The Meaning of Life (Chapter 2: Scientific Theories)

Science: Those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. (Oxford English Dictionary)

The question “What is the meaning of life?” means different things to different people. The vagueness of the question is inherent in the word “meaning”, which opens the question to many interpretations, such as:

• “What is the origin of life?” and “What is the nature of life and of the universe in which we live?” – scientific questions

• “What is the purpose of life?” – a theological question.

• “What is valuable in life?” – a philosophic question.

Let’s look first at what science has to say. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, this is science’s answer to the question: “What is the meaning of life?” (Isn’t Google a wonderful thing!):

The origin of the universe:

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the theory, the universe was created about 15 billion years ago from an explosion that hurled matter in all directions. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. When this event occurred all of the matter and energy of the universe was concentrated in a mass the size of a golf ball. Where that golf ball came from no one has a clue. The Big Bang Theory is credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He also discovered that a galaxy’s velocity is proportional to its distance from us. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. This observation provided the foundation for the Big Bang Theory because it confirms that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position (the exploding golf ball) to its current position. The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation in 1964 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, using a radio telescope, heard radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe. This discovery of what is assumed to be the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion (which took a long time to reach us) lent much credence to the Big Bang Theory. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

The nature of the universe:

The universe may be infinite in size, or it may be of only finite size. Strange as it may seem, the universe could be finite, a finite universe would not have to have any edges or an end, it could ‘wraparound’. The universe may be a curved three-dimensional space that wraps around and closes on itself. If you set out in a spacecraft heading in one direction, you could eventually return to the same spot from the opposite direction.

The entire universe, or just the visible portion of the universe if it’s infinite, is roughly 27 billion light-years across. That’s 159,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.
The universe is full of stars, arranged in enormous groups called galaxies. Our Sun is one star among 100 billion in the Milky Way Galaxy. And there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, each with a comparable number of stars.

The origin of life:

There are four competing theories as to the origin of life on earth:

• Life arose spontaneously. And the first organism was able to grow and reproduce, which led to the evolution of the diverse life forms that now exist on Earth. But under this scenario the original organism would have appeared by the random and serendipitous coming together of all the necessary materials under exactly the right conditions. This is somewhat like believing that because while digging you found a rock that looked like a brick, if you dug long and hard enough you would eventually find something that looked like the Sistine Chapel!

• Life evolved from simpler organisms. Some scientists feel that life originated spontaneously as a much simpler organism than any now found on earth. A difficulty with this idea is the absence of any current examples of this “much simpler organism”. In general, appearance of more complex organisms has not resulted in disappearance of simpler forms. We still have cockroaches. We still have fruit flies.

• Its unknowable. Some scientists take the view that the origin of the primordial organism is “unknowable”, meaning that not only do we not know but we are unlikely to ever know and that the subject is therefore more appropriate for philosophy or religion than science.

• It came from outer space. Some believe that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was then somehow carried here – perhaps on a meteor. Of course, this theory suffers from the same deficiencies as the first two.

The origin of human life:

Once you had some form of life on earth, more and more sophisticated forms could evolve by a process called natural selection. The modern understanding of evolution is based on Charles Darwin’s theory popularized in his 1859 book, The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing on those traits to their offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Thus far, humans are the most sophisticated form of life produced by this process.

Actually, I like to think of myself as a scientest. I think that science is the only way to the truth about anything and everything. But the problem is that science cannot go beyond the data available, and most of the really important questions cannot be addressed using the scientific method.. With respect to the question, “What is the origin of the universe?”, I am sure that the Big Bang Theory is correct. Hubble’s observation that galaxies which are far away are travelling much faster than galaxies that are close to us is consistent with an explosive beginning. If all the pieces exploded from the same point, then the pieces that are now farthest away must have been travelling faster than the pieces that are still near the point of explosion. And the two guys that got the Nobel prize for hearing the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion are, I’m sure, deserving of the prize. The problem for me is that no one has any idea how that exploding golf ball got there in the first place. Now, that’s a question that really interests me! Similarly, regarding the nature of the universe, I know why the scientests say that it may be finite or it may be infinite. The problem, again, is that scientests cannot go beyond the data available and if the leading edge of the exploding universe is too far away from us for the light from there ever to reach us (light travels exactly 186,000 miles per second relative to the observer – the only constant in nature) then the scientests cannot know if what they see is all there is or if there are pieces of the universe beyond the furthest one they can see. Still, the answer is disappointing. The scientests answer to the origin of life is even more disillusioning. There are four theories, one of which is that the origin if life is unknowable. Again, I understand that science is limited by the data available but I am disappointed still.

The only piece of the science answer that I find totally credible and satisfying is the Theory of Evolution. The theory adequately describes (at least for me) how primitive life evolved into higher life forms and finally into human life but it too is somewhat unsatisfying in that it fails to account for the origin of the first microscopic life form.

To put it bluntly and with all due respect to the Nobel prize winners who came up with it, I find science’s answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life” both pathetically incomplete and profoundly unsatisfying?

When I’m all alone and it’s late at night I take no consolation from the knowledge that the universe originated 15 billion years ago with an exploding golf ball. Nor am I impressed with the fact that the scientists know that, if the universe is not infinite (it may be infinite) it is 159,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles across. Science’s four competing theories on the origin of life (one of which is that it is unknowable) I find, again with all due respect, sad and silly.

There are people who do not need any more meaning in their lives than what science provides. The husband of a friend of mine believes that he will survive death because the atoms in his body, after it decomposes, will not be destroyed but will eventually be reconstituted into other molecules. Some of his atoms will eventually be contained in rocks or trees, others will migrate to the bodies of other living creatures – even humans. Wordsworth expresses this notion in one of the “Lucy” poems, written in homage to a three-year-old girl who died:

Three years she grew in sun and shower,
Then Nature said, ‘A lovlier flower
On earth was never sown;
This child I to myself will take,
She shall be mine, and I will make
A lady of my own.

‘Myself will to my darling be
Both law and impulse: and with me
The Girl, in rock and plain,
In earth and heaven, in glade and bower,
Shall feel an overseeing power
To kindle or restrain.

I remember reading somewhere that my body may well contain a few of the atoms that constituted Shakespeare’s body. So, in that sense, Shakespeare, who died in 1616, survives in me! And several hundred years from now most humans will have in their bodies a few of the atoms of my body. The husband of my friend, finds this thought consoling. Not me.

So, scientific theories are really of no help to me in my search for meaning in life. I’m looking for more than that. Let’s turn to religion, which for many people – perhaps most people – constitutes the meaning in their lives. Maybe religion will fare better.

Many great scientests were also very religious. Albert Einstein was one:

“…To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men…”

He pointed out that the two domains, science and religion, do not overlap:

“…science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and ouside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships beween facts…”

But he also said:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.

Let’s see what religion has to say about the meaning of life.