Searching Science For Meaning

On Oct. 3, 2007 a debate took place between noted atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian mathematician John Lennox. This reflection comes after having only listed to the start of that debate when both men gave a brief biographical account. Professor Dawkins made a statement that intrigued me: "I wanted to know why we're all here, what is the meaning of life, why does the universe exist, why does life exists? That's what drew me to science."

I wonder how those questions could have drawn him to science, or at least how science could have sustained such an attraction after a cursory introduction. They seem better suited for philosophy or theology rather than scientific inquiry. Proponents of Evolutionary Theory often state that science grants understanding of how life and the universe came into existence, but not necessarily why. Using this claim they denounce Intelligent Design saying that it answers the why question and not the how and is therefore not scientific. The question "why", as it relates to finding meaning within life and the universe, implies a reason or purpose which in turn requires some sort of being/agent behind it all, a primary mover if you will. Of course if there is no meaning to life, no reason why the universe exists, then the possibility that God does not exist opens up. However, if one is looking for meaning — that presupposes a creator with a purpose.

I have not finished the whole debate, nor have I read any of Professor Dawkins's books, but from the little of the debate I have heard, he has not given up on finding the meaning of life or knowledge of why the universe exists. He seems to think that science still holds these answers, and that, while not everything has been fully accounted for, science has made great strides in answering these questions using natural explanations. I am wondering how this is so given the previous paragraph. Science may have given us natural explanations on how the universe developed and came into existence, but I can't see how it can give us a reason for why it came into existence.

If science, or any discipline for that matter, is to even speculate at the reason behind the existence of the universe it is left with two broad options: 1) There is no reason. 2) For whatever reason its creator had. Either option does not present an obstacle to science. If there is a creator who created the universe with a purpose in mind, science can still try and investigate how that process worked. The scientific theory of evolution poses no problems for proponents of this second option. In other words Evolutionary Theory and Intelligent Design Theory can be both held at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Please not that I have refrained from plotting my own position on the continuum running from Theistic Young-Earth Creationism to Atheistic Evolutionism. That debate must be left for another blog and another time.