Dear Lily
Thanks for your question. Here’s the way I see it.
Bernie has explained something of the reasons why I, and many others,
believe it is not useful, or even meaningful, to ask ‘why’ questions
about the universe. Let me expand.
First of all, when, or in what circumstances is the why question
legitimate? It is important to understand that, whilst in common use why
is used synonymously with how, the minute we start asking in
earnestness, the two words show themselves to be quite distinct in their
meanings. How refers to the history and what you might call ‘efficient
causes’ of any phenomenon. The notion of efficient cause versus final
cause is one that we have from Aristotle, who actually outlined four types
of causes for phenomena. Only these two need concern us.
The history, or efficient cause, of a phenomenon, is what science usually
studies. It provides, for science, a pretty complete explanation of the sort
of phenomena that scientists tend to be interested in. By a complete
explanation, I simply mean that, with the explanation it has, science can
predict what will happen with great accuracy and, when necessary, set into
motion events with predictable results. An example of this is gravity.
Kepler, Galileo and Newton studied the laws of motion and provided how
explanations. What are the efficient causes of an apple falling, the moon
moving around the earth and so on. Note that this explanation says nothing
about what gravity is, simply about how it works. As a result we can
tell that an asteroid will come quite close to the earth in a few centuries.
Also as a result, we can make plans for vehicles, following the same laws,
that might help move the asteroid out of the way.
This sort of approach, however, often fails when we try to study humans.
There is, we are reasonably certain, in principle a train of efficient
causes that could provide us with an explanation of human actions, but it is
a very long and complicated one. So its actual explanatory power, because of
this long and tortuous journey from the most basic functions (atomic?
cellular?) to the level of human actions, is very limited.
This is why philosophers and psychologists use, instead, basic units of
mind: beliefs, attitudes and so on, which are used as explanations for human
actions. Even these, however, do not give us anything like the reliability
of prediction that we get in, say, the physics of motion. And a
characteristic of these explanations is that, at this level, it is often
useful to ask why. This is because, as far as we can tell, human
activities have the characteristic of being goal-directed, ie they have some
end in mind. In the example of gravity, above, for instance, the scientists
have the goal of sending a rocket up in order to shift an asteroid. So a
complete explanation for the rocket would include not just the scientific
explanation of how it works, but also the psychological explanation
of why it was sent up.
It is this sort of explanation, also called a telos (after
Aristotle’s classification), that makes sense when it comes to human
actions, or the actions of any agent – you could legitimately say that a
dog wagged its tail because it was happy to see its pet human come home.
This is an answer not to a how question about the dog, but a why
question about it. A scientific type explanation, answering only the hows,
would be incredibly complicated, and in our current state of knowledge,
perhaps impossible.
Therefore, wherever there seems to be clear signs of an agent at work, it
can be useful, and sometimes imperative, to ask the why question.
Equally, we need to be careful about it. In a situation where the how
answers provide a complete explanation, asking why is meaningless.
And that’s the situation we seem to find ourselves in with regard to
the universe. There is no evidence of purpose in its creation, and as far as
answers seem to be possible, they are answers to how questions. This
is not to say that science or philosophy has all the answers, just that, in
the spirit of parsimony, we don’t ask questions unless they seem to be
relevant to an explanation. Why questions are not relevant regarding
the universe, or the creation of life, simply because we have no evidence of
agency supporting our investigation.
Having said which, of course, there are people who subscribe to the
so-called Intelligent Design idea, who are certain that there was some
agency behind the creation of life and are looking for evidence (allegedly)
to demonstrate this point. If they were vindicated in their search, it would
definitely be a good idea to ask the why question – if some intelligent
agent created life why did it do so?
My reason for not ascribing intelligent purpose to the universe is simply
that there does not seem to be a need for it. As far as I can tell, there is
no evidence of purpose in the universe as it is set up. That within this set
up, life evolved, and we appear to create purposes for ourselves is
irrelevant to whether or not there is purpose to the universe.
I know this has been rather long-winded, but I hope it helps.
cheer
the sunshine warrior