PDF Summary:Solve for Happy, by Mo Gawdat

Everyone wants to be happy, but the modern world is rife with obstacles to happiness. Many people view happiness as an elusive goal that’s perpetually out of reach. However, Mo Gawdat argues that we can be consistently happy if we bring our expectations and perceptions of our lives into alignment.

In Solve for Happy, Gawdat outlines a simple algorithm to do so: First, dispel six misconceptions that cause us to suffer; next, remove seven weaknesses that make us unhappy; and finally, embrace five pillars to become permanently happy. By following this three-part algorithm, we can enjoy lasting happiness.

In this guide, we’ll examine Gawdat’s algorithm and address the misconceptions, weaknesses, and pillars that he discusses. We’ll examine concrete strategies for following this algorithm, and we’ll compare Gawdat’s work to other guides for happiness.

(continued)...

However, we often don’t know our deepest fears, because core fears—like rejection—are masked by layers of derivative fears—like a fear of first dates. Gawdat calls this our “safe model,” where our brain protects us from a core fear via layers of derivative fears. For example, if your core fear is rejection, your safe model might include a fear of embarrassment, leading to a fear of vulnerability, and so on. (Shortform note: Gawdat’s description of a safe model suggests that it may precede avoidance coping, a defense mechanism that causes people to consciously or subconsciously change their behavior to avoid anxiety-inducing issues—for instance, through procrastination.)

Because the fears implemented by our safe model are wide-reaching, Gawdat argues that they negatively shape our expectations, causing us to expect harm at every turn. Accordingly, to bring our expectations in line with reality, we must confront our fears.

To do so, ask yourself the following seven questions:

1. “What’s the worst-case scenario?” Asking this leads you to acknowledge what you’re most afraid of.
2. “Who cares if that happens?” Asking this shows that even the worst-case scenario isn’t the end of the world.
3. “Is it likely that will happen?” Asking this shows that the worst-case scenario is unlikely.
4. “How do I prevent the worst from happening?” Asking this provides concrete steps to avoid the worst-case scenario.
5. “Can I rebound if the worst does happen?” Asking this helps reveal that, if the worst case does occur, you’ll be alright.
6. “What if I don’t face my fears?” Asking this reveals that doing nothing is often worse than facing your fears.
7. “What’s the best that could happen?” Asking this emphasizes the potential benefits of facing your fears.

By asking yourself these seven questions, you’ll be prepared to face your fears and recognize the misconception that fear is on your side.

(Shortform note: To supplement Gawdat’s list, many experts recommend exposure therapy, where you expose yourself to your fears in incrementally larger doses. For those with crippling fears, this might first require imagined exposure. For instance, if you’re afraid of heights, you might imagine looking out from the top of a skyscraper. Eventually, you’ll progress to facing your fears concretely in controlled environments.)

Fix Weaknesses

After dispelling the misconception that cause us to suffer, Gawdat focuses on seven weaknesses (or “blind spots, as he calls them) that cause us to be unhappy.

Because our brain evolved to help us survive, it errs on the side of caution and constantly expects threats. Consequently, it’s predisposed to overlook positive information and instead focus on possible threats. This predisposition leads to weaknesses toward positive information, which negatively shape our perception and expectations.

Weakness 1: Filters

Our first weakness stems from the overwhelming amount of information available to our brains. At any given moment, we’re inundated with sensory stimuli like sounds, tastes, scents, and colors. Most of this information is irrelevant to making decisions, so our brains filter it out and only process the relevant information.

(Shortform note: A part of the brain called the thalamus plays a key role in this filtering. As information travels from sensory neurons to the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for high-level processes like learning and decision-making, it passes through the thalamus. To facilitate this journey, there are reciprocal connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex; whenever the cortex prioritizes incoming information, it relays a message to the thalamus, blocking it from processing other “irrelevant” information.)

Yet, since our brain arose to ensure our survival, Gawdat observes that it focuses on negative information—that is, information that constitutes a threat. Consequently, it filters out positive information. For example, if you’re hiking and you start to become hungry, your brain might overemphasize your hunger while filtering out the beauty of your surroundings.

(Shortform note: Our brain’s higher sensitivity to negative information also influences our romantic relationships, as we place greater weight on negative than positive experiences in relationships. To compensate, experts suggest that healthy marriages require a five-to-one ratio of positive to negative experiences. Any less, and marriages grow more likely to end in divorce.)

To repair this weakness, remind yourself that your brain filters out most available information. In turn, you can focus on uncovering positive information that your brain has kept hidden.

(Shortform note: Experts recommend myriad strategies to train yourself to emphasize positive information, such as memorizing lists of positive words to prime your brain to have positive ideas.)

Weakness 2: Assumptions

Despite the abundance of information available to your brain, there are also instances where our information is incomplete. In such instances, your brain makes assumptions to fill in the gaps, creating a comprehensive set of information for decision-making.

In pre-modern societies, our lives were less complex, and these assumptions were more accurate. For instance, if you were being chased by a tiger with its teeth bared, you could safely assume the tiger wanted to eat you. However, given the complexity of the modern world, these black-and-white assumptions can lead us astray. For example, you might assume a quiet coworker is upset at you, when they might just be under the weather.

These assumptions skew our perceptions of reality and prevent us from solving the happiness formula. To avoid such assumptions, Gawdat recommends reevaluating what you “know” and retaining only beliefs that you’ve verified with your senses.

(Shortform note: In Feeling Good, David Burns argues that assumptions often yield cognitive distortions when they lead us to inaccurately perceive reality. These distortions, he claims, consequently lead to an increased chance of anxiety and depression. In turn, he advocates cognitive behavioral therapy, which attempts to remedy these mental health issues by finding and replacing false assumptions with truths.)

Weakness 3: Predictions

Similarly, we tend to make assumptions about the future. Yet, Gawdat argues that these predictions are often inaccurate or self-fulfilling, harming our ability to solve the happiness formula.

First, our predictions are inaccurate because we often extrapolate from relatively few data points. For example, a friend might tell us that an obscure diet helped them lose weight, from which we form the unfounded belief that we’ll enjoy the same results of that diet.

(Shortform note: Frequently, our intuition causes these false predictions because it extrapolates from relatively little data. Since it developed to perceive patterns amidst randomness, our intuition often yields false positives, finding alleged patterns when there are none. For instance, we might intuitively commit the gambler’s fallacy, like when those playing roulette conclude that the ball is likely to land on red after landing on black.)

Second, our predictions are often self-fulfilling because they influence our actions. For instance, if you hear that your next Calculus test will be so hard that you’re guaranteed to fail, you might decide it’s pointless to study, thus ensuring that you’ll fail.

(Shortform note: Although Gawdat focuses on the detrimental effects of self-fulfilling predictions, researchers have also argued that they can be used to our benefit. In particular, by predicting that a positive event will come to pass, we can increase the likelihood of actualizing that event. For example, students who predict that they’ll succeed on their next test might become more confident and relaxed during the test, thus increasing their performance.)

Our false predictions instill unfounded expectations and prevent us from fulfilling the happiness formula. To temper these expectations, remind yourself that your predictions aren’t infallible.

(Shortform note: In Expert Political Judgment, Philip Tetlock researched political predictions specifically, finding that experts struggled to predict political change with any significant degree of accuracy. However, he found that people who evaluated multiple explanations before making a prediction fared better than people who focused on a single explanation before making a prediction. So, to improve our own predictions, it’s reasonable to conclude that we should evaluate all available explanations.)

Weakness 4: Memories

As for the fourth weakness, Gawdat argues that memories color our perceptions by distorting the lens through which we perceive reality. After all, our memories are merely what we think happened, so they’re often inaccurate guides to the past. In turn, they lead us to misrepresent the present by projecting false conceptions of the past onto it.

(Shortform note: Experts agree that our memory is unreliable. In one study, researchers found that they could even instill false memories into participants, who recalled the pseudo-memory just as confidently as they recalled real memories. By reading participants several real childhood stories relayed by relatives, alongside one false account of participants being lost in a mall, a majority of participants claimed to vividly remember the false episode.)

For instance, those afraid of dogs might misremember an innocuous childhood encounter with a dog as aggressive and scary. Consequently, they’ll misinterpret encounters with dogs, mistakenly perceiving harmless dogs as aggressive predators. Since these memories negatively shape our perception of the present, they impede attempts to solve the happiness formula.

To prevent faulty memories from infiltrating our present experience, Gawdat recommends noticing when we use past-tense verbs, like “heard,” “saw,” and “felt.” These verbs signal that we’re relying on our memories, so monitoring them can ensure that our memories aren’t shaping our present perceptions.

(Shortform note: Although Gawdat emphasizes the negative influence of memories on our perceptions, research suggests that episodic memories can improve our perceptual capacities, which helps us distinguish between various objects in our visual field. In particular, replaying episodic memories refines our brain’s process of sorting perceptions into categories, like, “faces,” “scenery,” and “animals.”)

Weakness 5: Labels

Memories can be particularly harmful when they lead to labels: stereotypes of certain groups and characteristics on the basis of limited past experience.

Because we extrapolate labels from limited data, they’re often inaccurate and harmful. For example, we might know several successful Asian students, and label all Asians academically gifted. This oversimplification, Gawdat argues, obviates nuanced truths. Consequently, these labels can falsify our perceptions and preempt the possibility of happiness.

(Shortform note: In his book, Outsiders, sociologist Howard Becker developed labeling theory, which holds that the labels ascribed to us tangibly influence our behavior. More specifically, Becker argues that labeling certain individuals as “criminals” or “deviants” leads to their being stigmatized, making it more likely that they’ll ultimately resort to criminal activity. Thus, merely labeling others as criminals may lead them to becoming criminals.)

To minimize this harm, use extreme scrutiny when you catch yourself using a label. Often, this scrutiny will reveal that your labels are ill-founded.

How to Deal With Subconscious Labels

Gawdat’s recommendation to scrutinize labels presupposes that we’re consciously aware of them, but many labels arise via implicit bias, or subconscious prejudice

In Biased, Jennifer Eberhardt argues that these implicit biases are the result of categorization, the brain’s process of automatically sorting entities into different groups to distill order from chaos. Categorization leads to stereotypes, where we form generalizations about others from demographic information, like race, gender, and age. Consequently, we must intervene in the categorization process to prevent stereotypical labels from taking root.

One way to do so involves actively seeking new information about others. According to Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, authors of Superforecasting, new information hinders our brain’s ability to categorize others because of the dilution effect, which states that new information dilutes the value of past information, like the categories used by the brain.

Weakness 6: Emotions

Another weakness comes via our emotions. Gawdat notes that in the brain’s evolution, emotions once played a pivotal role in making necessary split-second decisions. For instance, the fear of seeing a dangerous predator might have triggered a sudden urge to flee.

Now that such decisions are less necessary, Gawdat argues that emotions obscure our decision-making, and we then find reasons to justify our sub-par decisions. For example, imagine you’re offered a new job that is higher-paying and offers greater upward mobility. Despite this, your fear of change might incline you to reject the offer, so you find any reason to justify this decision—the new co-workers don’t seem as friendly, for instance. By allowing feelings to inform your decision, reason becomes subservient to emotion.

(Shortform note: Contrary to Gawdat’s argument, philosopher David Hume argued that emotion should be the driving force behind our decisions, and reason should only be “the slave of the passions.” In other words, emotion motivates us to pursue a goal and reason helps us reach it. For example, if our emotions drive us to be wealthy, reason can help us develop a financial plan to satisfy this desire.)

To remedy this weakness, Gawdat recommends listening to your inner dialogue to look for the influence of emotion. For example, phrases like “I’d hate to…” or “I’m scared to…” indicate that emotions have crept into your judgment. By recognizing emotions, you can prevent them from shaping your decisions.

(Shortform note: Monitoring your inner dialogue has other benefits, too. For example, experts suggest that you can practice constructive self-talk, where you encourage yourself via your inner dialogue. In a decision-making context, you can use constructive self-talk to make difficult decisions; for instance, you might tell yourself, “I know this decision will lead to intimidating change, but change will help me in the long run.”)

Weakness 7: Exaggeration

Finally, Gawdat argues that when your brain needs your attention, it exaggerates your perceptions so it can’t be ignored. For example, if you’re outside and a bush rustles, your brain might exaggerate the rustling noise to ensure you don’t miss any potential predators.

In particular, our brain tends to exaggerate negative possibilities, because these pose the biggest threat to our survival. For instance, in the wake of 9/11, the majority of Americans grew concerned about a terrorist attack, even though they were more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the airport. This tendency imbalances the happiness formula by distorting our expectations of reality.

(Shortform note: Experts add that exaggerating the likelihood and severity of threats causes increased anxiety. For instance, those who take symptoms of mild illness to be suggestive of medical catastrophe will likely suffer from anxiety.)

To preempt excessive exaggeration, be wary of blanket terms, like “always,” “never,” and “certain.” These words, Gawdat argues, suggest that we might be exaggerating, so they’re worth keeping track of.

(Shortform note: We’re especially liable to exaggerate when faced with conflict. In particular, experts suggest that we exaggerate to justify our emotions to our adversary, which adds fuel to the conflict and becomes the focus, preventing us from resolving the root issue. For example, you might tell your spouse, “You’re never home on time!” to justify being upset when they’re late for dinner—and instead of apologizing, they might respond by pointing out days when they got home on time.)

Embrace Pillars to Become Happy

Finally, Gawdat suggests that for happiness to endure, we must embrace five pillars, which he calls “ultimate truths.” These five pillars lead to joy—an unwavering state of happiness.

Pillar 1: The Importance of Awareness

Gawdat’s first pillar dovetails with his previous discussion on the misconception of time, where he argued that only the present moment exists. Accordingly, his first pillar states that to be happy, you must spend time fully aware of the present moment. In particular, cultivate presence to reach awareness.

(Shortform note: In essence, this pillar amounts to an endorsement of mindfulness, the practice of focusing your attention on the present moment. Research has vindicated the effectiveness of mindfulness and demonstrated that increased mindfulness is linked to improved self-reported well-being and decreased anxiety and depression.)

Presence is when we’re aware of our surroundings and fully grasp the world. Because we’re inundated with distractions, however, Gawdat concedes that awareness is difficult. Yet, he asserts that awareness is actually our default state—as soon as you open your eyes with the aim of becoming aware, you’ll become aware.

(Shortform note: When we stop focusing on the outside world, neuroscientists hold that the default mode network becomes active. This network leads to increased introspection, like daydreaming and ruminating on the past, and studies show that mindfulness decreases this network’s activity. So, awareness doesn’t seem to be our default state—rather, our default is introspection, and we can cultivate awareness to resist this default.)

To return to this default state, Gawdat offers several concrete strategies, such as:

• Prioritize awareness: Prioritize awareness by, for example, writing down every positive event or note when your mind drifts.
• Reduce distractions: Incorporate quiet times into your schedule, or spend time without access to your phone.
• Make a totem: Select an item that reminds you to be present. Keep this totem with you, and whenever you notice it, take a brief awareness break.

By embracing these suggestions, you’ll be able to incorporate awareness into even the busiest days. Consequently, you’ll come to recognize the joy of total presence.

Further Strategies to Increase Awareness

In addition to Gawdat’s more general advice, researchers recommend other methods to maximize awareness through specific practices and regular habits. These supplementary steps include:

• Concentrate on your breathing to begin. This strategy is especially helpful for beginners seeking to orient their thoughts around the present.

• Listen to your inner voice. In particular, pay attention to critical voices, so you can eventually learn to control them.

• Practice daily. Incorporate small, daily sessions into your calendar. This reinforces mindfulness habits and ensures that you’re prioritizing awareness.

• Consider joining a mindfulness community (a “sangha”). This allows you to learn from more experienced mindfulness practitioners and alleviates feelings of isolation.

Pillar 2: The Inevitability of Change

Gawdat’s second pillar complements the misconception of control. Control is illusory, he argues, because change is constant and inexorable.

Despite the inevitability of change, we attempt to control our lives and resist changes to it. Because change upends our best-laid plans, our expectations are rarely met, which makes us unhappy. For example, you might enter college preparing to enter an in-demand field, only to have your plans upended when, upon graduating, the same field is oversaturated with recent graduates.

(Shortform note: In Super Thinking, Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann emphasize that change is especially prevalent in business contexts. Consequently, they argue that to succeed, businesses must adapt to changing societal preferences by consistently reevaluating their assumptions, which quickly become outdated in the face of broad change.)

To reach lasting happiness in the face of constant change, Gawdat recommends pursuing “the path,” a concept synthesized from Buddhism, Islam, and ancient Chinese philosophy. Simply put, following the path requires letting your life reach equilibrium—the point of effortless acceptance where we no longer resist change. (Shortform note: Buddhism promotes the Eightfold Path, which describes eight elements necessary for enlightenment, including mindfulness and good intentions. In Islam, following the Straight Path leads to Allah by obeying his commandments. In ancient Chinese philosophy, tao means “the path” or “the way”; within Taoism, the Tao refers to the natural order of the universe and the guiding energy within us that connects us to everything around us.)

On a more practical level, following the path entails not pushing for extremes. For instance, rather than exercising incessantly on one extreme, or steadfastly avoiding exercise on the other, exercise in moderation.

The Three Truths of the Path

According to the Buddha, following the path requires accepting three key truths, called the marks of existence:

• Unsatisfactoriness—suffering—is pervasive because we’re ignorant of the true nature of reality.

• Impermanence is ubiquitous, since reality is composed of fleeting moments. Consequently, we suffer because we fail to recognize this impermanence.

• There is no enduring self underlying our subjective experience. Our illusory attachment to our “self” causes us to suffer.

In Buddhism, embracing these marks of existence ameliorates our ignorance and leads to nirvana, the end of suffering.

When you accept that change is part of life, you’ll find that your efforts work with change, rather than against it; you’ll be swimming with the current rather than floundering against it. Consequently, your expectations will be better aligned with reality, which allows you to consistently be happy.

Pillar 3: The Necessity of Love

Gawdat’s third pillar is that to reach lasting happiness, you must love unconditionally.

First, Gawdat argues that unconditional love is fundamentally different from emotions like admiration and respect, which occur for reasons; we admire and respect others because of the virtues they exemplify. Unconditional love, by contrast, just happens—we don’t love unconditionally because of any traits possessed by our beloved.

(Shortform note: Gawdat’s claim that unconditional love is fundamentally different from other emotions is supported by recent neuroscientific findings. In particular, one study found that distinct brain areas were active in participants who felt unconditional love, while those same areas remained inactive when participants felt other emotions.)

Consequently, while emotions grounded in reason disappear when their underlying reason disappears, unconditional love persists indefinitely. Thus, Gawdat declares unconditional love to be the only emotion capable of generating recurring happiness.

Moreover, he argues that because unconditional love occurs inexplicably, we don’t expect anything of our beloved—rather, we’re simply happy to be in their presence. This lack of expectations precludes the possibility of disappointment and thus paves the path toward lasting happiness.

(Shortform note: Contrary to Gawdat’s claim, some experts argue that expectations are necessary in romantic relationships. For instance, they suggest that you should expect respect, compassion, and generosity from your partner. Otherwise, you might end up in a relationship where your own acts of love aren’t reciprocated, creating a dangerous power imbalance.)

How to Love Unconditionally

Gawdat offers the following strategies for cultivating unconditional love:

• See past the masks that others wear, and you’ll find that even the most outwardly detestable individuals are lovable.
• Treat yourself with the gentleness and warmth that you afford those you love. By loving yourself better, you’ll learn to love others better.
• Give freely without expecting anything in return. Giving to others will cultivate unconditional love toward them.

(Shortform note: Some experts argue that unconditional love is a chimera and that loving relationships require us to make sacrifices and provide gifts for our beloved. If we refuse to compromise and give gifts, they argue that even the most promising love will fade.)

Pillar 4: The Impermanence of Death

Gawdat’s fourth pillar complements his earlier claim that, rather than being identical to our physical bodies, we’re actually immaterial beings observing the physical world. Because we’re immaterial, Gawdat argues that the death of our bodies does not end our lives; death is impermanent. (Shortform note: Although Gawdat’s description of immaterial beings could be likened to a soul, he doesn’t use the word “soul”—or any other term that has particularly religious connotations—instead using terms like non-physical “observers.” We’ll follow suit and refrain from using the term “soul.”)

To defend this pillar, Gawdat first cites the double-slit experiment in quantum physics, in which subatomic particles are fired at a wall with two parallel slits in it. When a single particle is shot, it passes through both slits at once, thus ceasing to be a single particle. Rather, it becomes a probability wave function—basically, a wave capable of passing through both slits simultaneously. The wave only reverts back to a single particle, passing through one slit, when we observe it. The implication, Gawdat asserts, is that the physical world only exists when it’s observed.

(Shortform note: Although Gawdat claims the double-slit experiment reveals that the physical world only exists when it’s observed, Bohmian mechanics dictates that the particle’s path is predetermined, despite initial appearances to the contrary. According to this interpretation, human observation only appears to cause the particle to pass through one slit or the other because we don’t understand the underlying mechanisms governing the quantum level—the scale of atomic and subatomic particles. Thus, Bohmian mechanics dictates that events at the quantum level proceed independently of observation.)

Gawdat also appeals to the Big Bang theory, which holds that the universe expanded rapidly from a hyper-dense mass to create the universe as we know it today. Because the Big Bang theory implies the universe had a beginning, while the double-slit experiment implies the universe could only exist if it were observed, Gawdat reasons that life must have preceded the Big Bang to observe it unfolding.

(Shortform note: Gawdat’s claim that life exists independently of the physical universe, and sustains it via observation, is tantamount to philosophical idealism, the view that consciousness is the foundation of reality. The progenitor of this view, George Berkeley, famously argued that esse is percipi—to be is to be perceived. And although his view was traditionally accompanied by belief in God, who sustained the entire universe by perceiving it, contemporary philosophers have likewise defended an atheistic account of idealism.)

Finally, because Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that our perception of time is illusory, Gawdat argues that life must exist outside of time, in four-dimensional spacetime. So, although birth and death appear to mark the beginning and end of our life, we actually transcend time. Death, therefore, simply returns us to our home outside of time.

By recognizing that the physical world is temporary and death is impermanent, we can shape our perceptions to better align with the happiness formula. For example, we’ll no longer view death as a fearful process, but rather as a return to our natural, timeless state.

(Shortform note: In Happy, Derren Brown proposes a different approach to death. Because he assumes that death is permanent, Brown instead argues that happiness requires us to accept death and face it head-on. In particular, he suggests that by decreasing our attachment to the future, we can alleviate our fear of death and become happy. Thus, unlike Gawdat, Brown doesn’t rely on the alleged impermanence of death to cultivate happiness.)

Pillar 5: The Undeniability of Design

Closely related to the impermanence of death is Gawdat’s final pillar: There is an intelligent designer who created the universe, and there’s abundant mathematical evidence for his existence. (Shortform note: Gawdat doesn’t use the term “God,” as he doesn’t want to commit to the theological implications of any particular religion. We’ll follow suit and simply refer to a “designer” instead.)

To defend this final pillar, Gawdat argues that the alternative—materialism—is wildly improbable. According to materialism, a series of random events eventually sparked biological life, which in turn created us via natural selection—the process by which genes contributing to our survival are passed down to future generations. Since materialism is cast as the only viable alternative to intelligent design, Gawdat notes that showing it to be very improbable is tantamount to showing intelligent design to be very probable.

(Shortform note: Gawdat argues that materialism is improbable, but he concedes that it’s at least possible. However, philosopher John Locke held that materialism is outright impossible, because it’s inconceivable for consciousness to arise from unconscious, material objects. Indeed, some materialist philosophers feel the weight of this objection, leading them to endorse eliminative materialism—the view that because materialism is true, consciousness is an illusion.)

Gawdat’s argument against materialism operates via analogy. He asks us to imagine a monkey with a typewriter, whose task is to type the sentence, “This short sentence can be produced with random keystrokes.” Because the monkey can’t type, it randomly hits different keys until the sentence arises fortuitously. Assuming there are 27 keys (26 letters plus the space bar), the odds of the monkey typing that 56-character sentence by chance are 1 in 56²⁶, or 2.84 x 10⁴⁵—that’s 10 followed by 45 zeroes. Effectively, then, the probability that the monkey randomly types the sentence is zero.

However, Gawdat notes that the complexity of the entire universe vastly outstrips the complexity of a 56-character sentence. But, according to materialism, the entire universe arose via randomness, just like the monkey randomly bashing the typewriter. But, if we wouldn’t believe the monkey typed the 56-character sentence by sheer chance, Gawdat concludes that it’d be exponentially more foolish to believe that the entire universe developed by sheer chance.

(Shortform note: Many evolutionary biologists argue that, because we can determine which genes are most likely to be passed down, natural selection isn’t a random process. For instance, we know that genes which increase intelligence and strength are more likely to be passed down than those which impede brain and muscle development. Consequently, the analogy that Gawdat depends on—that of a monkey randomly bashing keys on a typewriter—is flawed.)

So, Gawdat rests his case by noting that the wild improbability of materialism makes the alternative—intelligent design—immensely likely. When we recognize this final pillar, that the universe has an intelligent designer, we can achieve lasting happiness by realizing that we’re all part of a beautiful design beyond our comprehension.

The Fine-Tuning Argument for Theism

Recent discoveries in physics have fueled a similar argument to Gawdat’s, called the fine-tuning argument for a designer. In particular, most physicists concur that our universe couldn’t have sustained life if certain cosmological constants—arbitrary values in the laws of physics—were any different. For instance, John Leslie observes in Universes that if electromagnetism were any weaker, stars would have been too cold to sustain biological evolution. Likewise, were gravity any stronger, galaxies would have been incapable of forming in the first place.

Moreover, because these constants could have been different, many physicists have concluded that our universe is precisely “fine-tuned” for life. Consequently, philosophers and theologians have argued that this fine-tuning constitutes evidence for a designer. Since these finely tuned constants are statistically improbable if they arose via random chance, they argue that fine-tuning constitutes powerful statistical evidence for design.

However, others have argued that fine-tuning provides equally viable evidence for the multiverse hypothesis—the view that our universe is only one of infinitely many universes. According to the multiverse hypothesis, it’s unsurprising that some universes are fine-tuned for life, because of the sheer number of different universes. So, the fine-tuning argument could favor either the design or multiverse hypothesis.