Why Does The
Universe Exist?
Rob Wilburn
(formerly titled, "What's Wrong With This Question?)
From: "Rob Wilburn"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 6:53 AM
Hello, I am looking for some people who can help me with a little project.
I am leading a discussion group that will soon be talking about the purpose of life; specifically "why does life exist?" as opposed to "why do I exist?". I have been trying to get a general idea of some of the main philosophies that are around, but I am concerned that if I write a summary it will be too biased towards my own beliefs.
So I am looking for different views from the people who actually believe those views. I need a summary, about one page long, answering questions such as "Is there a purpose to life/the universe?", "Why does the universe exist?" and, since it is so closely related to the question of purpose, "Does God exist and if so how much of a role does S/He play?".
The main question is the question of purpose, but the other questions can be addressed as seen fit. I am interested in just about any philosophy. There are some views that I would be particularly interested in (from someone who believes these or is very familiar with the philosophies), like philosophies from Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Karl Marx.
If you or anyone you know could help me out in this respect, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Rob Wilburn
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Rob Wilburn"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 7:22 AM
As I am reading your question, it is unclear as to whether you are asking how life came about (a scientific question) or for what purpose did life come about (that is, what motive was behind the decision that life should exist). As you can probably see by the way I reworded the second possibility, it might involve begging the question: by the second possibility seriously, one answers the very question one is asking.
As Mister Rogers might put it: "Can you say, 'Trick Question'? Sure!"
Please read my response to similar, more in-depth questions posed by a pantheist. Then, check out my writeup on the logical fallacy of Begging The Question.
Here is the excerpt, and you can link to the entire discussion above.
|
1. Why is there existence rather than non-existence? Atheism doesn't pretend to answer these questions, but usually just leaves them as questions. Atheism simply challenges the notion that a god is required to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of consciousness. Victor Stenger makes a great case that the universe is accidental, and that this notion does not violate any known laws of physics. Steven Pinker (and to some extent Richard Dawkins and to another extent Victor Stenger) give equally compelling reasons for thinking that consciousness is the result of events and processes that occurred naturally, that is, without any supernatural intervention or without there being any specific innate properties in the universe (an Anthropic Principle) that would inevitably lead to the existence of consciousness. As to explaining why there is existence rather than nonexistence (apart from saying that we just happen to exist) goes beyond the scope of any natural science I've encountered. The way you worded your question, you could be asking, "What processes led to existence?" but I don't think this is your question. I think you are asking "For what purpose did existence come to be?" or even "What motive was behind the decision to bring existence about?" To even ask this question is to beg the question that existence has some sort of purpose beyond itself. Science does not pretend to pursue these questions. I think should science discover a Creator or an Anthropic Principle, these would be legitimate questions for science, but they are moot unless and until such a discovery is made. The question of consciousness is similar but fraught
with fewer problems. Again, you could be asking "What processes led
to the existence of consciousness" and science can (potentially) give
adequate answers to this question (though, as Pinker admitted in 1999,
science may as yet have provided such answers when it comes to explaining
how the human "I" works). But to ask to explain a motive is to
beg the question of the existence of a Creator or an Anthropic Principle. Strangely enough I can actually answer those two questions under this assumption and as the above assumption is of a Pantheist nature....bingo, I'm a Pantheist. No wonder you lost a lot of sleep on these questions: they are invalid in the discussion as to whether a Creator or an Anthropic Principle exists because they beg the question you actually seek to answer: "Is there even a purpose for existence?" By even entertaining these questions, you have provided your answer: a Creator and/or an Anthropic Principle explain possible motives for bringing about existence and consciousness. |
Let me know if this helps.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Rob Wilburn"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:12 AM
Thank you for your input. My question should have been more along the lines of "Is there a purpose?" rather than "What is the purpose?". The reason I phrased the question as I did, though I see this made things a little unclear, is that some of the supposedly atheistic philosophies I have encountered have seemed imply that there is a purpose, something like an evolutionary progress leading to some type of utopian society. This doesn't make much sense to me, since if there was no creator, if the universe simply exists because it exists, then there can be no purpose.
Again, thank you for your response. It was very helpful.
Rob Wilburn.
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Rob Wilburn"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:40 PM
"Purpose" implies motive, and I don't see the evolutionary process itself as having a motive. Though an individual pool of self-replicating molecules can be said to be "trying" to survive, this, literally, is not the case.
And no, the evolutionary process cannot be shown to be leading toward any utopian anything. It is conceivable, though, that if a certain dinosaur had sneezed at a given moment, spreading a specific virus to a species of small pre-mammals, humans wouldn't be here.
So, the correct answer to your question, I think, is: "This is a poorly worded question at best, and a trick question at worst." A fairer question would be: "Is there a motive or purpose to the overall existence of life in general?"
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.