Does the Cosmos Have a Purpose?

Raymond Tallis argues intently against universal intention.

- Raymond Tallis

The idea of a cosmic purpose is one which many of us are familiar with from religion. What happens in this world, so the story goes, is ultimately an expression of divine will. With the rise of science, the notion of a universe regulated by a deity has been displaced by one regulated by non-conscious physical laws. Being non-conscious, those laws are empty of purpose. Their regulative powers are also not external to the phenomena aligned with them. As the philosopher Helen Beebee wittily expressed it, physical laws are not "prior to and watching over matters of fact to make sure they don't step out of line" (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61, 2000). Happenings are simply the patterns or habits of the unfolding natural world, unguided by a cosmic purpose. So that's that, then.

Except it isn't. For some thinkers the possibility of cosmic purpose has been revived by the very science that had seemed to have killed it. This resurrection is rooted in the discovery that the laws of physics must be fine-tuned to an unimaginable degree for there to be a universe that could generate and sustain life (or even the chemical complexity preceding life). Just how fine the tuning has to be is illustrated by the fact that the amount of dark energy in empty space - the so-called 'cosmological constant' or 'vacuum energy' must be more than zero, but not greater than 10-122 units. This is necessary to ensure that the universe neither collapsed in on itself nor blew itself apart before clumping into habitable planets. The physicist Luke Barnes calculates that the odds of getting a universe fine-tuned for life are 1 in 10135.