Life and Meaning

The basic question of any science, religion or philosophy should be this:  does life have any purpose?  More largely, the question is one between a meaningful existence, or one that has no meaning.

 

If the answer is null, then no further questions need be asked.  For, if life is only a momentary phenomenon, a brief flicker of chemical reactions that will soon result in—for the individual—eternal oblivion, then existence itself becomes a moot point.  Once one establishes that his life is nothing more than an ephemeral phenomenon, then he is simply waiting to die, filling what few moments remain, with whatever meaning he might concoct, pretending that his further existence is somehow justified.

 

That assessment is both abysmal and cruel, but it is the assessment the individual may choose to impose upon himself.  Many do.  It has been said that if people were to seriously consider how very brief life is, and that its end is inevitable, they would go mad.  For, what is more maddening than ultimate futility?

 

True, it matters not whether such an assessment is abysmal or not, but only whether it is true—but before discarding the alternative hypothesis that life is meaningful—eternally so—is it not advisable to carefully consider whether that alternative might be factual, and whether the abysmal assessment might be not only incorrect, but catastrophically wrong?

 

Unfortunately, man’s best efforts to verify that nature is more than atoms and forces, and various arrangements of them, including humans—those best efforts have failed.  No God has been found by human means, neither a soul, nor an afterlife.  Even the famed Mother Teresa, as she neared her own death, remarked (I paraphrase) that she stood at the edge of an abyss, beyond which lies only darkness.

 

The only basis for belief in God is faith.  Those of a scientific mind, whose basis is disciplined reason, meticulously applied to physical evidence, governed by mathematics—those people tend to scoff at the very notion of faith.  One might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.  Worse yet, destructive religious wars had been blamed on the faith men placed in unscientific beliefs.

 

Absent physical proof, why should physicists have any faith in any God?

 

There are two answers to this question.  One of them was eloquently delivered by the late (and renowned) Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895 – 1979).  He wrote:

 

The great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by Revelation.  Reason can however, once in possession of these truths, offer persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to reason, or destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and the perfection of all that is best in human nature. [1]

In other words, since humans are inherently incapable of discerning eternal truths on their own intellectual power, they should examine religious teachings, and discern whether, by applying them, they advance their ability to conduct science, and to conduct their own personal affairs in life.

 

The second answer is given by scientists themselves, and in some ways, is not so different than that offered by the Bishop.  Scientists may dislike calling it faith, so instead they have adopted a physicalist paradigm, one that asserts that nature is orderly, coherent, and perfectly organized according to immutable natural law.  The origin of that order is not explained—it is taken on faith.  Without that paradigm, science could not operate.  Accepting it enables scientists to proceed.

 

The difference is that the physicalist paradigm avers that everything in nature can be explained by, and only by, other things in physical nature, and that no other explanations are needed.

 

This application of the physicalist paradigm, however, has numerous flaws.

 

Whether intentionally or not, it discards the idea that life—indeed, the universe itself—is meaningful.  It relegates these questions to philosophy.  If it went only that far, we might accept the separation of science and faith—but it goes farther.  Many in the institutions of science are openly hostile to religious faith.  Indeed, at least one professor openly sought to prevent science students who were believers, from entering graduate schools.  Others were undoubtedly not so open, but probably equally effective.

 

In the final analysis, we must address the important questions, such as this one:  if humans are nothing more than arrangements of atoms, then by what physicalist principle should we be treated as anything more than that?  What physicalist principles endow us with rights—and responsibilities?

 

“. . . the perfection of all that is best in human nature. . .” is not to be found in the physicalist paradigm.  We must seek for it elsewhere.  Where better to start, then, than to turn to revealed, divine wisdom?  If it is not there, then where is it?

---

[1] The Life of all Living; Garden City Books reprint edition 1951; copyright 1929 by The Century Company, printed in the United States at The Country Life Press, Garden City, N.Y.