Moreover, simply because something is a fact, it does not necessarily follow that it is also a problem to be solved. Leaves are green, the sky is blue, ice is cold: these are facts, but were never considered to be problems to solve, until some person decided they were interesting enough facts to be descried and explained. The definition of a scientific “problem” is always changing, and is rarely clear-cut, unlike facts which are always distinct and true. Solving scientific problems is not equivalent to explaining a fact.
Finally, the truth or falsity of a theory is in many respects irrelevant for scientific purposes. Human history is replete with examples of past scientists who invented or believed theories about the world and universe that we now know (or believe) to be completely wrong. Yet they solved the problem for that group of people in that time. We can see how solutions often change over time Facts will always remain the same. Acceleration due to the gravity of the earth will always be approximately 9.8 m\s2. Yet our interpretation of why this is true and what causes it to be so has changed. The problem of the heavenly bodies moving through the sky is now explained by the earth’s movement around he sun; yet for the purposes of many calculations, it does not matter if the earth or the sun moves so long as one is presumed to be stationary. For the ancients, the solution that the earth was stationary solved their problem. For us, the solution that the earth moves around the sun has solved our problems, but either theory can be the basis of science. Science is not primarily the true and accurate description of facts (though if we are lucky, our science may arrive there), but it is primarily the effective solving of given problems that best characterizes the activities of science.
2. Suppose death is final . . . .
According to Baier, if death is final, meaning that is there is no eternal afterlife, then life is still no less meaningful than if there were an afterlife. Many people would say that life is meaningful only insofar as there is a purpose to it. Baier points out that there are two definitions of the word “purpose.” One is the meaning given to an object by its creator or user; the other is the reason behind an individuals action. To say that humans have purpose in the sense of an object is, to Baier, a very degrading perspective on humanity. Humans can have a great deal of purpose in their actions. And in this purpose lies a basis for a worthwhile life.
The belief that life is meaningless in the absence of an afterlife is based on the view that this earthly life in and of itself is not worth living because it is wrought with pain, struggles, trials, and suffering. The belief that there is an afterlife which provides a perfect existence apart from all these unpleasantries is the basis on which many people ascribe a meaning to this life: it is the way in which to get to the next. But this supplies an unreasonably high standard of judging the worth of a life by comparing it to absolute perfection and bliss. However, using the same normal standard for life that we use for most things, an individual’s life has worth is so far as it is sufficiently above the average state of mankind. In practicality, we judge a life worthwhile, or significant, to the extent that a person has contributed to the happiness of others.
In this way, life is supremely important for this is all the time we have to give meaning or worth to our lives. Baier points out that from a Christian perspective, it is in some sense better to kill a person if they will go directly to heaven, because that is freeing them from the pain and suffering of this world and sending them somewhere better. But if there is no afterlife, then murder is a supremely heinous crime, for it robs an individual of their only chance of bringing worth and meaning to their life. From this perspective, life is extremely valuable. And in its value we can find its meaning or purpose.
Finally, Baier points out that if one believes in an afterlife, then this earthly life is actually meaningless if one does not attain salvation. Which is to say that anything done on earth is really irrelevant if one has not done just exactly the right thing or things needed to attain salvation. So really, anything in life is ultimately meaningless if it does not lead to salvation. Yet this is not so. We believe that many things which are unrelated to the final state of our soul from a religious perspective do still have meaning and a purpose and are significant. It is not just following the formula for salvation that provides meaning, but it is what we do with our lives while we live that gives meaning to our existence.
3. Why and how does Kauffman propose to reinvent the sacred? Is this a legitimate scientific task? Would his views, if correct, help to achieve this task?
The developments of science have brought about many changes in the way that we think about the world. From Copernicus, to Newton to Darwin, each scientific leap forward has eaten away a small part of humanity’s past religious beliefs. The heliocentric solar system conquered our man-centered universe. Newtonian physics revealed to us the patterns of the movement of the heavenly beings, removing the mystery of the angelically animated stars. Evolution teaches us that the blind forces governing survival have been the creators of humanity, shattering the belief in a divine creator. But though science may have effectively shattered our former religious beliefs, Kauffman believes that may not have been an entirely god thing. After all, an objective viewing of the facts reveals that the probability of the universe as we know it coming into existence is so small as to be statistically impossible by unaided chance. Kauffman argues that there must be something more at work than we are aware of. It is by “reinventing the sacred”, that Kauffman proposes to explain such existence as well as provide humanities place in the universe.
A large part of Kauffman’s proposition is based in the developing sciences of complexity. The existence of natural laws which dictate that at a certain point molecules will spontaneously order themselves. And they will do so in such a way as to produce emergent properties, qualities that do not exist in the individual parts, but nevertheless are possessed by the whole. The properties of strength, liquidity, and even life can not be ascribed to the individual parts of a system. And yet these properties do exist in systems as wholes. This theory can explain many things about which evolutionary theory is silent. In this way, it is potentially possible to understand the development of self-replicating molecules, after which point evolution takes effect. Moreover, this theory may also help to explain many kinds of development that are not fully accounted for simply by survival of the fittest.
His aim is legitimately scientific, though perhaps from a different angle than that which most scientists take. Yet Kauffman is attempting to solve a problem, the problem of where life has come from. How can the development of humanity and the order of the universe be accounted for? Evolution alone can not provide the answers. But laws of complexity and order may.
We can clearly see much order in the universe, particularly as it is described by mathematics and chemistry. Yet we also understand the chaos that has existed, and to a certain extent still does exist. Life, according to Kauffman, exists in balancing on that line between order and chaos. The development of species, particularly in the context of a given ecosystem with competition and limitations, is in a sense ordered by natural selection, but is also to some extent chaotic. A system will rise to a high point of order, and then will deteriorate into chaos. The developing order is like a growing sand pile, any grain may contribute to the order of the pile, or may conversely bring about an avalanche, be it large or small.
And here is where the theory achieves Kauffman’s task. Each grain of sand has the potential to add to the order or to create a great avalanche. Yet there is no way to predict which will occur as the grain falls. “Only God has the wisdom to understand the final law, the throws of quantum dice.” These laws exist, according to Kauffman, but “only God can foretell the future.” The very existence of these laws inspires a sense of the sacred because of that which is beyond our ability to understand.
