[Inaudable]
Mark K.: There was a lot of discussion about
evolution, per se,
as being the thing that's most
heart-wrenching to people
 because it's something that they
don't like the idea that they share their ancestry
with sea slugs and bacteria. But I would say that
maybe the most fundamental question is, 
is there a purpose to the universe,
and do you think that it's reasonable
as long as our species exists, that someday
we will be able to answer that question?
Krauss: Do you want to start, or should I?
I'll start, give you time to
think about it
because I talk without thinking, 
which is easy.
[audience laughter]
I think it's, and this has come to me
over time. In fact what I would have said
would be much closer to Richard,
if I hadn't had the experience of
actually debating the head of
the Intelligent Design Network
in St. Louis
and he was actually one of the few people
in that whole program who actually believed
in what he was doing
and believed
it wasn't just a con job.
And he said, "Look, scientists really are
trying to destroy our faith."
And he presented a letter from fifty different
nobel laureates about evolution,
about what happened, and that there is no
evidence of purpose or design in life.
But the letter then went on to say, and
therefore there was no purpose and design.
And he pointed to this example and it
really hit me: Yeah he's right because that
second statement I don't believe 
is a scientific one.
I think it's a philosophical statement,
it's a philosophical statement
 that resonates with me,
but as Carl Sagan once said,
and he stole it from someone else,
"Evidence of absence is not--" No. 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
So there may be no evidence for
the purpose to the universe,
but that doesn't imply that there is
no purpose to the universe.
It's a question that you can have
a feeling about and still do the science
and have very different views about.
So when you make the second statement
it's fine to make it,
but I think you have to say that maybe you're
being
informed by your lifetime of scientific experience
but it's not, I don't believe, a scientific
statement.
I think it's very difficult to know and I
happen to
think we'll never-- 
because it's not a question you
can answer in the negative. I
mean scientifically.
The absence of evidence of purpose
will never prove that there is no purpose,
and I'm sure Richard has a very good example
of how ridiculous that statement could be
going back to Bertrand Russell, so maybe you'll
want to talk about it,
but it could be answered in the positive,
that's the point.
If tomorrow, or tonight, because I'm here
and not in Cleveland I could look up and see stars...
If tonight the stars spelled out: "I am here."
Then I think most scientists would say
"You know, there's something there."
And so positive evidence is inherently possible,
negative evidence is not,
and so at that point you're subject to philosophy.
And I don't think science can make a definitive
statement about that, maybe you want to-
Dawkins: I think that's the first time this evening
I've really disagreed with you.
Krauss: Oh, good. O.K.
Dawkins: Unless you think there is a supernatural
being in the universe, which neither of us do...
What could purpose in the universe
possibly mean? What would it look like?
What would it be- why would we even want
to use a word like purpose of the universe?
It seems to be obvious that it's linked to
a theological belief.
Now, in my own field of biology we use the
word purpose in a sort of metaphorical sense.
There's purpose in a bird's wing,
purpose in an eye, these are --
the illusion of purpose 
is built up by,
by natural selection
in a way that's very well understood.
If you ask "What's the purpose 
of a mountain?",
or, "What's the purpose of the universe?", 
or, "What's the purpose of time?"
"What's the purpose of space?" It's 
not just meaningless, it's stupid.
[laughter]
Krauss: Well --
This has come home we didn't
get a chance to talk about it
but in my own field of cosmology
which is sometimes turning 
into philosophy...
These questions are kind of 
asked in different ways
because we are taking seriously the notion
that there may be many, many
different universes,
and with many different 
laws of nature and--
what distinguishes this 
one from others and
why do we live in this one 
and I'm happy to-
I won't talk about it now but
we're addressing those questions and
the purpose of the universe could be
very blasé, for example I've often-
It turns out the universe doesn't have
what's called topology, or at least not evidence--
It could have had lots of holes and
all sorts of interesting things in space,
it doesn't, but some mathematicians
show that if the universe
was geometrically open and
had topology, you could build a
turing machine with the universe.
So I like to think that 
maybe the universe was--
and such a universe would be created
to calculate pi to 
one hundred decimal places.
And maybe that's the purpose of the universe
and so that would be--
Dawkins: No, I'd be very happy to-
maybe we are all in
somebody's computer simulation.
Maybe the entire universe that we're in
is the product of a purposeful design,
of an alien intelligence which has put us
into a simulation. That's absolutely fine.
I have no problem with that, but you have
set yourself to an enormous
extent away from-- I mean that's equivalent
to saying a sort of Grand God of some sort.
And I don't have an objective to that
but assuming you don't believe that,
then I don't understand why you would
even want to ask the question
"What is the purpose of the universe?"
Krauss: And in fact, we've got to go to the second
question, but let me just say one thing,
that's part of the problem 
in some sense I've had.
Because I agree with you, 
and I think it's so
unimportant an issue that, instead of spending
a lot of time focusing on it 
and focusing on
people's beliefs about its purpose,
it's much more productive to talk about other
things and that's one of the reason
why I don't dwell on it.
Dawkins: Let's go to another one--
Audience member: I'm very thankful for you 
gentlemen, for what you do
I wasted a great portion of my life trying
to find purpose in the universe.
I do have a quibble with you, and that is
with respect to awe and wonder.
Awe and wonder, I believe, were the greatest tools 
in the origin, propagation, and promotion of religion.
And I don't think that, um, well... that they...
I know in religion they want to emphasize
all that stuff, that's the reason they build cathedrals,
that's the reason they monopolized all forms
of entertainment during the middle ages.
Today, we have the most boring entertainment
you could imagine on television, on many channels,
everyday. And the public is going to eventually
get sick of this, I think.
When we teach Science, I think it should be factual, 
because if there is a purpose it's to survive,
and to survive we need to know the facts,
and I'm vey tired of constantly trying to whoop up
entertainment and, uhm... emotions.
 Emotions were,
for animals, a survival mechanism.
For us, emotions are a destructive mechanism.
So I hope you can defend Science without
trying to tell people "this is awesome!"
Krauss: Well --
Well, I mean I vehemently disagree 
and I suppose that
you do too, but I think that if you
think about whatever field it 
is that you do,
and what interests you, it's because 
you like it.
And that's an emotion. In fact for me the
greatest thing
that I want to tell kids about
is that science is fun.
It's actually interesting, it's fun, it's
exciting, and it's pleasurable.
And if that's the one-- 
because that's not the impression
that many people have
and I think uhm...
and I think it is in 
fact the reason that every
colleague I know of who's a scientist
who's doing what they're doing 
is not to save the world,
it's because they enjoy it.
That's what I tell kids, I think we do it
because we enjoy it.
And in fact you could find it enjoyable.
At the beginning of the talk you talked about
the poll that was out there
and one of the things was "does the Earth
move around the Sun in the course of a year?"
I think you'll agree there are a couple of
problems with that statement.
First of all, the Earth doesn't go around
the Sun, the Earth and Sun go around
a common center of gravity. And secondly,
what is a year?
Sidereal year, or a calendar year, and so
on. It seems to me
you've got 12% of the people that misunderstood
the question and voted "yes it does"
what percentage of the people were accurate and said "no that's the wrong statement"?
[audience laughter]
Krauss: Well... That could be. 
I failed a driver's test once
because I interpreted
the questions too deeply about--
I'm not sure that's the case in this.
