By Dr Anthony Lewis
Anthony is Chair of Windsor Humanists. In this article, he asserts that no one possesses the definitive answer to the ultimate question: Why do I exist? He observes that philosophy is limited by language and that efforts to prove a divine purpose succumb to circular reasoning. Science has demonstrated humanity’s insignificance in a vast, indifferent cosmos but cannot help us find meaning and purpose to satisfy our subjective needs as evolved conscious creatures. As a humanist, he concludes that the answer to the ultimate question is simple but tautological. We exist to live.
In Douglas Adams’s satirical science fiction novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything" was given as the number 42. In the story, the Earth was constructed as a supercomputer to determine what the original question was that had led to this confusing answer. Unfortunately, the Earth was destroyed by an alien race called the Vogons to make way for an inter-galactic highway just before its calculations were completed. Adams thus humorously demonstrated that in order to answer any profound existential question, such as “Why do I exist?”, it is often important to discern the nature of the question itself. Quite often, the answer depends on understanding why, how, and by whom the question has been posed.
The simple four-word question “Why do I exist?” is a rather complex query. The question can be considered to be simultaneously tautological, rhetorical, teleological and theological, depending on the perspectives and purpose of both the person asking and the person answering the question. The simple table below summarises the main characteristics of each of these types of questions. Such ultimate questions can only be answered meaningfully if you understand why the question is being asked and who is asking it.
Let’s explore briefly then three different perspectives on how to answer the question, starting with the philosophical approach, then various scientific viewpoints, and finally, my own personal stance as a humanist and atheist.
The philosophical approach: the limits of language
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that tries to characterise reality as a whole, and directly grapples with ontological questions which deal with the nature of being, such as: “Why do we exist?” By necessity, given our limited knowledge in the past, the efforts of early philosophers were dominated by theological considerations which started from the premise that the God Hypothesis was the simplest explanation for existence. Many famous thinkers from Aquinas and Leibniz to Gödel have refined what is called the Cosmological Argument, using increasingly sophisticated reasoning and logic. Put simply, the Cosmological Argument asserts that there needs to be a first cause for anything to exist. This assertion is then used to “prove” that God must exist in order to be that first cause. However, other philosophers, such as Hume, Kant and Nozick, have pointed out that trying to prove that there is a divine purpose to existence using the Cosmological Argument will always be tautological given that the approach does not explain why God exists in the first place.
The American science writer Jim Holt, in his gem of a book Why Does the World Exist?, provides an excellent summary of this complex debate. He describes how many philosophers and theologians down the ages have grappled with the ultimate question rather fruitlessly, with most explanations for existence descending into an infinite regress of circular arguments that push the limits of language and meaning into what he jokingly terms a “turgid ontological orgy of meaningless verbiage”. Holt helpfully divides the main philosophical approaches into three broad and overlapping camps:
Optimists believe that there is an underlying reason for existence, and that we will eventually be able to discern such a purpose. Religions, science, maths, and philosophy constitute the human search for explanations of reality with varying degrees of sophistication, objectivity, subjectivity and evidence. Most religions lay claim to knowing this purpose through divine revelation recorded in ancient holy texts, or communicated via prophets or other human intermediaries. Some scientists, especially physicists, also think that a theory of everything might be possible to explain the universe, but such ongoing research lies at the frontiers of current scientific efforts (see the Rumsfeldian Knowledge Matrix later).
Pessimists argue that there might be a reason but we will never know it, due to the limits of our evolved cognitive ability. They conclude that the current state of the human mind means that the mystery of being will remain a permanent enigma to us. For example, the Austrian philosopher Wittgenstein pointed out that trying to think about our own non-existence is like the eye trying to see itself – an impossibility. And the German philosopher Schopenhauer, in his extended essay The Emptiness of Existence, concluded that at the core of our experience of life lies an existential “emptiness of being”; in other words, that our being in the world is marked by a lack of enduring meaning or satisfaction. (I explored these themes in an earlier article Kissing your own elbow: how to love your life despite its transience'.)
Rejectionists assert that there is no reason for existence, and that the question is meaningless. They invert the Cosmological Argument to point out that clearly the universe does exist but that it is indifferent to our existence, both as individuals and as a species. They argue that the need for a first cause and purpose is an invented problem driven by our deep-seated cognitive limitations and primitive emotional needs. They contend that there is no evidence for an underlying purpose to reality, nor any requirement for there to be one.
“...the philosophical approach quickly exhausts the meaning of words, and often descends into the confusion of circular reasoning.” Holt
It is clear from the above that the philosophical and theological approaches can help us answer, to some extent, the ultimate question about the mystery of existence. But the philosophical approach is limited by language and, as Holt has pointed out, it quickly exhausts the meaning of words and often descends into the confusion of tautological and circular reasoning. Wittgenstein pessimistically concluded in his work that “the limits of my language means the limits of my world” so there are clear impediments to the philosophical approach, given that the mystery of existence takes us beyond the limits of language. Let’s now explore whether the scientific approach can provide any more clarity.
Some scientific perspectives : the vastness of the universe
We now know that the universe began expanding from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago and that all life on Earth has evolved over the last 3.5 to 4 billion years. Therefore, from a scientific perspective, the reason we exist is because the known universe started to exist at the Big Bang and sentient life on Earth evolved over time. These cosmic and planetary processes have led to the emergence of Homo sapiens with the mental capacity and self awareness to be able to ask itself: “Why do we exist?” Humans appear to represent a unique cognitive singularity in the evolution of life on Earth. We appear to be the first species which can contemplate its own non-existence (called mortality salience) and, via language, communicate with other humans about the absurdity of existence and our own inevitable demise.
“...paradoxically, although we are all insignificant in a vast universe, we are the means by which the cosmos understands itself.” Professor Brian Cox
Richard Feynman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics in 1965, concluded that ‘‘Science teaches us that we are not the centre of things. Nature’s story isn’t ‘about’ us at all. Indeed, it isn’t really ‘about’ anything.” Modern science has demonstrated how insignificant the Earth is, given the enormous size of the universe, and that, as a result, we are all an irrelevance in the vastness of an indifferent universe. Sigmund Freud pointed out that modern science has delivered ‘‘three great dethronements” which have removed humans and gods from being the centre of anything. These are: the Copernican revolution which demonstrated that the Earth is not the centre of the universe; the evolution of life on Earth without the need for a creator; and Freud's own findings that we are not wholly rational. When asked the ultimate question, the physicist and humanist Brian Cox replied poetically that “Paradoxically, although we are all insignificant in a vast universe, we are the means by which the cosmos understands and explores itself.” (link provided below.) In other words, our very existence as sentient beings makes the universe conscious.
Some scientists take a more cynical view, and would be considered to be in the ‘‘rejectionist” camp described above. They argue that the ultimate question itself is tautological, and asking it in some ways a pointless exercise, given that to consider the question we have to be alive. In other words, being able to ask the question is its own answer. As Descartes famously quipped, ‘‘Cogito, ergo sum” (‘‘I think therefore I am”). Many respond to the question sarcastically by asking another equally frustrating and tautological question: “Why does there need to be a why?”!
‘‘...the teleological nature of our cognition drives us to imbue the world around us with meaning and purpose... this urge is essential to our mental and emotional stability.”
Despite this cynicism, it is clear that there has been and continues to be an enormous amount of focus and effort in addressing the ultimate question. It appears to cut to the core of our subjective experience of being alive. Modern neuroscience and linguistics have demonstrated that our brains are structured to model reality in terms of cause and effect, to help us interact with reality and to improve our chances of survival in a hostile natural world. As a result, we have deep-seated psychological biases towards viewing reality from a teleological perspective, where everything needs to be understood in terms of agency, cause and purpose. The underlying teleological nature of our cognition therefore drives us to imbue the world around us with meaning and purpose. This urge is deep seated and subjective, and is essential to our mental and emotional stability.
It appears, then, that neither philosophy nor science can easily help us to answer the ultimate question or help us with our deep-seated psychological yearnings as embodied sentient creatures to find meaning and purpose in our lives and assuage our existential anxieties. Some of us turn to faith and religion, and promises of an afterlife or re-incarnation, to find succour when faced with the mysteries of life. However, as a geoscientist and atheist, I have found the humanist perspective to be most helpful to me personally.
A personal humanist perspective: a focus on this one life
From the above exploration we can conclude that, despite the huge efforts of many great thinkers, no-one can lay claim to holding the ultimate truths about existence. It is not certain that such comprehension is even possible. But these intellectual endeavours have provided us with a wide variety of religious, philosophical and scientific perspectives and frameworks that can help us to find meaning and purpose in our own lives. I believe that it is important that we all have humility, compassion and respect for the different choices and approaches that we all make to help us to cope with life’s vicissitudes.
“...our birth is contingent and our death a certainty – our lives are book-ended by ‘non-existence’”
As mortal and sentient creatures, we all have to face the brutal truth that our birth is contingent and our death a certainty. Our lives are book-ended by ‘‘non-existence”. We all come face-to-face with the existential burdens of being alive many times throughout our lives, often triggered by bereavement or illness, when we are confronted by our own or others’ mortality. Ultimately, we all have to find our own way to deal with both the positive and negative aspects of life. I have found the Donald Rumsfeld Knowledge Matrix useful in developing a perspective and an approach that works for me:
Unknown Unknowns – due to our cognitive limitations, I believe that we will never be capable of fully understanding reality. So we must have the humility to accept that most of what could potentially be known will always sit in the ‘‘Unknown Unknown” box.
Known Unknowns – our subjective beliefs, conjectures and assertions about existence and reality for which there is currently no evidence sit in this area. I would place here things like the God Hypothesis, beliefs in an afterlife and religious faith, and also unproven scientific proposals such as the concept of a ‘‘Unified Theory of Everything” in physics. These are all philosophical, religious or scientific concepts that are ‘‘known” as ideas but remain unproven and therefore ‘‘unknowns”.
Unknown Knowns – most ongoing scientific research and development sits in the ‘‘Unknown Knowns” box. For example, biochemists continue to work on the mechanisms of evolution. Although DNA itself is a ‘‘knowns”, how it functions in detail is still an active area of research, so that many aspects are still ‘‘unknown”. And we can only observe the universe that lies closer than 13.8 billion light years away. Much of the universe lies further away and so we are unable to observe it as the universe has only existed for 13.8 billion light years since the Big Bang. This vast area of the ‘‘unobservable” universe is therefore also an ‘‘Unknown Known".
Known Knowns – are all the elements of reality that we can experience and directly observe in the material world that are accepted as things that we are aware of and also understand. Facts, proven science, and ideas that are acknowledged as truths due to direct evidence or objective experience sit in this box. As a humanist, I think this is the area where we should anchor ourselves when deciding our approach to life, as it provides a solid foundation on which to base our decisions on how to live. The most fundamental "known knowns" are that we are alive right now and our existence is book-ended by our non-existence. I believe that coming to terms with this brutal truth can drive us positively to make the most of this one life we know about rather than rely on promises of a possible future afterlife.
Humanists like myself therefore believe that we should focus on the life that we know about and experience directly. This one life is “it” for everyone. It is up to each one of us to find our own meaning and purpose. All of us are endowed with powerful, corporeal capabilities that can provide us with many ways to create life-enhancing purpose and fulfilment: their priority and relative importance will vary from person to person. We can forge meaningful relationships with other human beings using our social brains. We can engage our cognitive abilities in the pursuit of intellectual understanding and get involved in a whole raft of cultural pursuits. We can enjoy the full range of sensory experiences provided by our physical bodies and senses. The options span the whole gamut of human endeavour and activities.
“...whilst the light bulb of our consciousness is on we should make the most of our lives... it is not a rehearsal – this is it.”
After much contemplation over the years I have concluded that my answer to the question “Why do I exist?” is a straightforward one. But also, unfortunately, an unavoidable tautology! I exist to live. My personal philosophy for life based on this is also simple. I believe that “whilst the light bulb of our consciousness is on we should make the most of our lives for ourselves and others because this one life is all we can be sure about and it is not a rehearsal – this is it”.
Useful Links
Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Jim Holt Why Does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story (2012) reviewed in Wikipedia
Different types of questions Teleological, Tautological , Rhetorical
Wittgenstein’s ‘eye analogy’ - SparkNotes & Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Donald Rumsfeld’s Matrix World Economic Forum
Brian Cox quotation: ‘We are the cosmos made conscious’ Youtube
The Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan 1994 video
Kommentarer