Pete’s blog

Last week’s email met with stony silence – too much economics perhaps? Going to do a classic topic this week. This topic was actually the subject of debate around a campfire in March this year.

Why are we here? Is there meaning to life or are we just random patterns? I am going to try and summarise the main positions and how they fit into God and science.

First is the pure randomness theory. There is no meaning, there are no scientific laws, you cannot know anything about the past or the future, everything is random and chaotic. “What? No scientific laws?” you might ask and dismiss the theory as ludicrous. Actually this theory can be supported by science and is one of the current debates in science – are the fundamental laws of science consistent throughout the universe and in all situations? Einstein famously poked holes in the rock-solid belief that time is a constant and never changes, showing that gravity and acceleration can make time flow differently for two different people. What if our scientific laws only hold true for our tiny corner of the universe and that maybe tomorrow everything might suddenly change? You cannot be certain about the past and you cannot predict the future, because you can never be sure the laws were the same. How does God fit into this? Well it does seem like the atheist anarchist’s theory of choice, but it could also be argued that we are God’s toybox or experiment – change the laws, change the variables, see what result you get. So either a strong atheist theory or a distant, uncaring God theory – either way is there is no point to our existence, no reason to think about the future, so live for the moment, be a hedonist or anarchist.

Moving up the scale, we add a little more law to the theory. The functioning of the universe can be understood, defined and there are laws that govern events. This is the playground of scientists and people that seek the universal theory of everything. If you understand the laws of the universe, you can extrapolate current data to determine what happened in the past and then make predictions of future events. The purest form of this theory says that if we know all the laws and know the exact parameters of every particle in the universe we can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Heisenberg poked a big hole in this extreme when he proved that it was impossible to know everything about a particle, that the mere act of observing the particle changed it. This is probably the most popular theory amongst intellectual atheists – there is no need for a god when everything has order and structure, and can be measured and understood. But this is also a great theory for people that do believe in God, the deist position. (OED: deism – belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.) God created the universe, defined its laws and principles and now merely observes. Note that bringing God into it creates two very separate possibilities – either He is a mere observer and the future is not certain, or the outcome is predetermined. A purist of this theory of course would say that the outcome is predetermined. But I will get back to these two possibilities later. So what is the meaning of life in terms of this theory? Once again there are a spectrum of possibilities and some even have names. First is that there is no meaning, other than the fulfilment of scientific laws. The only reason things happen is because the laws said they will. That is just the way things are, there is nothing we can do about it. (This was one of positions taken at the campfire debate.) Next you get the anthropic principles. The weak anthropic principle says that the universe turned out the way it is since we exist and can observe the universe. The strong anthropic principle says that the universe turned out the way it did so that we could observe it. A subtle difference, but a contentious difference – the strong principle leaving a lot of room for God. These principles basically say the meaning of our existence is to give meaning to the universe’s existence by observing it. Lastly you get what I call the egotistic anthropic principle – since I am the observer, I am the only thing that matters; everything in the universe happened so that I could one day observe it. And taking this even further – that everything will continue happening in the future to allow me to continue observing the universe. A great theory for teenagers, superheroes, movie stars and other people the universe revolves around.

But even knowing that you are the centre of the universe is not enough for most people. Is there purpose to my life? Do the decisions I make and the actions I perform make a difference? Is there a reason for my existence? By assuming that our life does have meaning and purpose we open up another range of theories. Here we bring in fate and destiny. The first position would be that there is no fate, only perfect free choice. Our lives matter because the choices we make will determine the future. You can be an atheist or a deist to hold this view and is a nice default theory to have. The other extreme is that your fate is predetermined – the choices you make and the life you live is preordained. Note that this view presupposes the existence of God. Although a perfectly lawful and ordered universe could also create a kind of fate, whereby your future is predetermined by scientific law, it would fail on the criteria of giving your life meaning and purpose (well I think it would). This theory says that God has a grand plan for the universe and that our purpose it to fulfil that plan – God has a plan for everyone and you must not question God’s will. In between these two extremes is the realm of the theists. (OED: theism – belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.) The one side is that God has a plan, but people also have free will and God actively intervenes in the world in an attempt to fulfil this plan. This is classic good versus evil territory – God on one hand trying to make the world good and the Devil on the other trying to turn everyone to evil. The other side of the spectrum is that God presents everyone with opportunities and it is up to you to make the right choice. God will look after you and protect you, but you are also free to stuff everything up. This is the path of goodness analogy – we have a path that we can follow in life, but we may stray from this path. This is another popular theory (the other position taken around the campfire), since it has a nice mix of free will, fate and purpose to your life. If you recognise the opportunities and make the right decisions you will have a happy and successful life. This is theory is generally what I believe. However, note that this theory also has the possibility of being highly judgemental – if you are poor, unhappy or unsuccessful, it is entirely your own fault for not recognising opportunities or making the right decisions… One aspect I do not like at all. And to end this branch of theory on a quote: Nehru is said to have said “Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will.”

The last theory I am going to cover came to me after that campfire debate, when I was mulling everything over. It is a weird blend of science, fate and deism, and I am getting kind of fond of it. In a way it challenges both fate and scientific law. The theory centres around life itself and its meaning. Life is a challenge to scientific law. The laws of thermodynamics say that the universe will always tend toward chaos, that stars will burn out and it will all end in a boring uniform energy state. Essentially everything wears down, runs out of fuel, stops working, breaks, crumbles to dust and so on. However life is a small challenge to those laws – life seeks to use energy, feed off energy, store energy. Instead of our sun just slowly burning off into nothing, it has allowed life to flourish on Earth, culminating in a sentient being. And a sentient being is an incredible thing. If a stone falls off a cliff, the laws of physics say that it will accelerate at 10m/s² until it hits the ground. Simple, easy, calculatable, predictable. Add a human to the equation and everything goes haywire. Instead of falling to the ground, the stone might instead be caught by the human and then thrown back up the cliff, or then again maybe it won’t… The laws of physics are suddenly less certain. Maybe the structure of the human’s brain could be analysed and a prediction made whether he would decide to catch the stone or not, but even then the calculation is enormously more complex. The laws of probability and science say that sooner or later a gigantic asteroid will hit the Earth and destroy all life. But now that is no longer a certainty. Humans, by observing and understanding the physics and the universe are able to track asteroids, calculate their trajectories and predict whether they will hit the Earth or not. Even more importantly, we now have the means of preventing this from happening (it’s just a matter of whether we can react fast enough), either through the hiring of a motley crew of oil drillers, a large special effects budget and some nukes, or through the use of our understanding of science to make changes to the asteroid’s trajectory using propulsion or gravity. Scientific law represents the cold hard fate – the stone falling off the cliff will hit the ground, an asteroid will hit the Earth. Life is the challenge to that – stopping the stone from falling, nuking that asteroid. One day we may even change the universe’s fate of a cold death. So what therefore is our purpose in such a theory? It is to challenge fate, to challenge pre-determinism, to understand things and then to change them. Definitely a theory that appeals to my revolutionary side…