Do you sometimes find yourself asking yourself questions like: “Is this all there is to life?” “Why am I here?” “Why are we here?” “What’s this life all about?” Lots of young people, it seems, are dissatisfied with the answers provided by our culture: we’re here to get a career, to find love, to get rich, to enjoy life, etc. These are of course, important, but for some people they are not enough, and a deep unrest persists. What I want to do in this pamphlet is to offer you some avenues to explore around the idea of some broad purpose for humanity.

I won’t be providing any answers for you. Sorry about that. The topic is too big, and we each come at it our own way. But I want to explore this question so that you can, on your own, figure out what makes most sense to you, and structure your own answer to the question “Why are we here?”

This is all going to be very deep stuff! I’ll try to keep the language as simple as I can. But you’ll have to do a lot of thinking as well, for there are no easy answers. A 60-second sound-bite, a meme, or an Instagram clip just won’t do it! These are big issues, and they are important ones as well.

1. Questions science answers and questions of purpose

1. Questions of purpose

I mentioned that the questions we are addressing in this pamphlet are things like: “Is this all there is to life?” “Why am I here?” “Why are we here?” “What’s this life all about?” These are questions of a particular nature. We’re not asking how something works, but rather why something is. It doesn’t take much to realize that these are very different kinds of questions!

1. Science does not deal with purpose

When I was in second year science, my exasperated professor told me that I should leave science and take philosophy, because I was asking “why?” questions, and science only dealt with “how?” questions. He was right, and I did. Of course scientists ask “why?’ questions too. But there’s a specific type of “why?” they won’t touch. It all goes back to the ancient Greeks. In Greek philosophy, there were four kinds of causes: what a thing is made of? what it was as a form (what kind of things was it?)? what caused it? and, lastly, what was its purpose? As the scientific method evolved, the first three were integrated into how scientists approached the world, but everyone agreed that focusing on the purpose of something was not what science does. Asking about the purpose of the universe is such a question, and scientists, as scientists, don’t go there. (Of course, scientists are also thinking beings, and these remain important questions. Scientists often pronounce themselves on such questions. We must always remember that they are stating personal opinions, and not making any scientific statements, and their views do not have the validity of science.)

1. Philosophy and theology deal with purpose

Humans have always asked “purpose” questions. It’s part of our curiosity. The more we know about this vast and mysterious universe of ours, the more we ask questions about its meaning, and its purpose, if any. And the more we look at ourselves on the earth in the middle of this vast universe, the more we ask questions about our meaning – or lack of – in the grand scheme of things.

Science, as we have seen, can’t address these questions. That does not make these questions irrelevant. It simply means we have to look to other tools we have available to address them. Philosophers have, since the beginning of thinking, asked such questions. For theologians too, who specialize in reflecting on the ultimate meaning and reality of things, these are the most important questions: why would any “supreme being” create a universe, and especially this universe? And why would that supreme being wish the evolution of a self-sentient creature such as humans?

1. The purpose of things is as important as any other question

Scientists get impatient with the “purpose” questions. For one, there are no scientific methods to deal with them. For another, philosophers have never managed to agree on an answer to them, and there is no way to prove a theory right or wrong to the satisfaction of the scientific method. Does that mean that purpose questions are a waste of our time? No! It simply means that each of us needs to work out – over time and with lots of experience and talking and sharing and reflection and correction – provisional answers to them.

But, you might object, if there are no clear answers, why do we even bother? Because the answers matter! What we decide about the nature of the universe, and of our presence in it determines how we will behave. It’s that simple. If the universe is meaningless and we have no real purpose – we’re just an accident of evolution – why shouldn’t we just look after ourselves, have the best time we can, and forget about everything and everybody else? If, on the other hand, there is a direction to the evolution of the universe, and we are evolution aware of itself, what is our responsibility to help evolution move in its appointed direction? And what might that be? Can you see the difference these two approaches create?

Fortunately, the possible answers to purpose questions boil down mainly to two. They are in stark contrast to each other, and present us with choices we have to make.

2. The universe – simply is or has a purpose?

1. Two dominant views – both held by scientists

Because of a wide public interest in discoveries in astronomy and cosmology, many scientists have found themselves in a position to pronounce themselves on the meaning of the universe.

There is no doubt that scientists are in an excellent position to speak about the universe: they have been unlocking the secrets held by the vastness and complexity of the world we live in for centuries, and have developed methods to ensure that what they put forth as the way things work is as accurate as possible.

Scientists are also human beings, with feelings and values, and they too, in their daily lives, ask – and are asked – “purpose” questions. And they answer them. Some are skilled in their own philosophical methods – and even theological methods. (Yes, there are some scientists who are profoundly spiritual!) Others not so, and still they pronounce themselves as if they were experts in philosophy or theology, and they are not.

While there are differences across the spectrum in answers they provide, there are two typical contrasting views, each maintained by very prominent scientists.

The first view is that of a pointless universe: Steven Weinberg says: The more comprehensible the universe becomes, the more pointless it seems.” Richard Feynman says: “I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is, so far as I can tell. It doesn’t frighten me.”

The other is the opposite, held by some equally great scientists. The universe seems fine-tuned for human life, and evolution seems to have a direction towards the ever more complex. So there seems to be some purpose to this whole evolutionary experiment. I’ll quote Paul Davies and Freeman Dyson as examples. Davies says: “There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.” Davies again: “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” Dyson says: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.” Or again: “To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.”

Both sets of scientists – and many more like them – are reacting, as humans, to the universe as it discloses itself through the science they know so well. They use much the same data set, and arrive at very different interpretations. What accounts for the difference? Lots of things – predisposition, family background, personal values, depth of understanding of the workings of philosophy and theology, among others.

3. Which one would you rather live in – a purposeless universe or an evolving universe with a direction?

So, how do you choose which of the two sets of answers makes most sense to you? You can ask yourself a number of questions: is there concrete evidence against one or the other of these polar positions? Does it make more sense to think that such a vast and complex and interdependent universe is a mere accident or does it make more sense to imagine some unimaginably huge experiment in existence with a purpose and perhaps an intelligence behind it somehow? Which of the two versions best fits with everything else you understand about the world and human life?

Perhaps one of the most important questions to ask yourself, though, is what vision of the universe makes you most comfortable, inspires you most, gives you a sense of value and purpose in life?

One thing you might want to ask yourself: from what you understand of evolution, does it appear totally random without a direction? Or is there in fact a direction – from the simple to the complex; from the non-living to the living? from the unconscious to the conscious?

I leave it up to you to choose which of the two opposing views you find more convincing and livable.

* * * * *

I will offer you my personal choice: I opt for an intelligible universe with a purpose, of which we are an integral part, and some form of overarching “Ground of Being”¹ of which the universe is its self-expression. The rest of this pamphlet explores this option, not with the purpose of convincing you, but with the purpose of offering you a reasonable alternative to the one so frequently offered by many scientists on social media.

4. Flipping the question: what if the universe is how God becomes more real?

What if we flipped the question, and started from an assumption that there is an intelligent – and loving – reality who manifests itself in and through the universe. What if we started from the assumption that the very act of be-ing is at the heart of this universe. That this act of be-ing wants nothing more than more being, better being, fuller being, and thus, the universe in its 13.8 billion year evolution is be-ing, manifesting itself in all possible forms, aiming somehow toward the fullness of being, whatever that might look like.

5. The evolutionary appearance of humans – self-sentient beings

Let’s place an overlay on the classic story of the universe we know from science. My contention is that this overlay will respect what science tells us happened, but will add a dimension that science can never address.

1. Let’s start with the premise that this universe is the concrete expression, in space-time, of the Self-subsistent Act of Be-ing. “Be-ing,” in this case points to the foundational act of all existing beings, and states that every creature – including us – is a tiny individual expression of this one supreme Act of Be-ing, who wants nothing more than, better, more complex, more conscious, and more living being. This Act of Be-ing is dynamic, creative, and is constantly finding more concrete expressions for its infinite potential. This Act of Be-ing is at least as personal (as “human” if you wish) as we are, since we are among its expressions.

2. So far, that premise does not violate any scientific laws, but complements them. It is also not subject to scientific falsification, since it is not in the domain of what science concerns itself with.

3. Evolution is the primary way in which this Self-subsistent Act of Be-ing explores forms of being, from the simple to the complex, from the inanimate to the living, from the living to the conscious, from the conscious to the self-conscious, from the self-centred to the caring. The direction of this evolution is factual, and challenges the scientific belief that there is no direction to a blind, groping, evolution. This raises the question of what might the next phases of evolution look like, especially insofar as it concerns humanity.

4. Science has discovered that this universe is so incredibly fine-tuned that a tiny percentage change in any of over 20 constants would render this universe inhospitable to human life. It is difficult to explain this fine-tuning in terms of pure randomness. The “multiverse” theory suggests that there is an infinite number of random universes, and we just happen to exist in the one that has these variables. There would be other possible explanations, but scientists, as scientists, are reluctant to go there, because they don’t like to risk their models of their understanding of the universe. (No more so, I would argue, than the multiverse hypothesis itself, which is equally non-experimental.)

5. This would suggest that we live in a universe that has somehow prepared itself for us. The question might be: why would evolution move in the direction of seeing a self-conscious species emerge? Why would the universe evolve a self-sentient species? What contribution might this self-sentient species make to the next step of the evolution of the universe?

6. If we look at human evolution, at first we see simply a succession of empires, wars, conquests, along with an intellectual movement from myth to fact-based science. But we also see a movement from tribal thinking to a respect for the individual, and, in recent decades, a growing understanding of a global consciousness. We also see emerging the notion of empathy – putting oneself in someone else’s shoes – and compassion – feeling for another. Along with this, a movement toward non-zero-sum games – no longer if I win, you lose, but both of us can win. Slowly, we see emerging a different set of values that promote flourishing: not the classic wealth, status and power, but distributive justice, humility and compassion. This is certainly not widespread, but it is an option, which, if tried, could propel humanity toward unprecedented growth. What might that mean for the universe? Is this how humanity might take on blind evolution, speed up the process, and create a more peaceful, creative, rich, and loving world?

* * * * *

Why should we consider this scenario? If it encouraged us to care for the environment, so that we ensured a healthy planet; if it challenged us to care for the marginalized so that they could reach their full potential; if it helped us develop communities based on compassion, humility and shared wealth, so that everyone could benefit; if it prompted us to consider that, in the end, our greatest contribution to the universe is our care and compassion, then it might serve its purpose, even if it cannot be verified to the satisfaction of scientists.

The work is now yours: explore the question; keep your mind open; talk to people with some experience; read some trusted books on the subject. Or even, just perform a thought experiment: imagine yourself living in one or the other kind of universe – meaningless and uncaring, or purposeful and loving – and see how it feels. Adopt a stand provisionally; test it out; refine it; make it your own, and live it. Evaluate the consequences…

1 Inevitably, we have to ask ourselves the question of “God.” Might there be some sort of supreme intelligence behind the obvious intelligibility of the universe? Might this “God” have some sort of idea in mind with the obvious direction of evolution? Might we somehow fit somewhere into this “God”’s overall plan for this universe? If the question of God troubles you as much as the question of the purpose – or not – of the universe, you might want to consider reading my pamphlet “God for Young Skeptics.”