Maksud Terciptanya Alam Semesta

ADAKAH ALAM SEMESTA DICIPTAKAN DENGAN SUATU TUJUAN?   

Sebagai orang beriman, tentu kita menjawab dengan mantap bahwa Alam semesta diciptakan oleh Allah SWT dengan suatu tujuan dan hikmah yang agung.

Menurut Al-Qur'an, alam semesta tidak diciptakan sia-sia; bahkan tiap-tiap bagian dan elemennya diciptakan untuk tujuan tertentu dan mengandung hikmah yang agung. Banyak sekali ayat Al-Qur'an yang menyinggung persoalan mengenai tujuan penciptaan alam dan manusia, antara lain:

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلاَفِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لآيَاتٍ لِّأُوْلِي الألْبَابِ الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىَ جُنُوبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ رَبَّنَا مَا خَلَقْتَ هَذا بَاطِلاً سُبْحَانَكَ فَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ

Artinya:
Sesungguhnya dalam penciptaan langit dan bumi dan silih bergantinya malam dan siang adalah tanda-tanda bagi orang-orang yang berakal, (yaitu) orang-orang yang mengingat Allah dalam keadaan berdiri, duduk, berbaring dan memikirkan tentang penciptaan langit dan bumi (seraya berkata), 'Ya Tuhan kami, tidaklah Engkau ciptakan ini dengan sia-sia, Maha Suci Engkau maka hindarkanlah kami dari siksa neraka.' (QS. Alu Imran [3]: 190 – 191).

Dua ayat ini undangan dari Allah swt agar manusia berpikir, bertafakkur, dan menghayati kebesaran Allah SWT melaui karya-karya perbuatanNya di alam raya. Ayat ini juga mengundang kita untuk melakukan observasi yang cermat terhadap alam raya yang merupakan cikal bakal sains kealaman. Namun sains kealaman bagaimanapun kompleks pengembangannya tidak boleh melupakan hakekatnya bahwa ilmu tersebut harus mengantarkan kepada kehambaan dan rasa butuh yang semakin kuat dan mendalam kepada Allah SWT.

Di ayat lain Allah Swt berfirman:

قَالَ رَبُّنَا الَّذِي أَعْطَى كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدَى

Artinya:
Dia berkata, 'Tuhan kami ialah yang memberi kepada tiap-tiap sesuatu bentuk kejadiannya, kemudian Dia memberi petunjuk.' (QS. Thaha [20]: 50). 

Artinya sebuah sains yang Islami mempunyai aspek epistemologis dan ontologis yang jelas bahwa semua misteri keindahan dan keluarbiasaan tata kelola alam semesta tidak lain tidak bukan adalah penanda kepada kebesaran Maha Pencipta.

Tujuan Manusia Diciptakan
Al-Qur'an secara khusus menegaskan hikmah dan  tujuan dari penciptaan manusia:

أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لَا تُرْجَعُونَ

Artinya:
Apa kalian mengira bahwa sessungguhnya Kami menciptakan kalian sia-sia dan kalian tidak akan dikembalikan kepada Kami lagi. (QS. Al-Mukminun [23]: 115).

أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَن يُتْرَكَ سُدًى

Artinya:
Apakah manusia mengira bahwa dia akan ditinggalkan begitu saja. (QS. Al-Qiyamah [75]: 36).

Ayat ini menunjukkan berapa hal:

1- Manusia tidak diciptakan secara sia-sia, melainkan dengan tujuan tertentu. Sesungguhnya manusia bukanlah produk buta dari "dadu kosmik" di mana manusia tercipta dari sebuah proses kebetulan dan hampa makna belaka dari proses apa yang disebut "hukum alam" sebagaimana disinyalir oleh sejumlah ilmuwan modern Ateis.

2- Manusia tidak dilepaskan begitu saja, melainkan dia diberi petunjuk, dituntun dan senantiasa diawasi. Ayat ini juga menegaskan bahwa manusia dianugrahi keistimewaan dan tidak dilepaskan begitu saja di alam raya ini tanpa diberi petunjuk untuk mencapai puncak kesempurnaannya.

3- Tujuan akhir dari penciptaan manusia adalah sumber keberadaan dia sendiri, yaitu Tuhan alam semesta. Artinya dengan terciptanya manusia sebagai makhluk berakal, dan makhluk berakal tersebut mempunyai potensi untuk mentafakkuri hukum-hukum alam dan pola-pola kejadian alam semesta, yang selanjutnya itu semua mengarahkannya untuk mentafakkuri kebesaran dari penciptaan alam semesta yang membawanya kepada pengenalan akan kebesaran Tuhan.

Sebagian ayat Al-Qur'an mengungkapkan rahasia penciptaan secara lebih detil dan terperinci, antara lain:

1- Ilmu dan makrifat.
Allah Swt berfirman:

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ يَتَنَزَّلُ الْأَمْرُ بَيْنَهُنَّ لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا

Artinya:
Allah-lah yang telah menciptakan tujuh langit dan bumi seperti itu pula, perintah Allah berlaku padanya supaya kalian ketahui bahwa Allah itu Mahakuasa atas tiap-tiap sesuatu, dan sesungguhnya Allah ilmu-Nya meliputi segala sesuatu. (QS. Ath-Thalaq [65]: 12).

Ayat ini menyebutkan kesadaran manusia akan ilmu dan kekuasaan Tuhan yang tidak terbatas (yakni, makrifat tentang Tuhan yang akan membentuk dimensi ilmu kesempurnaan manusia) sebagai tujuan dari penciptaan. Ayat ini juga semakin menegaskan temuan sains yang disebut azas antropik bahwa seluruh jagad raya dan tatanannya yang luarbiasa ini diciptakan sebegitu rupa agar makhluk berakal dapat tercipta, yaitu manusia sebagai mahkota ciptaan alam semesta yang dengannya makhluk berakal tersebut menyadari dan ma'rifat akan Allah SWT akan kekuasaanNya dan kebesaranNya yang tidak terbatas.

2- Ujian.
Allah Swt berfirman:

الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفُورُ

Artinya:
Yang menciptakan kematian dan kehidupan supaya Dia menguji kalian siapakah yang lebih di antara kalian amalnya? Dan Dia Maha Perkasa Maha Pengampun. (QS. Al-Mulk [67]: 2).

Maksud dari ujian Tuhan bukanlah penyingkapan rahasia-rahasia yang tersembunyi, melainkan adalah menyediakan sarana dan prasarana untuk mengembangkan potensi serta mengantarkannya kepada realitas. Hal itu karena manusia adalah makhluk yang berikhtiar dan kesempurnaannya bersifat pilihan intensional. Tuhan menguji manusia dengan menyediakan semua syarat dan prasyarat untuk memilih jalan yang baik atau buruk baginya, agar dengan itu potensi-potensi dirinya terealisasi dan dia dapat memilih jalan yang benar.

3- Ibadah.
Allah Swt berfirman:

وَمَاخَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ

Artinya:
Dan Aku tidak menciptakan jin dan manusia melainkan supaya mereka menyembah-Ku. (QS. Adz-Dzariyat [51]: 56).

Berdasarkan ayat ini, tujuan utama penciptaan manusia adalah ibadah kepada Allah Swt, dan dalam hal ini ada berapa hal yang perlu diperhatikan:

1- Menurut pandangan dunia Al-Qur'an, setiap gerakan dan perbuatan positif yang dilakukan dengan niat mendekatkan diri kepada Allah Swt adalah ibadah. Ibadah tidak terbatas pada ritual-ritual khusus seperti doa dan munajat. Seluruh aktifitas ilmiah, ekonomi, politik, sosial dan lain-lain apabila seirama dengan sistem norma Ilahi dan bermotivasi Ilahi adalah ibadah, untuk itu manusia bisa senantiasa beraroma Ilahi, menyempurnakan diri dan mendekatkannya kepada Allah Swt dalam segala keadaan, seperti makan, minum, tidur, mati dan hidup:

قُلْ إِنَّ صَلاَتِيْ وَنُسُكِيْ وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِيْ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِيْنَ

Artinya:
Katakanlah, 'sesungguhnya shalatku, manasikku, hidup dan matiku (hanyalah) untuk Allah Tuhan semesta alam.' (QS. Al-An'am [6]: 162).

Namun, perlu digarisbawahi juga bahwa ibadah dalam terminologinya yang khusus; yakni ritual-ritual dan manasik tertentu seperti shalat, mempunyai kedudukan yang sangat istimewa dan penting.

2- Urgensitas perhatian terhadap filsafat ibadah tinggi sekali. Sayidina Ali bin Abi Thalib ra berkata, 'Sungguh Allah Swt telah menciptakan makhluk-makhluk-Nya padahal Dia tidak butuh kepada ketaatan mereka dan tidak rugi karena kedurhakaan mereka; karena memang kedurhakaan para pendosa sama sekali tidak membahayakan Dia, dan sebaliknya ketaatan orang-orang yang patuh sama sekali tidak memberi keuntungan kepada-Nya.'

Ibadah mempunyai dampak-dampak yang positif bagi kehidupan manusia, baik di alam sini maupun sana. Hikmah-hikmah ibadah antara lain adalah: tuntutan fitrah, jalan menuju penyingkapan diri dan kebebasannya dari kehampaan, terbang ke angkasa metafisik dan meninggalkan sangkar fisik, mencapai keyakinan, kemenangan ruh atas badan, kesehatan dan ketenangan jiwa, kekuasaan atas diri dan potensi-potensinya, pendekatan diri kepada Tuhan, basis etika, keimanan, undang-undang dan sosial, pembinaan naluri cinta kebaikan, pembangunan, pendidikan, dan lain sebagainya.

4- Rahmat Ilahi
Allah Swt berfirman:

وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لَجَعَلَ النَّاسَ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِينَ إِلاَّ مَن رَّحِمَ رَبُّكَ وَلِذَلِكَ خَلَقَهُمْ وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لأَمْلأنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ

Artinya:
Dan jika Tuhanmu menghendaki, niscaya Dia menjadikan manusia satu umat, tetapi mereka senantiasa berselisih. Kecuali orang-orang yang memperoleh rahmat dari Tuhanmu dan untuk itulah Allah menciptakan mereka. (QS. Hud [11]: 118 – 119).

Jika diteliti lebih dalam, tujuan-tujuan itu tidak saling bertentangan, sebagian darinya merupakan tujuan pengantar bagi tujuan yang selanjutnya, yakni ada tujuan awal, tujuan menengah, dan tujuan akhir.

Karena itu, berdasarkan ayat-ayat Al-Qur'an tersebut, tujuan diciptakannya manusia adalah pengejawantahan rahmat Ilahi dan penetapan manusia di arah kesempurnaan dan kebahagiaan yang abadi. Dan hal itu hanya bisa dicapai melalui pilihan intensional dia sendiri terhadap jalan yang terbaik dan menempuh cara ibadah kepada-Nya.

Oleh karena itu pengembangan Sains kealaman belaka tanpa merujuk kepada kewahyuan dari sains suci Islam, akan sangat sulit membawa kepada tujuan akhir tafakkur alam semesta dan finalitas alam semesta. Perkembangan sains teknologi melalui observasi yang cermat dan teliti terhadap alam semesta memang menunjukkan perkembangan luarbiasa dan keberlimpahan informasi akan bagaimana cara kerja alam semesta. Namun pertanyaan fundamental terakhir akan kebermaknaan alam semesta terbukti tidak dapat dijawab dengan meyakinkan dan sempurna oleh sains kealaman belaka. 

Dalam artikel di Blog kali ini, penulis tertarik untuk memaparkan bagaimana jawaban dari para ilmuwan sejati kontemporer yang benar-benar bertungkus lumus mengadakan riset di bidang sains dasar terhadap pertanyaan mendasar ini. Kita akan lihat jawaban mereka lantang dan jujur, serta sesuai dengan semangat ilmiah yang sangat mereka junjung tinggi. Namun ajaibnya jawaban mereka juga begitu beraneka ragam, argumentasi mereka beraneka ragam yang menunjukkan perspektif keyakinan pribadi mereka juga sangat beraneka ragam sesuai dengan latar belakang pengalaman dan penghayatan pribadi mereka terhadap petualangan ilmiah yang mereka jalani. Kita juga akan melihat dari jawaban mereka, bahwa sains belaka sebenarnya tidak akan membawa kepada jawaban lebih lanjut akan pertanyaan fundamental kebermaknaan alam semesta selain kebingungan dan keragu-raguan belaka, meskipun begitu banyak informasi dan rahasia telah dikorek dari alam. Sains juga akan tidak pernah bebas nilai dan selalu terbuka akan interpretasi pribadi sang ilmuwan tersebut meskipun di wilayah operasionalnya sains tetap menunjukkan obyektivitas dan kesesuaian cara akses, namun dilevel interpretasi sesuatu diluar ruang lingkup sains tersebut tetap akan memainkan perannya.

Terlepas dari pandangan pribadi para ilmuwan tersebut, apakah religius, agnostik atau ateistik, aneka ragam  jawaban tersebut menunjukkan bahwa kebermaknaan alam semesta adalah pertanyaan yang jauh melampui wilayah kerja metode ilmiah sehingga jawaban tuntas meyakinkan tidak akan pernah diperoleh oleh sains belaka. Dan terlepas itu semua, apapun pandangan pribadi ilmuwan tersebut, semuanya akan mendewasakan kita sebagai orang beriman bahwa betapa dalam dan agungnya misteri alam semesta ini. Situasi ini akan membawa kita kepada kearifan yang lebih dewasa dan dalam terhadap keagungan Allah SWT.

Aneka ragam jawaban para ilmuwan tersebut juga tidak boleh kita sikapi dengan keragua-raguan yang sama. Yang jelas sebagai orang yang beriman, ketidakmantapan dan ketidaksepakatan jawaban ilmuwan "hebat" tersebut justru meyakinkan kita bahwa sains belaka tidak akan bermakna dan mencapai tujuan hikmah yang suci. Ini adalah tamparan telak bagi mereka-mereka yang terlalu mengagungkan sains modern dan memujanya setinggi langit sehingga nyaris mendudukkan sejajar atau melampaui agama bahkan menggantikan sains kewahyuan.  Sikap ini justru sangat tidak ilmiah dan bertentangan dengan pengagungan mereka terhadap semangat ilmiah yang mereka agungkan begitu rupa. Artinya ketidaksepakatan para ilmuwan terhadap pertanyaan paling fundamental hanyalah dapat dijawab oleh sains kesucian kewahyuan, sehingga situasi ini akan menyebabkan kita semakin mantap dan mengagungkan posisinya dalam cara pandang kita terhadap alam dan dapat menempatkan sains dikedudukan seharusnya dia mana selayaknya ia didudukkan. 

Para ilmuwan dan jawabanya masing-masing terhadap pertanyaan kebermaknaan alam tersebut penulis kutip dari sebuah diskusi para ilmuwan di Yayasan Templeton yang dikenal sebagai "Big Questions". Kutipan tersebut akan penulis dan paparkan terjemahannya masing-masing dan dimana perlu akan penulis berikan syarahan baik penjelasan atau bantahan terhadap pendapat mereka.

The following scientists participated in the discussions on "Big Questions" of the "John Templeton Foundation". It must be noted that most of the participants are people from the Anglo-Saxon culture and language area -except for a Belgian and a Frenchman- and most likely speak from a Judeo-Christian tradition. The Frenchman in the company later converted to Islam, but otherwise no scientists with an Islamic background, or for example from the Hindu culture, have contributed to the variety of standpoints.
(Para ilmuwan berikut adalah yang berpartisifasi dalam diskusi tentang "pertanyaan besar" yang diadakan di yayasan Templeton. Harap dicatat bahwa sebagaian besar peserta adalah berasal dari latar kebudayaan yang berbahasa Anglo-Saxon -kecuali Belgia dan Perancis- dan sebagian besar pembicara berasal dari latar belakang kultur agama Yudeo-Kristian. Ada satu pembicara dari Perancis yang belakangan berpindah memeluk Islam, namun secara umum tidak ada ilmuwan yang sepenuhnya dibesarkan dalam kultur muslim, begitu juga untuk ilmuwan yang dibesarkan dalam kultur Hindu,  dari semua pembicara yang menyumbangkan aneka sudut pandangnya di sini. ) 
Komentar Penulis Blog:
Sebelum memaparkan jawabannya masing-masing, tentu bermanfaat juga untuk mengetahui cara sampel pendapat tersebut di ambil. Selain para ilmuwan yang dimintai pendapatnya tersebut adalah memiliki kualitas profesional yang  tidak diragukan lagi untuk bidang masing-masing keilmuwannya, latar belakang kebudayaan dan agama atau pandangan religius sang ilmuwan juga penting untuk diketahui. 

Unlikely

Lawrence M. Krauss - Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.

Perhaps you hoped for a stronger statement, one way or the other. But as a scientist I don't believe I can make one. While nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or cosmology has ever provided direct evidence of purpose in nature, science can never unambiguously prove that there is no such purpose. As Carl Sagan said, in another context: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, "I am here," I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up.

But no such unambiguous signs have been uncovered among the millions and millions of pieces of data we have gleaned about the natural world over centuries of exploration. And this is precisely why a scientist can conclude that it is very unlikely that there is any divine purpose. If a creator had such a purpose, she could choose to demonstrate it a little more clearly to the inhabitants of her creation.

One is always free, as some people do, to interpret the laws of nature as signs of purpose, as for example Pope Pius did when Belgian physicist-priest George Lemaitre demonstrated that Einstein's general theory of relativity implied the universe had a beginning. The Pope interpreted this as scientific proof of Genesis, but Lemaitre asked him to stop saying this. The big bang, as it has become known, can be interpreted in terms of a divine beginning, but it can equally be interpreted as removing God from the equation entirely. The conclusion is in the mind of the beholder, and it is outside of the realm of scientific theory and prediction.

Finally, even if the universe has a hidden purpose, everything we know about the cosmos suggests that we do not play a central role in it. We are, as a planet, cosmically insignificant. Life on Earth will end, as it has probably done on countless planets in the past, and will do in the future. And all the stars and all the galaxies we see could disappear in an instant and the universe would go on behaving more or less as it is doing right now. Nature seems as uncaring as it is unyielding.

Thus, organized religions, which put humanity at the center of some divine plan, seem to assault our dignity and intelligence. A universe without purpose should neither depress us nor suggest that our lives are purposeless. Through an awe-inspiring cosmic history we find ourselves on this remote planet in a remote corner of the universe, endowed with intelligence and self-awareness. We should not despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and celebrate our brief moment in the sun.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.

  [Read here Krauss's original text]
 (Jawabannya adalah kemungkinan tidak! 
Lawrence M. Krauss - Professor Fisika dan Astronomi di Universitas Case Western Reserve.
"Barangkali anda mengharapkan jawaban yang lebih meyakinkan, satu atau lain hal. Namun sebagai seorang Ilmuwan saya tidak percaya saya mampu memberi jawaban meyakinkan. Ketika tidak satupun dalam Biologi, Kimia, Fisika, Geologi, Astronomi, atau Kosmologi yang pernah memberikan bukti langsung adanya maksud kebermakanaan penciptaan  bertujuan tersebut di alam. Sebagaimana diungkapkan oleh Carl Sagan dalam konteks lain: Ketiadaan bukti bukan berarti ketiadaannya sendiri.  

Tentu saja tidak ada yang dapat mencegah sains untuk dapat mengungkapkan suatu bukti positif akan adanya petunjuk Ilahi dan tujuan dalam keterciptaan alam semesta. Sebagai contoh, misalkan esok malam jika kita menatapi bintang-bintang dan menemukan pola yang dapat dibaca, "hai, aku di sini" saya rasa bahkan ilmuwan paling skeptik sekalipun akan mulai berpikir ada sesuatu di sini. 

 Namun kenyataannya tidak ada tanda-tanda meyakinkan demikian tersingkap di antara berjuta-juta data yang diperoleh dari alam selama berabad-abad eksplorasi alam. Tepatnya inilah penyebab kenapa ilmuwan bisa berkesimpulan tidak ada maksud apapun yang suci dari alam semesta. Jika sang pencipta mempunyai hikmah tujuan tertentu, seharusnya ia memberikan sedikit petunjuk jelas kepada para makhluk ciptaannya."

Tentu saja tidak ada halangan bagi seseorang, sebagaimana sejumlah orang lakukan, untuk menafsirkan alam sebagai tanda-tanda yang bertujuan, sebagai contoh sebagaimana dilakukan oleh Paus Pius ketika Fisikawan Belgia yang sekaligus seorang pendeta George Lemaitre menampilkan teori relativitas umum Einstein. Lemaitre mengimplikasikan bahwa alam semesta mempunyai awal. Sang Paus menafsirkan ini sebagai bukti Genesis (saat penciptaan alam oleh Tuhan), namun Lemaitre meminta sang Paus untuk tidak mengatakan demikian. Big Bang, sebagaimana momen awal semesta ini dikenal, dapat ditafsirkan sebagai penciptaan alam semesta oleh Tuhan, namun sama baiknya juga jika diinterpretasikan sebagai "menghilangkan" tuhan dari persamaan relativitas sama sekali.  Kesimpulanya tetap terserah kepada para pemirsa, dan tetap berada diluar wilayah kerja teori ilmiah dan prediksinya. 

Akhirnya, bahkan jika alam semesta mempunyai maksud tersembunyi, segala sesuatu yang kita ketahui tentang Kosmos menyarankan kepada kita bahwa kita sama sekali tidak memainkan peranan penting di sini. Kita, seperti juga sebuah planet, secara kosmik tidak penting sama sekali. Kehidupan di muka Bumi akan berakhir, sebagaimana juga mungkin tak terhitung terjadi pada planet lain, dan akan begitu di masa mendatang.  Semua bintang, semua Galaxi akan berakhir pada suatu ketika dan alam semesta akan tetap begitu adanya. Alam tampaknya tidak peduli dan juga tampa kompromi. 

Oleh karena itu, agama yang terorganisir, yang menempatkan kemanusiaan sebagai bagian dari rancangan suci, tampak seolah merupakan serangan bagi harga diri dan kecerdasan kita. Sebuah alam semesta yang tidak mempunyai tujuan tidaklah berarti menyeramkan serta menunjukkan hidup kita tidak punya tujuan. Sepanjang sejarah kosmik yang mengagumkan kita temukan diri kita di planet yang terpencil ini, disudut terpencil alam semesta, diberkahi dengan kecerdasan dan kesadaran diri. Kita seharusnya tidak boleh putus asa, namun seharusnya kita bergembira  dalam memanfaatkan anugrah ini, dan merayakan kehadiran kita nan singkat di Surya ini.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University. )

Yes
David Gelernter - Professor of computer science at Yale and a National fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Download PDF

Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don't have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one… Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe–which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged. But why rise above and not blend into nature? Equivalently, from a Western viewpoint: why did the Judeo-Christian tradition replace the pagan idea of gods made in man's image with a revolutionary inversion, man made in God's? Why should we be goaded not to be ourselves but to be better than ourselves? Why seek goodness? Because most humans desire goodness. For most (not all!) humans, this urge is easily ignored in the short term, but nearly impossible to uproot over the long haul. Males (and females) desire sex, too; but if a male had somehow grown up without seeing a woman, this desire would (probably) remain vague and unformed. Humans desire goodness; but until the Judeo-Christian revelation this desire was, at least for Western humanity, vague and unformed Humans desire goodness; but until the Judeo-Christian revelation this desire was, at least for Western humanity, vague and unformed. For Western man, Judeo-Christian ethics felt right; felt obligatory; made some internal tuning fork hum. (By Judeo-Christian ethics I mean, basically, the Ten Commandments and the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19. Recall that, when he's called upon to summarize his message, Jesus quotes two verses from the Hebrew Bible.) All urges are not created equal. Most humans need sex, but in rare cases don't, and others choose to suppress the urge. The goodness-and-sanctity urge is (likewise) absent in some, suppressed in others; subliminally present in most. When we seek goodness and sanctity, we defy nature. The basic rule of Judeo-Christian ethics is, the strong must support the weak. The basic rule of nature is, the strong live and the weak die. But if you do achieve your ultimate human purpose–to become good, to transcend your animal nature; to imitate God and thereby help transform God from an internal subjective idea to an external, objective fact–what have you achieved? Is there any hope of ultimate success? Of gathering together enough pinpricks of goodness to create a swell that will sweep suffering away and leave sanctity and joy (like glittering sea foam on the beach) behind? Of realizing God on earth? Not necessarily. In Genesis, God warns us not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Talmud reports a famous dispute between two leading rabbinical schools: would man have been better off had he never been created? The decision: yes. But as Job teaches us, we must play the hand we are dealt. David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale and a National fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. (Jawabannya adalah Ya!! Coba renungkan pertanyaan berikut: Adakah Bumi dan manusia eksis dengan suatu tujuan? Jika jawabanya ya, maka demikian pula alam semesta ini diciptakan dengan suatu tujuan. Jika tidak demikian, alam semesta barangkali masih mempunyai maksud-maksud yang lain;  namun saya tidak akan memikirkan kemungkinan tersebut, karena saya yakin kita benar-benar tercipta dengan suatu tujuan. Jelasnya, untuk menaklukkan dan mendidik watak hewaniah kita; untuk menumbuhkan kebaikan, keindahan, dan kesucian di mana sebelumnya hanya ada  fisika dan dan kehidupan hewaniah belaka; untuk melahirkan apa (jika seandainya kita berhasil) yang barangkali satu-satunya usikan kecil dari alam semesta-yang mana alam semesta ini sebaliknya (sejauh yang kita ketahui) secara moral null dan kosong. Jika tidak ada usaha  sedemikian  di manapun di alam semesta; maka kemenangan kita akan merubah sifat alam semesta. Pun jika ada usaha yang sama yang lebih berdaya; namun demikian tugas kita tetap tidak berubah. Namun mengapa harus mengawang-awang dan tidak berbaur dengan alam? Ekuivalen dengan ini, dari sudut pandang Barat: mengapa tradisi agama Judeo-Kristen mengganti idea keberhalaan tentang dewa-dewa yang lahir dari citra manusia dengan kebalikannya yaitu manusia tercipta dalam cermin tuhan?(Astaghfirullah!) kenapa kita tidak bertuhankan kepada diri kita sendiri namun bertuhan kepada yang jauh lebih baik dari kita?(na'uzubillah) kenapa kita mencari kebaikan? (Komentar Blogger: Sang Ilmuwan di sini mengungkapkan kenapa hasrat kita kepada hal-hal yang lebih tinggi dari alam bendawi dan alam diri kita sendiri terus bertumbuh?))  Karena sebagian besar hasrat manusia adalah ke arah kebaikan. Untuk sebagian besar manusia (tidak semuanya!),  dalam waktu singkat keinginan ini bisa dilupakan, namun hampir mustahil dilupakan untuk waktu yang panjang. Laki-laki (dan juga wanita) juga memiliki hasrat sexual, namun jika seorang laki-laki entah bagaimana misalkan tumbuh tanpa pernah melihat wanita, hasrat ini barangkali akan tetap kabur dan tak jelas. Hasrat manusia kepada kebaikan; begitu juga akan tetap kabur dan tak jelas tanpa disingkapkan oleh agama samawi Yudeo-Kristian, setidaknya bagi kemanusiaan barat. Hasrat manusia akan kebaikan ini, hingga diungkapkan oleh agama Yudeo-Kristian (agama samawi) tetap merupakan ide kabur dan tak tentu. Bagi manusia Barat, moralitas Yudeo-Kristian terasa benar; terasa sebuah kemestian; bagaikan frekuensi nada yang tertalakan dengan baik. (yang saya maksud dengan moralitas Yudeo-Kristian utamanya adalah dari 10 perjanjian dalam kita Taurat dan Undang-Undang Sudi Leviticus 19. Ingatlah, ketika diminta untuk meringkaskan ajarannya, Yesus mengutip dua ayat dari Injil Ibrani. )   Semua dorongan ini terciptakan tidak sama. Sebagian besar manusia membutuhkan sex, namun dalam kasus yang langka ada yang tidak, dan yang lain memilih untuk menekan dorongan ini. Kebaikan dan kesucian absen dalam sejumlah situasi, ditekan kemunculannya dalam kasus yang lain; Namun sebagian besar senantiasa hadir di alam bawah sadar.  Ketika kita mencari kebaikan dan kesucian, kita menentang alam. Aturan utama moralitas Yude-Kristian adalah yang kuat harus mendukung yang lemah. Aturan mendasar alam adalah sebaliknya, yaitu yang kuat bertahan, yang lemah mati. Namun jika kamu mampu mencapai tujuan ultimat manusia---yaitu menjadi baik, mentransendenkan watak hewaniahmu, untuk meniru tuhan dan mentransformasikan tuhan dari idea subyektif internal kepada fakta obyektif eksternal--apa yang telah kamu capai?adakah harapan untuk kesuksesan purna?  dari usaha mengumpulkan cukup usikan kecil yang berubah menjadi gelombang besar (seperti deburan ombak di lautan) yang menyapu bersih dan meninggalkan kesucian dan suka cita? dari menyadari tuhan di bumi? tidak mesti begitu Dalam kitab Genesis, tuhan telah mengingatkan kita agar tidak memakan buah dari pohon pengetahuan kebaikan dan kejahatan. Dalam kitab Talmud diceritakan bahwa ada perdebatan terkenal antara dua mazhab utama kependetaan Ibrani, yaitu manakah lebih baik manusia ini diciptakan atau tidak pernah tercipta? Kesimpulan terakhir atas pertanyaan itu adalah "ya".   Namun sebagaimana Nabi Ayub mengajarkan kita, kita harus berbuat yang terbaik sedaya upaya kita.  David Gelernter adalah seorang professor Sains Komputer di Yale dan dosen di American Enterprise Institute.)

                                    

 
Perhaps
Paul Davies - Physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist. He is the director of the Beyond Center at Arizona State University.

		Download PDF
Discussions of cosmic purpose are loaded with cultural baggage, so to answer the question of whether the universe as a whole has a purpose–and if it does, what is meant by that word–we first need to get at the heart of the scientific worldview. Scientists often wax lyrical about the scale, majesty, harmony, elegance, and ingenuity of the universe. Einstein professed a "cosmic religious feeling." Let me give the flavor of what this sentiment entails. As the cosmic drama unfolds, it looks as if there is a script–a coherent scheme of things–to which its evolution is conforming. Nature is not an arbitrary juxtaposition of events but the manifestation of ingeniously interweaving mathematical laws. That much is agreed. But what about a purpose to it all? If there is a script–a cosmic story to tell–isn't that already a sort of purpose? Many scientists are quick to pour scorn on the suggestion. Richard Feynman thought that "the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it." It is a conclusion endorsed by Steven Weinberg in his famous comment: "The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless." A familiar criticism is that concepts such as "meaning" and "purpose" are categories derived from human discourse, and cannot be projected onto nature. But this is a criticism that can be directed at scientific concepts in general. All attempts to describe the universe draw on human categories: science proceeds precisely by taking concepts that humans have thought up, often inspired by everyday experience, and applying them to nature. Pierre Laplace treated the universe as a gigantic clockwork machine, and Richard Dawkins has described living organisms as gene machines. But machines are also human constructs, and mechanism is a human concept just as much as purpose. It is no less legitimate to seek evidence for something like purpose in the universe than to seek evidence that the universe is a mechanism, or a computer, or whatever other human-derived category resonates with what we observe. Where, then, is the evidence of "cosmic purpose?" Well, it is right under our noses in the very existence of science itself as a successful explanatory paradigm. Doing science means figuring out what is going on in the world–what the universe is "up to", what it is "about." If it isn't "about" anything, there would be no good reason to embark on the scientific quest in the first place, because we would have no justification for believing that we would thereby uncover additional coherent and meaningful facts about the world. Experience shows that as we dig deeper and deeper using scientific methods, we continue to find rational and meaningful order. The universe makes sense. We can comprehend it. Science is a voyage of discovery, and as with all such voyages, you have to believe there is something meaningful out there to discover before you embark on it. And with every new scientific discovery made, that belief is confirmed. If the universe is pointless and reasonless, reality is ultimately absurd. We should then be obliged to conclude that the physical world of experience is a fiendishly clever piece of trickery: absurdity masquerading as rational order. Weinberg's aphorism can thus be inverted. If the universe is truly pointless, then it is also incomprehensible, and the rational basis of science collapses. Paul Davies is a physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist. He is the director of the Beyond Center at Arizona State University. (Jawabannya adalah Mungkin! Perbincangan tentang tujuan keterciptaan alam semesta akan selalu dimuati oleh beban kultural. Oleh karena itu untuk menjawab pertanyaan apakah alam semesta secara keseluruhan diciptakan dengan suatu tujuan---dan jika demikian apakah maksud keterciptaan bertujuan ini?---pertama kita harus tinjau inti sudut pandang saintifik itu sendiri. Para Ilmuwan sering berbicara dengan berapi-api tentang skala ukuran, keagungan, harmoni, keleganan, serta orisinalitas maha cerdik dari alam semesta. Einstein sendiri mengungkapkan suatu perasaan yang ia sebut sebagai  "perasaan religius semesta".   Ijinkan saya memberikan cita rasa apa yang dibawakan oleh sentimen perasaan ini. Ketika drama kosmik terkembang, maka drama tersebut berlangsung melalui suatu skenario--suatu skema koheren dari berbagai hal---di mana peristiwa-peristiwa berlangsung. Alam bukanlah sekedar penjajaran acak namun manifestasi berbagai peristiwa yang saling terkait melalui kaitan matematis yang cerdik. Sampai di sini kita setuju. Namun apa maksud dari semua ini? Jika ada skenario dari kisah kosmik, tidakkah ini berarti sudah merupakan suatu maksud (alam semesta dicipta bertujuan). Banyak para Ilmuwan dengan segera mencak-mencak dengan saran ini.  Richard Feynmann pernah merenungkan bahwa "akumulasi luar biasa dari pemahaman tentang bagaimana dunia fisis bekerja hanya semakin meyakinkan kita bahwa tindak tanduk alam ini mengandung suatu jenis ketidakbermaknaan." Senada dengan kesimpulan ini Steven Weinberg berkomentar pula "semakin alam semesta ini difahami, maka semkin terlihat alam ini tidak bermakna.  Kritik umum terhadap konsep-konsep seperti "makna" dan "tujuan" adalah, bahwa konsep-konsep tersebut hanyalah kategori-kategori yang diturunkan dari ranah wacana kebahasaan manusiawi, dan tidak dapat diproyeksikan ke alam. Namun kritik ini tidak dapat kita terima karena dengan mudah kritik yang sama dapat juga diarahkan ke semua konsep sains itu sendiri secara umum. Semua usaha untuk menggambarkan alam berasal dari kategori-kategori manusiawi: sains berkembang tepatnya melalui konsep-konsep yang dipikirkan manusia, sering diinsfirasi oleh pengalaman sehari-hari, lalu diterapkan ke alam semesta. Pierre Laplace seorang ilmuwan memperlakukan alam semesta sebagai sebuah mesin jam maha raksasa, dan Richard Dawkins telah menggambarkan organisme hidup sebagai mesin Gen. Namun mesin itu sendiri juga buatan manusia, dan mekanisme itu sendiri juga konsep manusia sebagaimana konsep makna dan tujuan juga adalah konsep manusia. Tak kurang pentingnya adalah untuk mencari bukti-bukti seperti makna di alam semesta bahwa alam semesta adalah sebuah mekanisme, atau sebuah Komputer, atau apapun namanya kategori-kategori yang diciptkan manusia sebagai imbas dari pengamatannya.)

  No
Peter William Atkins - Fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford.

"In the absence of evidence, the only reason to suppose that it does is sentimental wishful thinking and sentimental wishful thinking, which underlies all religion, is an unreliable tool for the discovery of truth of any kind." This quotation from Mr. Atkins is so wonderful that I gladly wanted to begin with it. The statement is red hot with underlying snags. The word sentimental for him has an obvious negative connotation, like wishful thinking. With the absence of evidence Atkins means most likely the absence of scientific evidence. Scientific and measurable. That the immeasurable in spite of its immeasurability is of great value is proven daily by numerous scientists who based on a presumption, a hunch, draw hypotheses and start their research. Furthermore, evidence is a relative term, for in the history of science proof in the end has always been undermined and replaced by better evidence or bettered through the falsification of the once evidence. It would appear that Mr. Atkins liked to open his contribution with a bang, a beautiful literary endeavour, that unfortunately backfired and exhibits him as petty - and perhaps as narrowminded as the religions for which he clearly has disdain. To which I add that I agree with him when he takes the prevailing religions in his crosshairs, yet whereby he simultaneously shuts his mind for future developments in that field. This will only make the moment he discovers the truth -of whichever nature- harder to achieve. Each rabid view isolates a person of his capabilities.
“That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator's inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious.” Also from this statement it shines through that Mr. Atkins takes the inexorable truth of science as a reference. If it is not scientifically proven, then it does not exist officially, even when it still seems to exist because of the old religious principles. It does not come to Mr. Atkins that both views are false - quite a unscientific attitude. That is to say that the old religious principles at best may be seen as hypotheses, now refuted, and that the scientific method is flawed because it only seeks to prove the measurable, and thus only analyses part of reality - science can only measure the china sideboard, but cannot express how well and beautifully it is made. Moreover, what is supernatural? Only that bearded man in the clouds is supernatural, rather unnatural, the fairytale of the authority. The supernatural does not exist  - everything that exists is natural, physical, because this is the physical universe. Mr. Atkins has not yet abandoned his old supernatural and nonexistent God -the Christian equivalent of Zeus or Jove-, for he still fights him. To fight something makes no sense, because fighting thwarts what you aim at - your own goal. Let it go and move on, that is more useful.
“Some theologians are perplexed by the nature of life after death, a notion they have invented without a scrap of evidence.” I ask of Mr. Atkins to think again about the law of the conservation of information. The idea of life after physical death, as reported in the major religions is in that form indeed presumably wild nonsense and intended only for the dispossessed to reconcile them with their situation - religion has always been politically abused. The idea of a life after physical death, as it is driven by said physical law does not exclude it, even though physical beings cannot perceive it - though many mediums claim they are capable of it. We come from somewhere, we are also going somewhere. [Read here Atkins's original text]
Comment: It seems that Mr. Atkins is frozen solid in a certain stage of his development. I do not mean only him in his development, but also in that of metaphysical thinking in general. Atkins belongs to a generation that has had to wrest religion to think free. This effort and development was essential in the whole of the developments. The negative fanaticism -as if there exists a positive fanaticism- of Mr. Atkins though has become now more reminiscent of the fanaticism of former smokers who distance themselves vehemently and ostentatiously from the tobacco industry and those who still smoke. Smoking is a nasty habit and threatening to health, but people who smoke die out by themselves. Would Mr. Atkins be as fanatical as to the manner in which the energy for his cosy house is generated - for instance?

  Indeed
Nancey Murphy - Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.

	Indeed.	Download PDF
But it is not possible to know that by looking at the natural world alone. The question of purpose is closely related to the question of whether something like the God of Western monotheistic religions can be known to exist by studying the order, goodness, and grandeur of the universe. Already around 1750 David Hume pointed out that if one is looking at evidence of design, then all of the evidence must be taken into account: not only order and goodness but disorder and evil as well. He seems to think that some sort of creator is possible (in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published posthumously in 1779, it is not clear which character represents Hume's own views). But if so, we can know next to nothing about the creator's qualities: an intelligence, for all we know, as much like ours as our intelligence is like the rotting of a turnip–one deity or a team; alive or dead; a juvenile or superannuated deity. Nothing can be known of any plan for the future perfection of the world or the human condition. (Namun tidaklah mungkin untuk mengetahui dengan melihat keajaiban alam belaka. Pertanyaan tentang kebermaknaan dan tujuan sangat terkait erat dengan pertanyaan apakah sesuatu seperti Tuhan agama barat monoteistik dapat diketahui eksistensinya dengan mengkaji keberaturan, kebaikan dan keagungan alam semesta? Di sekitar 1750 David Hume telah menunjukkan bahwa jika seseorang melihat bukti dari rancangan keberciptaan, maka semua fakta fakta seharusnya dipertimbangkan: tidak hanya yang bersifat keberaturran dan kebaikan namun juga kebalauan dan kejahatan sekalipun. Tampaknya beliau berpikir, bahwa sebentuk pencipta adalah mungkin (dalam bukunya dialog tentang agama alam, yang diterbitkan pada 1779, tidaklah jelas karakter mana sebenarnya yang mewakili pandangan Hume). Namun jika demikian, kita sama sekali tidak tahu tentang sifat sang pencipta itu sendiri: suatu kecerdasan, sebagaimana kita ketahui, sebagaimana kecerdasan yang kita miliki benar-benar tidak diketahui-satu maujud atau berserikat?hidup atau mati?maujud baru atau lama? kita sama sekali tidak mengetahui sedikitpun rancangan ke depan kesempurnaan dunia atau kondisi manusia. ) Pernyataan ini perlu disyarah panjang lebar dan dibantah namun tidak cukup waktu Bloger sementara ini,.. If one cannot infer the purposes of a benevolent creator from evidence in the natural world, then how can I (and my co-religionists) claim to know the world's purpose? The answer is too complicated to spell out here, but I take it to involve detailed comparisons of competing traditions on the basis of the support they draw from their own peculiar kinds of evidence (for Christians, historical events as in the life of Jesus and the early church, and carefully evaluated religious experiences). In addition, each tradition must be evaluated on the basis of the intellectual crises it faces. Two crises facing what I call the scientific naturalist tradition (originating in Hume's and others' writings) are the questions of whether it is possible adequately to explain the phenomenon of religion naturalistically, and whether the tradition can provide grounds for morality. Continue here if reading from print version. Scientific research on the practices and beliefs of religious adherents is relevant to the first. Scientific research is also relevant to some of the crises facing theistic traditions, and so knowledge of nature is not irrelevant to the issue of purpose. For example, a long-standing challenge to Christianity is to explain why a good God permits so much suffering of humans and animals at the hand of nature. Why are there tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts, and ghastly diseases? Before the development of modern science (and still in some Christian circles) these were all seen as caused by sin (the Fall) and as fitting punishment for sin. Now we know that animals suffered for millions of years before humans evolved. We also know that all of these catastrophes are produced by the ordinary working of the processes of nature, such as plate tectonics. Yet one can then ask why God did not create a more benevolent natural order. If it is the strength of gravity that causes broken bones when children fall, why not a kinder, gentler gravitational force? Here is one point where greater knowledge of the natural world bears on a theological problem. Since the writings of Brandon Carter in 1974 we have had increasingly detailed knowledge of the way in which fundamental constants and physical laws appear to be fine-tuned to produce a universe that supports life. Change any of the numbers slightly, and the development of the entire universe would have gone quite differently, making the evolution of life impossible. For example, the ratio of the strength of gravity to one of the other basic forces, the nuclear weak force, had to be adjusted as accurately as one part in 10 to the 100th power to avoid either a swift collapse of the universe or an explosion. These scientific developments can be used to argue that, if there is a designer God whose purpose for the universe includes life, especially intelligent life, then the laws and constants had to be almost exactly what they are. Thus, if we are to be here, the natural world must contain almost exactly the amount of danger and destruction that it does. So while the study of the natural world cannot show that it has a purpose–the fine-tuning is not an adequate argument for the existence of God–it is indeed indirectly relevant to the question of the universe's purpose. Nancey Murphy is Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.

 

Yes Owen Gingerich - Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

“Frankly, I am psychologically incapable of believing that the universe is meaningless. I believe the universe has a purpose, and our greatest intellectual challenge as human beings is to glimpse what this purpose might be. (...) Only gradually did I come to appreciate how magnificently tuned the universe is for the emergence of intelligent life.” Owen Gingerich argues that the fact that thinking man is in this universe is sufficient evidence that the universe is meaningful and therefore has a purpose. God reveals himself in the personalities and intelligence of man, ironically also in those of an atheist. [Read here Gingerich's original text]
Comment: To the contribution of Mr. Gingrich, I have little to add. The universe IS with man in it. Who knows a universe with countless other sites with intelligent life of which man as yet has no knowledge. In addition, it does not matter so much, that the God of whom Gingrich speaks is the God of only the culture from which he originates, or that the original creator of all is the entity in the background with his creation Luciwher as the ‘caretaker’ of the physical universe. After all, we are seeking for a reason for the Love of God, not the daily observable Luciwher presents to us. The naturalness and tranquillity with which Gingrich wrote his contribution for the moment makes it irrelevant to distinguish between the FirstOne and Luçal, since the end is the reunification of everything and everyone anyway.

Very likely Bruno Guiderdoni, The author converted to Islam and is now called Bruno Abd al-Haqq Guiderdoni - Astrophysicist and the Director of the Observatory of Lyon, "Centre de Recherche Astrophysique de Lyon et Observatoire de Lyon", France.

	Very Likely.	Download PDF
Modern science has produced something quite unexpected. Even to a scientist such as myself. It turns out that the observed features of the natural world appear to be fine-tuned for biological complexity. In other words, everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles, the number of space dimensions, to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe, and the formation of galaxies are all exactly what they need to be to create stars, planets, atoms, and molecules. But where does this apparent fine-tuning come from? Is it the manifestation of a plan for the universe? An arrangement by a superior will to prepare the way for complex creatures? Is it God's signature? People of faith believe it is so. They read purpose in the universe as a painter sees beauty in a view on the ocean. Continue here if reading from print version. However, for scientists, final causes don't explain enough. We must go one step further, and examine alternative explanations to the fine-tuning idea. One such idea is called the multiverse. It states that we don't live in a universe fine-tuned for life so much as we happen to live in a universe, one of many, that by a cosmic accident just happens to be the kind that supports biological life. In other words, we're not special, we're just lucky. Recent discoveries in particle physics point to this. Remember, our observable universe is just a tiny region among a large variety of regions, each with different properties. And many of these regions in the universe are sterile and inhospitable and thus lifeless (which makes it especially difficult for them to be observed!). Thus, say some scientists, there is no fine-tuning. And likewise, there is no purpose. But I don't agree. The fundamental scientific theories that support the multiverse require complex mathematics. The fact that these fundamental theories are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens' evolution is something I find quite ... puzzling. The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery. This is why, at the end of the day, I can't refrain from thinking that there actually is purpose in the universe. Bruno Guiderdoni is an astrophysicist and the Director of the Observatory of Lyon, France.

No Christian de Duve - Biochemist. He received the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. De Duve died in May 2013 at his own request.

A few quotations from the contribution of Christian de Duve: “A "purpose" presupposes a mind that conceived it, as well as the ability to implement it. In the present case, this means that the owner of the mind not only created the universe the way it is, but could have created another universe and decided to create the existing one for a specific reason.” “Being the ones who ask the question, it is obvious that we see ourselves as at least part of God's goal. (...) what is peculiar about the universe is that it happens to have just the right physical properties to give rise to life and, through life, to human minds. Such an anthropocentric view of the creation is, however, not readily reconciled with what is known of the evolutionary origin of humankind.” De Duve continues with a reference to the French biologist Jacques Monod who concludes “that the universe is a meaningless entity in which life and mind arose by an extraordinary combination of improbable circumstances and could very well never have arisen at all.” De Duve refers to more possibilities to consider the universe, in a more affective and aesthetic way through music, art and literature. This still does not infer, according to him, that a creator is necessary, who himself may also be in need of having an origin. [Read here de Duve's original text]
Comment: Mr. de Duve apparently concludes from the first quotation that the element of chance is too shaky a basis to believe there was a certain sense of purpose in the creation of the universe. He may in his view draw the correct conclusion, but a conclusion in the opposite direction -that the universe was created with a specific meaning- may similarly be possible based on the same premise. The assertion in the second quotation that the human who feels being part of the purpose of God is anthropocentric, is in his contribution not supported by sufficient arguments or data. The possibility that throughout the cosmos intelligent life exists -a not entirely unlikely possibility- prevents his anthropocentric option. His reference to the conclusions of Monod mirrors his own arguments, albeit that Monod's yesteryear’s conclusions are based on now obsolete science while Monod in drawing his conclusions may be very influenced by existentialism, that a priori is atheistic or non-theistic at least.
Mr. de Duve refers in his contribution to his other publications and who has not read those, cannot draw definitive conclusions regarding his contribution - now, does this imply laziness of the writer or the reader? Alternatively, his other publications cannot be of an entirely different nature, or substantiate opposite conclusions, for which reason it can be stated that de Duve's arguments cannot support any final conclusion. They can lead to the conclusion that the universe has no meaning at all, while the cited arguments that refer to aspects of coincidence or chance just as well may just refer to the meaningful aspect of the universe. The title of his contribution shows a resolute no -most likely a personal cry from the heart- while despite himself from his words a bashful maybe appears. I would welcome the age wherein nobody, however venerable, tells anyone anymore what to think, what to feel or what to conclude on the basis of whatever construed or constructed evidence. The days of authority have gone beyond recall.

Yes John F. Haught - Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University

"The fact that we can ask such a question at all suggests an affirmative answer.” So begins Haught his contribution to the debate about whether there is a meaning to the universe. The problem that the cognitive abilities of humans could be the result of the accidental outcome of an undirected evolutionary process, was an aspect of his evolution theory Charles Darwin was not really happy about, according to Haught, and a problem for which Darwin had no solution. According to John Haught the solution to this problem is not in the looking back, where we come from, but in the future, whereto man develops. When man is wondering about this problem, he simultaneously gives the answer, because that question represents the search for truth, because the search ennobles the nature of the universe. “As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to what is timelessly worth treasuring.” In this last quotation John Haught shows in a rather complicated poetic way that when man can have confidence in himself, he can put his trust also in the universe that made everything possible. [Read here Haught's original text]
Comment: Haught is right and yet not. Indeed, that thinking man exists and that he sees a goal for himself, is the concrete proof of the fact that the universe has a purpose. So far I can agree with Haught's manner of reasoning. However, when man does not take the next step, the first step has no meaning, the fact that man thinks then becomes meaningless -he turns himself into a robot- and the purpose of the universe is crippled. That next step is not being guided by the definitions prescribed by the universe, but to create entirely independent considerations, which do not necessarily coincide with what the universe dictates. The aspects that we have to consider we see around us every day, aspects such authority and hierarchy, prestige and struggle, winning and losing. The universe is cold and ruthless, and man -instead of going along with creation- has to aim to rise above it, to venture beyond the dimension of decomposing without composition. In many ways, to rise above 'the beast'.

Not sure Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysicist and the Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium.

"To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome. But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired outcome be?” This is the essence of deGrasse Tyson’s research question. “If you are religious, you might declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you're one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (...) you would give an entirely different answer.” Through what is said in this quotation deGrasse Tyson wants to put the existence of the human being within a certain perspective -the perspective of the puny, it seems- and thus relativize the position and the importance of man. He calls the alleged importance that man ascribes to himself hubris and concludes that when we filter out the delusions that follow, “the universe looks more and more random.” He does not want to exclude completely that the universe has a purpose, but he puts forward that the evidence is piling up significantly against the existence of such an intention. [Read here deGrasse Tyson's original text]
Comment: That Mr. deGrasse Tyson mentions that man 99.9999% of the cosmic time was not present, and that before us 99.9% of the species became extinct by violent events -see also the video-, but not that 99.99% of all religion is hogwash, is an omission that affects his final conclusion. It reveals that Mr. deGrasse Tyson, perhaps even without realizing it, argues from a well-defined cultural-historical and therefore also religious background. He also proves that by simple calculations only -how amusing whatsoever-, the purpose and the truth of whatever cannot be disclosed. That he does his calculations so to be simultaneously condescending about religion -a specific Western Christian understanding of what religion is: serving God-, proves nothing else than that he should come to terms with his own religious background, before he can adjudicate about the whether or not alleged presence of a purpose for the universe - he is not the only one.
It is striking though that all deGrasse Tyson says may be turned inside out thus becoming arguments for the existence of God and his purpose with the universe we inhabit - though again within this certain vision on God. That man 99.9999% of the cosmic time was not present merely shows that only now it is our turn and that others were before us who had to have their turn first, what as such could be the explanation that for 99.9% of the species time was up before we arrived - whether that was on our planet or in the whole universe. In short, without knowing it deGrasse Tyson proves that the image of God his culture celebrates is complete nonsense -not the only aspect- and that man first must dive deeply into himself to pose the question about whom or what God is -or otherwise must come with a conclusion on this subject- before trying to bring down with toddler toys the suspected purpose and origin of the universe -quite amusing-.

 

Certainly Jane Goodall - Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation and a UN Messenger of Peace.

"Of course science typically scoffs at any belief in a god, tells us that we have a "God gene" and that the tendency towards religious belief is simply part of our biological make up, as inevitable as the universal human smile. Yet even if this were so, we would still need to ask why?” Later in her contribution Goodall writes about her emotional experience of organ play in the beautiful Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris -inaudible low tones of for instance the organ cause the 'God experience'- and her perception of the work of Bach. I understand her words from personal experience. One day I entered the cathedral of Orléans -also France- and at that precise moment the organ began to play forcefully and majestically. It was like being welcomed into his church by God himself. Athletes have a similar primordial experience when they enter a packed stadium, I am told. Goodall ends with: “Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed.” [Read here Goodall's original text]
Comment: To Mrs. Goodall I would like to say, do we always understand the ostensibly aimless gyrations in ourselves, the whirlpool that seems to obligate our inner self? Nevertheless, based on that we come to viewpoints and principles, actions and their consequences. So we live, so everyone lives. Man who wants to understand the cosmos, in any way, is like the ant who wants to understand the forest - it will lead nowhere. Man is ‘condemned’ to deal with his own measure of all things and to examine himself on the point of the why of his innermost stirrings. Only when a person reaches the point of understanding himself, the goal of everything -not only of the universe- is revealed. This all sounds quite religious, but it is not. At least it has nothing to do with the religions. On the contrary, examining yourself is possible only then, when you are free of the religions - and of political partiality, and of self-interest, in short, of judging one another. There are only two important things in life, your appreciation of what you see in your mirror and what thereafter you do in the world. That is what this book is about.

I Hope So Elie Wiesel - Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities and University Professor at Boston University.

"Man’s task is (...) to liberate God, while freeing the forces of generosity in a world teetering more and more between curse and promise.” This is the last sentence of Elie Wiesel's contribution and by that simultaneously his conclusion, here in the form of a plan or a task. In the rest of his essay, he mainly poses questions, of which it is not always clear whether they are real questions or rhetorical questions. A teacher often uses the form of the question to persuade his students towards a certain mind set. It is a somewhat antiquated teaching method, because it makes much more sense to let the student formulate his own questions, and his own hypotheses. [Read here Wiesel's original text]
Comment: Professor Wiesel refers to the existential questions formulated by the Tanakh -fortunately he is open therein-, but simultaneously, it is unclear whether he actually believes that the moral issues addressed in the Tanakh apply to all people. He refers to events such as the flood, as if it really happened. From geology it has become clear that a deluge that covered the whole earth with water never happened, although in the ending of the last ice regionally very large floods have occurred. Yahweh destroyed his people with as cause that evil was rampant, he reports, while gradually everyone has become aware that the flood story is taken from the Gilgamish epic⁶⁾ in which the god destroyed the people, because with their noise they kept the god too often from sleeping. In short, Professor Wiesel tries to raise some moral issues -rightly so-, that cannot be raised the way he does.
Moreover, in the perception of man the times in which he lives is always crucial and inclined to be a journey into the chasm, as Professor Wiesel foresees for the current time. In every age, man experiences his situation as balancing on the brink of the abyss and almost never as in balance with times of prosperity in the offing. Ask at random any Jew, a typical Roman or the average Chinese, a medieval person trapped in his world -it is possible, just read- and all will say their time is one of the most uncertain in history. The Inca, the Cherokee, the Norseman, the Mongol, nobody will say their time is uneventful, that nothing really happened and that they could live in peace and harmony raising their children without fear and hunger.
The Shoah was an extremely horrible event and I hope that it will continue to be in human memory for a very long time as an example to the degeneration⁷⁾ of the human - not even degeneration under certain circumstances, but the ever-present danger of degeneration. Particularly because of this reason it clearly takes a major effort for Professor Wiesel to postulate a meaningful purpose for the universe. So many events in history heavily damaged his faith in the God of Abraham and Moses - which also in his case is quite conceivable. His generosity to offer liberation to God -and not to refute or deny him, as from disappointment so many did- is very admirable. However, one can also say that the ancient God of Abraham -if Abraham really existed- and Moses never truly has been the true God, but a political instrument in the hands of Joshua, an opportune political-cultural amalgamation of the Canaanite Baal -El- and Yahweh, the latter very likely being a legendary tribal leader or war lord of the Nabateans who in the end by his descendants got elevated to the status of war god. That would mean that if the God of the Tanakh does not exist -nor his descendants in the Bible and the Koran- not God, but man must be liberated. In order not having to perform a balancing act, but to become balanced, every person indeed needs to descend deep into himself to liberate himself. The God who then emerges shows to be completely different from the manipulator who has governed for eons the physical universe. The emerging ‘God’ who is discovered at the bottom of the soul, in the hardiest pith of existence, turns out to be surprisingly similar for everyone. This ‘God’ does not need to be freed, he-she offers liberation, the release of everything and who you are.