laws of physics. Logic is also insufficient to explain the workings of human sentience and emotion. Yet logic is paramount to the constructs of both science and faith. It provides structure to our exploration, and gives voice to our understanding and perception of each.
Faith apart from the reality of nature and nature's laws is but a philosophy - a perspective or way of thinking that is limited to an idea or approach to life that is almost fully contained in the inner being, and thus entirely relativistic and indeterminable. Scientific methods reveal amazing details about the working of nature, its physical laws, and the forces that act upon both animate and inanimate entities in the evolutionary physical environment. Yet the breakdown of the universe into smaller and smaller components, the study of organized systems notwithstanding, fails to fully capture or explain the mechanics of human sentience. It seems that a full representation of the universe supported by a logical framework that includes both faith and science is necessary to properly address the question of purpose.
The drive and passion that inspires our endless thirst for knowledge and understanding of nature and nature's God comes not from physical forces outside us, but from that essential spark of life and need that we find within. Indeed, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is driven by our desire - our inner need - to know. Science alone cannot explain the nature of our own curiosity, our hunger for truth and meaning. The passionate crusade against faith is belied by the fervor with which the argument is pursued. The existential question here is not whether the universe has a purpose that can be revealed by the empirical observations of creation, but rather the nature of an individual's experiences as a sentient being within that universe. One man can look up into a night sky full of brilliant stars, or see images from distant galaxies and become awestruck at the magnitude of this universe. Another man can look at the same stars and same images and see only the chemical compositions, relativistic theory and mathematical algorithms used to create spectrographic visuals. Same stars, same images, but a different experience.
One man's study of science reveals that humanity is but one species on one insignificant planet in a solar system in a remote and unexceptional part of the galaxy in a vast universe of galaxies. One man's study of faith teaches him that the Creator of the universe came to that one insignificant planet and took the form of a man, born in a remote place in an unexceptional part of a lowly country, itself an unexceptional province of the vast Roman Empire. History records the remarkable, transformative events that have literally shaped 2000 years of human civilization. Should the experiences of countless numbers be discounted? Should the lack of experience in countless others be preeminent?
Our understanding of the world, the universe, and our fellow man are directly shaped by our experiences. If experience so strongly impacts and shapes our perspectives, is it right to discount its relevance to our pursuit of understanding and purpose? The empirical data without, and the experiential data within, together may illuminate the majesty and mystery of this creation in which we live. And if on the path of discovery we find and experience revelatory moments with a Creator, does not that answer the question of purpose and meaning?
0 comments:
Post a Comment