On the Purpose of Life

On the Purpose of Life

We are born… At about age two, we become aware of ourselves as separate entities from others. We grow up… We work to provide for our needs; we go through difficulties and hard times, and in between we try to enjoy life as best we can. And eventually we will die. What are we doing here anyway? What’s the point of it all, not only in regard to our individual lives, but of all life?
. . In my case, the question has come to mind many times, especially during difficult periods. The specific question of, “what is the purpose of life”, generally brings an answer something like any of these:

to survive
to make money
to fulfill your potential
to live for each other
to love
to have fun
to learn lessons
to serve God
to prove yourself worthy of heaven
whatever you decide it to be

. . Most of these short responses may have some validity, but do not begin to approach a full understanding. Among people in general, there seems to be either little thought given to the question, or considerable confusion.
. . In order to reduce confusion, we need as complete and accurate a picture as possible of how life works. This may lead us to some sense of what it is about. Only recently (within the 20th century) has our species reached a sufficient level of knowledge by which it is now perhaps possible to deduce a primary purpose of life.
. . Over the years, I looked into religions, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and even visited various experimental utopian communes, but could not draw a satisfying conclusion. Then I added the study of nature and science… and things began to fall into place. As a fairly comprehensive picture of life emerged, the purpose of life in general, became implicit…

In The Beginning, or as far back in time for which we have evidence, there occurred a “Big Bang” and the universe was born some [13.7] billion years ago. As initial cooling began, pre-atomic particles became hydrogen and helium and eventually converged by gravity to form suns. The suns’ processes created various atomic elements which were eventually dispersed into space by means of super nova explosions. The resultant clouds of atoms tended to coalesce, forming the first planets and new suns.
. . The earth is dynamic, and has been from its inception about 4.6 billion years ago. Early on, it was hot and molten; it gradually cooled, and oceans and mountains formed. In the cauldron of Earth’s primordial oceans, in a few hundred million years, from interactions of inorganic chemicals the first organic molecules occurred. Some of these were amino acids, which are the “building blocks” of proteins. Proteins are large, complex molecules, which make possible the structure and function of living organisms, including us.
. . The atoms of our earth were made in suns of eons ago. We are made of those same atoms, as are all living creatures on earth, as is the universe in general. It's significant to realize that we are intimately related in this sense to all life, to the earth, and to the material universe. As Carl Sagan said, we are made of “star stuff.”
. . Any line drawn to indicate the first life would probably be arbitrary. It is likely that the potential for life exists in even the most basic inorganic matter (IMHO). Inorganic matter and living creatures are both governed by the same laws of nature. In a sense, the origin of all life can be traced back to the Big Bang.

Competition
. . From early organic molecules of about 3.8 billion years ago, by the not-yet-fully understood process of abiogenesis, duplication of protein molecules was established and the first life came to be. Eventually, by evolutionary process, the first hypothetical living entity (or entities) differentiated to become many kinds of single-celled creatures. With time, evolution “discovered” specialization of cellular tasks, and multi-cellular cooperation. (Note that cooperation became part of the process very early on.) This came about by means of “natural selection,” which initially was a passive or automatic sort of competition by which individuals best suited to a given environment or niche tended to survive and reproduce. Basically, by means of natural selection, life eventually became a vast array of microscopic creatures and countless species of insects, plants and animals.
. . Competition exists within a species, between species, and between predators and prey... including plants. When a new or enhanced trait appears which grants the individual a competitive edge, that individual becomes more likely to survive and to reproduce. In this way, traits that offer survival advantage tend to be incorporated into a species. As the esteemed evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, has stated, "survival of the fittest" is the right idea. For over a century it has been politically-correct to play down this aspect of evolution because people don’t like the connotation of cruelty. It is important to realize that fitness includes the ability to cooperate; and in higher animals it also includes altruism; and in humans it includes love.
. . On the other hand, without the harsh aspects of life, the pleasant aspects could not exist. More than that, without those aspects that seem harsh to us, evolution could not work and we would not exist at all. (The Chinese Tao recognizes this principle in yin-yang.)

Cooperation
. . Cooperation is regarded by most people to be desirable and to be encouraged. “Many hands lighten the load.” It has a pleasant connotation. Yet, cooperation can also be seen as a sophisticated way of competing. Among humans and higher animals, a group of individuals who cooperate is usually stronger than a similar group of individuals who are not cooperative.
. . For example, wolf packs in the north often hunt caribou. Working as a team and utilizing strategy, they are able to tire, catch, and kill these much larger and faster animals. A lone wolf would be much less successful. Cooperation offers a competitive edge to the individual members of the pack as well as to the pack as a whole.
. . The success of the human species has much to do with the ability to cooperate. Sometimes satisfaction and even joy may be felt when harmonizing well with others. This may be due, in part, to the implication of enhanced power that successful cooperation confers upon the members of the group. It may also be due to the recognition (usually unconscious) that such an experience is related to the spiritual and scientific truth of our ultimate connectedness.

Great discoveries and achievements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds. --Alexander Graham Bell

ALTRUISM
. . Altruism and cooperation are related. Altruistic instinct surfaces in parents who make sacrifices in order to raise, assist, and protect their children. Among many animal species, we find motherly and sometimes fatherly altruism. This is not purely altruistic, in that parents instinctively protect their genetic legacy, and thereby extend their own lives, in a sense.
. . Altruism also seems to show up in people who are not related to each other, particularly when natural disasters such as earth quakes or floods occur. In such instances, it is rather common for people to attempt to save or assist strangers, often at considerable risk to themselves. We usually consider such behavior to be highly commendable; yet, it is what we somewhat expect. In most cases, the rescuers emerge unhurt. The motivation is the urge to preserve our species, although absolute sacrifice of oneself for others is rare. However, it is common among social insects such as ants and termites who have been functioning cooperatively for many millions of years --far longer than our species has existed.
. . We watch out for our self, our family, and our group —usually, but not always, in that order. Whatever the motivation, altruistic behavior tends to enhance the survivability of the group and species.

Love
. . There are various types of love: love of family, spouse, friends, relatives, heroes and heroines, homeland, vocation, sport, an ideology or an idea, sometimes even a certain object or machine. Many of us especially love excellence. We love that which supports, promotes, or enhances (or we think enhances) life --our own and life in general. Love can add joy to life. And it tends to unify. The opposite of love is that which tends to separate or reject. Love can easily arise from erroneous thoughts or perceptions and lead one astray. It is not foolproof. Therefore, careful assessment of qualities makes for more certain and lasting love.

The Survival Instinct
. . Competition, cooperation, altruism, and love, at the most basic level all stem from the survival instinct. The innate urge of every living thing for self-preservation is at the core of life and of evolution. All forms of life possess the instinct to survive. The cause of this instinct is one the deepest of mysteries, along with the mystery of life itself.
. . In higher animals especially, such as humans, this instinct involves the pleasure/pain principle. Virtually every decision we make is weighed (often unconsciously) with regard to either avoiding/ minimizing pain, or gaining pleasure. If a person encounters far too much pain, s/he might opt to cease living in order to escape it. But, a modicum of pain may spur a person on to “pursue happiness.” From this, we might say our purpose is to achieve happiness or joy. This is true, but it is not the complete answer.

Evolution and Progress
. . Scientists are in agreement on most aspects of the Theory of Evolution. The evidence in support of its basic principles is overwhelming. There are disagreements among scientists, but only on various details.
. . Do the patterns apparent when evolution is viewed over time indicate a natural tendency of progression? On this point, opinions vary widely. I am of the opinion that indeed the evidence does indicate a natural tendency of progression.
. . Richard Wright, evolutionist and writer, (author of The Moral Animal), states that evolution shows a clear trend toward rising complexity, and “there is a plausible argument that the coming of self-conscious intelligence was nonetheless quite likely from the beginning…” 1
. . Ernst Mayr is probably an ideal representative for scientific evolutionary thought. (He is a genuine evolutionary biologist, still working in his mid 90’s, and is highly regarded by his peers.) However, on this issue, Mayr says the process of evolution is random and directionless. “Where seeming progress is found, it is simply a byproduct of changes effected by natural selection.” He points to species that apparently have not changed in hundreds of millions of years (even billions of years in the case of cyanobacteria, a type of algae). And he points to certain parasites and some creatures of special niches that “seem to have experienced a retrograde evolution.” Evolution is a “mechanistic process.” “There simply is no indication in the history of life of any universal trend to, or capacity for, evolutionary progress”, writes Mayr. 3
. . In an interview, Mayr has stated, “Natural selection is a two-step process: (1) variations produced, and (2) variations sorted, with the elimination of the less fit so that you end up with a ‘selection’ of the best.” 4 . I submit that “best” in this context implies progress.
. . The word “progress” means “gradual betterment.” In each case, nature weighs out the situation, so-to-speak, and determines “the best” strictly by natural law. The best (fittest) survive over time.
. . Mayr supports the originator of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. But here are some excerpts from Darwin that seem to contradict him:

…natural selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of the less improved forms of life… 5
. . If we take the standard of high organization, …(and this will include the advancement of the brain for intellectual purposes), natural selection clearly leads towards this standard… 6
. . Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. 7

. . Also, Darwin speaks of the “long history” of “complex structures and instinct” as “the summing up of many contrivances…” 8 (“contrivances” meaning mutations and biological modifications).
. . It’s true that some species plateau and a few evolve “backward” to simpler forms. It is also true that evolution is mechanistic, and it does involve chance. And it’s true that species evolve to suit their environmental niches rather than the world at large. But to stop there is to maintain a narrow view. The BIG PICTURE is difficult to deny. Evolution went from one kind of single-celled creature originally, to a great many species of multi-celled creatures, showing over time and across species in general, a clear tendency toward greater complexity, greater sophistication, and increasing capabilities. That is the long-term, overall perspective.
. . Not all species evolve complexity because some niches are best filled by microscopic rapid reproducers. And although some parasites are relatively “simple,” they could not exist without their more complex hosts. Evolution tends to “invent” a life-form to suit nearly every situation.

******

We are aware that a disaster of some sort could wipe out the entire human species, just as probably happened to the dinosaurs. Some evolutionists have forwarded this as an argument in opposition to the idea that evolution might be moving toward an ultimate goal. In my view, it is not a good argument. In the case of the dinosaur’s extinction, there were creatures that survived the same extreme conditions that caused the dinosaur’s demise, so this can be seen as yet another form of natural selection. The survivors of that catastrophe evolved to become today’s multitude of species, of which we are one. If the dinosaurs had not been eliminated, Homo sapiens probably would not have come into existence. It’s clear that humans have evolved to a higher level of capabilities than was attained by the dinosaurs.
. . If something happened now to eliminate Homo sapiens, this would only be a setback for the progression of life. Life would continue to evolve in the direction of increasing fitness. Homo sapiens would most likely never reappear, but some genetic line would probably eventually develop similar intelligence and capabilities, and greater. (Even dinosaurs were on the way. Fossils of certain smaller species show relatively large brain-case to body ratio and fore-paws of grasping ability.)
. . It’s improbable, but possible, that our entire planet could be destroyed at any time. As Carl Sagan said, it’s very unlikely that in the whole universe, only earth would have life. It’s probable that life is evolving on many other planets, so the end of the earth would almost certainly not be the end of life. And since the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe (by all indications so far), it is likely that life on other planets is also evolving in the direction of greater fitness, which means toward greater capabilities. (The universe appears to be very patient, to put it in human terms.) Sagan was very interested in the possibility of life on other planets. So much so that for many years, he was involved with SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) —a group, still in existence, that seriously searches for signals that might indicate intelligent life on other planets.9

******

Evolutionary scientists do agree on some of the points related to the issue of progress. For instance, we humans are not quite the master species of the earth that most of us imagine in some respects. Consider that about 90% of the mass of all life on earth is microbial. And we are dependent on much of it. If all microbes died, so would all visible life including us. But if all visible life died, microbes would mostly continue on.
. . Also, consider that humans are not the most fit for survival in extreme circumstances. For example, if all-out global nuclear war occurred, there are many other creatures that would be more likely to survive —bacteria of course, cockroaches, rats, etc. (Homo sapiens is the most advanced species in terms of tool-making and altering the environment and to suit specific purposes, but we have plenty of room for improvement.)

Evolution and Human Technology

If we look at the short recorded history of humanity of a few millennia, we can’t help but notice how dramatically we have progressed technologically—from huts of sticks and leaves to large climate-controlled dwellings; from foot travel and horseback to automobiles and jet planes, etc.
. . Our species has gained apparent prominence in the race with other visible species by means of our superior ability to increase our knowledge and alter our environment. This has enabled us to more efficiently meet our basic survival needs. This has made available a surplus of time and energy, much of which has gone into the pursuit of further knowledge and ever more capable technology, which in turn has empowered and freed us even further.
. . Most humans show a conscious desire to improve, at least at times. After we master the basics of our jobs, we automatically strive to perfect the details. Away from the job, we often continue to strive to improve something: home, appearance, health, golf game, and even obtaining a better parking spot. The desire to improve, and excel, again stems ultimately from the survival instinct.
. . For the past few millennia, we humans have increased our survival fitness at a phenomenal rate, and we are doing it NOT by biological evolutionary progression (the usual way), but by technological evolutionary progression. Technological progression is governed by mechanisms similar to those that operate during biological evolutionary progression. Companies compete, the fittest survive. We are unique in that there has never existed on earth, a species capable of such marked technological development.
. . Due to our ability to improvise technologically, and with our increasing ability to foresee possible changes or disasters and prepare beforehand, we may eventually eclipse the responsiveness-to-change and disaster survivability of even bacteria.

Primary Purpose of Human Life

No species has ever had the power to cause such an extensive threat to the ecology as do humans at this time. But, hopefully, this is a phase, a period of growing pains. It is a dangerous period, but it’s likely that wisdom will prevail.
. . The following is a section of Desiderata, a beautiful anonymous poem of many years ago:

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

We are at the cutting edge of evolution. Whether it seems like it or not, we are in tune with nature. Granted, an adjustment is currently in order —but there have always been problems to be “adjusted.” That’s part of the nature of progression.
. . Humanity’s general or primary purpose is concurrent with evolution’s direction of increasing survival fitness. Our outstanding feature is our intelligence. Our purpose, as has been increasingly suggested, is to use this tool to continue to investigate and learn about nature and creation, thereby adding new knowledge by which to increase our collective and individual capabilities even further.
. . Einstein suggests our spiritual dimension in this context:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear if life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but though striving after rational knowledge. --Albert Einstein 10

RELIGION

Since the laws governing evolution appear to be causing life to progress in a particular direction, is intention implied? If so, who or what is the intender, and where will the apparent direction lead?
. . If there is an intender, and if it is a god separate from the universe, it is difficult to imagine such a god without attributing human traits to it. (I spell “god” with a small “g” so as to indicate a god concept, minus the dogma of organized religion.) But we can imagine nature without humanizing it. When I walk in the woods, when conditions are right… beauty and wonder saturates me. It is a feeling of awe, simultaneously elating and soothing… It is a religious feeling.
. . Religion may be defined as “link to the Source.” Whatever god is, it seems that it must be immanent throughout nature, including us. We are created by nature, we are made of nature’s materials, and we function according to nature’s laws and principles. We cannot be divorced from nature. To me, the word “god” is a synonym for the essence of creation, and the mystery of life.
. . Human intelligence, (which you might say is “god given”), has enabled us to develop scientific method and scientific attitude, which we have applied to aspects of creation in order to discern truths of reality. I believe that our scientific knowledge should take precedence over the religious opinions of people of thousands of years ago, even if their books are labeled “holy.” They described reality as best they could, but we now have much better tools for that purpose.
. . Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism), what his response would be if a central tenet of his faith was disproved by science. He replied, “…Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.” 11 This is encouraging, but this is not the typical response of most religionists.

******

The idea of deriving both religion and ethics from nature is not entirely new. The seventeenth century philosopher, Benedict de Spinoza, also thought in that vein. Using only intuition and logic, he came to conclusions not very different from the conclusions of some of us today, but he did it without the aid of our modern science. Probably his most important writing is his treatise on Ethics, published in 1677.12
. . The following are excerpts:

Existence belongs to the nature of substance. [Part I, prop VII] God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. …All things which are, are in God, therefore God is the cause of those things which are in him. This is our first point. Further, besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [part I, prop. XVIII] Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature. [part I, prop. XXIX] It is impossible that man should not be apart of Nature… [Part IV prop. IV]

To state it very, very concisely: nature, substance, and god are one; god is immanent (“indwelling”) throughout all things, including living things. (note: Einstein described himself as “pantheistic,” and along with that comment, he made a parenthetical reference to Spinoza.2 )

Thus in life it is before all things useful to perfect the understanding, or reason, as far as we can, and in this alone man's highest happiness or blessedness consists, indeed blessedness is nothing else but the contentment of spirit, which arises from the intuitive knowledge of God: now, to perfect the understanding is nothing else but to understand God, God's attributes, and the actions which follow from the necessity of his nature. [Spinoza, part IV, appendix,]

And the nature of “God’s” nature, is to be found to a considerable extent by studying biology, evolution, ecology, the sciences. It is clear that Spinoza regarded perfecting “the understanding, or reason, as far as we can,” to be not only the highest ethic, but also his primary purpose in life.

*** ***

Science has developed a field of knowledge broad and deep enough to serve as the basis for a complete religious system.

For sure, a conviction in the reasonableness and comprehensibility of the world, in kinship with religious feelings, is at the basis of all the most elegant scientific work. --Albert Einstein 13 Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. --Carl Sagan 14

Ernst Mayr was asked in the same interview mentioned above, about “…the proper relationship between science and religion. He responded:

Well, I have a different definition of religion. All my atheist friends are deeply religious. They don’t believe in a God or anything supernatural, but they believe that they don’t live in this world just of have a good time, but to improve mankind. 15

Although I respect Mayr greatly, we obviously disagree on the issue of progression. Here it appears the Ernst agrees with me while contradicting himself. Surely “to improve mankind” is to believe in a progressive purpose. Since mankind has indeed been making extensive improvements and advancements in most areas, and since people are products of evolution, it follows that this is one more indication that evolution is indeed progressive!

Destination of Life

Science has limitations. For example, we have not yet found a way to apply it to this question:

What is the ultimate destination of life on earth?

Although not scientific, there seems to be a very reasonable answer, but a radical and mind-boggling one: If we simply extend the trend of gaining-knowledge-and-increasing-capabilities to its ultimate, the result would be omniscience and omnipotence, the qualities that religions usually attribute to god!
. . How about the third “omni,” omnipresence? Interconnectedness and basic unity of all things has been intuitively known by outstanding people of religion throughout history, and by current outstanding leaders such as Episcopalian Bishop John Spong:

We are deeply interdependent. There really is no such thing as the individual - that's a myth that came out of our ignorance. 16

. . And modern science is bearing out our physical interconnectedness —through cosmology and atomic structure, through evolutionary lineage, and through genome analysis. (Scientists know by the results of work in genetic analysis that all living creatures are related. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees with over 98% identical DNA. We share a lesser but significant percentage with our cousins, the trees. And a small percentage of our DNA is identical to that of the most ancient type of bacteria, which means we are even related to them. In short, we have physical evidence that all life is interconnected.)
. . At the supreme moment that omniscience and omnipotence is completely realized, the full realization of the interconnectedness of all must simultaneously occur, which is to say that omnipresence would occur.
. . The three omni’s may be described as complete god realization! Whether all of this will come to be, no one knows –- this idea is very hypothetical, but the course that we appear to be on implies such a result!

Personal purpose

It would be difficult for us as individuals to be anything other than aspects of the primary purpose in life. Factory workers, medical doctors, business people, farmers, media people, entertainers, etc. all play a part in the continuing progress of humanity. Even criminals, con-artists, sadistic types, etc. have a part. Such behavior demands society’s attention and indicates areas in which something has gone awry and we need to learn more. Such deviations are part of the process.
. . Whenever we as a society have the time and energy to go beyond bare minimum survival, then our course will automatically be toward increasing our knowledge and capabilities.
. . The paradigm I have presented offers for me a reasonable view of reality and a basis by which to determine my place and humanity’s place in it. It eliminates what philosophers have referred to as “existential angst” – the feeling of anxiety that arises from not having an idea of one’s purpose. A sense of being grounded in reality is bestowed. Incidentally, a deterministic philosophy is implied which brings lessons of lifting blame and enabling forgiveness --but that’s another story.
. . People may define their personal purpose in any way they please. But if it is to have deeply felt meaning, it must be seen in the light of the concepts pertaining to the purpose of humanity and life as a whole.
. . Satisfaction may occur when we are in synch with the realities of life.

Is There an Afterlife?

As far as I know, no one knows. Those who claim to know, are not convincing. However:
. . If I had your genes and experiences, I would be you, and vice versa. We are each unique, but the same.
. . Can there be a point to preserving for eternity, trillions of individual personalities, quirks and all, in a special place called heaven? (Or in hell?)
. . There is at least one way in which we all survive our deaths. First, remember that we each are the biological result of pretty much everything that has happened prior to our arrival. Billions of years of evolutionary experience is genetically bequeathed to us at birth. Then we benefit culturally from the collective accumulation of human knowledge and technology developed by billions of people. The combination of it all comes together uniquely in each of us. Now, for a blink of the eye, we are the actors. Our genes may be passed on. But whether we have offspring or not, our deeds influence and affect others. Just as we are each results of the past, our unique actions and achievements, no matter how mundane they may seem to us, merge into the process of life and affect the future. In that way, we all live on.

References:

Wright, Robert. 1990. A review of Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Jay Gould. THE NEW REPUBLIC magazine. 01-29-90

Einstein, Albert. published in Gelegentliches (1929), reprinted in Ideas and Opinions. 1973. Dell Publishing Co. (paperback): p. 255

Mayr, Ernst. 1998. This is Biology. Cambridge, Mass.: First Harvard Univ. Press: pp. 197-198

Shermer & Sulloway. 2000. The Grand Old Man of Evolution. SKEPTIC magazine, vol. 8, no. 1: p. 81

Bookface Inc. 2000. bookface.com, (online books). http://www.bookface.com: Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: p. 14. (Accessed 11-20-00)
. . Ibid., p. 490
. . Ibid., p. 120

Bookface Inc. 2000. bookface.com, (online books). http://www.bookface.com: Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man: p. 697 (Accessed 11-21-00)

Sagan, Carl. 1994, Pale Blue Dot, Brilliance Corp., Media Books (tape)

Einstein, Albert. From an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1939. reprinted in Ideas and Opinions. 1973. Dell Publishing Co. (paperback): p. 58

Sagan, Carl. 1997. Demon Haunted World. N.Y.: Ballantine Books. (paperback): p. 278

Bombardi, Ron, 1997. MTSU Philosophy WebWorks, Hypertext Edition. Middle Tennessee State University. http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html.:

Spinoza, Benedict de, 1677. Ethics. Translation from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes (1883). (accessed 12-6-00)

Calaprice, Alice. 2000. The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press: p. 203

Sagan, Carl. Demon Haunted World. N.Y.: Ballantine Books. (paperback): p.29.

Shermer & Sulloway. 2000. The Grand Old Man of Evolution. SKEPTIC magazine, vol. 8, no. 1: p. 82

Hanick, Linda (producer). 1999. Faces of Faith. The Parish of Trinity Church & United Methodists Communications.: Odyssey (cable TV). Interview of Bishop John Spong.

If you got here from the GAIA HOME PAGE, click on
"minimize" or "eXit". (upper right browser buttons)
If you didn't: the site.)