Given the natural order of universe and its cause and effect network, perhaps redemption and reconciliation from absurdity can be found in biology or physics. For example, consider an adult salmon’s biologically given capacity to swim upstream and mate. In this case the end at which the adult salmon’s activity aims is not, or anyway need not be, valuable, it is simply the end with which it was endowed by nature. The same may be true with human life. The notion may not be too far-gone since many philosophers and scientists find their meaning, value, and purpose in nature. Friedrich Nietzsche based his teleology and understanding of truth in biology. If this universe [or multiverse] is all that exists it seems that this scientific driven teleology may not be sufficient.
Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg provided a self-comforting dialogue in The First Three Minutes suggesting that his own research in the field of physics has provided himself with meaning, value, and purpose. Paradoxically, he believes that the more he learns about the universe, the lesser of an ultimate meaning it has.
Physicist Victor Stenger seems to agree with Weinberg’s understanding of the purpose as it relates to reality. In his book, God the Failed Hypothesis, he displays a rather existential reflection when he ponders the universe and reality. He believes that if God created matter with humanity in mind, then it was not done so for a purpose. The universe is so vast and hostile to life and the parameters for existence of humanity are incredibly slim. Earth is a rarity. This notion of absurdity is not as introspective as the philosophers may see it; rather, it is an inference based on his observation on the physical realm. What is similar between the philosopher’s inference and Stenger’s is that they encounter a breakdown of rationality, Camus’ alienation and disappearance of reason. Like Camus, he becomes aware of the sheer absurdity of his existence.
In contrast to Weinberg and Stenger, it should be understood that because the universe is meaningful could any meaning or rationality be derived thereof. The glory of mathematics and human art manifests a genius. Just as Albert Einstein pondered the striking fact that the universe is comprehensible, that mathematics illuminates nature by mapping forms of order as small as particles and strings and as broad as universe [or multiverse] itself. On secularized grounds, why should nature make sense? Why should there be any connection whatsoever between the highly abstract, formal relationships of numbers and figures and the order of nature? Why is nature amenable to mathematical analysis? By all human experience, it would be irrational to infer that, in a continual state of becoming, there is no meaning behind the order observed in nature.
It would serve well for one to be reminded that humanity did not construct the order behind the abstract and the physical. The order of the universe is prior to and independent of man’s attempts to understand it. That is why theories must be tested against nature. Man is not the creator of order, but at best, discerners of order—not only for humanity’s own existence but also for the perfection of understanding.
 Michael Smith, “Is That All There Is?” Journal of Ethics 10 (January 2006): 83.
 Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (London: Andre Deutsch, 1977), 154-155.
 Victor Stenger, God the Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2008), 137-164.
 Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, A Meaningful World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 27.
 Ibid., 244.