Yesterday
I began a discussion on the philosophy of the great question. Not
the question we are still searching for thanks to Douglas Adams, that
which has an answer of 42, but the question “Does Life Have
Meaning?”.
I began a discussion on the philosophy of the great question. Not
the question we are still searching for thanks to Douglas Adams, that
which has an answer of 42, but the question “Does Life Have
Meaning?”.
I
argue that ultimately there are two answers. No, Life has no
intrinsic meaning, that all meaning is derived by the individual, and
Yes, Life does have meaning, though to what end is unknown.
argue that ultimately there are two answers. No, Life has no
intrinsic meaning, that all meaning is derived by the individual, and
Yes, Life does have meaning, though to what end is unknown.
As
I discussed yesterday Materialism, places no direct meaning, no
direct value on life in it of itself. While indeed individual
Materialists can in fact create a value for life, and ascribe that
value above all others the school of thought left by Materialism in
fact does not require this and for that reason we have seen massive
failings due to the teachings of Materialism.
I discussed yesterday Materialism, places no direct meaning, no
direct value on life in it of itself. While indeed individual
Materialists can in fact create a value for life, and ascribe that
value above all others the school of thought left by Materialism in
fact does not require this and for that reason we have seen massive
failings due to the teachings of Materialism.
Today
I am exploring the second answer. The Yes answer. As I had stated
yesterday simply saying yes does not mean there is a traditional God
in the sense of YHWH derived from the western religions, just simply
that there must be a creator. Let us call this Deism, as Theism is
largely attributed to the Judeo Christian thinking and in this case
we are examining the mere concept of a creator and not the image of
nor the teachings of that creator.
I am exploring the second answer. The Yes answer. As I had stated
yesterday simply saying yes does not mean there is a traditional God
in the sense of YHWH derived from the western religions, just simply
that there must be a creator. Let us call this Deism, as Theism is
largely attributed to the Judeo Christian thinking and in this case
we are examining the mere concept of a creator and not the image of
nor the teachings of that creator.
We
exist, against all odds there does in fact exist life on this planet.
The
laws of thermodynamics states that in much more precise terms
that you cannot create something from nothing. There are those who
will point to the fact we don’t know if the Universe is a Closed or
open system and therefore the laws simply do not apply prior to the
big bang. Yet in spite of the big bang or even our universe as an
open system this in fact does apply. Our understanding is limited
only to that of creation.
exist, against all odds there does in fact exist life on this planet.
The
laws of thermodynamics states that in much more precise terms
that you cannot create something from nothing. There are those who
will point to the fact we don’t know if the Universe is a Closed or
open system and therefore the laws simply do not apply prior to the
big bang. Yet in spite of the big bang or even our universe as an
open system this in fact does apply. Our understanding is limited
only to that of creation.
Without
an outside source: Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time, even life would not
exist. What exists does so because it in fact was created, not
necessarily in the sense of Intelligent Design, nor in the sense of
biblical creationism, but in the sense that it was set in motion by
something.
an outside source: Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time, even life would not
exist. What exists does so because it in fact was created, not
necessarily in the sense of Intelligent Design, nor in the sense of
biblical creationism, but in the sense that it was set in motion by
something.
In his book Unweaving
the Rainbow Richard Dawkins dissects the views of believers. He
argues that the wonder is not simply in the beauty of the rainbow,
but the beauty of how each facet of the rainbow comes to be. There
are those of the religious persuasion that would argue this dissects
the beauty, yet Dawkins is right. There is beauty in the very
intricacy of the rainbow. Every thing we have come to know about the
Universe, every detail, the ordered process, the fact we can truly
dissect the known universe using mathematics and reason speaks to the
undeniable truth there must be a creator. There are rules that bind
our universe in place, our very existence is only possible because of
our immutable laws of nature.
the Rainbow Richard Dawkins dissects the views of believers. He
argues that the wonder is not simply in the beauty of the rainbow,
but the beauty of how each facet of the rainbow comes to be. There
are those of the religious persuasion that would argue this dissects
the beauty, yet Dawkins is right. There is beauty in the very
intricacy of the rainbow. Every thing we have come to know about the
Universe, every detail, the ordered process, the fact we can truly
dissect the known universe using mathematics and reason speaks to the
undeniable truth there must be a creator. There are rules that bind
our universe in place, our very existence is only possible because of
our immutable laws of nature.
It brings back the very
point of the why. The question does life have meaning. We can
easily deduce that life, existence, matter, these things were all
created. Even the most staunchest of Materialists cannot in his
heart of hearts deny this simple logic, though they will
unaccountably deny that life itself has meaning beyond their own
given one.
point of the why. The question does life have meaning. We can
easily deduce that life, existence, matter, these things were all
created. Even the most staunchest of Materialists cannot in his
heart of hearts deny this simple logic, though they will
unaccountably deny that life itself has meaning beyond their own
given one.
Lets say however that life
does have meaning. We have deduced there is a creator, or a series
of them, but where does this leave us? If life does in fact have
meaning, then life itself is the highest single authority when it
comes to conflicting interests. Even without knowing the meaning or
the purpose of life, we can deduce that since life was created with a
purpose in mind, the value of life is higher than conflicting values
that come down the line.
does have meaning. We have deduced there is a creator, or a series
of them, but where does this leave us? If life does in fact have
meaning, then life itself is the highest single authority when it
comes to conflicting interests. Even without knowing the meaning or
the purpose of life, we can deduce that since life was created with a
purpose in mind, the value of life is higher than conflicting values
that come down the line.
This of course means that,
Abortion, Suicide, and Murder are both in conflict with the purpose
of creation. Even in situations of extreme pain, or horrible
hardship, the elimination of life is in direct conflict with its
purpose and as the purpose of life is on a higher order we can at a
minimum immediately eliminate the options of Murder, Abortion, and
Suicide as wrong.
Abortion, Suicide, and Murder are both in conflict with the purpose
of creation. Even in situations of extreme pain, or horrible
hardship, the elimination of life is in direct conflict with its
purpose and as the purpose of life is on a higher order we can at a
minimum immediately eliminate the options of Murder, Abortion, and
Suicide as wrong.
What about War? What about
killing in self defense? These are both in conflict with life, so
what about them? In both cases the individual or individuals
involved are faced with the loss of their own life’s purpose, is
their life any more or less valuable than the aggressor? In truth
and in weight of question of course not, their lives would be
considered equal, yet we do not punish the victim who survives nor do
we punish the Warrior. This is because the just warrior, lays down
his life for the sake of others, just as the victim who survives had
her life laid before her by a perpetrator with no respect for life’s
meaning.
killing in self defense? These are both in conflict with life, so
what about them? In both cases the individual or individuals
involved are faced with the loss of their own life’s purpose, is
their life any more or less valuable than the aggressor? In truth
and in weight of question of course not, their lives would be
considered equal, yet we do not punish the victim who survives nor do
we punish the Warrior. This is because the just warrior, lays down
his life for the sake of others, just as the victim who survives had
her life laid before her by a perpetrator with no respect for life’s
meaning.
The very Simplest of
deductions tells us that life has meaning, because of this we know
there is a creator. The absence of meaning, the absence of a creator
takes us down a road of utter relativism. A world with absolutely no
moral ground work. There is no true universal moral framework that
can be achieved via Materialism.
deductions tells us that life has meaning, because of this we know
there is a creator. The absence of meaning, the absence of a creator
takes us down a road of utter relativism. A world with absolutely no
moral ground work. There is no true universal moral framework that
can be achieved via Materialism.
In recent times there has
been a mantra that religion is the opiate of the masses. There has
been the saying that religion is for the weak, the weak minded and
the weak of heart. In truth however it is the opposite. There will
be no common ground ever found in materialism. Every new discovery,
every new fact drums up a new set of values, a new set of judgments
for us to come to our own individual conclusions and ultimately our
own individual meanings.
been a mantra that religion is the opiate of the masses. There has
been the saying that religion is for the weak, the weak minded and
the weak of heart. In truth however it is the opposite. There will
be no common ground ever found in materialism. Every new discovery,
every new fact drums up a new set of values, a new set of judgments
for us to come to our own individual conclusions and ultimately our
own individual meanings.
We cannot build a society
upon relativism. In such a world what is good for one is not good
for another, in such a society the individual is always what matters
ultimately first. This is not to say that we cannot place value on
an individual. It does say that materialism in its truest sense
leaves no room for anything before the individual, even materialism
curtailed around the edges creates massive swathes of moral gray area
that will bend according to the times rather than bend the times back
to morality.
upon relativism. In such a world what is good for one is not good
for another, in such a society the individual is always what matters
ultimately first. This is not to say that we cannot place value on
an individual. It does say that materialism in its truest sense
leaves no room for anything before the individual, even materialism
curtailed around the edges creates massive swathes of moral gray area
that will bend according to the times rather than bend the times back
to morality.
Intelligent societies if
they desire to thrive must therefore recognize a purpose and creator
if for no other reason than to structure a lasting morality that
transcends time. Without such purpose and creator society begins to devalue the very most basic of things “life” and descends ever
gradually into an abyss of relativism. Therefore Deism at a minimum is required for a society to exist. It should come as no small wonder that the founders of the United States with whatever doubts they may have had with Christianity were in fact all Deists. The very concept of inalienable rights was forged from the premise there is a purpose to life and a creator behind that purpose.
they desire to thrive must therefore recognize a purpose and creator
if for no other reason than to structure a lasting morality that
transcends time. Without such purpose and creator society begins to devalue the very most basic of things “life” and descends ever
gradually into an abyss of relativism. Therefore Deism at a minimum is required for a society to exist. It should come as no small wonder that the founders of the United States with whatever doubts they may have had with Christianity were in fact all Deists. The very concept of inalienable rights was forged from the premise there is a purpose to life and a creator behind that purpose.
