tablariddim,
It always comes down to the question of "why". Strangely enough, most people find it inconceivable that there in fact may be no "why". Our existence may indeed have no purpose whatsoever. We might just be organic pond scum whipped into funny patterns by the motion of the waves. Alternatively, there might be a purpose, or a reason, but not at all in a way we can possibly ever conceive.
On the other hand, when I think of "why", I tend to think of causes. When it comes to intelligent causation, meaning and intentionality come into play. However, nothing indicates that the universe originates from an intelligent source, or is governed by one. In fact, all of our science (by its mere existence and verifiability) seems to suggest that the universe is entirely mechanistic and at its most fundamental level devoid of all intelligence. It's like a computer program playing itself out, and we are nothing but fascinating bit patterns with peculiar functional properties. In such a universe, "why" becomes merely a synonym for "how". Reasons become identical with causes.
I find this perspective very plausible for many reasons. Besides being indicated by success of science, the mechanistic interpretation of the universe stands in a favorable contrast with a mentalistic one. It has been a notorious and unfailingly repeated mistake for humans to always ascribe their own qualities and properties to everything else around them. They used to attribute spirits, emotions, goals and intelligence to all sorts of inanimate objects, like the clouds, the trees, or the mountains. They also used to imbue various lower animals with human minds (American Indians still do that!) They also ended up believing that they are the center of the universe, and that the universe was created especially for them. Now, we are hearing oft-expressed views that alien intelligent organisms must for some reason resemble us, think like us, function like us, or have goals comprehensible by us. Fundamentally, the vast majority of people have always believed that the universe itself must have some kind of a mind to it (like God, perhaps). Viewed in this light, the theological musings seem like mere extensions of past fallacies. We are still projecting our own nature onto the world; we expect it to make sense to us from <u>our</u>, human, perspective. Why the world should be so accomodating is beyond me. In fact, since practically all anscient hypotheses about the universe have proven to be utter failures, I would be very surprised if the theological perspective turns out to be correct.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited November 12, 1999).]