Here’s an interesting animated video from Neil deGrasse Tyson on whether the universe has a purpose. Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. But it’s still a creative way of presenting an argument for why an atheist like Tyson thinks that religious arguments for a purposeful universe are unconvincing at best. Check it out and let us know what you think.
7 Responses to “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks:
-
-
December 13, 2012
[...] reason & unbelief: Does the Universe Have a Purpose? [2 min., 34 sec. video [...]
Leave a Reply:
That is a question science fundamentally can’t answer, so I’m not too surprised by his response. His response really just boils down to an admission that empiricism can’t give an answer and a scoff that any other philosophy could give an answer to anything.
One thing I like about Tyson is that he usually doesn’t overplay his arguments (at least not the ones that I’ve heard). So I appreciated that he didn’t try to argue conclusively for no-purpose, just that he’s not convinced by religious arguments for purpose.
I agree. I really do in general like Tyson. Especially when compared to new atheists like Dawkins and Harris. Here is a video where Tyson actually takes Dawkins to task on his abrasive approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
There cannot be a spiritual reality of any kind because I don’t see one; therefore, there can’t be one for you either, and that’s why there isn’t one for you … And frankly, though I also know there is no absolute truth of any kind, I do absolutely know (remarkably, I know) that I know all there is to know about everything that’s real. And secondly, God can’t speak to you because, well … clearly there is no God; I already proved that. The end.
I find the video entertaining but also helpful in two ways: 1. It should make it clear to churches that atheists can make cute motion graphics videos too, hopefully pointing out that we’ll need to focus on the content of our message and its own persuasive power at least as much or perhaps even more than we focus on the cultural relevance of our forms of communication. 2. While the rise in emphasis on revealed/Trinitarian theology in the academy (over against a more general philosophical/natural theology) has not had much success in convincing churches to give up on the “where did it all come from?” apologetic, the fact that as long as we share the naturalists’ methodological assumptions (lets just look at the world and see what we see) they will win the argument might help turn churches to a more concrete focus on (special) revelation.
I imagine the “Christian” response would be to try and prove that the universe does have a purpose. But I wonder if we agreed on the point, as the book of Ecclesiastes seems to do, if we would get further?