Why? the Purpose of the Universe

by Philip Goff (narrator)

Why are we here? What's the point of existence? On the 'big questions' of meaning and purpose, Western thought has been dominated by the dichotomy of traditional religion and secular atheism. In this pioneering work, Philip Goff argues that it is time to move on from both God and atheism. Through an exploration of contemporary cosmology and cutting-edge philosophical research on consciousness, Goff argues for cosmic the idea that the universe is directed towards certain goals, such as the emergence of life.

In contrast to religious thinkers, Goff argues that the traditional God is a bad explanation of cosmic purpose. Instead, he explores a range of alternative possibilities for accounting for cosmic purpose, from the speculation that we live in a computer simulation to the hypothesis that the universe itself is a conscious mind. Goff scrutinizes these options with analytical rigour, laying the foundations for a new paradigm of philosophical enquiry into the middle ground between God and atheism. Ultimately, Goff outlines a way of living in hope that cosmic purpose is still unfolding, involving political engagement and a non-literalist interpretation of traditional religion.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Science, Religion, Theology, Audiobook, Spirituality

Audio CD

First published October 10, 2023

About the author

University of Liverpool, UK

Reviews

[Judith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got the audiobook from the library, via Hoopla, and that turned out to be a lucky choice. The author narrates it himself, quite well, and listening made it easier to understand and to appreciate his often amusing tone. I knew about Phillip Goff because I’ve read a lot of philosophy, but I didn’t expect him to be such a lively, interesting, down-to-Earth guy.

He explains things much more clearly than most philosophers or others who specialize in truly esoteric fields. I had to pay close attention to follow what he was saying, but it all made sense. Even better and much to my surprise, this relatively short book made pieces fall into place for me.

For decades, I’ve searched for answers to a couple of core questions that I couldn’t even articulate, but ones I think most of us who think at all have. The last two years, I’ve searched more intensively, mainly by reading articles and books by respected authorities about consciousness, but a lot about the environment and other dire straits in our world and where we're headed.

By the end of this book, ideas and perspectives I’ve encountered over many years fit into a puzzle with others I hadn’t considered together nor even thought about for quite a while. This is the simplistic version, but what he says about PURPOSE syncs with ideas from at least 3 other books by 3 quite different authors, including a science fiction novel called “Childhood's End” by Arthur C Clark (although Dr. Goff might not like that association). That realization was unexpected and made me feel set free!

Amazon had the audio version listed, in red letters, as “#1 New Release in Atheism.” That irritated me, so I sent them a note about it. Whoever categorized it that way a) hasn’t read it, b) seems to think that’s everybody who isn’t a Christian, and c) is wrong. I explained that it’s about philosophy. They have now changed it to “#1 New Release in Metaphysics.” Well, we seek progress, not perfection.

I was surprised by what he said near the end about his own experiences related to religion. Yet that, too, made sense and was helpful.

BONUS: The title isn't just a teaser. He does explain what he thinks the purpose of the universe is and how each of us can help with that, as individuals. He goes off-track at the end in an addendum that seems irrelevant but isn’t, really. Based on reviews here, some who read that part apparently didn’t understand that he was expressing some of what he believes we need to do, as a society, to help achieve that purpose. Even so, it would have been better if he had quit somewhere in Chapter 7, because there was a perfect place to stop before he went off on that tangent.

Nonetheless: highly recommended. This is now one of my all-time favorite books, and I’m buying a Kindle or printed copy so I can reread certain parts and look up people and ideas that he mentioned.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and challenging read in making sense of the universe and our understanding of reality and life. Ignoring the nuances, if you’re not subscribed to materialistic atheism (no ghost in the machine and randomness permeates so it’s all cosmic fluke), nor do believe in an omni God (there is cosmic purpose maybe manifesting in mysterious ways) then Goff says Bayesian thinking and fine tuning arguments will lead you to panpsychism. It’s not that every particle has self experiences like us but consciousness is a fundamental tenet both in micro and macrocosmos. I’m not totally sold on his panagentalism as problem of combination seems to be left maybe I missed. Also using theodicy problems he rushes to dismiss the possibility of a God with binary good or evil even when touching base on qalam arguments. Other than that actually Goff’s non-theistic panpsychism eventually overlaps a lot with pantheism or maybe panentheism which is core to sufi metaphysics, that I’m very close to, such as “wahdat al wujud” of known sufis like Rumi or Ibn Arabi. All in all Goff’s “purpose of universe” is great brainstorming but a bit too verbose for me so would conclude like my favorite sufi poet Yunus Emre when asked about Mawlana’s Mathnawi.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starts off with an elucidation of pan-psychic non-theistic purpose as Goff's argument, ends up with a defense of higher taxation in the West. Left me rather baffled. Most of this book sticks to the titular topic, but then the philosophy professor seeks to encourage those world reform by economic redistribution and endorsement of the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook which may better fit our own secularization while better addressing our lack of meaning that more and more of us find lacking in reductive dismissals of any phenomena which can't be lab replicated. Goff raises lots to ponder, in spite of or due to his determination to offer this investigation to a wider audience than only his academic peers. So, despite my own reactions to the end-result, the ARC provided by Edelweiss, indicates a lively thinker who can convey thoughts we all can follow...most of the time, far as I'm concerned, and whose reflections may appear more polished in whatever form the actual book will reveal.

[Linards Jansons · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the acknowledgements section of Why? Phillip Goff expresses gratitude to the theoretical physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll for helping him with the physics side of the book. In one of his own books, Carroll wrote that “the world stubbornly refuses to give us any direct answers about the bigger questions of purpose and meaning” and “nor is there any cosmic teleology or transcendent purpose inherent in the nature of the universe or in human life”.

By contrast, Goff argues – and passionately so – for the very opposite. Purpose and meaning are built into the very structure of the universe. The development of the cosmos is goal-directed towards things of great value, in particular life and consciousness. We didn’t get here by accident. We got here because the universe wanted us to. In short, Goff is reintroducing teleology into a space where it has been unwelcome for centuries. To be clear, Goff is not denying that people can (and do) create meaning and purpose in their lives, regardless of their beliefs. But he does claim that the cosmos itself is a purposeful and goal-directed phenomenon.

Main Points

The heaviest chapters (2 and 3) aim to show that both science and consciousness point to purpose. He focuses, for example, on the ‘cosmological constants’, the astonishingly precise fine-tuning necessary, not only for the eventual emergence of life, but for practically anything. If these numbers had been just a teensy bit out, we would not and could not be here: there would either be a universal mess or universal blandness (e.g., a universe made of nothing but hydrogen). Goff believes this leaves us with a choice: “We either accept that it is just a wild coincidence that of all the numbers that might have shown up in physics, they happened to be ones that allow for a universe containing great value, or we hold that physics involves those numbers because they allow for a universe containing great value”. Along the way, Goff addresses possible objections, for example, the very in-vogue multiverse theory, which may have arisen just to avoid the uncomfortable implications of universal goal-directedness.

When it comes to consciousness, Goff upgrades his earlier notion of panpsychism (the view that consciousness is built into physical reality) to that of ‘pan-agentialism’, the idea that even basic atomic particles have a kind of super-simple intentionality or ‘proto-agency’. If the notion of ‘rational atoms’ or ‘purposeful particles’ sounds weird, it is, and Goff admits as much. However, rather than argue that agency, purpose and goal-directedness emerged only with higher animals and humans, Goff’s “proposal is that the very same capacity for rational responsiveness possessed by the tiger is also possessed by the particle….The potential for agency was always latent in the proto-agency of the particles, but it needed to combine with experiential understanding to come to fruition”.

(This chapter involved lots of moving parts, and I can’t say I grasped it all. However, it does appear that one issue between Goff and your average physicalist (like Carroll) is where you place ‘emergence’. While the physicalist claims that consciousness only ‘emerges’ late in the day, with higher life forms, it seems to me that Goff still has to show how the conditions facilitating the evolution of agency emerged).

Anyway the point for now is that our current state of existence and life happened neither accidentally, nor by impersonal physical causation, but according to some form of cosmic purpose.

One reason the scientific establishment might wish to avoid notions of ‘purpose’ is that it raises the spectre of God, Intelligent Design, and other non-scientific explanations. Goff is therefore keen to stress that his view of cosmic purpose does not imply a divine designer, nor even any kind of design. Chapter 4 argues that the traditional all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good Creator (the ‘Omni-God’) probably does not exist. Goff engages with recent expressions of cosmological arguments for God’s existence, as well as some creative theodicies seeking to explain God’s (mis)management of the universe. Goff gives the likes of Richard Swinburne a good airing, but in the end stands by what he calls the cosmic sin intuition: “If it is immoral for an all-powerful being to create a universe like our own, then either our universe lacks a creator, or that creator is not all-powerful and perfectly good. Either way, the Omni-God does not exist.”

Goff develops his ideas yet further (ch.5) by considering some alternatives in the space between theism and atheism, namely ‘non-standard designers’. These include the following:

- Stephen Law’s immensely popular ‘evil-god hypothesis’ (I’ve listened to a discussion about this on the Panpsycast podcast);
- The ‘simulation hypothesis’ whereby our universe was bought into being by a super-advanced civilisation;
- The ‘limited designer’ hypothesis in which the evil and suffering in the universe is beyond the ability of its creator to prevent: “perhaps we live in the best possible world our creator was able to bring into existence”;
- Goff also notes Thomas Nagel’s proposal that “there is no incoherence in the idea of cosmic purpose without God, provided we can expand our conception of the laws that govern our universe”. Nagel apparently attracted derision for resurrecting the Aristotelian notion “that there may also be laws that move from future to past—ensuring that the present is shaped by the need to get closer to certain goals in the future, such as the emergence of life”. Derision or not, I like this idea.

Goff returns to physics and quantum theory in chapter 6 to fine tune his views under the label of ‘teleological cosmopsychism’. The basic idea here is that the universe fine-tuned itself with the future goal of life, consciousness and value during the first split second of time.

Thoughts & Reactions

Goff argues clearly and passionately for the various claims he makes. I appreciated this, without necessarily always agreeing. Sometimes his ideas appeared shrouded in a mist of speculation. What occurred to me part way through was that his arguments did not, in and of themselves, have much impact on the basic intuitions I started with. I was already inclined to the view that the universe is probably goal-directed to the emergence of life, consciousness and value. That hasn’t changed. And I was already sceptical towards notions such as micro-reductionism, which claims that everything human can be explained by the most fundamental level of physics. That too remains the same. And after lots of head scratching I don’t feel any more inclined to accept or reject Goff’s views on panpsychism (or pan-agentialism) than I did before. However, what his reasoning has achieved is to assure me that my intuitions are not unreasonable. That, I suppose, is one good thing about philosophy. As Goff states, it can help us unpack the things we find so obvious we don’t believe they need explaining, that is, our intuitions.

Goff’s tone throughout is optimistic. The philosophical view of the universe he promotes is meant to inspire, not depress. There is, despite our limited understanding, a sense that there is something ‘more’ to life than offered by the dominant materialist and reductionist paradigm. Because the purpose of the cosmos is oriented to the increase of value, the ethical life of the ‘cosmic purposivist’ also finds meaning viewed in the light of this big picture. Of course, if there is no cosmic purpose, one can still live a good life, primarily by alleviating suffering and making this meaningless existence a bit more tolerable. But if there is cosmic purpose, Goff feels that our efforts, no matter how infinitesimal, are united to the unfolding of a much greater drama: “I have found living as a cosmic purposivist to be a deeply meaningful form of life. For me, ‘prayer’ consists in a daily effort to commit to living not only for my own interests, and those of my loved ones, but ultimately for the sake of advancing the good purposes of ultimate reality”.

Despite his rejection of the Omni-God, the final chapter takes quite a spiritual tone. He advocates the breaking of cultural conditioning by meditation (as well as by art and psychedelics). The mystical tradition witnesses to a higher form of consciousness that he believes is consistent with panpsychism. “Through meditation and simple living, through engagement with nature and with things of beauty, through persistent effort to break one’s conditioned way of experiencing reality, each of us can become a little more deeply acquainted with the ‘More,’ and in doing so make reality a little bit better”.

I found these final thoughts somewhat disconnected from the main thread of the book, and made decidedly odd by a postscript on taxation. But despite Goff's dangly conclusion, I personally found his final thoughts fascinating. Despite being an atheist since 14, he remains convinced of the reality of the ‘More’ that gives the universe purpose, value and meaning. But now, having come across Marcus Borg and John Hick and the tradition of apophatic Christianity “I came to the startling realization that this conception of ‘God’ resembled—was perhaps even identical to—something I believed in”. Goff has landed right in the middle of what might call a modern contemplative approach to religion, one which has its roots in very traditional streams of Christian/religious faith. I’m interested to see if Goff’s future philosophising continues down this route where scientific, philosophical and religious paths merge as one.

[Craig Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This 'mixed bag' of a book was being heavily promoted at one of Oxford's finest bookshops in December 2023. It was beginning to look a lot like Christmas; the bookshop was warm and dry, and the pile of books was so inviting that I could not resist adding it to the six other books I had been tempted to buy.

I had read one of Goff's earlier books on consciousness and knew from the outset that he was a 'panpsychist' (consciousness is a fundamental force in the universe) instead of a materialist (we are a biological machine) or a dualist (physical plus something else, unknown). He even received a positive review from the funny but staunchly atheist comedian Stephen Fry, reminding us of panpsychism. As such, I knew the book would be a bit unconventional.

The chapters on consciousness in the book are naturally well presented, as that is a field of expertise for Goff. Here he develops his view on panpsychism into a new theory of ‘pan-agentialism’. Consciousness is complex, and many competing voices are on my bookshelf. Goff has some interest in Integrated Information Theory (Giulio Tononi's theory, also featured in Christof Koch's book [The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed]) and is friendly to Anil Seth [Being You: A New Science of Consciousness] though opposed to Seth's strict materialist views on the 'meat computer', and how its predictive coding results in the phenomenon of what it is like to be a human, or presumably a bat.

The book is well structured, with a 'dig deeper' section at the end of each chapter and the author's offer of 'choose your own adventure' (the early 1980s genre of adventure books, where you can jump ahead to various parts of the book to enter the cabin in the woods or climb the mountain). If you understand enough, you can skip to the next chapter, or if you are intrigued and want answers to the objections to what he has just written, you can read on. I persevered through each chapter in full and appreciated the expansiveness of the universe whose purpose Goff tries to elucidate.

Goff's primary argument is philosophical rather than scientific. It is centered on the fact that our universe has a specific fine-tuning, evidenced in some specific cosmological constants whose precision is just enough to allow for life. There could be many theories of why this is the case. Goff then introduces Bayes' Theorem (the theory of conditional probability described by the great Rev Thomas Bayes) to yield the probability basis on which other universe theories (such as the Multiverse theory) should be rejected until we are left solely with his own.

In the later part of the book, Goff reveals something more about himself and his journey. He expresses a view that psilocybin (found in magic mushrooms 🍄) should be legalized, as this will help unleash the creative connection with the conscious parts of the universe. He says he's been enjoying these fungi since his teens. He also espouses a socialist agenda and includes sections discussing whether 'property is theft' in the book. Early in the book, Goff dismisses the idea of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God using the time-worn sophistry of 'why would a good God allow suffering?', and yet towards the end, he describes an encounter in a Liverpool Cathedral service that suggests sympathy with an almighty 'Force'.

It all left me a little bit confused and wondering whether Goff used some mushrooms in preparation for drafting the book. I gave it three stars.

[Ethan Zimmerman · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Great example of public philosophy. Most interesting to me were his non-theistic critiques of reductionist metaphysical materialism. I think that panpsychism is probably the future for those who find strict materialism untenable while not being convinced by the truth of theism. I suspect that Goff's overall project may still be unsuccessful in some respects but that's more than Goodreads review can tease out. This was a very interesting bit of science and philosophy.

[Bernd Schnabl · Rating 1 out of 5]

wow ..... who would have thought that the purpose of the universe is fair taxation??? If you want to know anything about the universe ask a physicist or a cosmologist.

[Brian Dougherty · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author makes a sweeping survey of different ways of approaching and understanding consciousness, life, and the Cosmos. There are some fascinating theories out there, and it is clear that materialistic science will only get us so far. I also applaud him as a clearly Left-leaning English intellectual stating that religion is important. You don't hear that often from that camp.

However, I will say that the very end of the book ALMOST undermines the rest. It feels out of place--like a clumsy aside versus the intellectual calories of previous chapters. If he so clearly misunderstands economics, the early 20th century in relation to taxation, and the importance of individual rights--it begs the question, what else is he getting wrong from earlier chapters? Or perhaps he just needs to re-explore those topics with the same rigor he applied to the rest of the book?

[Declan Ellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goff's metaphysical views are very weird but certainly interesting. The book was well put together and I really enjoyed it; his arguments against materialism were impressively strong, most notably the fine-tuning arguing in chapter 2. The final chapter, despite its unexpected digression into economics, was quite poetically written and even somewhat moving.

The least convincing part to me was his argument from evil - the "cosmic sin intuition". It was unclear to me how this eliminates the omni God, although I realise how it might make it rational to reject the omni God.

Overall, I would highly recommend it, especially if you're looking for a weird and strangely compelling philosophy book.

[Sophia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another book that was so terrible I couldn't finish it

[Andrew Barchuk · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book explores some very interesting philosophical topics. But it felt like it fell short of the goal declared at the beginning of providing a strong intuition for the purpose of existence in relation to the rest of the universe. Instead the book stops at the point of explaining the cause of the universe and why it emerged having the properties it does. The ending of the book was disappointing, with the topics of spirituality, religious communities, and especially taxation appeared hasty, shallow and disconnected from the main point.

[I-kai · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brings back the classical view of the cosmos as purposice with modern arguments and evidence. Final chapter attempts to speak of practical, ethical implications - admirable but a bit disconnected to the previous theoretical grounding.

[Ben Greer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was delightful and unexpected in so many ways - the least of which was its being the sensible, grounded book on idealism I knew I needed to read but couldn’t find
Carolyn at VBS, 4/4

[Christian M · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Goff’s older book "Galileo’s Error" last year and was excited by the clarity of his arguments and intrigued, fascinated even, by the concept of panpsychism to address the eternal conundrum of the body-mind problem. So I started with his latest book “Why” with high expectations. Perhaps the bar I set for this book was too high leaving me increasingly disappointed as I was making progress through his arguments. His principal argument for cosmic purpose rests on the observation that physical constants are within an incredibly small range of possibilities that allow for complex structures up to sentient life forms. For Goff, this is scientific evidence of a teleological law connected to the intrinsic consciousness pervading all forms of existence. I am not convinced. To me, admittedly a philosophical amateur, his argument sounds very much like the old “Watchmaker analogy” as an argument for intelligent design. If you consider the genetic code that gives rise to a human brain, the likelihood of its existence is infinitesimally small compared to the sheer endless number of possible other arrangements of nucleotides on a string of DNA the size of the human genome. Does this prove cosmic purpose? People thought so, but evolutionary theory has all but discredited that argument. What gives Goff the confidence that the unlikelihood of cosmic fine-tuning as an argument for cosmic purpose will not eventually suffer the same fate?
The whole book meanders around the attempt to prove cosmic purpose or at least make it the most feasible hypothesis. My problem is not that I dismiss panpsychism or even cosmic purpose (in fact I am very fond of those concepts), but rather that Goff seems to make a categorical error by mixing up the findings of third-person science with concepts that are experienced only in a first-person perspective, such as purpose. I am disappointed because this mistake has been made so many times before. Goff, I expected, more than anybody else would be aware of that fallacy but it seems he fell into the old trap.
His attempt at proving purpose is packaged into a format that is supposed to allow the reader quick access to arguments and provide optional deeper dives. The structure did not work for me but impressed me as the arrogance of the expert towards the reader. Surprisingly, the book concludes with a very personal discussion of religion and socio-political issues. It included many helpful and valuable arguments but they seemed a bit disconnected to and distracting from the rest of the book.
In conclusion: I believe that Goff is onto a really important new concept of reality and I agree with most of his views on the importance of introspection, spirituality, and life’s purpose of propelling evolution towards yet unknown levels of complexity and inclusion. However, I am disappointed that this book, at least for me, did not support these views convincingly.

[Adriana · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was assigned to read this book for my philosophy class this semester. The professor figured to give it a try since it was contemporary and about consciousness. It took me a long time to get through it, at first because it was kind of wordy/abstract to wrap my head around, and then because it started to feel like a weird tangent.
I found really fascinating the concept of that if the universe was so improbably tuned to exist as it does in physics terms, and we are so improbably tuned to be conscious and act towards meaning, then it is more likely things have a purpose. And that it doesn't necessarily mean religion, it can just be simple in that functional way. That much makes sense to me, and the way that the author explains these things in a "well if this is true, then dont you think this?" way was neat. To me it felt like a quirky college professor talking to second year students about being optimistic and intentful, which was mostly fun.
However, there were plenty trains of thought that felt like overly-explanatory and rambly in a way that seemed a bit out of touch (or bizarre?) and subjective, which gave me an off vibe and took some interest away. Strangely, the last chapter of the book basically says that in a nutshell, we should all just do shrooms to respect nature and tax the rich so we all have equal-ish money. Whiiiich...yeah after so much scientific talk for it to lead to this solution just feels like a bizarre wrap-up to a smoke sesh so we can clean up and go get Taco Bell. But I do get where he's coming from...and I think it's great to see life as this opportunity to put in effort to make a better reality for everyone. Just I feel like this could've been said more coherently, succintly and maybe even more casually. But hey, I can tell this is just the author giving his two cents on things and his way of thinking, and offering it in the hopes it can make things more efficient, and I appreciate that.
My philosophy professor found it to be a mixed bag and kinda dropped it, and barely anyone in class was actually reading it, which was kind of a bummer because I wanted to hear some discussion. Oh, well.

[SWB · Rating 1 out of 5]

Two arguments for panpsychism: 1) fine tuned physics constants, and 2) consciousness didn’t need to emerge from evolution. Application of Bayes Theorem to make it seem like the arguments are scientific. Poorly written, and errors. My impression is the author (re)found Christianity and is trying to push a square peg (mystic purpose) through a round hole (science).

[Matthew Adelstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Goff is quite smart and thought-provoking. While I generally think theism makes better sense of the world than his non-theistic alternatives, and disagree that the multiverse explanation of fine-tuning commits the inverse gambler's fallacy, the book is filled with interesting arguments, showing the vast improbability of the standard consensus view--that all there is is purposeless matter.

[Paul Sand · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short (albeit dense) book that's a very mixed bag.

The author, Philip Goff, starts from the observation that the fundamental physical constants that govern how the universe behaves seem to be "fine-tuned" to support the presence of life on our planet. (And, although I don't think Goff makes this argument, probably other planets too.) If, for example, the "strong nuclear force" were a little bit weaker than it is, we'd have no atomic nuclei at all, just protons whizzing around. And if it were a little bit stronger, then stellar nuclear fusion would have burned up all the hydrogen, leaving nothing for blimps. Or water.

If you're a believer, the reason behind this is pretty straightforward: thank God. Or some other intelligent designer. See the Discovery Institute for their take.

Goff is not convinced by that, devoting a chapter to why God (who he calls the "Omni-God") probably doesn't exist. He also mentions alternate efforts to explain fine-tuning: the anthropic principle, multiverses, and explains why he doesn't like them.

Instead, he is a fan of panpsychism, which is the notion that the concept of "mind" is present in all things, down to the lowliest neutrino. For elementary particles, and simple arrangements thereof, their "mind" is limited to minding the physical laws we know and love. Once things get more complex (nervous systems, for example), the idea that things have a mind of their own grows more plausible.

And, of course, once you get to really complex things, like the whole universe, the associated "mind" gets really sharp and powerful. And can be said to have the ability to engage in purposive behavior.

At which point I was dubious. Thinking that it's pretty amazing the lengths to which even smart people will go in order to avoid the God explanation. Still, Goff presents his argument well, deals with objections, honestly says why he prefers his viewpoint. Even while admitting any actual evidence for it is lacking.

But, sad to say, things kind of crash and burn in the last part of the book, which veers into politics and economics for some reason. It's a pretty much standard progressive/democratic socialist jeremiad against free-market capitalism, with the usual swear words: "Reagan", "Thatcher", "neoliberalism". etc. This argument would not survive two minutes in the ring with (for example) The Myth of American Inequality by Phil Gramm et. al. Goff should not have even tried.

But as an entertaining aside, he puts in a plug for legalizing psychedelics. Saying, "I took psychedelics a lot when I was a teenager." Bravely daring readers to even think about thinking: Well, geez, that explains a lot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of legalizing psychedelics too. I'm just dubious of getting profound insights that way.

Things really fall apart in a final postscript, titled "Is Taxation Theft?" Spoiler: his answer is "no". But his argument is hand-wavingly poor. A natural, obvious, question behind "Is taxation theft?" is (or should be) how is taxation different from theft?

Obviously: taxation is accomplished under the political authority of the state, and theft is not. That's pretty much the only difference.

But what is the justification for the political authority of the state? Since I read Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority back in 2013, I'm pretty sure there isn't one. What I said then:

We would not tolerate our next-door neighbors suddenly assuming powers of taxation, legislation, punishment for misbehavior, etc. Especially if (at the same time) they claimed that we had some sort of patriotic duty to submit to their demands and dictates.

In fact, we'd consider our next-door neighbors to be crazy and dangerous.

So don't we need at least a good yarn about how existing states might have justifiably claimed the same powers?

And we simply don't get one from Goff. I'm unsure whether he even notices the problem.

[Brian Clegg · Rating 5 out of 5]

The point of this book is to suggest that there is purpose behind the cosmos. The main evidence for this that Goff uses is the fine tuning of our universe that makes it suitable for life. Most cosmologists agree that this is odd, but many try to explain it using the idea of the multiverse. With some nifty mathematic-less probability (though he does invoke and describe Bayes theorem), Goff demonstrates convincingly that this argument does not hold up.

We then take a look at a couple of alternative explanations - a deity, or the universe itself embodying a degree of purpose, which comes under the banner of panpsychism. I didn't honestly find the arguments in either of these sections (for and against) persuasive - but this doesn't stop them from being really interesting. In the God chapter, Goff attempts to logically dismiss the concept, but I found this no more convincing than good old Pascal's wager - people have been attempting to make logical arguments about deities ever since logic existed, and none have succeeded.

Similarly, I find the argument for panpsychism thin - but it's still interesting to see it explained by one of its major protagonists. Goff also examines other possibilities from a designer that is not all-powerful to the simulation hypothesis. And he takes us into the mind-body problem, presenting three broad options: materialism (the default scientific view of the physical world being fundamental), panpsychism (his preferred option where consciousness is fundamental and the physical world emerges from this), and dualism (the default non-scientific view, where both the physical world and consciousness are fundamental).

Goff rapidly dismisses dualism making use of Occam's razor, which felt wrong to me. The reality of our understanding of the universe generally requires a lot of 'it's more complicated than we thought' - I don't think Occam's razor is a good enough tool to dispose of an option in such a significant matter as the mind-body problem.

Finally (after a somewhat bizarre plea for the benefits of psychedelics, which I couldn't support), Goff gives us an appendix dealing with the concept that tax is theft. This did slightly emerge from the main text, but is probably best thought of as a separate entity - again, it's a fascinating exercise in thinking about something that brings together moral positions and a field as solid, worldly and sort-of scientific as economics.

It's a slim book and an enjoyable read. Each chapter has an introductory part that takes us into the topic and then a 'digging deeper' part, where Goff takes us through some of the key counter arguments. He suggests you can skip these if you find them too heavy going - but I'd strongly recommend reading them. I've said this book is enjoyable, and it is, but that doesn't mean it's a light read. You do have to think as you go - but the result is well worth the effort.

[یاسر میردامادی · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Durham University, takes a rather unusual position that goes beyond a conventional dichotomy: either God exists or (cosmic) life is meaningless. Goff argues that God (of monotheistic religions) does not exist, but Cosms is purposeful. Although his position is not that life without cosmic purpose is meaningless, he believes a cosmic purpose significantly adds to the meaningfulness of life. His arguments for the cosmic purposefulness of life initially look pretty much like some theistic arguments: fine-tuning and the argument from consciousness. But Goff argues that God does not exist because of a new version of the logical argument from evil he presents. This version is based on a unique premise that it is not morally permissible for God to create a world full of evil and suffering. But if God does not exist, how could the Cosmos have an intrinsic purpose? His alternative purposeful metaphysics is panpsychistic in that the fundamental aspect of physical reality is consciousness, and unlike materialism, the matter is not the fundamental aspect of reality but rather an outcome of consciousness. If life has an intrinsic, non-godly cosmic purpose, what is that purpose? The purpose, at least, is to create life with a higher level of consciousness in humans and other non-human animals. "Why? The Purpose of the Universe" is a timely, iconoclastic, and relatively short but sometimes, dense and, at the same time, generally accessible book. The book's language is vibrant and engaging, avoiding a dry tone. However, the main problem I had with the book's central argument was with 'The Cosmic Sin Intuition': It would be immoral for an all-powerful to create a universe like ours deliberately. I tend to think that given the world's beauty, subtlety, and fine-tuning, it would be more plausible to think of the universe as divine than taking the conscious but non-personal cosmic existence as a brute fact. It is a consistent idea with explanatory power to think that God might have a reason that justifies God in creating a world with a degree of pain and suffering to be compensated in the hereafter. Pain is here and there, but all in all, it is worth it.

[Eugene Kernes · Rating 2 out of 5]

Is This An Overview?
Even without cosmic significance, there is meaning in human activity. What people do affects the present and changes the opportunities for the future. People have the capacity to make reality better, to enable a cosmic evolution.

Meaning can be found without purpose provided by an omnipotent being. There are alternative options to a moral omnipotent being and atheism. A being who can create a universe is not necessarily moral, or necessarily omnipotent. There is the possibility that humanity is part of a simulation experiment run by beings that possess advanced technology. Another possibility is that of panpsychism.

Panpsychism assumes that every particle has a conscious of their own. Human consciousness is not publicly available, as consciousness cannot be verified through objective experimentation, but there is certainty in feelings and experiences. Even simple organisms have a consciousness. There is no uniform consciousness, for the complexity of the conscious can come in different degrees, with no limit to how simple. Particles, which are assumed to be inanimate objects, possibly have a conscious of their own, in a rudimentary form. A conscious that enables the particle to respond rationally to their experiences.

Caveats?
This book covers a range of ideas about why and how the universe exists, along with limitations of those ideas. The book can be difficult to read, as the author acknowledged. Each chapter makes an argument, and contains a more technical section. The technical section is explicitly difficult as the author tries to cover potential critiques for an academic audience. The book can be read without engaging with the technical section.

[Kenny Phipps · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, this book gets five stars for being thought provoking and 3 stars for logic. A few times throughout, I caught myself realizing that a core logical conclusion that underpins his argument is either flawed or simply wrong. For example, he argues from the premise that the universal constants (such as the coefficient representing the strength of the strong nuclear force) seem perfectly fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of chemical complexity, to the conclusion that we can reasonably assume that the universe is goal-oriented towards the emergence of Life. This is wrong - he's making the case potentially for the universe being goal-oriented towards the emergence of chemical complexity (a form of 'value' to Goff), but Life is just one form of this complexity that need not exist for the same conclusions to be drawn, albeit conceding there would be no one around to draw those conclusions.
Logical flaws aside, this book is very well written. Goff doesn't talk down to the reader, but does his best to make sure the core philosophical concepts are readily understood. It really made me think about the topics he brings up, and I had fun reading it. I would recommend it, even if it is the philosophical equivalent of a beach read.

[Braňo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book for its clear exploration of complex topics such as fine-tuning, the concept of God, and cosmic purpose, among many others. I'd like to highlight the thoughtful structure of the chapters, which are divided into two parts: the first offering a straightforward introduction to the subject, and the second providing a deeper, more detailed analysis. This approach makes the book accessible to a broad audience, from those new to philosophy to more experienced readers seeking a thorough exploration of the ideas.

The writing style is notably engaging and clear, which is quite an achievement given how abstract philosophical discussions can be. The author does an excellent job of presenting these difficult topics in a way that is as comprehensible as possible without oversimplifying the content.

However, towards the end of the book, two chapters on religion and taxation felt out of place. Although I found them interesting and valuable, their linkage to the core themes was quite weak or at the very least unclear, and left me with a slightly ruined ''aftertaste'' of the book’s overarching ideas. That said, I would welcome a separate book from the author focusing on these topics—just not in this one.

I give Why? The Purpose of the Universe 4/5 stars.

[Adam Clost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goff acknowledges that some of his arguments and approaches to this topic could be really challenging or difficult to comprehend for readers depending on their familiarity with philosophy and physics, but I thought he did a great job of writing clearly and making his arguments digestible for a pretty wide audience. He puts some unique, interesting twists on the idea of "rational action" and how our universe could be "selecting for value" even without any kind of design or higher power, but also offers perspectives and arguments that readers who believe, or see no alternative to some kind of design could get on board with as well. I felt like the book ended REALLY abruptly, as I expected the final chapter to continue on, or that there would be some kind of summary/conclusion chapter, but I did really appreciate that he moved from philosophical ideas about the universe that might enable individual's to find or seek out personal meaning in their lives, to some practical thoughts on how the ideas in his book could/should influence how humanity as a whole operates. Overall, a thought-provoking and enjoyable read.

[Frank Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was mixed. The first few chapters were excellent, as they discussed consciousness, fine tuning, and purpose. From my perspective the atheist author did an excellent job arguing for a creator. But then, he moved on to his chapter where God was rejected. This chapter was almost amusing as the author used a Christian morality to argue against a Christian God. From then on, he presumed Christian morality as if it could be universally true in a godless universe. That chapter still included some excellent arguments as the author contrasted the Christian approaches of Swinburne and Plantinga regarding the problem of evil. After that the book went downhill quickly and became increasingly tedious to read. The authors arguments for purpose in a godless universe were far from convincing, even as he used triumphalist language to suggest that his view will eventually become the norm. The book got even worse when he started to praise psychedelics, and ended on a strange note where the author discussed the morality of taxation. I agree with him, but wonder why this was in the book.

[JP · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read the book, so that is a kudos to the author. I liked the breakdown of progress in the early chapters. The flaw in the book is the sloppy logic. He makes tons of assumptions as facts that surely aren’t. Why not take his assumptions to the next step? For example, if this world is full of suffering and that proves that no God is in charge of it, then come up with a world that would be better. He doesn’t probably because he can’t. I guess the main takeaway is that he’s a first level thinker a la Krugman. It’s interesting to debunk his assumptions, but tedious and annoying after a while. The social engineering at the end is a perfect example. When you are quoting Thomas Picketty - the essence of sloppy logic/research - we know what we are dealing with. He is fitting the world to his ideas and not V.V. Naive but interesting.

Oh, and unsurprisingly, there is no answer to “Why?” We don’t know. Sorry for the obvious spoiler. LOL.

[Alex Lasky · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a scientist (strong materialism leanings) the author had an uphill battle to persuade me. I’m still not sold on his statistical argument against the Anthropic Principle. But, I enjoyed the book and think he made some interesting points regarding pilot wave theory and the nature of consciousness.

I agree with others who have mentioned that his final discussion about economics was a blunder. It was too tangential to the central theme and made some big claims without a fleshed out argument. I think if he wanted to extrapolate an economic system out of the long-term-ism called for by the idea of a universal purpose, then that should have been dedicated to an entire follow up book.

Overall, it stimulated a lot of interesting thoughts which I’m still digesting days after finishing the book. For that, I’ll settle on somewhere between 3.5 and 4 stars.

[Natellu · Rating 4 out of 5]

ทำไมเอกภพถึง fine tuned ทำไมถึงมีค่าคงที่พื้นฐานต่างๆอย่างที่มันเป็น ซึ่งถ้าค่าเหล่านี้แตกต่างไปเพียงเล็กน้อย ก็อาจจะไม่มีดวงดาว ไม่มีสิ่งมีชีวิตเกิดขึ้นมาได้เลย คำอธิบายหนึ่งคือการมีหลายๆเอกภพ multiverse (ซึ่งผู้เขียนชี้ให้เห็นว่าไม่ถูกต้องเหมือนนักพนันทอยลูกเต๋าแล้วออกเลข 6 คู่ติดๆกัน เราจะสรุปว่ามีผู้เล่นคนอื่นๆอีกมากมายอยู่ในคาสิโนด้วยไม่ได้ ซึ่งการที่มีหรือไม่มีเอกภพอื่นอยู่ด้วยนั้นก็ไม่เกี่ยวกับโอกาสที่เอกภพของเราจะfine tuned) อีกคำอธิบายคือ simulation hypothesis ที่ว่าเราอาจถูกโปรแกรมขึ้นมา ซึ่งผู้เขียนซึ่งเป็นนักปรัชญาขอเสนอสมมติฐานใหม่ที่ว่าเอกภพอาจมี purpose ซึ่งที่มันมีค่าอย่างที่มันเป็นก็เพื่อให้สิ่งมีชีวิตถือกำเนิดขึ้นมาได้ เอกภพเองมี conscious mind มี purpose ของมันเอง ซึ่งคืออะไรก็มิอาจคาดเดาได้ ชีวิตมนุษยก็มีความหมายในการมีส่วนร่วมในวิวัฒนาการของเอกภพ

[Matthias · Rating 4 out of 5]

GR ate my last review, but short version: greater than the sum of its parts, because the various woo-y claims actually fit together quite nicely. Strongest in the arguments (or just idea of) panagentialism, weakest in the arguments for fine-tuning (the claims about the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy seem to me to be Just Wrong, in a technical sense.)

More than anything, it’s fun to see the spirit of speculative metaphysics revived in analytic philosophy. Nothing against standard materialism or skepticism or Christian apologetics - but it’s been too long a rather dull field with those as the only legible options. Three cheers for getting weird with it!

[Iwona Wardach · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seemed very uneven for me. First three chapters where he explained value selection and its consequences were eye opening and engaging. Fourth (on benevolent creator) felt a bit obvious, while 5-7 I couldn’t really get through without nodding off. I represent the „general public” audience so maybe I just got tired with density and style, but the further I got along the book, the more theoretical and less grounded it all felt. Final chapter on psychodelics and taxation seemed a bit shallow. While I don’t disagree with anything, I think others make much more compelling case. Cramming it into a single chapter seemed rushed and unnecessary.