Cosmological Questions
May 15, 2007 · By Tom Cerber
We’re in the “golden age of telescopes,” according to this WashPost article. Fascinating account of some of the space telescopes in the pipeline at NASA, and how much more advanced they are from even the Hubble Space Telescope.
Corroding his credibility, the author breathlessly informs us that:
We look into space not because a supernova may zap us, but because it’s like a huge message written in code, daring us to read it. Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? What else — who else — is out there? These are simple questions, but they’re not easily answered. Still, the information is there, inscribed in electromagnetic radiation that does us the great favor of crossing the universe and landing in the light buckets we call telescopes.
How are we here might be a better question. As for the idea we can derive the why from astronomy, the best recent response was given Fr. DeSouza’s slice and dice of Christopher Hitchens:
What then does Hitchens propose as the antidote to the poison of religion? He opts for scientific materialism, the banality of which he tries to hide behind such — dare we say it? — “pious” invocations about the sense of wonder induced by photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. It’s like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset.
Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence? Hitchens is so fascinated with what he can see in the skies or in the laboratory that he is blind to the world in which men actually live. Perhaps he thinks that without religion there would be more peace, wisdom and beauty in a world dominated by politics, science, entertainment and industry. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, and good reason to believe that such a flat world would be more brutal to live in.
DeSouza makes the Augustinian observation that while physical scientists are right to respond to the beauty of creation with wonder, the dignity of human beings is even greater. Atheists and materialists, who frequently try to claim human beings are closer to apes than to gods, overlook this.
On a related point, this reminds me of a line from a wonderful book by Robertson Davies, The Fifth Business, where the character Dunstan comments on his atheist friend, Sam:
If he hoped to make an atheist of me, this was where he went wrong; I knew a metaphor when I heard one, and I like metaphor better than reason. I have known many atheists since Sam, and they all fall down on metaphor.
Atheists and materialists, who frequently try to claim human beings are closer to apes than to gods, overlook this.
I must respectfully disagree with this reduction. The differentiation is that those groups typically do not ascribe an arbitrary rank to humanity – or other species.
The Augustinian view that DeSouza (and I presume yourself) argues from is largely an assertion derived from an article of faith. It is unreasonable to expect that those who do not accept that article of faith would derive a similar basis of reasoning. (Nor does it render the Augustinian argument in any way “superior”)
‘Why are we here?’ is a question with as much semantic content as: ‘Why are unicorns hollow?’ or: ‘Does God exist?’.
While materialism itself cannot answer the big questions (it assumes there is only a how, and not a why), neither can “religion.” Both responses make assumptions about God and spirituality that seem unwarranted: that it doesn’t or does exist, respectively. Experiencing the world, and thinking deeply about those experiences, seems to be the best way to approach the big questions, although from our point of view as human beings, it’s out of our reach to ask “Why are we here? What is our purpose?” and ever expect an answer.
Also, atheists and scientific materialists don’t necessarily think of humans simply as modified chimps (and thereby not very interesting). Scientifically, we are very closely related. However, we have a capacity for conscious morality and reflection that distinguishes us in ways both wonderful and terrible from most, if not all, of the animal kingdom – with or without God. You don’t need God for morality.
anon: All of those questions have enough semantic content for you to communicate them, and for me to conceive of them. Look up “Beyond the Limits of Thought” by Graham Priest.
Julie: Great post, especially on the differences between humans and chimps.
On your point about not getting an answer on “why are we here?” and “what is our purpose?”, I think it might be more accurate to say we can’t expect those questions to be answered with certitude. For instance, one can look at a nonreligious philosopher like Aristotle for lots of ideas on why we’re here and our purpose(for happiness). His dialectical approach to these questions indicates he doesn’t think he can provide a definitive answer, but the fact that the life of reason and of friendship would indicate he thought some insight can be gained.
While Aristotle did not appeal to revealed religion to provide an answer, he did investigate the composite nature of the human as it is revealed in everyday experience.