Tim Mulgan’s view he calls “ananthropocentric purposivism” (AP).
AP is the view that, contra atheism, the universe has a purpose, but, contra benevolent theism (BT), that purpose is non-human-centred. Put simply, there is a cosmic purpose, but humans are irrelevant to that purpose.
Made me laugh. I have a holding post on the special position- not exceptionalism – of humanity in the cosmos not quite ready yet (*), but this bumps right up against it. That cosmic purpose is not irrelevant to humanity.
Sure, it need not have been humans, “we” weren’t pre-ordained or gifted the priviledge, but as the sole representative of higher intelligent life we know about, we are very much a part of it. Intelligent life locally maximises the 2nd law globally – at present we are it. Our special role – as that species – is a responsibility to know and understand this.
[And in my thinking
AP is An-thropic Perpective or Principle
as opposed to Anan- … more some other time.]
=====
[(*) I was intending to respond to this piece:
It’s very interesting to see skeptics actively espousing human exceptionalism. They seem to argue that we are somehow separate from animals, have evolved beyond our mammalian sexual reproductive categories and can think ourselves into a different class.
— Gia Milinovich (@giagia) January 2, 2022
Though no idea what prompted it – other than some gender-war aspect? But also in the last month this piece by Julian Baggini was what motivated me. We wouldn’t be a species if we weren’t “somehow separate”! It’s the somehow that matters. Jeez!]