Does the universe have a purpose?

Unlikely. Lawrence M. Krauss 2

Yes. David Gelernter 3

Perhaps. Paul Davies 4

No. Peter William Atkins 5

Indeed. Nancey Murphy 6

Yes. Owen Gingerich 8

VeryLikely. Bruno Guiderdoni 9

No. Christian de Duve 10

Yes. John F. Haught 12

NotSure. Neil deGrasse Tyson 13

Certainly. Jane Goodall 14

IHopeSo. Elie Wiesel 15

I N T R O D U C T I O N

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

TheJohnTempletonFoundationservesasaphilanthropiccatalystforresearchonwhatscientistsandphilosopherscalltheBigQuestions.Wesupportworkattheworld’stopuniversitiesinsuchfieldsastheoreticalphysics,cosmology,

evolutionarybiology,cognitivescience,andsocialsciencerelatingtolove,forgiveness,creativity,purpose,andthenatureandoriginofreligiousbelief.Weencourageinformed,open-mindeddialoguebetweenscientistsandtheologiansastheyapplythemselvestothemostprofoundissuesintheirparticulardisciplines.And,inamorepracticalvein,weseektostimulatenewthinkingaboutwealthcreationinthedevelopingworld,charactereducationinschoolsanduniversities,andprogramsforcultivatingthetalentsofgiftedchildren.

ThisbookletneatlyembodiesourapproachtotheBigQuestions:thecontributorsarescholarsandthinkersofthefirstrank,theyaddressaperennialandmuch-disputedsubject,andtheybringtobear—incivil,elegantprose—arangeofdifferentperspectives.Byassemblingthis“conversation,”weintendtopromoteadialoguethattranscendsfamiliarrhetoricandstockanswers.WeaimtoturndiscourseontheBigQuestionsinamorethoughtful,considereddirection.Itisourhopethatthisbookletwillbealastingresourceforstudents,teachers,parents,scientists,clergy,andanyoneelseengagedwiththegreatissuesofhumannatureandpurpose.

Twoadditional“conversations”onBigQuestionsatthecoreoftheFoundation’smandatemayalsobeofinteresttoreaders.Theycanbefoundonlineatthefollowingaddresses:

Will money solve Africa’s development problems? www.templeton.org/africa

Does science make belief in God obsolete?www.templeton.org/belief

Unlikely.Perhapsyouhopedforastrongerstatement,onewayortheother.ButasascientistIdon’tbelieveIcanmakeone.Whilenothinginbiology,chemistry,physics,geology,astronomy,orcosmologyhaseverprovideddirectevidenceofpurposeinnature,sciencecanneverunambiguouslyprovethatthereisnosuchpurpose.AsCarlSagansaid,inanothercon-text:Absenceofevidenceisnotevidenceofabsence.Ofcourse,nothingwouldstopsciencefromuncoveringpositiveevidenceofdivineguidanceandpurposeifitwereattainable.Forexample,tomorrownightifwelookupatthestarsandtheyhavebeenrearrangedintoapatternthatreads,“Iamhere,”Ithinkeventhemosthard-nosedscientificskepticwouldsuspectsomethingwasup.Butnosuchunambiguoussignshavebeenuncoveredamongthemillionsandmillionsofpiecesofdatawehavegleanedaboutthenaturalworldovercenturiesofexploration.Andthisispreciselywhyascientistcanconcludethatitisveryunlikelythatthereisanydivinepurpose.Ifacreatorhadsuchapurpose,shecouldchoosetodemonstrateitalittlemoreclearlytotheinhabitantsofhercreation.

Oneisalwaysfree,assomepeopledo,tointerpretthelawsofnatureassignsofpurpose,asforexamplePopePiusdidwhenBelgianphysicist-priestGeorgeLemaitredemonstratedthatEinstein’sgeneraltheoryofrelativityimpliedtheuniversehadabeginning.ThePopeinterpretedthisasscientificproofofGenesis,butLemaitreaskedhimtostopsayingthis.Thebigbang,asithasbecomeknown,canbeinterpretedintermsofadivinebeginning,butitcanequallybeinterpretedasremovingGodfromtheequationentirely.Theconclusionisinthemindofthebeholder,anditisoutsideoftherealmofscientifictheoryandprediction.Finally,eveniftheuniversehasahiddenpurpose,everythingweknowaboutthecosmossuggeststhatwedonotplayacentralroleinit.Weare,asaplanet,cosmicallyinsignificant.LifeonEarthwillend,asithasprobablydoneoncountlessplanetsinthepast,andwilldointhefuture.Andallthestarsandallthegalaxiesweseecoulddisappearinaninstantandtheuniversewouldgoonbehavingmoreorlessasitisdoingrightnow.Natureseemsasuncaringasitisunyielding.Thus,organizedreligions,whichputhumanityatthecenterofsomedivineplan,seemtoassaultourdignityandintelligence.Auniversewithoutpurposeshouldneitherdepressusnorsuggestthatourlivesarepurposeless.Throughanawe-inspiringcosmichistorywefindourselvesonthisremoteplanetinaremotecorneroftheuniverse,endowedwithintelligenceandself-awareness.Weshouldnotdespair,butshouldhumblyrejoiceinmakingthemostofthesegifts,andcelebrateourbriefmomentinthesun.

Lawrence M. KraussProfessor of Physics and Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.

L AW R E N C E M . K R A U S S

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

Yes.Considerthisquestion:DotheEarthandmankindhaveapurpose?Ifso,thentheuniversedoestoo,ipsofacto.Ifnot,theuniversemightstillhave(someother)purpose;butIdon’thavetofacethatcontingency,becauseIbelievewedohaveone…Namely,todefeatandriseaboveouranimalnatures;tocreategoodness,beauty,andholinesswhereonlyphysicsandanimallifeonceexisted;tocreatewhatmightbe(ifwesucceed)theonlytinypinprickofgoodnessintheuniverse—whichisotherwise(sofarasweknow)morallynullandvoid.Ifnoothersuchprojectexistsanywhereinthecosmos,ourvictorywouldchangethenatureoftheuniverse.Iftherearesimilarprojectselsewhere,morepowertothem;butourowntaskremainsunchanged.Butwhyriseaboveandnotblendintonature?Equivalently,fromaWesternviewpoint:whydidtheJudeo-Christiantraditionreplacethepaganideaofgodsmadeinman’simagewitharevolutionaryinversion,manmadeinGod’s?Whyshouldwebegoadednottobeourselvesbuttobebetterthanourselves?Whyseekgoodness?Becausemosthumansdesiregood-ness.Formost(notall!)humans,thisurgeiseasily

ignoredintheshortterm,butnearlyimpossibletouprootoverthelonghaul.Males(andfemales)desiresex,too;butifamalehadsomehowgrownupwithoutseeingawoman,thisdesirewould(probably)remainvagueandunformed.Humansdesiregoodness;butuntiltheJudeo-Christianrevelationthisdesirewas,atleastforWesternhumanity,vagueandunformed.Humansdesiregoodness;butuntiltheJudeo-Christianrevelationthisdesirewas,atleastforWesternhumanity,vagueandunformed.ForWesternman,Judeo-Christianethicsfeltright;feltobligatory;madesomeinternaltuningforkhum.(ByJudeo-ChristianethicsImean,basically,theTenCommandmentsandtheHolinessCodeofLeviticus�9.Recallthat,whenhe’scalledupontosummarizehismessage,JesusquotestwoversesfromtheHebrewBible.)Allurgesarenotcreatedequal.Mosthumansneedsex,butinrarecasesdon’t,andotherschoosetosuppresstheurge.Thegoodness-and-sanctityurgeis(likewise)absentinsome,suppressedinothers;subliminallypresentinmost.Whenweseekgoodnessandsanctity,wedefynature.ThebasicruleofJudeo-Christianethicsis,thestrongmustsupporttheweak.Thebasicruleofnatureis,thestrongliveandtheweakdie.Butifyoudoachieveyourultimatehumanpurpose—tobecomegood,totranscendyouranimalnature;toimitateGodandtherebyhelptransformGodfromaninternalsubjectiveideatoanexternal,objectivefact—whathaveyouachieved?Isthereanyhopeofultimatesuccess?Ofgatheringtogetherenoughpinpricksofgoodnesstocreateaswellthatwillsweepsufferingawayandleavesanctityandjoy(likeglitteringseafoamonthebeach)behind?OfrealizingGodonearth?Notnecessarily.InGenesis,GodwarnsusnottoeatfromtheTreeoftheKnowledgeofGoodandEvil.TheTalmudreportsafamousdisputebetweentwoleadingrabbinicalschools:wouldmanhavebeenbetteroffhadheneverbeencreated?Thedecision:yes.ButasJobteachesus,wemustplaythehandwearedealt.

David GelernterProfessor of computer science at Yale and a National fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

D AV I D G E L E R N T E R

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

Perhaps.Discussionsofcosmicpurposeareloadedwithculturalbaggage,sotoanswerthequestionofwhethertheuniverseasawholehasapurpose—andifitdoes,whatismeantbythatword—wefirstneedtogetattheheartofthescientificworldview.Scientistsoftenwaxlyricalaboutthescale,majesty,harmony,elegance,andingenuityoftheuniverse.Einsteinprofesseda“cosmicreligiousfeeling.”Letmegivetheflavorofwhatthissentimententails.Asthecosmicdramaunfolds,itlooksasifthereisascript—acoherentschemeofthings—towhichitsevolutionisconforming.Natureisnotanarbitraryjuxtapositionofeventsbutthemanifestationofingeniouslyinterweavingmathematicallaws.Thatmuchisagreed.Butwhataboutapurposetoitall?Ifthereisascript—acosmicstorytotell—isn’tthatalreadyasortofpurpose?Manyscientistsarequicktopourscornonthesuggestion.RichardFeynmanthoughtthat“thegreataccumulationofunderstandingastohowthephysicalworldbehavesonlyconvincesonethatthisbehaviorhasakindofmeaninglessnessaboutit.”ItisaconclusionendorsedbyStevenWeinberginhisfamouscomment:“Themoretheuniverseseemscomprehensiblethemoreitalsoseemspointless.”

Afamiliarcriticismisthatconceptssuchas“meaning”and“purpose”arecategoriesderivedfromhumandiscourse,andcannotbeprojectedontonature.Butthisisacriticismthatcanbedirectedatscientificconceptsingeneral.Allattemptstodescribetheuniversedrawonhumancategories:scienceproceedspreciselybytakingconceptsthathumanshavethoughtup,ofteninspiredbyeverydayexperience,andapplyingthemtonature.PierreLaplacetreatedtheuniverseasagiganticclockworkmachine,andRichardDawkinshasdescribedlivingorganismsasgenemachines.Butmachinesarealsohumanconstructs,andmechanismisahumanconceptjustasmuchaspurpose.Itisnolesslegitimatetoseekevidenceforsomethinglikepurposeintheuniversethantoseekevidencethattheuniverseisamechanism,oracomputer,orwhateverotherhuman-derivedcategoryresonateswithwhatweobserve.Where,then,istheevidenceof“cosmicpurpose”?Well,itisrightunderournosesintheveryexistenceofscienceitselfasasuccessfulexplanatoryparadigm.Doingsciencemeansfiguringoutwhatisgoingonintheworld—whattheuniverseis“upto”,whatitis“about”.Ifitisn’t“about”anything,therewouldbenogoodreasontoembarkonthescientificquestinthefirstplace,becausewewouldhavenojustificationforbelievingthatwewouldtherebyuncoveradditionalcoherentandmeaningfulfactsabouttheworld.Experienceshowsthataswedigdeeperanddeeperusingscientificmethods,wecontinuetofindrationalandmeaningfulorder.Theuniversemakessense.Wecancomprehendit.Scienceisavoyageofdiscovery,andaswithallsuchvoyages,youhavetobelievethereissomethingmeaningfulouttheretodiscoverbeforeyouembarkonit.Andwitheverynewscientificdiscoverymade,thatbeliefisconfirmed.Iftheuniverseispointlessandreasonless,realityisultimatelyabsurd.Weshouldthenbeobligedtoconcludethatthephysicalworldofexperienceisafiendishlycleverpieceoftrickery:absurditymasqueradingasrationalorder.Weinberg’saphorismcanthusbeinverted.Iftheuniverseistrulypointless,thenitisalsoincomprehensible,andtherationalbasisofsciencecollapses.

Paul DaviesPhysicist, cosmologist, & astrobiologist. Director of the Beyond Center at Arizona State University.

P A U L D AV I E S

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

No.Intheabsenceofevidence,theonlyreasontosupposethatitdoesissentimentalwishfulthinkingandsentimentalwishfulthinking,whichunderliesallreligion,isanunreliabletoolforthediscoveryoftruthofanykind.Theextensionofanalogiesisanothertoolthataccompanieswishfulthinkinginthetoolboxesofthecredulous.Thatanintricatemechanism,suchasanengineorevenaspoon,iscommonlyassociatedwithapurposecannotbetakentobeevidencethattheuniverseasawholeisassociatedwithapurpose,anymorethantheexistenceofacheetahimpliesthatithasbeendesignedwithapurposeinmind.Cheetahshaveevolvedbythebloody,directionless,unguidedprocessesofevolution:theyhavenotbeenprovidedforthepurposeofkillingantelopes.Similarly,theuniversehasevolvedoverits��billionyearsofcurrentexistencebythedirectionless,unguidedprocessesthataremanifestationsoftheworkingoutofphysicallaws:ithasnotbeenmadeforthepurposeofprovidingplatformstoenablecheetahstostalktheirpreyorhumanstogenerategreatartortoentertain

delusions.Thatwedonotyetunderstandanythingabouttheinceptionoftheuniverseshouldnotmeanthatweneedtoascribetoitsinceptionasupernaturalcause,acreator,andthereforetoassociatewiththatcreator’sinscrutablemindapurpose,whetheritbedivine,malign,orevenwhimsicallycapricious.Theologianstypicallyfocusonquestionsthattheyhaveinventedfortheirownpuzzlement.Sometheologiansareperplexedbythenatureoflifeafterdeath,anotiontheyhaveinventedwithoutascrapofevidence.SomearemystifiedbytheexistenceofevilinaworldcreatedbyaninfinitelylovingGod,anothernotionthattheologianshaveinventedbutwhichdissolvesintonothingonceitisrealizedthatthereisnoGod.Thequestionofcosmicpurposeislikewiseaninventednotion,whollywithoutevidentialfoundation,andequallydismissibleaspatentlyabsurd.Weshouldnotregardasgreatthequestionsthathavebeeninventedsolelyforthesakeofelicitingpuzzlement.Iregardtheexistenceofthisextraordinaryuniverseashavingawonderful,awesomegrandeur.Ithangsthereinallitsglory,whollyandcompletelyuseless.Toprojectontoitourhuman-inspirednotionofpurposewould,tomymind,sullyanddiminishit.

Peter William AtkinsFellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford.

P E T E R W I L L I A M A T K I N S

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

Indeed.Butitisnotpossibletoknowthatbylookingatthenaturalworldalone.ThequestionofpurposeiscloselyrelatedtothequestionofwhethersomethingliketheGodofWesternmonotheisticreligionscanbeknowntoexistbystudyingtheorder,goodness,andgrandeuroftheuniverse.Alreadyaround�7�0DavidHumepointedoutthatifoneislookingatevidenceofdesign,thenalloftheevidencemustbetakenintoaccount:notonlyorderandgoodnessbutdisorderandevilaswell.Heseemstothinkthatsomesortofcreatorispossible(inhisDialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion,publishedposthumouslyin�779,itisnotclearwhichcharacterrepresentsHume’sownviews).Butifso,wecanknownexttonothingaboutthecreator’squalities:anintelligence,forallweknow,asmuchlikeoursasourintelligenceisliketherottingofaturnip—onedeityorateam;aliveordead;ajuvenileorsuperannuateddeity.Nothingcanbeknownofanyplanforthefutureperfectionoftheworldorthehumancondition.Ifonecannotinferthepurposesofabenevolentcreatorfromevidenceinthenaturalworld,thenhowcanI(andmyco-religionists)claimtoknowtheworld’spurpose?The

answeristoocomplicatedtospellouthere,butItakeittoinvolvedetailedcomparisonsofcompetingtraditionsonthebasisofthesupporttheydrawfromtheirownpeculiarkindsofevidence(forChristians,historicaleventsasinthelifeofJesusandtheearlychurch,andcarefullyevaluatedreligiousexperiences).Inaddition,eachtraditionmustbeevaluatedonthebasisoftheintellectualcrisesitfaces.TwocrisesfacingwhatIcallthescientificnaturalisttradition(originatinginHume’sandothers’writings)arethequestionsofwhetheritispossibleadequatelytoexplainthephenomenonofreligionnaturalistically,andwhetherthetraditioncanprovidegroundsformorality.Scientificresearchonthepracticesandbeliefsofreligiousadherentsisrelevanttothefirst.Scientificresearchisalsorelevanttosomeofthecrisesfacingtheistictraditions,andsoknowledgeofnatureisnotirrelevanttotheissueofpurpose.Forexample,alongstandingchallengetoChristianityistoexplainwhyagoodGodpermitssomuchsufferingofhumansandanimalsatthehandofnature.Whyaretheretsunamis,hurricanes,droughts,andghastlydiseases?Beforethedevelopmentofmodernscience(andstillinsomeChristiancircles)thesewereallseenascausedbysin(theFall)andasfittingpunishmentforsin.Nowweknowthatanimalssufferedformillionsofyearsbeforehumansevolved.Wealsoknowthatallofthesecatastrophesareproducedbytheordinaryworkingoftheprocessesofnature,suchasplatetectonics.YetonecanthenaskwhyGoddidnotcreateamorebenevolentnaturalorder.Ifitisthestrengthofgravitythatcausesbrokenboneswhenchildrenfall,whynotakinder,gentlergravitationalforce?Hereisonepointwheregreaterknowledgeofthenaturalworldbearsonatheologicalproblem.SincethewritingsofBrandonCarterin�97�wehavehadincreasinglydetailedknowledgeofthewayinwhichfundamentalconstantsandphysicallawsappeartobefine-tunedtoproduceauniversethatsupportslife.Changeanyofthenumbersslightly,andthedevelopmentoftheentireuniversewouldhavegonequite

Nancey MurphyProfessor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.

N A N C E Y M U R P H Y

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

( C O N T I N U E D )

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

7

N A N C E Y M U R P H Y

differently,makingtheevolutionoflifeimpossible.Forexample,theratioofthestrengthofgravitytooneoftheotherbasicforces,thenuclearweakforce,hadtobeadjustedasaccuratelyasonepartin�0tothe�00thpowertoavoideitheraswiftcollapseoftheuniverseoranexplosion.Thesescientificdevelopmentscanbeusedtoarguethat,ifthereisadesignerGodwhosepurposefortheuniverseincludeslife,especiallyintelligentlife,thenthelawsandconstantshadtobealmostexactlywhattheyare.Thus,ifwearetobehere,thenaturalworldmustcontainalmostexactlytheamountofdangeranddestructionthatitdoes.Sowhilethestudyofthenaturalworldcannotshowthatithasapurpose—thefine-tuningisnotanadequateargumentfortheexistenceofGod—itisindeedindirectlyrelevanttothequestionoftheuniverse’spurpose.

Yes.Frankly,Iampsychologicallyincapableofbelievingthattheuniverseismeaningless.Ibelievetheuniversehasapurpose,andourgreatestintellectualchallengeashumanbeingsistoglimpsewhatthispurposemightbe.Mybeliefisnottheresultofablindingflashofaroad-to-Damascusrevelation.Norisittheimprintofanurturinghomeenvironment.Kindergartnersintheirsimplicityaskmanyprofoundquestions,butthepurposeoftheuniverseisrarelyamongthem.Maturingteenagersintheirangstmayask,“What’sthemeaningofitall?”Thequestionisexistential,buttheanswerissubtle.Understandingemergesnotinthunder,earthquakeandfire,butinthestillsmallvoiceoftheuniverseitself.Quitepossibly,thepurposeoftheuniverseistoprovideacongenialhomeforself-consciouscreatureswhocanaskprofoundquestionsandwhocanprobethenatureoftheuniverseitself.OnlygraduallydidIcometoappreciatehowmagnificentlytunedtheuniverseisfortheemergenceofintelligentlife.Carbonatoms,withtheirself-bondingproperties,providetheimmensevarietyforthecomplexcellularmachinery—nootheratomoffersacomparablerangeofpossibilities.Butcarbondidnotemergefromthebigbangofcreation.Itwasslowlyproduced,overbillionsofyears,inthecoresofevolvingstars.Hadsomeofthebasicconstantsofnaturebeenonlyslightlydifferent,therewouldbenomajorabundanceofcarbon.Anditisextremelydifficulttoimagineintelligentlifewithoutsomethinglikecarbon.Oneswallowdoesnotasummermake.Butinthefine-tuningoftheuniverse,theabundanceofcarbonisonlyoneofmanysuchremarkableaspects.Thereareenoughsuch“coincidences”togivethoughtfulobserverssomepause.Scientistswhoareloathtoaccept

afine-tuneduniversefeelobligedtotakenotice.Ofcourse,iftheuniversewereanyotherway,wewouldn’tbeheretoobserveit,butthatishardlyasatisfyinganswer.Suppose,however,thattherearemyriaduniverses,eachwithdifferentproperties.Inthatcasewewouldnaturallybefoundintheuniversethat,likethelittlebear’sporridge,isjustright.Thoseotherbarrenuniverses,manywithnostarsorplanets,wouldexistintheirownforeverunobservablespace.Somehowthisisanunpersuasivecounter-argument.Evenonecongenialuniverseoutofmanywouldbemiracleenough.InthedeepmysteryofGod’svastcreativeexperimenttheremaybemanyfacetsthatwe,inhumanterms,wouldrelatetoaspurposesoftheuniverse.Ibelievethat,incredibly,thisincludesthecreator’sself-revelationthoughhumanintelligenceandpersonalities.WithGod’sexperimentcomesthefreedomofchoice,andIchoosetobelieveinapurposefuluniverse.Mythoughtfulatheisticfriendswhodenythattheuniversehasanyultimatemeaningarealsomenandwomenoffaith.Perhapsintimidatedbyintimationsofdesign,theyseektounderstandtheuniverseinotherways.Ironically,theythemselvesmaywellbepartofthepurposeoftheuniverse.

Owen GingerichProfessor Emeritus of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University.Senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

O W E N G I N G E R I C H

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

�

VeryLikely.Modernsciencehasproducedsomethingquiteunexpected.Eventoascientistsuchasmyself.Itturnsoutthattheobservedfeaturesofthenaturalworldappeartobefine-tunedforbiologicalcomplexity.Inotherwords,everythingfromthemassratiosofatomicparticles,thenumberofspacedimensions,tothecosmologicalparametersthatruletheexpansionoftheuniverse,andtheformationofgalaxiesareallexactlywhattheyneedtobetocreatestars,planets,atoms,andmolecules.Butwheredoesthisapparentfine-tuningcomefrom?Isitthemanifestationofaplanfortheuniverse?Anarrangementbyasuperiorwilltopreparethewayforcomplexcreatures?IsitGod’ssignature?Peopleoffaithbelieveitisso.Theyreadpurposeintheuniverseasapainterseesbeautyinaviewontheocean.However,forscientists,finalcausesdon’texplainenough.Wemustgoonestepfurther,andexaminealternativeexplanationstothefine-tuningidea.Onesuchideaiscalledthemultiverse.Itstatesthatwedon’tliveinauniversefine-tunedforlifesomuchaswehappentoliveinauniverse,oneofmany,thatbyacosmicaccidentjusthappenstobethe

kindthatsupportsbiologicallife.Inotherwords,we’renotspecial,we’rejustlucky.Recentdiscoveriesinparticlephysicspointtothis.Remember,ourobservableuniverseisjustatinyregionamongalargevarietyofregions,eachwithdifferentproperties.Andmanyoftheseregionsintheuniversearesterileandinhospitableandthuslifeless(whichmakesitespeciallydifficultforthemtobeobserved!).Thus,saysomescientists,thereisnofine-tuning.Andlikewise,thereisnopurpose.ButIdon’tagree.Thefundamentalscientifictheoriesthatsupportthemultiverserequirecomplexmathematics.Thefactthatthesefundamentaltheoriesareevenaccessibletoourbrains,which,inapurposelessuniversewouldbenothingbutaby-productofourabilitytofindprey(andavoidbeingprey),inthemillenniaofHomosapiens’evolutionissomethingIfindquite...puzzling.Therealityisthatweareabletocontemplatesuchquestions.Andthebiggerthequestionsourbrainscanponder,themoreunlikelythatthecosmicdramaweareallparticipatinginissimplyacosmiclottery.Thisiswhy,attheendoftheday,Ican’trefrainfromthinkingthatthereactuallyispurposeintheuniverse.

Bruno GuiderdoniAstrophysicist & Director of the Observatory of Lyon, France.

B R U N O G U I D E R D O N I

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

9

No.Ishouldmentionfirstthatthisisaloadedquestion,withseveralhiddenimplications.A“purpose”presupposesamindthatconceivedit,aswellastheabilitytoimplementit.Inthepresentcase,thismeansthattheownerofthemindnotonlycreatedtheuniversethewayitis,butcouldhavecreatedanotheruniverseanddecidedtocreatetheexistingoneforaspecificreason.SothequestionreallydealswiththebeliefinaCreatorwhoenjoysalmostinfinitepowerandfreedombut,atthesametime,goesthroughtheveryhumanprocessofponderingdecisionsandactingaccordingly.Inaway,thisisaveryanthropomorphicvisionofGod.Asecondaspectofthequestionconcernsthemotivationbehindthepurpose.WhatdidGodhaveinmindincreatingtheuniversethewayitis?Beingtheoneswhoaskthequestion,itisobviousthatweseeourselvesasatleastpartofGod’sgoal.Aspointedoutbythedefendersofthe“anthropicprinciple,”whatispeculiarabouttheuniverseisthatithappenstohavejusttherightphysicalpropertiestogiverisetolifeand,throughlife,tohumanminds.Suchananthropocentricviewofthecreationis,however,notreadilyreconciledwithwhatisknownoftheevolutionaryoriginofhumankind.

Personally,Idonotaccepttheimplicationsoftheterm“purpose.”Stickingtothefacts,Iprefertheundisputablestatementthattheuniversehappenstobesuchthatcertainevents,includingthegenerationoflifeandmind,werepossible,perhapsevenprobable,ifnotobligatory.Insteadofsearchingthe“mindofGod”fortheexplanationofthisfact,Iseeitasanexpressionofrealityandasasignificantcluetothenatureofthisreality.Manyscientistsandphilosophershavetakenthisattitude.ThelateFrenchbiologistJacquesMonod,forexample,concludedin�970,afterreviewingthegreatdiscoveriesofhisdays,thattheuniverseisameaninglessentityinwhichlifeandmindarosebyanextraordinarycombinationofimprobablecircumstancesandcouldverywellneverhavearisenatall.Asheclaimed,“theuniversewasnotpregnantwithlife,northebiospherewithman,”leadingtothestoicallydespairingconclusionthat“manknowsatlastthatheisaloneintheunfeelingimmensityoftheuniverseoutofwhichhearoseonlybychance.”ManybiologistsofMonod’sgenerationhavesharedthisopinion,spreadingwhatIhavecalledthe“gospelofcontingency.”Sincethen,themessageofsciencehaschanged.Mostbiologists,today,tendtoseelifeandmindascosmicimperatives,writtenintotheveryfabricoftheuniverse,ratherthanasextraordinarilyimprobableproductsofchance.ButthephilosophicalcontentofMonod’sviewhassurvivedintheso-called“multiverse”theory.Accordingtothistheory,advocated,amongothers,bytheBritishastronomerMartinReesandbytheAmericanphysicistStevenWeinberg,andnowmuchpopularizedbythemedia,ouruniverseisbutoneamongamultitudeofothersthatdonotshareitsproperties,theonlyonethathappensbychancetohavephysicalconstantssuchthatitcouldnaturallyevolvetogiverisetolife,which,itself,naturallyevolvedtogiverisetomind.Becauseoftheneedforamindtobeawareofsuchauniverse,itis,bynecessity,theonlyoneinthemultiversecapableofbeingknown,atleastbyentitiesofitsownmaking.Exceptforthat,

Christian de DuveBiochemist. Recipient of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology & Medicine.

C H R I S T I A N D E D U V E

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� 0

( C O N T I N U E D )

thereisnothingspecialaboutit.WearebackinMonod’s“unfeelingimmensityoutwhichwearoseonlybychance.”Thedifferenceisthatitisnotwewhoarosebychanceintheuniverse,butrathertheuniverse(inwhichwewereboundtoarise)thatarosebychanceinthemultiverse.ForreasonsthatIhaveexplainedelsewhere,Idonotsubscribetothisview.Inmyopinion,lifeandmindaresuchextraordinarymanifestationsofmatterthattheyremainmeaningful,howevermanyuniversesunabletogiverisetothemexistorarepossible.Dilutingouruniversewithtrillionsofothersinnowaydiminishesthesignificanceofitsuniqueproperties,whichIseeasrevealingcluestothe“UltimateReality”thatliesbehindthem.Sciencehasgivenusaglimpseofthisreality,byrevealingthestrangeobjectsandconcepts,almostirreducibletoourfamiliarworld,thatliebehindentitiessuchasthecosmos,matter,life,andmind.Throughmusic,art,andliterature,wehavebeenallowedtoapproachanotherfacetofthisreality,emotionalandesthetic,ratherthanintelligible.Withphilosophyandreligion,wehavebecomeawareofitsethicalandmysticalaspects.Encompassingallinasinglemanifestation,lovehasintroducedusintoitsveryheart.Itwillbenotedthatthereisnologicalneedforacreatorinthisview.Bydefinition,acreatormusthimselfbeuncreated,unlessheispartofanendless,Russian-dollsuccessionofcreatorswithincreators.Butthen,whystartthesuccessionatall?Whynothavetheuniverseitselfuncreated,anactualmanifestationofUltimateReality,ratherthantheworkofanuncreatedcreator?Thequestionisworthasking.BibliographyChristiandeDuve.VitalDust:LifeasaCosmicImperative.NewYork:BasicBooks(�99�).ChristiandeDuve.LifeEvolving:Molecules,Mind,andMeaning.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress(�00�).JacquesMonod.ChanceandNecessity.TranslatedfromtheFrenchbyA.Wainhouse.NewYork:Knopf(�97�).MartinRees.BeforetheBeginning.ReadingMA:PerseusBooks(�99�).StevenWeinberg.Facingup.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress(�00�).

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

C H R I S T I A N D E D U V E

Yes.Thefactthatwecanasksuchaquestionatallsuggestsanaffirmativeanswer.Theimpassionedsearchformeaning,perhapsourspecies’mostdistinctivetrait,isnotalongingthatliftsusoutoftheuniverse,orthattakesplaceoutsideofnature.Weare,afterall,asmuchapartofnatureasroachesandrivers.Sotooisourthirstformeaning.Ifweacceptevolution,asindeedwemust,ourlongingformeaningisnature—inthesamesensethatbirdsongandthehowlingofwolvesarenature.Butifourmindsarenothingmorethantheaccidentaloutcomeofamindlessevolutionaryprocess,whyshouldwetrustthematall?ADarwinianaccountofthemind’scriticalcapacities—explanatorythoughsuchanarrativemightbe—isnotenoughtojustifytheconfidencewespontaneouslyplaceinourcognitionalpowers.Darwinhimselfwouldagree.Heagonizedoverwhetherthetheoryofnaturalselection,takenbyitself,mightnotunderminetheactualtrustwehaveinourmind’scapacitytounderstandandknowreality.“Withmethehorriddoubtalwaysarises,”headmittedtoafriend,“whethertheconvictionsofman’smind,whichhasbeendevelopedfromthemindoftheloweranimals,areofanyvalueoratalltrustworthy.Wouldanyonetrustinthe

convictionsofamonkey’smind,ifthereareanyconvictionsinsuchamind?”Darwinhadnogoodanswertothisquestion,butthatdoesnotmeanitisunanswerable.Wecanembraceevolutionarysciencewithoutlosingconfidenceinourminds.Foritisnotbylookingbackatwhatourmindsevolvedfrom,Isuggest,butonlybylookingforwardatwhatourmindsarenowanticipatingthatwecanvalidateourcognitionalconfidenceandvindicateourtrustincosmicpurpose.Butjustwhatareourmindsanticipating?Whataretheyreachingfor?If,alongwithme,youareaskingthisquestion,youarealreadyclosinginontheanswer.Yourmindisengagedathisverymomentinnothinglessthanthesearchfortruth.Andsimplybyreachingtowardtruthbothyouandyourmind’snaturalrootsystem—theuniverse—areennobled.Astheyarebeingtakencaptivebythemostundeniableofvalues,truthitself,theyarealreadyparticipatinginitsempoweringthoughalwayselusivepresence.Itisbecausethistranscendentvaluehasalreadytakenholdofyou,andinyouthewholeuniverse,thatyoucanhavefaithinyourcriticalintelligenceandalsotrustthattheuniversehasapurpose.Purpose,afterall,meansquitesimplythebringingaboutofsomethingundeniablyandpermanentlygood.Isthatwhatisgoingoninthecosmos?Aslongasyouaredrawntowardtruth,soalsoisthenaturalworldthatgavebirthtoyourmind.Thetwo,afterall,areinseparable.Aslongasthesearchfortruthpersists,notonlycanyoutrustyourmind,youcanalsotrusttheuniversethathasgerminatedsuchanexquisitemeansofopeningitselftowhatistimelesslyworthtreasuring.

John F. HaughtSenior Fellow, Science and Religion, at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.

J O H N F . H A U G H T

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

NotSure.Anyonewhoexpressesamoredefinitiveresponsetothequestionisclaimingaccesstoknowledgenotbasedonempiricalfoundations.Thisremarkablypersistentwayofthinking,commontomostreligionsandsomebranchesofphilosophy,hasfailedbadlyinpasteffortstounderstand,andtherebypredicttheoperationsoftheuniverseandourplacewithinit.Toassertthattheuniversehasapurposeimpliestheuniversehasintent.Andintentimpliesadesiredoutcome.Butwhowoulddothedesiring?Andwhatwouldadesiredoutcomebe?Thatcarbon-basedlifeisinevitable?Orthatsentientprimatesarelife’sneurologicalpinnacle?Areanswerstothesequestionsevenpossiblewithoutexpressingaprofoundbiasofhumansentiment?Ofcoursehumanswerenotaroundtoaskthesequestionsfor99.9999%ofcosmichistory.Soifthepurposeoftheuniversewastocreatehumansthenthecosmoswasembarrassinglyinefficientaboutit.Andifafurtherpurposeoftheuniversewastocreateafertilecradleforlife,thenourcosmicenvironmenthasgotanoddwayofshowingit.LifeonEarth,duringmorethan

�.�billionyearsofexistence,hasbeenpersistentlyassaultedbynaturalsourcesofmayhem,death,anddestruction.Ecologicaldevastationexactedbyvolcanoes,climatechange,earthquakes,tsunamis,storms,pestilence,andespeciallykillerasteroidshaveleftextinct99.9%ofallspeciesthathaveeverlivedhere.Howabouthumanlifeitself?Ifyouarereligious,youmightdeclarethatthepurposeoflifeistoserveGod.Butifyou’reoneofthe�00billionbacterialivingandworkinginasinglecentimeterofourlowerintestine(rivaling,bytheway,thetotalnumberofhumanswhohaveeverbeenborn)youwouldgiveanentirelydifferentanswer.Youmightinsteadsaythatthepurposeofhumanlifeistoprovideyouwithadark,butidyllic,anaerobichabitatoffecalmatter.Sointheabsenceofhumanhubris,andafterwefilteroutthedelusionalassessmentsitpromoteswithinus,theuniverselooksmoreandmorerandom.Whenevereventsthatarepurportedtooccurinourbestinterestareasnumerousasothereventsthatwouldjustassoonkillus,thenintentishard,ifnotimpossible,toassert.SowhileIcannotclaimtoknowforsurewhetherornottheuniversehasapurpose,thecaseagainstitisstrong,andvisibletoanyonewhoseestheuniverseasitisratherthanastheywishittobe.

Neil deGrasse TysonAstrophysicist.Director of New York City’s Hayden Planetarium.

N E I L d e G R A S S E T Y S O N

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

Certainly.Butfirstletmeexplain.Acommonscientificviewisthatevolutionoccurssimplybecausematterobeyssomeunseenlawwherebyasimpleorganismwill,ifitevolvesatall,becomeamorecomplexone.Evolutionisthusablindprocesswithoutpurposeandsciencewillonedayuncoverthesimplemechanicalrulesunderlyingeveryseemingmystery.Ourownlives,therefore,areequallywithoutpurpose.Thereisnoplacehereforthespirit,theimmortalsoul.Manypeoplefindthishardorimpossibletoaccept.EventhatgreatscientistAlbertEinsteinsustainedamysticaloutlookonlifethatwas,hesaid,constantlyrenewedfromthewonderandhumilitythatfilledhimwhenhegazedatthestars.Iwonder,canourfinitemindsevertrulyunderstandsuchthingsaseternityandinfinity?Myownthinkingrequiresabeginningandanending,analphaandomega.“InthebeginningwastheWord,”saystheBible.Yes,ofcourse–thebigbang.Butitisimpossibletoimagine“nothingness”beforethatcosmiceruption.

Weareintellectualandconsciousbeingsanditseemswehaveadeep-seatedneedtounderstandtheworldaroundusandourplaceinit.Andwhythingshappenastheydo.Fromprehistorictimeshumancultures,seekingtoexplaintheinexplicable,havebelievedin,worshiped,madesacrificesto,andfearedtheirgods—knownbymanynames,includingGod,Allah,Jehovah,Tao,Brahman,andtheCreator.Andallthegods,goddesses,spiritsanddemonsofclassicalmythologiesoftheanimistreligions.Peoplehavebelievedindivineretribution,theforcesofgoodandevil,andoften,continuationofspiritafterdeath.Ofcoursesciencetypicallyscoffsatanybeliefinagod,tellsusthatwehavea“Godgene”andthatthetendencytowardsreligiousbeliefissimplypartofourbiologicalmakeup,asinevitableastheuniversalhumansmile.Yetevenifthiswereso,wewouldstillneedtoaskwhy?Whyshouldwebeprogrammedtobelieveinagod?Whyarelawsofphysicsdesignedtomakelifeevermorecomplex?Andwheredidtheycomefrom?WhenIwasachild,bornintoaChristianfamily,IacceptedtherealityofanunseenGodwithoutquestion.AndnowthatIhavelivedalmostthreequartersofacenturyIstillbelieveinagreatspiritualpower.IhavedescribedelsewheretheexperienceIhadwhenIfirstvisitedNotreDameCathedralinParis.When,asIgazedatthegreatrosewindow,glowinginthemorningsun,theairwassuddenlyfilledwiththeglorioussoundofanorganplayingBach’sToccataandFugueinDMinor.Itfilledmewithjoy,broughttearstomyeyes.HowcouldIbelievethatblindchancehadledtothatmomentintime—thecathedral,thecollectivefaithofthosewhohadprayedandworshipedwithin,thegeniusofBach,theemergenceofaconsciousmindthatcould,asminedidthen,questionthepurposeoflifeonEarth.Wasallthewonderandbeautysimplytheresultofpurposelessgyrationsofbitsofcosmicdustatthebeginningoftime?Ifnot,thentheremustbesomeextra-cosmicpower,thecreatorofthebigbang.Apurposeintheuniverse.Perhaps,oneday,thatpurposewillberevealed.

Jane GoodallFounder of the Jane Goodall Institute.UN Messenger of Peace.

J A N E G O O D A L L

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

IHopeSo.Andifitdoesn’t,it’suptoustogiveitone.Butfirst,letusconsiderthesequestions:Whytheworld?Whypeople?WhydidGodconsideritusefulorevengoodtointroducethemintohisuniversalplan?IfwearetobelieveanoldTalmudiclegend,thesequestionsareasoldasCreation,andperhapsevenolder.Theangelsdidinfacttrytodissuadehim.“Whatgoodwilltheybe?”askedtheAngelofTruth.“Peoplewillbeunabletokeepfromlying.”TheAngelofPeaceadded,“Peoplewillneverbeabletoliveinpeacewithoutquarrelingamongsteachother.”Andsowhynotsimplygiveup?WasGodwrongnottolistentohiscelestialcounselors’wisewarnings?History’sanswerseemsdepressing.Itdidn’ttakelongforAdamandEve,inparadise,todisobeydivinewill.Thesepitifulparentslefttheirtwosonstoargue;onebecametheassassin,thesecondthevictimoftheother.Deaththerebymadeitsdebutintohumanmemoryintheformofmurder.Incapableoflivinginsociety,peopleirritatedGodsomuchthatheendeduplamentingtheconfidencehehadplacedinthem.Hencethedevastatingflood.Wasithismistaketostartoveragain?Confrontedbytheircreator,arepeoplecondemnedtoremainGod’sadversary,orevenhis

enemy?Perhapshisprisoner?Hisorphan?TheJewishtraditioninwhichIbasemythoughtsdefinesitunambiguously—wearehispartner.Toputitplainly:ThoughGodcreatedtheworld,itisuptopeopletopreserve,respect,enrich,embellish,andpopulateit,withoutbringingviolencetoit.Becausetheworldisfragileandvulnerable,ithasalwaysbeenindanger.Andthisdangercomesfrommanhimself.Isitfearofsolitudeordeaththatmakesitsodesirabletoconqueranddominateanotherperson’sthoughts,dreams,andhopes?Doesthetorturertormenthisprisonerorhostagetosoothehisownanguishfromawakeninginauniversethatwilloutlivehim?WillmanonedayunderstandthatGodaloneisalone?Thatalivingpersonisnotaloneandcandependonlyonhimorherselftonotbealone?Andthateachofusisresponsibleforanother’ssolitude?Andfortheworldthatanothercarriesinside?Whereisthisworldgoingtoday?Hardtoknow,butwedoknowthatit’sgoingtherefast—inatrainthatseemstoracetowarddisaster.Howcanwestopitifnotbypullingthealarm?Awareoftheperilsthatthreatentheplanet,perilscomingfromitsowninhabitants,itisattimeseasytolosehope.Somanywars,massacres,andhatredssweepoverCreationthatonewondersifGodwilllosepatience.Didheloseitbefore,whenevilandmisfortuneseemedtoreignoveraEuropeoccupiedbyHitler’sarmy?Eachtimethatachilddiedofhunger,fear,sorrow;eachtimeachildexpiredinflameslitbymen,itwasrighttowonder:WherewasGodinallofthis?Whatcouldhisgoalpossiblyhavebeenwhen,overthere,theKingdomofNighthadreplacedhisown?

Elie WieselThe Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities.University Professor at Boston University. This essay was translated from the French by Jamie Moore.

E L I E W I E S E L

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

( C O N T I N U E D )

Iadmitthatallthesequestionsremainopenforme.Ifananswerexists,Ichallengeit.Thebrutalandcrueldeathofoneandahalfmillionchildrenneithercouldnorshouldhaveananswer.ButIknowthis:thequestionsthatconfrontustodaydohavearesponse;andthisresponseengagesus.Ifthepresentworldhasapurposeorfate,itmustbethesameforall.Andeachhumanbeing,withhisownbackgroundandculture,owesittohimorherselftoaffirmhisorherownhumanitywithrespecttothatofhisorherpeer.Thepurposeoftheworldcannotbetoproposeorimposeachoicebetweenjoyforsomeanddistressforothers.Thisisafalseandunjustchoice.If,inordertobehappy,itisnecessaryfortheothernottobe,theworldinwhichwelivewouldlookmorelikeaprisonthananorchard.Transformingthewholeworldintoamassiveenclosureisindeedthegoalofafanaticsufferingfromuglyandunappeasedhatred,notofasincereandwarm-heartedbeliever.Theformer—thejailer—aspirestostifleoutallthosewhoarenotlikehim.ThetruthisthathemanagestoputGodhimselfinprison.Man’staskisthustoliberateGod,whilefreeingtheforcesofgenerosityinaworldteeteringmoreandmorebetweencurseandpromise.

A T E M P L E T O N C O N V E R S A T I O N

� �

E L I E W I E S E L