The Comment Section #01 – Why Does Life Have To Have a Purpose
Channel: Tom Facchine
File Size: 5.68MB
Somebody might wonder why does life have to have a purpose? Right? They could say, okay, the animals they don't have. They don't think about these things. They don't ask these questions.
But there's a sort of there's a sort of circular reasoning that's going on here. Because isn't it the very fact that we have a unique ability to consider these questions in the first place that makes us ask the question, if there were no purpose, to creation to life, than we would expect that we would be on the same level of animals, and it would never occur to us, the fact that it occurs to us to ask, is reasonable enough to ask the question, we have been given a unique intelligence, we have been given unique gifts to the exception and exclusion of all other creatures, right? It's not like there's another sort of, and there's a kind of an interesting fascination that human beings
have with the possibility that other creatures out there aliens or whatever, you know, have sort of parallel intellectual abilities. There's something I haven't quite articulated it yet. But there's something theological going on there. There's something theological about
this question. Are we the only ones? Right? We could maybe, perhaps, if we believe in the kind of strict evolutionist account that you know, it's just this random chance based on unfolding from one species to another, right, the pinnacle of which perhaps, is the human being who can think and ask these questions, but we could say, well, why aren't there more creatures like us that can ask these questions that are different from us? Why is there only one? And so this sort of uniqueness is one of the reasons that propels us to ask this question in the first place. We are the only ones that we're aware of why, right, it's not just Why do we exist? But why do we exist as we are, right?
There's something there. And there's other things also that simply aren't accounted for in the kind of purposeless random account of creation or existence or why we're here, right? And two of those, and we can talk a long time about these, but I guess two of them, just very briefly would be bounty first of all, and the second would be beauty. Okay, beauty and bounty propel us to ask what the purpose of everything is bounty, because if we are, again, to believe the kind of worldview, that it's just about procreation, it's just about survival of the fittest, it's just about competition. It's just about, you know, these sorts of concerns material, pure material, that doesn't explain the
degree of bounty that we find, right? You could you take an ear of corn, an ear of corn has about I think, 700 kernels on it. Every corn plant has about three years, it's 2100 kernels, each of those kernels becomes a new corn plant, just a single plant, a single a single year of corn holds within it a whole field of corn.
That does not that cannot be accounted for, with random mutation and you know, survival of the fittest and natural selection, these sorts of things. There's too much, you could say, why did it expend so much energy? Right? If we're only going to believe in materialist causes and cause and effect and these sorts of things, it could have conserved energy, and produced fewer kernels, and would have still succeeded and reproduced and spread. But that's not what we find, we find that it produces so many kernels, that there's enough for the people, there's enough for the birds, there's enough for the squirrels, there's enough for the crop next year, and there is more extra beyond that
there's more to share. There is enough for corn boils and corn on the cob and grilling and everything. There's so much corn, how do we account for that? Is it just chance? Is it just random?
I have a hard time believing that to me that's superstitious.
Now, the other thing is, is beauty in order to survive, okay? We're just saying just materialist causes. It's only everybody the scarcity, mindset, everything only has a certain amount of calories and energy. And it's going to expend only what the end of that most efficient or the optimal amount in order to reproduce and find the mate and you know, like, carry on the generations. There's so much beauty in the world that defies that explanation of things, right? And some people could instrumentalize it and they could say, well, the beauty is just to attract mates, and therefore indicate or indicate indicate fitness. And therefore something that's more beautiful is more fit,
and therefore it's more likely to reproduce and there's a but there's too much beauty we find in nature, beauty that seems to have no purpose. Like it could have been accomplished with less beauty, and yet we find a degree of beauty which is just beyond what is that optimal level, quote unquote. We find gratuitous beauty. Let's call it gratuitous beauty.
Be in the creation, all the colors, all the songs of the birds, all of the textures, this, not every single thing. First of all, not all of it just has a functionalist sort of purpose. Second of all things might have multiple purposes just because it does serve one instrumental purpose doesn't mean that that's the only purpose that it exists for. So with all of this beauty, are we going to say that it's only here just to prove fitness to demonstrate fitness and to secure a mate and to, you know, secure the next generation that also to me seems very superstitious.