Life is just nature’s way of
keeping meat fresh.
- Dr. Who, 2005.
Essay 1 examined the Christian House of God and found
its model for the meaning of life, and its god – incredible. Having found that,
must I necessarily believe there is no special meaning to life, and no God? Must
I necessarily agree with Dr. Who that “life is just nature’s way of keeping
meat fresh”?
In a word – no.
THE DEATH OF GOD?
Many believe that to demolish religion’s god is to
demolish God. This belief is inherent in Nietzsche’s statement: “God is dead,
and we have killed him”. This statement was one of the grand iconoclastic
statements of the 19th century rationalist movement known as the
Enlightenment and, after Nietzsche, atheists lined up to dance a jig on the
supposed grave of God. But what if they have been dancing on the wrong grave –
and empty anyway?
Nietzsche had not explored for any and every rational
“G” God and been able to kill them off – he had only disposed of the primitive
Judeo/Christian “g” god dreamt up by our pre-scientific ancestors around their
desert campfires. Is it enough to dispatch religion’s god to be able to declare
the death of God, is it enough to demolish religions’ meaning of life to be
able to declare the end of special meaning? Does the end of a widely-held “t”
truth spell the end of “T” Truth?
DISBELIEF NOW THE DEFAULT SETTING FOR HUMANITY
Many believed so and disbelief became established – a
way of thinking, a belief system – an “H” House. Disbelief quickly became the
default setting for the vast majority of educated humanity and belief in a God,
special meaning, and ultimate purpose had to be justified.
THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF
Is disbelief an “H” House?
It appears so – sharing many of the characteristics
of the House of God. It has its own bible: The Origin of Species; it has its
own saints: Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Darwin, Bentham, Marx, Bertrand Russell,
Freud, Sartre; it even has its own zealots: Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Phillip
Adams; Christopher Hitchens. It has incredible doctrines: humans can be totally
described in terms of our animal bodies; the spiritual does not exist – being
merely animal emotions; free will does not exist – all behaviour is causally
driven by “selfish genes” (Dawkins);
all is matter – we are just “a hunk of
matter, a very lucky meat puppet” (Pinker). And it has dogmas: existence is
an accident; the universe not only started accidentally, but proceeded
mechanistically; even life is just a spontaneous consequence of an accident.
Many of the residents of the House of Disbelief even display
the characteristics of fundamentalists. Fear and loathing are common when their
doctrine and dogma are challenged. This is behaviour of people whose comfort
has been disturbed. It must never be forgotten that “D” Disbelief has its
comforts – no right or wrong means no guilt; no God means no judgement; no
judgement means no eternal punishment; no heaven means no hell either. We saw
in Essay 1 that the denizens of the House of God were seeking comfort rather
than the Truth – are the denizens of the House of Disbelief similarly engaged?
THE SOUNDNESS OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF?
We found the Biblical fabric of the House of God to
be unsound – perhaps the fabric of the House of Disbelief should be examined
for soundness, and if found wanting maybe its certificate of occupancy should
be revoked to protect the poor souls within? Protect them from what? From the
loss of the opportunity a more spiritually informed life may bring. From the
greater enjoyment of our physical world a raised consciousness offers. These
ideas will be more closely examined in Essay 3 – here let’s examine the
philosophical soundness of the House of Disbelief.
The House of Disbelief has rarely been identified,
let alone subjected to examination. As we did with the House of God, let’s
first consider the fabric of the disbelievers’ House. What exactly is the “fabric”
of the House of Disbelief?
The foundations of the House of Disbelief are our
scientific discoveries. Based on sound scientific method, these are solid
foundations – we prove the “T” Truths of our sciences by successfully its
products many times every day. But what about the philosophical beliefs which
are built upon these scientific foundations – the pillars of the House of
Disbelief – are they sound?
What are these beliefs, these pillars?
THE PILLARS OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF
There is no God, and life has no special meaning or
ultimate purpose because of
Let’s examine these pillars one by one.
The first few pillars fall mainly into the category
broadly known as: “The Problem of Evil”. The perceived existence of evil is a
major driver of Disbelief – having accounted for the greatest number of those who
have lost belief in God, special meaning and/or purpose in life and now inhabit
the House of Disbelief.
People see evil in many aspects of life. They see evils
in the physical forces of nature, in how evolution works, in the deeds of
humanity, even in God. These evils are taken as proof of the non-existence of
God (or for the evilness of any God) and for the non-existence of any meaning
and purpose to our existence. That is, special meaning and ultimate purpose –
as opposed to personal meaning and animal purpose. While the first few of the
following pillars fall under the one umbrella of the Problem of Evil, they have
enough points of difference to need examination as separate pillars of the House
of Disbelief.
The Oxford
Dictionary of Philosophy states the problem of evil to be : “the problem of
reconciling the imperfect world with the goodness of God.” There are two
main points here: firstly the idea that the world is “imperfect”, and secondly what
must constitute “goodness” in God. Let’s first examine the contention that the
world is imperfect.
The world is
certainly not heaven – it only occasionally resembles the Elysium fields of paradisiacal
myth. All things are definitely not as the hymn-book would have it – “bright
and beautiful” – the natural world is more, as Shakespeare noted: “red of tooth
and claw”. And its dangers occur randomly – making our world seem capricious. Does
this make the natural world, then, imperfect (and therefore necessarily
meaningless)?
Some think so. Some
go further – if it has any intent at all – it is evil :
“But if intent be truly manifest, then
what can we make of our universe – for the scene is evil by any standard of
human morality.”
-
“Rocks
of Ages”, Stephen Jay Gould. (Pp.205-206)
We are killed by nature’s often majestic and
beautiful creatures: sharks, bears, lions, and hippopotami; some of us by
creatures less majestic: spiders, viruses and bacteria; and some people die by
simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time – in earthquakes, storms, fires,
floods, tidal waves etc. Do the natural world’s dangers establish its imperfection
– and prove it to be meaninglessness?
Must existence be in a safe paradise for it to have
special meaning, credible ultimate purpose – for God to be “good” – and/or exist?
No.
It can be argued credibly that the thrills and
challenges presented by this world’s dangers, give a life in it more meaning –
ask any mountaineer, flier, surfer, diver, skier, sailor, walker, bike-rider,
or traveller. Most people, would say a meaningful life needs to involve some
risk, some challenge, some excitement, some adventure – therefore necessarily contain
some danger. Those who think the purpose of life is just about physical
survival are on an ultimately futile quest – all lives must come to an end. We
are informed in Eliot’s The Hollow Men
that life can end with “a bang or a whimper”. Does an end with a whimper give
more meaning to life? Why then should an end with a bang remove it?
What sort of special meaning could this dangerous natural
world have, what sort of ultimate purpose could it fulfill?
Life, in the words of theoretical physicist Paul
Davies, seems “programmed to make interesting things happen” – to be creative. Maybe
this imperfect world is actually perfect for certain meaningful and purposeful things?
Maybe paradise would be meaningless – only acquiring meaning (and perfection) because
of this world? After all, only relativity can be creative – the absolute is
absolute. If life were just a safe ride through an absolute “all things bright
and beautiful” theme park it would be just an experience, not a creative
opportunity. Such a heavenly experience could create nothing, whereas the
relative world with its dramas and tragedies forces our creativity.
Why?
To approach more closely the “whys?” of our existence
in a creative world we need to approach more closely “what” is being created.
THE CREATIVITY OF
RELATIVITY
Many things are
being created. And the alleged imperfections of this relative world are as
creative as its beauties. Its sadnesses are as productive as its joys; its dangerous
thrills as much as its peaceful delights. Life’s existential angsts have produced
some of our greatest art: music, literature, painting, drama, dance, film etc. In
other words, the very things – the “evils” – which stop the world from being paradise,
what some people would call “perfect”, have been amazingly creative – of art, but
also of something else even more amazing. We are not all artists, but there is
something else we all create – our selves.
Our selves?
The
self/soul/spirit – call it what you will – as opposed to the body (which is
being naturally created).
How do we create
our selves?
The relative
world allows here and there; now and then; you and me; and good, better, best.
This world, not being absolute, is random rather than regimented, neutral rather
than partial – allowing whoever is in the right or wrong place at any time to
be exposed to the thrills and the spills of its forces; to the dangers and
delights of its beauties. The experience of these dangers and delights which we
will all have over a life are perfect for revealing the self as it truly is (as
are a host of other less spectacular, more personal experiences). If the self
is revealed, it is available to be known. “Know Thyself” is ancient wisdom – appearing
over the doorway to the Delphic Oracle, and received by many civilisations.
Why is it wisdom?
Self knowledge is
the gateway to human happiness. If we come to know the true self and find we are
unhappy with the self that life has revealed, we can grow/evolve the self until
we are happy with our selves – until we can love who we have become. Self-loathing,
on the other hand, leads invariably to unhappiness. I will examine human
happiness and the implications it has for our natures more thoroughly in Essay
3 – here we note humans are uniquely driven to be happy (other animals are just
driven to be) and this drive to be happy leads us to know and grow the self –
spiritual evolution.
So – life is
perfect for being the self, knowing the self, and growing the self. This leads
to other questions which we will examine later, here, for the purposes of the
examination of this (imperfection of the world) pillar of the House of
Disbelief, we can say that what makes our relative world “imperfect” (as an
absolute heaven) just happens to make it work perfectly for meaningful creative
and spiritual purposes.
And the “goodness”
of God thus needs no reconciliation with it.
Now there is one
obvious problem to the above observation that life works perfectly just as it
is for the creation/evolution of self. That problem is the fact that life is
not a flat playing field – our experiences of it can be wildly different – more
or less of an opportunity for some than others. Sickness and injury can limit
our opportunity for growth – and an early death can reduce it to zero.
Many have lost
any meaning of life to this one – including
That we can only
have one life is the sole doctrine both our “H” Houses (of God and of
Disbelief) can agree on – enough to make you suspicious straight away? The
House of God believes that life is a once-only chance given to a string of
newly-manufactured souls for the purpose of achieving eternal life in either
heaven or hell. All other Biblical speculations on the universe have been
proven incorrect – why must this one be correct? The assertion of one life is
necessary to the House of God’s power over humanity – if you only have one go
at life, you had better come to us because we have influence over God and be
instrumental in where you end up for eternity.
The speculation
that we have only one life is equally important doctrine for the House of
Disbelief – having recruited many of its inhabitants. Apart from the anger and
pain from loss, if we have only one life any “character-building” or
self-evolution hypotheses is dismissed at a stroke.
But that we
only have one life is a speculation not supported by a scintilla of evidence –
and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The evidence is of varying
quality – but enough of good quality to support a rational belief on the
balance of probabilities that we have many lives in a relative world. Some have
evidence for believing more strongly in more than one life because of personal
experiences – although not having such an experience myself I have one related
to me by a very reliable friend – leaving him convinced beyond reasonable doubt
that we have more than one life. David Fontana’s book (“Is There An Afterlife?”) is also worth reading here.
I will examine
this issue later – suffice it here to observe that the fact that we find the
spiritual self, once, with/in an animal body is only proof of one thing – that
it can happen, not that it must never happen again. Of course this presumes
that the human condition is accurately described as a spiritual being with/in
an animal body – a proposition I shall examine frequently in Essay 3.
As well as
disbelief brought on by early deaths, a similar meaninglessness can be brought
on by the fact of handicapping diseases and injuries. Anyone’s sense of meaning
is shaken after witnessing people struggling with terrible sickness and injury.
This loss of meaning is answered by a belief in more than one life, but there
are some other aspects as well.
DISEASE AND INJURY
Last night on TV I saw a program about children and
adults with the disfiguring Treacher-Collins Syndrome. I also have in my hand a
magazine article about a woman with a type of severely distorting muscular
dystrophy-type disease who is severely crippled in a wheelchair. Such handicaps
make any purpose or Divine difficult to see. Meaninglessness is a short stumble
away.
But we need to look more closely at the lives of the
people I am talking about. One of the people affected by the disease on the TV
program last night was successfully studying to be a doctor, the other in the
wheelchair from the magazine article is a successful barrister. I have read
also an inspiring book recently made into a film (The Butterfly in the Diving Bell) written by a man who could only
move one eyelid as a result of a stroke. And we all know about the achievements
of Stephen Hawking. These people are as inspiring as any Olympic champion.
Also we need to consider what sort of life allows
greater spiritual growth: a “disadvantaged” one, or the life of an “advantaged”
person? Consider the plethora of “beautiful” people parading daily through our
newspapers and glossy magazines – why so many drugs, unhappy faces, and
problems – if life is just about our animal bodies – they have all the
physical, animal advantages? In my own personal experience, some of the most
spiritually stunted people I have ever met have been “lucky” – physically
beautiful, pampered by parents, and/or financially endowed. Why is the word
“spoiled” universally used of such people?
There is much heroism in a life of physical
challenge, many victories others will never know – many opportunities for
growth of self – and special meaning in life is not demolished. We are not our
bodies – we are our selves.
KARMA
Some feel they have disposed of the problem of
seemingly random deformities, accidents and sickness by ascribing to the
Buddhist notion of Karma (the notion that nothing is random – all things happen
to us for some reason, usually to do with working out problems and/or pay-backs
associated with present or past lives – what goes around, comes around). This
is perhaps an all-too-easy answer, an idea that allows us to turn a blind eye to
the struggles of others. The struggles of others also let’s us know if we are
compassionate, caring, and loving.
Another pillar of
the House of Disbelief under the category of the problem of evil, is the
failure of any God to meet religions’ definition of “Him”.
Religion defines God
as: omnipresent; omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent. The fact of evil, then
presents a difficulty for the existence of this God. A good example of this
sort of reasoning is Philosopher Stephen Law – who describes this problem of
evil as: “the most damning difficulty”
– against the existence of God, because God must have: “supreme benevolence” (p.72, The Philosophy Gym).
The House of
Disbelief likes religions’ above definition of God because it is so easily
demolished – allowing the claim that “G” God is dead. But the question raised
is: what makes for benevolence in God? Is not the parent who allows a child to
learn from life’s difficulties by experiencing them, more truly benevolent –
and that child’s life more truly meaningful?
Law’s necessary
qualities of God, like the
Philosophy keeps
returning forever to the notion that for life to have special meaning it must
be an eternal safe theme park patrolled by an intervening God/lifeguard. What
would such a life achieve, create?
Surely such a god
as religions’ omniscient, omnipotent, ominbenevolent one would reduce existence
to meaninglessness. The problem of evil is really a problem of our idea of God,
a problem of our idea of what is meaningful, a problem of our idea of what
would give life purpose. The examination of life reveals that there is no
evidence for a God like religions’ – but equally no evidence for no God.
Among the
evidence the House of Disbelief cherishes for the non-existence of the
Judeo/Christian god is the fact that bad things can often happen to good,
god-fearing people – and good things can often happen to bad, atheist people. This
is the conundrum presented in the Old Testament Book of Job. Job was a good,
god-fearing and god-obeying person, yet a string of misfortunes befell him. This
fact that fortune and misfortune are indiscriminate – that the universe is
indifferent to your self – totally random and neutral, is sufficient evidence
for many people to reside under it as a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief.
When people lose God and meaning because bad things are
happening to good people and good things happening to bad people, they are
saying in effect that for life to have meaning it should be, at one and the
same time, heaven for good people and hell for bad people – to have a
metaphysical override. Observing this override it would not take everybody long
to be “good”, and nobody bad. If this were to happen, life’s meaningful
opportunities would be removed and life
would definitely become a meaningless ride through a theme park (as discussed
above). Again, it would in fact be heaven, not life, and life’s amazing
creativity would be lost – especially its ability to be, know, and grow – to
create/evolve the self. Relativity drives creativity through evolution.
Evolution is the result of natural selection and unnatural selection (choices) between
the differences that relativity allows. Differences, random and not so random –
I will explore this idea more fully later
BEING ALIVE IS WINNING THE LOTTERY?
We constantly speak about having life as “winning the
lottery”, and we expect that this life should proceed as if it were some sort
of prize. When we find that it is a challenge, an opportunity – not a reward – we
lose faith in it having any meaning. But consider that bad times often bring
out the good in us (strength, courage, generosity, compassion, great art) and good
times most often bring out the bad in us (decadence, greed, laziness). If good
people were denied bad times they will also be denied the opportunity to find
out how good they can be – and if bad people were denied good times they will
be denied finding out how bad they can be.
STRIFE IS OFTEN VERY PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD
Great art and music often come from times of strife.
The 200 or so years of the Renaissance in
“Adversity
may be necessary for growth because it forces you to stop speeding along the
road of life, allowing you to notice the paths that were branching off all
along, and to think about where you want to really end up.”
-
Jonathan
Haidt (P.144 The Happiness Hypothesis).
Haidt backs his theory up by referring to several
studies. In summarising one of them – sociologist Glen Elder’s lengthy study in
this area – he says:
“We
can say, however, that for many people … adversity made them stronger, better,
and even happier than they would have been without it.”
- (ibid, P151 - referring to Elder 1974 & 1998.)
Life in the relative works creatively and immaculately
in its randomness – in its neutrality to “good” and “bad” people alike –
allowing anything to happen to anybody at any time. Who could rationally argue that
a “meaningful” life must be heaven – an experience that would deny people the
opportunity to be what they are capable of being, deny them of doing what they
are capable of doing – both good and bad. And coming to know what they have
done, and whether it makes them truly happy – are their choices to this point
who they really are?
If, on the other hand, the only meaning you can glean
from life is the fun and joy of living, consider that enjoyment is greatly
enhanced by “a little bit of the other” – by the struggles and dangers – all
holiday is no holiday. Sceptics who feel that a hedonistic theme park would be
in fact a delightful idea should read arch atheist, sceptic, and pessimist
Schopenhauer (“The World as Will and Representation”) and consider his analysis of sated desire as boredom, and his
assessment of boredom being the worst stress of all. Life’s randomness means
that it is never predictable and boring. The knowledge that “evil” in the shape
of sickness, injury, misadventure – even death – can occur to any of us (good
or bad) at any time gets us out of bed in the morning to enjoy life and to
achieve what we can while we can – it’s our driver.
Any God who interfered in this natural life to bring
only good to the good, bad to the bad, and fun to the stupid, would make a
boring nonsense of it. The fact that this does not happen is more evidence of
the existence of a God, rather than disproof of one.
Life is definitely not heaven. Time enough for
flopping about in the Elysium fields – eternity even?
The evil men do is
commonly called moral evil – murder, rape, torture, intimidation, theft etc. It is used as proof of the non-existence of
special meaning and/or the evil of humanity. But does evil in fact exist – as “a thing in itself” – an object, a need, a
possession of any individual? Maybe evil only refers to a state of absence of
something – not a presence?
How could this
be?
Let’s consider
the phenomena of cold. We have all experienced “cold”, we think that we can
“feel” cold when we touch something cold – but in fact we don’t feel cold we
just feel heat being conducted out through our skin – metal always feels colder
than wood at the same temperature because it is the better conductor. But cold
does not exist as a thing in itself – it’s just an absence of heat. In the
universe Absolute Zero (minus 273 degrees C.) cannot be attained – everything
has heat to some degree, nothing has “cold” as a thing in itself, just
relatively less heat than something else – usually us. Cold, then, does not
describe the existence of something, just an absence.
Like the word
“cold”, the word evil also describes a state of absence – an absence of love.
Love does exists as a thing in itself, and as a need – we seek it, we want it,
we need it, we give it, we get it, we know its presence, we feel its absence – it
exists. If we are ever to be happy, we must have it. But, why do we do deeds
that can be fairly described as “evil” – are we doing it to be evil, to know
evil, to feel evil?
To understand human
evil we need to understand the reasons why we commit deeds intended to cause
harm, deeds devoid of compassion, devoid of love for our fellows? Why do we
enter these behaviours – why do humans commit evil, what needs are we trying to
meet – is there perhaps a need for evil as there is for love?
No.
EVIL IS ALWAYS A
BY-PRODUCT OF SEEKING SOMETHING ELSE
Evil is, in fact,
only ever committed as a by-product of trying to achieve something else. For
example, evil is committed often for the getting of money, power, or fame. What
is the sponsoring need behind the getting of these things? Nietzsche would say
it’s humanity’s, basically evil, “will to power”. Darwinians would say it’s
about animal physical survival and genetic dominance. But I argue the getting
of money beyond enough to live, a house much grander than the needs of shelter
would dictate, a car flasher than the requirement of transport, power beyond
enough to survive, fame beyond enough to feel sufficient self esteem to mix
with our fellows – and all the evils which usually attend the getting of these
things to excess – are driven by both sides of the human equation – which is to
be a spiritual being with an animal body. The getting of fame, power, money,
stuff is as much about the spiritual part of the human equation as the animal –
as much about the human need for love/esteem/respect to achieve happiness, as the
drive to for the animal to survive.
As discussed
already (and to be discussed more fully in Essay 3) esteem from others enables
the self-love we need to be happy.
The bottom line
is this: evil may be done, but it is never the object, there was no “need” for
evil being met. Even seemingly gratuitous violence, and wanton cruelty is about
feeling superior to another – exerting power over another to feel good about
the self – usually perpetrated by bullies. Bullies are people who are animally
superior and confuse the body with the self, people who feel good about their
self through their physical superiority. Of course there can be intellectual
bullies too, people who feel superior to others by oppressing them mentally.
But, as I will argue in Essay 3, the mind is of the animal body – not the
self/soul/spirit.
But how about the
Holocaust?
Primo Levi said: “If
there is an
Rather than cease to believe in God and meaning in
life because some humans can do murderous, evil things we should rather be
afraid that God may cease to believe in us? But before we draw conclusions
about the human race, the existence of, and/or nature of, God or the
possibility of special meaning, it should always be remembered that the Nazis
were beaten by humans. Millions of innocent people risked and/or lost their
lives, their health, their sanity, their futures – under conditions of utmost
bravery and often lonely, unwitnessed heroism – so that bad should be beaten
and good prevail. To believe Levi is to forget that and them.
Lest we forget.
The majority of humanity was appalled by, and
rejected, the Holocaust. This fact reflects on the nature of humanity.
WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE OF HUMANITY?
I say the real nature of humanity is love. How do I
justify this? Many people emerged from the Second World War, and other wars,
with psychological damage. Why? It was as a result of the evil things they
witnessed, did themselves, or had done unto them – not one of them emerged with
this damage to the self (as opposed to body) because of missed opportunities to
do evil. Not one was damaged because of any good things they did or witnessed.
Witnessing good things do not damage humans, only witnessing bad things. Why? Because
it goes against some basic part of human nature to do, or witness, evil.
PROOF THAT WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS
Witnessing evil
does not damage the human animal body, but it is damaging to the human spirit/soul/self
– proof that as well as a body, we have a spirit – that we are spiritual beings
with animal bodies. Some would say that every bit of us is just animal and doing/witnessing
evil is only damaging to the psyche. But why would it damage our animal psyche
– attacking other animals is what animals do? Animals, other than humans, are
not psychologically damaged by tearing apart another animal (even a baby animal)
or witnessing other animals do it.
Some part of the
human equation is definitely animal. Humans sometimes do violent acts for
animal survival reasons – to protect our animal bodies and/or our families (our
genes). These are acts that another part of us sees as “evil”. The very idea of
evil is not an animal idea – it must come from another place – there is no
right or wrong, good or evil in nature. I say that evil, while repugnant to
most of us who have achieved some spiritual evolution, is not a “problem” for
the idea of God and special meaning at all – the fact that we despise a natural
animal act and call it evil is just more proof for the contention that the
human equation is best stated as a spiritual being with an animal body.
H(uman) =
A(nimal) + S(pirit).
Humans definitely
have animal bodies with animal needs and imperatives. These needs must be met
first because without the body there is no animal experience for the self in
this relative universe. But once the animal side of the human equation is satisfied,
the great human need is for love – especially of the self.
This is an area
of much dispute. That we are solely an animal, no better or worse than any
other – randomly evolved, in a spontaneous and accidental universe – is an
important pillar in the House of Disbelief. Let’s look more closely at my
contention that humans have an equally important spiritual side which is also
being driven to evolve by relativity.
·
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL The idea that we are
evolving spiritually is “a tasteless joke” – man is a wolf to man.
The arch-pessimist Schopenhauer described Hegel’s
idea about history as the record of man’s inexorable progression towards a
state of final perfection as being a tasteless joke. He also thought much the
same about the idea of a “God of love”. For Schopenhauer, history is simply the
repetition of the same dreary truths – life is suffering, it swings like a
pendulum between pain and boredom, man is a wolf to man – over and over again
(The World as Will and Representation Vol. 2 pp. 442-3).
Many modern philosophers believe Schopenhauer to be
correct – postmodern pessimism is well stated by philosopher Julian Young:
“The
idea of history as an inexorably rational progression towards utopia is a grand
and seductive idea. To the optimistic, self-confident nineteenth century it may
even have seemed true. But to us in bewildered postmodernity, us who live in
the shadow of the century of mega-crimes, the shadow of two world wars, of
Auschwitz, Stalin, Mao, Hiroshima, the Twin Towers and the poisoning of our
earth and sky, it is, I think, clearly – even obviously – false.”
(“The Death of God and the
Meaning of Life” P.77)
Grim stuff! But before we retreat into madness, or materialism,
or become religious fundamentalists for a little comfort (anything but endure
such hopelessness) let’s examine Young’s hopeless philosophy a little more
closely. The horrors and evils of the two world wars, I have argued above,
whilst they involved many evil acts, did not arise from any need in man to be evil
– but from a need to restore national pride – and through the restoration of
national pride, the restoration of self-pride, -respect, and -love.
There were elements of physical, Darwinian,
animal survival in the wars – firstly on the side of the German aggressors who
were seeking “lebensraum”, then on the side of those who were being attacked
and who retaliated in an effort to save their own lives, and to keep the
territory necessary for animal survival. But consider this: the majority of
those involved in evil acts on both sides in these (and other) wars have deep
marks on their conscious and unconscious selves about their actions even to
this day. The nightmares of returned soldiers are not those of missed
opportunities to kill and do evil, but come out of spiritual hurt caused by
evil perpetrated on them, or spiritual guilt for evil actions committed by
them. This phenomena has been seen more recently, and well catalogued, in the
psychological problems of
Most were drafted, but what of the soldier who
chooses to go? Those documentaries we see of soldiers going off to WW l & 2
laughing and smiling – what’s going on there? They have been fed false notions
of what war is, and what they are as soldiers. They have been influenced by
propaganda making them out to be brave heroes. They are genuinely happy because
they feel they are heroes – they are self-respecting, full of self-esteem. But then
the actuality of war proves to be different, and leaves only scars on man. We
see no propaganda pictures of the actuality: returned soldiers waking in the
middle of the night with nightmares as a result of his own brutal actions and
the brutal actions of others on him. Many soldiers find it hard or impossible
to return to society through guilt – where is Schopenhauer’s “wolf” in the wee
small hours?
No, humanity’s problem is not its inherent “wolfishness”
but just its inability to figure properly what works in its perpetual quest for
its greatest need after animal survival – happiness through self respect and
self-love. Man’s ideal of being the hero (which dwells within the breast of
every man) cries of the need to be loved, not the need to do/be “evil”. The
brave soldier marching off to war to the cheers and sobs of women, to
eventually return, bands playing – a bemedalled hero – is a universal male
dream. But, when the returning
Another example of shame when man behaves “like a
wolf” to fellow man is the amount of time it took for Germany to overcome the
national angst and shame resulting from the evils perpetrated by the Nazis in
the Second World War. For many it is still not overcome. Guilt and shame are
very damaging to humans – behaving like Schopenhauer’s “wolf” does not sit well
with humans – except in the case of a few who are pathologically disturbed. The
Japanese have also suffered shame for their actions in the War. It is
interesting that the younger generations seem to carry even more shame than the
perpetrating generations – evidence of spiritual evolution?
Julian Young, above, mentions Stalin and Mao as proof
of humanity’s evil nature. We have already considered fascism, but as great, or
greater, evils have been done throughout the world in the name of Marx's communist
“utopia”. Surely it was an example of man’s drive to prey, wolf-like, on his
fellow man, a proof of his evil? Many millions were killed – but was preying on
our fellow-man the idea – the need being met? It must be remembered that
communism arose as a reaction to the evils of the Tsarist regime, or of the
Chinese warlords. Marxist themes of equality and fraternity were not inspired
by any need for evil. Once again man set out to create a “heaven”, and once
again evil means were employed to achieve the greater end – and the process got
high-jacked by the usual psychopaths whose need for self-esteem was
pathological. When the majority realised that communism was not working, not only
not providing its promised utopia but, in fact, producing more evil than the
Tsarist regime and the feudal systems it was replacing, it was largely abandoned
– even though it involved massive loss of face to quite a few very proud
countries and individuals.
Communism’s cause started to collapse when a Russian
leader, Khrushchev, revealed the evils of Stalin’s reign. Many left communist
party membership throughout the world and communism slowly lost its power over
the hearts and minds of humanity. If humanity’s nature was evil, then
communism, when its true evil nature was revealed by Khrushchev, would have
attracted humans, not repelled them – it would have been even more tightly held
to the human bosom because it involved doing evil – rather than rejected. And
it must be remembered that, like fascism, communism was rejected and defeated by
humanity at great cost and bravery – not by some outside agency, some troops
from outer space which had to come and intervene against our evil natures.
Also consider war propaganda more closely. Rather
than appealing to man’s supposed evil nature when urging men to kill in war
(which should be easy if we’re evil), leaders have to create hate for the enemy
through propaganda. Why? To overcome man’s more natural state of love –
fellowship for a fellow human. Hate is the main tool used by cunning leaders to
enable the withdrawal of love, to enable separation from our fellow humans –
unity is our more normal state. We have to feel the “enemy” threatens our
physical survival and/or our self-respect – preferably both – to generate
enough hate to go out and kill them. Saying that this is an opportunity to do
evil to your fellow man will not work – it has never been used as a method to
drum up an army. The enemy has to be made out to be somehow alien to us.
It is very hard for a human to kill another human
face to face. When soldiers become too close to each other and realise their unity
and similarities rather than their separation, problems occur for their
leaders. Opposing troops in WW1 who climbed out of their trenches and joined together
in a celebration of Christmas in no-man’s land on a battleground in
How about Young’s example of Sept 11 – surely this
was pure evil – an example of man being “wolf to man”? What’s driving Arab
terrorism – the supposed 72 virgins in
For many Arabs, their religion is their greatest
source of self-respect, their only personal successes coming from their
membership of a successful religion – their country as having been taken away (by
Israel) or dominated (by America – or by other countries like Syria). This from Lebanese journalist and author Samir
Kassir:
“The
Arab people are haunted by a sense of powerlessness … powerlessness to suppress
the feeling that you are no more than a lowly pawn on the global chessboard
even as the game is being played in your backyard…It’s not pleasant being an
Arab these days. Feelings of persecution for some, self-hatred for others; a
deep disquiet pervades the Arab world.”
Samir Kassir (quoted from “The Arabs – a
history”, Eugene Rogan Pp. 5 & 3)
Membership of the Arab race is no longer a source of the
self-love humans need to be happy.
Does Young feel that Arabs go to the more violent,
fundamentalist practitioners who advocate world domination by the Islamic faith
because it appeals to their evil natures? It is much the same driver that
propels the violence associated with other groups whose only source of self
respect is the victories of their larger group or team. Soccer football hooligans
come from economically depressed groups whose only glimpse of fame and glory is
through their team – whose colours they wear to identify.
Although we can react violently when our animal
survival and/or self esteem is threatened, humanity is not by nature a wolf to
fellow humanity. And, contrary to the pessimist Schopenhauer, we do show many
signs of our spiritual evolution. Consider this from Professor Steven Pinker:
“In
the decade of Darfur and
“A History of Violence” – Steven Pinker
(Delivered at TED Conference,
I think it is fair to say that Pinker is a resident
of the House of Disbelief (one of his famous quotes being: “man is just a lucky
meat puppet”). While he does not exactly jump to the conclusion that we are
spiritually evolving he is puzzled by our improving behaviour towards each
other and other animals.
“Instead
of asking “Why is there war?” we might ask “Why is there peace?” From the
likelihood that states will commit genocide to the way people treat animals, we
must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what,
exactly, it is.” (ibid)
It is my observation that we are evolving spiritually
– although not fast as we are evolving technologically. Dangerously, we have
atomic weapons but only a primitive notion of God – and what “He” might want
from us. I will examine further the evidence for my assertion that we are
spiritually evolving in the next essay – and how we might go about accelerating
that evolution.
Many lose faith in the existence of God and/or
special meaning because of the evils of religion. Countless millions of people
have been, and many are still being, killed in conflicts caused, or intensified,
by religion. The September 11th terrorists had the name of a god on
their lips as they killed themselves and thousands of innocent people. Does
this disprove the existence of God or prove that God is evil?
No. Bad things done in the name of God are not done
by God. Religion is man’s invention. You can tell plenty about a person by the
religion they practice, but very little about God from that person’s god. The
fallibility or evilness of their “t” truths says nothing about the existence,
or nature of, the “T” Truth.
Religion is of man, not God. It is an attempt by
humans to take the power of God unto themselves. Once religions hold power, they
protect this power brutally. Nothing makes better evidence for this assertion
than the fate of William Tyndale. Tyndale was the first man to print the Bible
in English. He suffered a brutal and Godless death at the stake for doing so.
The main issue that lead to his brutal death was that by making the Bible
accessible to the English masses to read for themselves, he took away from the
Church its previously considerable power as sole reader and interpreter of the
“word of God”. A Bible people could read for themselves opened the Bible, and the
House built upon it, to criticism. The power of the House of God is founded on the
uncritical faith of the masses – this is the reason why it places faith first –
even declaring the seeking of knowledge about the “T” Truth of God a sin – our
“Original Sin” (eating from the tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden).
The fallibility of Church doctrine based on the Bible
was a problem the House of God had been aware of for some time. Previous to
Tyndale – in the age of Henry VIII:
“Thomas
More and John Fisher … reserved for themselves and men like them the luxury of
debating niceties of scripture, but in the prospect of ‘each one man to be
a church alone’ they saw the collapse of
all theological authority; a time when every man or woman, no matter how
ignorant, would be presumptuous enough to judge doctrine for themselves.
- Simon Schama, A History of Britain,
p.285
Galileo also ran afoul of the House of God for
proving the Bible’s cosmology wrong – how could the “word of god” be wrong –
and if here, where else? Among the many heinous crimes of religion was also the
Inquisition – with its Godless tortures and murders perpetrated in the name of
defending the House of God’s biblically-based doctrines. The point here, for
the examination of this pillar of the House of Disbelief based on the
depressing litany of crimes committed by religions in the name of their “g”
gods – is that they were not committed by “G” God – and proof therefore of
God’s evilness and/or non-existence.
Anyone threatening the (entirely venal) power of
religion is at risk. Jesus died for this reason – his revolutionary new
understandings threatened the power of the religion of his day – it was
religion that handed him over to the Romans, and then insisted on his crucifixion
against the Roman governor’s inclinations. Neither “the Jews”, nor the Romans were
responsible for Jesus’ judicial murder – it was the chief priests trying to
maintain their power over the hearts and minds of men. Religion is not peculiar
in its methods. Power based on secular doctrines and ideologies (like Nazism
and communism) have killed as many people as religion.
Is then humanity’s “will to power” proof of the
existence of evil, and evidence against meaning? No – I examine this idea and
give reasoning and evidence for my negative assertion in other places.
EVIL THINGS DONE BY RELIGION’S OFFICERS
Many lose their belief in a Divine and any special
meaning of life when the officers of the House of God, supposedly the soldiers
of God and the guardians of meaning, do bad things. Among the priests of the
House of God we have seen paedophiles, rapists, murderers, adulterers, and behaviours
too weird to have names. All of these people are mad, bad and dishonest – and are
either really atheists – or extremely stupid. There are also, of course, many
good religious people. The bottom line is this: good and bad religious people
prove nothing about God one way or the other – they just prove that there are
good and bad people.
EVIL RELIGIONS
How about evil
religions? Isn’t Islam evil because Muslims were shown celebrating the murders
committed on 9/11? Some would say all religions are evil – consider the
Christian Crusades; the brutal Jewish invasion of “the promised land” (circa
Moses, and in the present); and other evils perpetrated in the name of just
about every religion. Don’t our religions prove the existence of evil, disprove
the existence of God and any special meaning to life?
No, religions
are about the usual human needs – animal survival and personal pride/respect.
9/11 was about the threat to Arab survival as represented by Israel invading
Palestine, and about an attempt to restore Arab self-respect which had been
lost through American armed forces perceived to be invading Muslim holy lands
(by setting up military bases in them). It was an evil act, but it was an act generated
by these factors, it was not about evil for evil’s sake – nor an evil act by
God, or approved by God.
RELIGION IS
DARWINIAN, NOT SPIRITUAL
Religions’ gods
are the worst thing that ever happened to God. As are their crude models for
the meaning the worst thing that ever happened to the idea of special meaning. Religion
is Darwinian, not spiritual – about our animal survival needs – indeed the House
of God sells eternal bodily survival (nothing more Darwinian than that). The
House of God is a home for comforting animal truths rather than a search for
any spiritual Truths, but it is not enough to demolish these “t” truths to
prove the non-existence of “T” Truths – not enough to demolish its god to
demolish God, its meaning of life to demolish special meaning. The rubble from the
demolition of one unsound House does not make a sound pillar for another.
God’s death and funeral have been widely reported in
academic philosophy. Most secular
academic institutions are atheistic to the bone. And quasi-academic
organisations like the Skeptics Society have God as an important, although
supposedly secondary, target (they see intellectual integrity as their main
aim). Has the combined intellectual weight of shot killed God? Should God be
allowed a decent, but definitive, burial because of intellectual authority?
What definitely has been killed and interred by the
academic literature (A.N.Wilson’s “God’s Funeral”, Richard Dawkins
neo-Darwinist polemics, Hitchen’s “God is Not Great” being good examples) is
any chance of rational, intellectual belief in fundamental religious dogmas –
and a good thing. But as for actual, tenable proofs of real “G” God’s
non-existence in the academic literature, there are none. Ideology as rabid as
any religion is evident in many of the publications and lashings of atheistic
proselytising. Most appear more interested in gaining converts for their side
in the game – just like any religion – as if, as previously mentioned, the
search for truth was a team sport for the greater glory of only the winning side
– rather than a process of enlightenment for humanity. Most academics are more
interested in generating heat, rather than light.
Too strong? In the preface to “Blind Watchmaker”
Dawkins states openly :
“You
have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate’s trade…Certainly
it [the book] seeks to inform, but it
also seeks to persuade.” (p.xiv).
Nobody should presume that academia is solely about
the search for the golden Truth. “T” Truths can be uncomfortable, and can
destroy power and comfortable tenures that are often based on one idea (often
rehashed in many publications). But, to be fair to academia, it is
understandable why childish, uneducated, dogmatic, fundamentalist,
quasi-scientific beliefs (on creation, for example) engender such fear and
loathing within the breasts of people who have spent a lifetime gaining
rigorous scientific knowledge – like Dawkins (biology). But to make
presumptuous claims about solving all life’s mysteries, as Dawkins manages : “it is a mystery no longer, because it is
solved.” (“The Blind Watchmaker”) shows a desperation and a desire to goad,
which only hampers any search for Truths.
Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens’
“God is Not Great” claim to be addressed at the evils of religion and its
theories like “Intelligent Design”, but they are directed at (and claim to have
demolished) the idea of any Divine, special meaning, and any trace of the
existence of the spiritual factors in the human equation. However, once again,
victory is claimed solely on the grounds of defeating religions’ gods and
ancient doctrines. They know that the divine grave they dance on is filled with
straw, but dance on rather than truly examine life’s spiritual mysteries.
Humans since they have had consciousness have had a
sense of the numinous in life, and an understanding of the spiritual in the
human condition. If Dawkins and Hitchens and their neo-Darwinian comrades
really want to defeat the present, dangerous religions as they claim, the best
way to do it may be to search for an authentic “G” God – evidence which is more
likely to destroy religions’ straw “g” gods than their own invective – however
entertaining it is? But I suspect that the grim fun they get from slaughtering
the slow-moving sacred cows of their dim-witted and/or fearful opponents is
their real aim – along with, of course, the installation of personal comfort by
the removal of guilt from their lives. And by the removal of any fear of
judgement by an awful god.
But Skeptics Inc. do have their role – they have some
useful truths and do a vital job for the community by attacking dangerous sects
and pseudo-historians (like the Holocaust-deniers for example) – and less
dangerous people, like spoon-benders. But capital “S” Skepticism tends to be as
full of fear and loathing as Fundamentalism. Skepticism and Disbelief are often
in reaction to a family background of religious fundamentalism and/or orthodoxy
that many leading sceptics have experienced. Skepticism is a reaction before it
is a search for truth.
Suffice it to say that nothing has been proven by academia
or secular “S” Sceptics in their battle to dispose of God, special meaning and
ultimate purpose – except that intellectual power is no guarantee against the
pull of the psychology of ideology. Their only lasting monument is not a divine
headstone but an increasingly large number of people floundering between the
often annoyingly, smugly ignorant, House of God, and the equally annoying,
often smugly superior, House of Disbelief. People not only floundering but all
too frequently drowning in a sea of meaninglessness – buoying themselves with
alcohol, drugs or frothy-feel-good-dissolve-in-a-crisis New Age religions – or
to distract themselves with the consumption of fantasy-reality movies and
literature.
Our sciences have revealed much about our material
world and our physical, animal body. Astronomy and cosmology have established
not only the huge size of the universe but determined the initial conditions a
nanosecond after the moment of creation, and the subsequent mechanistic processes
that formed the universe to the point we are at now. Geology has established
the physical history, composition and age of our home planet; Biology has shown
us the intricacies of animal and plant life and how it has evolved; Physics has
revealed our great natural laws and forces and is delving into the sub-atomic;
Chemistry has explained the elements, molecules and the power of their
combinations; Mathematics, “the language the universe was written in”, has been
the handmaiden to all this. Many scientists feel that some of the sciences have
been unified (like physics and chemistry for example) and maybe that all the
sciences are on the verge of unification into a grand Theory of Everything.
But even as we are closing the book on many of the “hows”
of our physical universe we are opening up many more amazing things – quantum
physics being a good example, with its talk of parallel universes, extra
dimensions and its recognition that consciousness may be able to directly
influence the behaviour of sub-atomic particles – and the implication that
matter may be primary to consciousness. Even as we close down religion’s god
into a smaller and smaller “god of the gaps” (by closing down the gaps in our
knowledge) we are opening, in the new mysteries, grander ideas of what a “G”
God might be – and grander ideas of the meaning and purpose of life. We now have
a vision of the universe and humanity’s possible place in it that was not
visible to our pre-scientific ancestors who constructed our present “g” gods in
their own image. If you were able to wipe their ancient god from the minds of
some of our more intelligent religious leaders (the archbishop of
And of course science, by definition, has nothing to
say about the ever-increasing philosophical “whys” that tag along behind their solutions
of the physical “hows”. Some scientists develop a greater belief in God and
special meaning the more they learn – like the respected scientists John
Polkinghorne (who took up the priesthood after being a particle
physicist) and Rodney Holder (who did the same after being an astro-physicist).
For many, however, it is the reverse. Why do so many
intelligent people lose a belief in God with greater scientific understanding?
Did they really believe that religion’s six-day-creating, man-god of the
ancients was the one and only possible God, and that “his” death at the hands
of their sciences must necessarily lead to the death of any belief in any
Divine – and special meaning as well? Here we pass into the murky waters of the
psychology of disbelief, covered in the discussion of it as another pillar of
disbelief. Suffice it to say here that the God of the ancients is dead, slain
at the hands of science and buried gleefully by its handmaiden – Philosophy.
Science may be still short of its all-unifying Theory
Of Everything, but most intelligent people know it is closer to it than the Bible
– for a long time the T.O.E. of the Western world. Science has certainly
marginalised religion whenever religion has ventured into the scientific domain
and proffered crude explanations of the “hows” of life (for instance Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden). However, religion and God – although continually
confused – are not one and the same thing. The eventual victory of Galileo over
the Church (when his excommunication was annulled in the 20th
century by the House of God) was hailed as a victory of science over God – but
it was a victory over religion and its primitive, pre-scientific “g” god – not
God.
There is a unity in the universe (hence the very
word) and a Theory Of Everything awaits. But humanity cannot be defined solely
in terms of our bodies. The best description of the human condition being that
I know of is that we are a spiritual being with an animal body (I will tender
more evidence for this assertion in Essay 3). For here, suffice it to note that
(perhaps the greatest scientist of all) Albert Einstein – when discussing the
complementary nature of knowledge – said: “Science
without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” We will allow
his confusion of religion with God here – just to make the point of the unity
between the physical and spiritual in our universe – well exemplified in
humanity (and maybe other species in the universe yet to be encountered?) I
make the point elsewhere that religion is not really spiritual but venal, physical
– its followers hoping for control over our physical world and bodily
resurrection/survival in the next – it is largely a Darwinian organisation.
We will never approach “T” Truth – Everything – close
enough to read it, until we go in search of it wearing our bi-focals – an understanding
of both factors of the human equation. Our physical sciences can never have an
understanding of the non-physical by definition. Einstein’s point is that the
quest for Everything is best tackled body and soul – because that is what
we are – not body or soul.
And now another popular pillar many Disbelievers have
hung their hats on.
·
If God made the World, who made God?
I was advised by (leading Australian Skeptic and
atheist) Phillip Adams that he ceased to believe in God when his mother
couldn’t answer a question he posed as a six-year-old: “if God made the world, then
who made God?” This is the first-cause question – made much of in Bertrand
Russell’s polemic “Why I am not a Christian”,
and a question that continues to vex many. It is a question which naturally
flows from our religions’ assertions that everything was “made” by God.
We have already discussed the nature of religions’
gods, but what is the nature of “G” God – did He/She/It/Them/Us “make” the
universe?
Some say the absolute must remain ineffable to minds
born and experienced of the relative. But are we experienced solely of the
relative, physical world? No, in this life, everybody who lives an average span
will encounter the numinous – have spiritual experiences sometime(s). But because
we are creatures of the relative, when encountering the numinous and contemplating
the Divine source, the gods we tend to construct are puny imaginings of this
relative world – gods made in our own image.
Does this mean that we should not bother trying to
approach God?
No. It is our present feeble imaginings of God – and
what “He” wants of us – that is causing many of our problems. We can do better
at contemplating and approaching the Divine than we have so far managed in our
parochial gods – and the dangers that these parochial gods place us in, dictate
that we should definitely try. Dangers? Our technological evolution has
advanced way beyond our spiritual evolution – we have atom bombs in the hands
of our stone-age religions which all have end-of-time holocaust scenarios – a
dangerous situation.
So, how have we managed on God so far?
Religions of the “B” Book have primitive gods who
“made” the universe – always going to be vulnerable to the childish question
“Who made God?” How about philosophy, how has it fared on the God question? A.N.Wilson
feels that after Hume’s speculations on the nature of God it is pretty much a
waste of time.
“devastating
…… the disturbing question to which there could not possibly be any answer.”
(p.24 “God’s Funeral”).
Hume (“Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”) posits
that God may be a plurality because of some evidence of the plurality of the
universe, suggesting pluralities of intention and designs :
“behold
then the theogony of ancient times brought back upon us”
(ibid. p.168).
And that God might not even be the Creator :
“For
ought we know, a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order
originally, within itself”
(ibid. p.146)..
Speculations must remain just that, and can never be
“devastating”. But even if we allow Hume’s radical (for their time) posits for
a moment, they do not demolish God and special meaning. Nor necessarily force
us into agnosticism as
“a
total suspension of judgement is here our only reasonable resource”
(ibid. p.24 ).
Speculations can also be met with other speculations,
try these: God may be a “plurality” – God may be us, God may be everything –
only ancient pre-scientific religions insist otherwise. Religion needs God to
be a “Him” so that “He” can be controlled (through sacrifice of animals
originally – now through praise, fear and flattery). Hume may have been on the
right track, matter may contain the “source of order originally, within itself”.
After Einstein and his beautiful equation E=mc2, we know that matter
does contain Hume’s “source, or spring” (energy) – and vice versa. Put simply,
matter can spring from energy – and vice versa. When some of the original
singularity of energy transmuted into matter it caused the Big Bang (as
explosive as the reverse – an atomic explosion where energy is released from
matter). Because we know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then that
energy must have always existed – be absolute. That energy is what we try to
describe when we use the word “God”.
So we have met Hume’s “devastating” speculation of
God not being the “Creator” with another – God did not make the world, God is
the world. Russell’s childish question of “Who made the world?” is also
answered – not everything must be created, some things always are – in one form
or another – energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And the other big
question of philosophy: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is also
addressed. The reason anything exists at all is because energy/God exists.
And consider the further implications: if all matter
and energy is God (or of God) and humans are of matter and have life energy
(and I will argue, a spiritual individuation of the Divine) – then people are
as close to God as we can come this side of the relative/absolute divide.
“Have I not said ye are Gods?” (John 10:34)
If we say we love God (or more commonly,
unfortunately, fear God) maybe we should treat each other a little better?
These essays are not an exercise in establishing some
superiority for humanity. If the above holds, then, of course, other animals
are of the original energy as well – and should be respected as such. Other
animals may also have spirituality. For the purpose of the exercise represented
by these essays it is enough to establish that the spiritual exists at all – thus
a Divine is possible, and special meaning and ultimate purpose. There is also
most likely to be life on other planets – and most likely plenty that are
older, thus more evolved – spiritually as well as physically.
Obviously religion’s gods are not looking too well
but, again, there is a great deal of difference from demolishing religious
dogma and demolishing God.
We will now examine some pillars of the House of
Disbelief based on Evolutionary Theory.
·
Evolutionary Theory has disproved God and
special meaning
.
Evolutionary theory is a description of
how our animal bodies have evolved to their present form. Our understanding of
the evolutionary process is sufficiently scientifically established to be
called “fact”, rather than “theory”. But evolutionary theory has become a
religion for many theorists (let’s call them neo-Darwinians) – a theory of
everything – which they feel has removed all the mysteries of our existence.
But has an understanding of how our animal bodies evolved solved the mystery of
our existence?
To answer this we need to consider whether
existence can be totally described as a purely animal, physical experience? Is
every thing in our universe physical and material – started accidentally and proceeding
mechanistically – all animal behaviour (including ours) and causal and
choice-free (rather than as a result of our free choice)? Important questions,
because if so, God, special meaning, and ultimate purpose are necessarily
removed.
Many neo-Darwinians feel that this is so.
Richard Dawkins writes in “Blind Watchmaker” :
“This
book is written in the conviction that our own experience once presented the
greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is
solved.” (p. xiii).
and:
“cumulative
natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence”? (P. 392 ibid.)
Grand claims! But there is a vast difference between
understanding the mechanics of how random mutations are naturally selected
according to their adaptive benefits in a relative (good, better, best) world
and how the whole immaculately functioning process began in the first place out
of the chaos of the initial conditions. In a weak moment Dawkins admits that a teeny bit of mystery remains – even for him
:
“we
still don’t know exactly how natural selection began on Earth”.
(P. 205 ibid)
And more – not only do we not know how natural
selection began, we don’t know how life began – to be naturally selected. The
little question of how the inorganic became organic? Even if we brush that
mystery aside by accepting the possibility that, one day, the beginning of life
may be solved by our physical sciences, we are still left with an even greater
problem – how does anything come to exist at all? How did the inorganic come to
exist in the first place to become organic in the second?
A.N. Wilson, who feels he has attended God’s funeral,
gets around to admitting this, the greatest mystery :
“the
one question which Darwinism so dismally refuses to address: namely, how (let
alone why!) anything happens to exist at all. It is existence itself
which is surely the greatest of all mysteries”
(”God’s Funeral”, P. 224 –
brackets are author’s & author’s italics underlined).
Quite a huge gap for God to stick his Divine nose in
there!? A gap that does not look likely to be closed any time soon – bit early
to be calling for a funeral.
And there are other mysteries for neo-Darwinian
materialists (who believe we are just the sum of our atoms, electro-chemical
impulses, animal drives, and genetic imperatives) to explain away. Mysteries
like humanity’s compassion for genetic competitors; our appreciation of
non-Darwinian beauty; our understanding of the language of the universe
(mathematics); how the dust of stars came to observe the stars; the existence
of humour; music; human shame and dignity – to name a few (I will explore the
mystery of these non-physical phenomena in a purely physical universe more
closely in Essay 3).
No, evolution through natural selection is hardly the
solution to the “greatest of all mysteries”. There remain way too many
mysteries in the path of securely establishing Dawkins’ desperate assertion! As
important as the animal factor is in the human equation, there seem to be other
important factors?
OUR BODY IS OUR PHYSICAL BOUNDARY – AND THE BOUNDARY
FOR OUR PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Neo-Darwinians’ position that the discovery of the
fact that our bodies are evolving establishes that we are nothing more than our
physical bodies, is illogical, and smacks of wishful thinking, arrogance, and
team-winning ideological fervour. Our physical body just marks the boundary for
our physical sciences – and the materialist ideologies which ride on their
coat-tails. Materialists exclude themselves from grasping the entirety of the
human equation because their ideology only allows the existence of the material
factor.
PALEY’S WATCHMAKER GOD
Neo-Darwinism has shaken some previously accepted
“proofs” of the Abrahamic creator god. Dawkins attacks William Paley’s (already
discredited) watchmaker “design” proof of God (proof of the existence of God
through the ingenuity of design evident in life – implying a divine creator –
just as the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker). But there is a
difference between demolishing one of the commonly tendered teleogical proofs for
God from the past, and demolishing God altogether.
Even the design argument can be maintained by a
better analogy for Divine design than a watch. Consider the child’s toy made by
Lego. The clever part of Lego and the proof of it having a designer (and I’ll
wager the key to its patent) is not the objects (however elaborate) made by the
pieces, but the idea behind the piece itself – the Lego block. Our Lego blocks
– protons, neutrons and electrons (and smaller sub-atomic particles) are the
true miracle of design – let alone the natural forces which act upon them – not
the animal bodies that they form. This is the level at which the miracle of
design has to be explained away by the likes of Dawkins – an understanding of
how evolution works is very small beer compared to these truly gigantic
mysteries. Humanity even may be the inevitable result of all these initial
miracles, but miracles they remain – even more miraculous if accidental?!
I’m not tendering an argument for Intelligent Design
then tendering that as proof of the ancient god of the desert tribes – as fundamentalists
do. I am just examining the Evolutionary Theory pillar of the House of
Disbelief by tendering some facts which don’t sit well with the usual
neo-Darwinian’s attempted proof of life’s meaninglessness based solely on an
understanding of evolution. Lack of design has not been satisfactorily proven by
the fact of random mutations for the idea of an accidental universe to be
established on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt” – not even anywhere near “the
balance of probabilities”. The accidental universe is one of the foundation
stones of the House of Disbelief.
Darwin, himself, originally felt that in his theory
of evolution he had discovered God’s method, the :
“laws impressed on matter by the Creator”
(p. 458 The Origin of Species).
But when his daughter, Anne, took sick and died
tragically he fell to supporting the “Early Deaths” pillar of Disbelief.
However, reviewing life towards the end of his own,
“If
he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow
men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and the latter gain
undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.” (p.94).
I will examine in Essay 3 why love and “approbation
of his fellow men” could be the “highest pleasure on this earth” (for a
mechanistic, accidental meat puppet?) – such a dominant need that we spend much
of our earthly time in pursuit of it. Parental love can be shown to have
natural selection advantages (as can romantic love – or lust) but
Let’s look more closely at those “selfish genes”.
.
·
We are just a survival mechanism for a
bunch of genes.
This sociobiological pillar of the House of Disbelief
is well stated by Robert Wright in his book “The Moral Animal”. Of humans, he
says we are:
“a
species with conscience and sympathy and even love, all grounded ultimately in
genetic self-interest.” (p.378).
And even more bleakly by atheist Dick Gross in
“godless GOSPEL” (sic) :
“we’re
just bags of genetic material on an Earth overburdened by them”
(p. 238)
Is humanity well, and completely, described as “bags
of genetic material” whose ultimate purpose is “genetic self-interest”? We know
that genetic survival is integral to our animal bodies, but to describe human existence
solely in terms of our bodies is like trying to describe a book by solely
referring to its paper.
After a lifetime of observing the human condition I
conclude that we – our “selves” – are not our bodies. “We” are better described
as spiritual beings with an animal body. Is this just an assertion, or
is there evidence?
If the meaning of life is that we are no more than a survival
mechanism for a bag of genes, and our purpose is purely to strive for the promotion
of our genes over others’, why do we often risk our all-important genetic cargo
in bravely saving unrelated people we may not even know from mortal danger (and
their not only unrelated but competing genes)? Not only that, but we also risk,
and sometimes lose, our lives trying to save animals (pet, stock, or wild) that
do not belong to us – therefore not involved in our own survival. Why does that
strange, unnatural, human trait for compassion often override our natural
animal survival instincts? How can it exist at all in this later stage of our
evolution as a species – given that the possession of such a characteristic is
inimical to genetic survival?
And why do we also risk our precious genetic cargo
constantly in the pursuit of “fun”? We do this when we play sport (often
dangerous, contact ones like football) which are genetically counter-intuitive
activities involving mortal risk? We even enjoy more extreme sports – what is the delicious thrill in dangerous
sports like mountain climbing, skiing, motorbike riding, scuba diving, surfing,
hang-gliding, flying? Why do most of us indulge in other, less extreme but
still dangerous, activities just for enjoyment – like overseas travel? Why
aren’t we just cosseting our genes? Why is it just us – the only animal with
the knowledge of its mortality – that risks its genes for no survival end?
Is there anything else we get out of these activities
apart from the genetically counter-intuitive thrill of danger and the buzz of
adrenaline? We get self-esteem. Is self esteem, then, more important to us than
survival?
Let’s consider what is really important in human life
– what makes a thing in life, or even a life, truly satisfying? Here we have to
contemplate the spiritual factor of the human equation. Contemplating the
spiritual makes the disciples of mechanistic meaninglessness break out in
hives. Surely such a thing as the spiritual cannot exist except in human
imagination – if all is animal, the “spiritual” is better described in purely
bodily terms such as psychological and emotional.
To resolve this, what are examples of spiritual
experiences?
Contrast the animal satisfaction of feeding compared
to the spiritual satisfaction we get from dining (eating a great meal created
with skill, art, and yes – even love). Compare the physical satisfaction of the
services of a prostitute compared to the spiritual satisfaction of making love with
someone you love. Consider how we are spiritually moved by beautiful scenery (a
snow-capped mountain is just a bundle of meaningless atoms – and a dangerous
place inimical to our animal survival – and Darwin, himself, reports in his
Autobiography that he was spiritually moved by the (dangerous) Brazilian jungle).
Consider why we are spiritually moved by music (Beethoven’s 9th after
all, is just the vibration of air molecules)? How can we see beauty in danger –
a leopard, a lion, a shark, or even an approaching storm? What a strange and
unnatural thing is this uniquely-human experience of being “spiritually uplifted”
– especially if the spiritual does not exist and we are just a bag of genes
which are totally motivated only for their survival?
Many of the activities in our lives that can be described
as truly, deeply satisfying address the spiritual. Anybody who has lived a life
and can still deny the existence of the spiritual has not been paying
attention.
In fact, if we pay attention, life for humans seems
to be about spiritual evolution as much as physical survival. What was in the
spirit of
Wright, in the above quoted work, steals an old
standby from religion – a miracle:
“Given
that self-interest was the overriding criterion of our design, we are a
reasonably considerate group of organisms. Indeed if you ponder the utter
ruthlessness of evolutionary logic long enough, you may start to find our
morality, such as it is, nearly miraculous.” (Op. Cit. p. 378)
“Nearly miraculous”? Inhabiting a physical body as we
do, we have all felt the primal pull of our animal genes and the drive to
survive. But the drive to risk it all to fulfil a deeper human need to be loved
by others, and especially our self? Why is life so much more for most male
humans than seeding our genes over the world willy-nilly with any likely
incubator – and so much more for female humans than just being a receptor of
those genes? How do we explain human spiritual hunger (witnessed so strongly at
the turn of the millennia) if the spiritual does not exist, why do we value the
spiritual satisfaction of self esteem over genetic dominance if there is no
spiritual side to human life and it is just about genetic promotion and the
continuance of the physical bits of us? These questions I will address more
fully in the next essay which examines the spiritual more closely. Here it is
enough to show that, while genetic imperatives explain a lot of human
behaviours, they fall well short of a full explanation for all human behaviour.
The genetic imperatives of our animal body, while
they definitely exist, are not a strong pillar for the disbelief of special
meaning or of a Divine – for the House of Disbelief.
Neo-Darwinian
materialists tender Evolutionary Theory as a satisfactory Theory of Everything.
While it does explain how random mutations are selected by the environment as
advantageous for surviving and/or out-breeding, it falls well short of a
satisfactory “Theory of Everything” for the human condition.
It even falls
well short of explaining the present animal spectrum. For example, why in the
whole spectrum of animal species which have evolved from the original single
cell life form, is there only one disproportionately huge gap (in terms of
cognitive capabilities and understanding of the universe) between contiguous
species in the otherwise smooth continuum? I refer, of course, to the huge gap
between humans and chimps. Why did we move so far and so fast, in terms of our
capabilities, understanding and control of life, compared to our very near DNA
neighbour (98.5%) in the same amount of time? Is it the natural consequence of
moving into the grasslands rather than staying in the trees, of an upright
posture, of an opposable thumb? It has been only a few million years since we
branched from our common ancestor (a mere blink of the eye in terms of the time
life has existed on Earth).
There is not
such a huge gap in understanding and cognitive capacities even between those
much further apart in DNA and/or physiognomy than us chumps and the chimps
(hyenas and hippopotamuses say?). They just walk about on four legs in
ignorance of life and death, right and wrong, beauty and ugly, music and
mathematics – just spend their time eating and breeding, blindly trying to
survive and dominate genetically much as Darwinian theory says they should. In
fact, if we exclude humans, the differences between all animals of their
understanding of mortality, ethics, beauty, music, or the numinous – is zero,
no matter where on the animal spectrum they come – baboon to bacteria.
Excluding humans, the development of all other animals in the spectrum is much
as you would expect it to be naturally – given the laws of natural selection.
The difference between humans and their nearest neighbour, or any other animal
for that matter, is unnatural.
I am not making
an argument about humans being “better” than, or somehow “superior” to, other
animals – we are just hugely, strangely – unnaturally – more capable in cognitive abilities
(sometimes for better and sometimes for worse) and conscious of existence, than
can be explained by environment alone. And that is strange. The difference is
so vast that it does not seem to be explicable by the natural selection of
random mutations in the time involved.
No,
neo-Darwinians have not proven their claims that the “everything” of existence
rests in Evolutionary Theory.
The
evolutionary theory explanation for the fact that there are different species
of animals is that the original, spontaneously-occurring, single-cell lifeforms
were changed gradually by randomly-occurring spontaneous mutations of DNA –
which mutations were then selected for, or rejected by, nature according to the
survival/breeding advantages or disadvantages they conferred – a process
called, appropriately enough, natural selection.
But along the
natural way something unnatural happened – one animal created in this natural
way came to understand the process to the point of becoming able to exert an
increasing amount of control over it – making the process no longer entirely natural
– and out of its own free-will. Humans developed sciences and became evolution
(on Earth’s) most potent force. With genetic engineering we can make non-random
changes instantly which would naturally take some great amount of time to occur
randomly, or maybe not occur at all – and do it consciously, purposefully, and
designedly out of our free-will. We have become a creator of our environment
while, supposedly, purely still a creature of it – a natural being doing
unnatural things?
Most animals
are natural agents of evolution one way or another – doing its work by striving
to out-breed others of their own species, and/or by being predators and killing
off the weakest of other species. But humans, being conscious agents of
evolution, go beyond this natural role. We make our mind up as to which animals
should be advantaged – or disposed of – by all sorts of strange, unnatural
notions – like compassion, or aesthetics (cute, cuddly animals are more likely
to be adopted by the public in survival programs). In our more natural past we
killed off whole species of other animals in a natural fashion (because they
were easy prey – Moas by the Maoris in New Zealand, for example); we drove some
to extinction because they impinged on our survival by being predators on our
flocks (Tasmanian tigers for example); and we drove some useful ones to the
brink by over-exploitation because they were useful to our rising technology
(whales for their oil during the Industrial Revolution). But, more recently as
our spiritual evolution advanced, we have called some animals good and
protected them for non natural-selection reasons – i.e. because of our
compassion for them (whales, for example) or because we find them “cute”, or
“beautiful” (like koalas and pandas for example). This latter is an entirely
non-Darwinian beauty because they have no food value – therefore no survival
value. We have selected positively for them on account of their aesthetic
beauty – for how they move our souls – in other words, for purely spiritual and/or
subjective reasons. The universe is supposed to be purely mechanistic, purely
objective, but humans do not proceed in a completely objective manner. Are we
then not part of it – or is the universe not a completely objective universe?
Weird, that at
some point the universe stopped being accidental and mechanistic – when we
became creatures and creators both!
As well as
ensuring the survival of some endangered species, humans have also collected
useless animals as pets just because we find them beautiful and/or sometimes
enjoy their company (like cats and dogs). “Useless” in an evolutionary sense,
conferring no survival or genetic advantages to us – only survival costs by
using up money we may need to survive ourselves. We have bred some of them to
do jobs for us (e.g. working dogs) but many more breeds just for their
aesthetics – their “beauty”, as we see it – and for the non-Darwinian comfort
they give us. “Non-Darwinian” because it has nothing to do with our bodily
survival or genetic domination.
We have also
evolved ethics – a spiritual understanding of the “moral” responsibilities of
our peak position in the animal kingdom. Some animals now owe their continued
existence to this unnatural sense of ethics – just as some, earlier in our less
spiritually evolved history, owed their extinction to our more natural physical
needs – for the fittest to survive. Some of our “ethical” conservation actions
do come from a selfish, Darwinian understanding that bio-diversity will be good
for our own survival, but some come equally or wholly from an understanding of
the moral responsibilities that the peak position in the animal world brings.
The Green Movement, the Save a Greyhound group, and the RSPCA for example, are
driven as much (or, in some cases, more) by moral, ethical, compassionate,
spiritual motives as by selfish, Darwinian survival motives.
So we, who are
meant to be explained entirely as just another animal, a natural product of our
environment created accidentally by it, have come (so quickly) to begin creating
our environment on purpose – to knowingly alter/evolve our own and other
species for both objective and subjective reasons. Evolution is entirely
accidental and random no longer – we, while still a creature, have become a
creator/designer.
And humans
select in other unnatural ways – what shall we call this? How about unnatural
selection?
UNNATURAL
SELECTION
We humans are
interfering with the natural selection process for all sorts of unnatural
motives. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the way we are altering our
own human evolution (consciously and unconsciously). The fittest human
individuals – those who have climbed by their natural abilities to the top of
the human food chain – are dropping their birthrate. And they have dropped their
birthrate for lots of unnatural reasons like: lifestyle – children can cramp
your “lifestyle” (lifestyle, now there’s an unnatural human concept in a life
we are told is only about making your genes dominant); self-esteem reasons (a
new car or a new kid – which will make me feel better about my self?); economic
reasons (divorce rates are high, which means many marriages between high
achievers are not producing offspring because both have excessive working
hours); philosophical reasons (“thinking” peoples’ fear of bringing a child
into what they may see as a meaningless, purposeless life); and so on.
While at the
same time that many of these “alpha” types are not breeding (or breeding less)
our unnatural “virtue” of compassion for unrelated genetic competitors is
leading us to help humans to survive who would naturally have been “selected
out” because of physical or mental weaknesses. These individuals (who often
have congenital problems) can now go on to breed. We then look after their congenitally
weak offspring. We are favouring “bad” breeding stock – bad as far as
relentless and amoral natural selection is concerned. These humans are being
unnaturally selected and are breeding much more strongly than they would have
in a natural state because of our unnatural, compassionate efforts. I’m not
saying that this is “good” or “bad”, or that we should encourage eugenics, just
stating it is so – just another unnatural human act in an otherwise natural
world – unnatural selection.
We are changing this through our understanding of
medical science. If we want, births could soon be of “perfect” offspring – DNA
vetted for deficiencies, weaknesses, sicknesses etc. This is providing our unnatural
ethics allow it, of course – there are many debates occurring now on the issues
involved – like medical abortions for example, or selected sperm donors (Nobel
prize-winners or sportsmen). Again I am
making no statement as to whether it is “right” or “wrong”, just that it is so.
Natural selection does not have humanity (and some
animals and plants chosen by us) entirely in its grip anymore (for better or
worse) and, again, the process is being governed sometimes only by our strange
aesthetics, ethical notions, and our spiritual nature.
Humans are also working on ways of breaking from the
universes’ natural, random, physical violence. For example, by detecting
asteroids which may hit the Earth (and make severe changes to lifeforms, as it
did to the dinosaurs) by destroying or diverting them. We are no longer Carl
Sagan’s “stardust observing the stars” – which was strange enough – we have
become stardust physically and knowingly altering the stars. We have, uniquely
among the animals, evolved beyond being a mere object of natural selection to
now control some of its forces.
Weird stuff in a natural, mechanistic world?
·
The dubious psychological basis of belief.
Atheists state that belief in a God and special
meaning in life, exists only in the wishful thinking of those who need comfort.
Belief, they insist, is just a psychological crutch, a comfort in a tough world
– for those who are weak and cannot cope with the thought of death, and oblivion,
or our personal insignificance and lack of control over life. Leading sceptic
Michael Shermer sees it this way :
“More
than any other, the reason people believe weird things is because they want to.
It feels good. It is comforting. It is consoling.”
(p. 273 “Why People Believe
Weird Things”).
Atheists like Shermer swarm the high moral ground
because they see themselves as having the intellectual integrity and courage to
face life and death without needing the comforting thought of God-the-Father
and life in the hereafter.
“We
[sceptics and scientists] seek
immortality through our cumulative efforts and lasting achievements; we too
wish that our hopes for eternity might be fulfilled.” (p. 6 ibid.)
Pllll-ease! Atheists’ self-judged superiority stands
out in their literature – hic sic.
Certainly, a lot of people seek immortality through a
belief in God, their belief being based on the need for comfort rather than any
penetrating search for Truth. Or because they cynically and calculatedly see
something like Pascal’s wager as a little bit of insurance that doesn’t cost
too much (the notion that its wiser to believe in religion’s god because the
consequences of being wrong as a “believer” is minor – but eternally bad for a
disbeliever if the Judeo/Christian god does exist). But many atheists disbelieve
on similarly specious grounds – because a God gets in the road of a good time
and/or they are already carrying enough guilt by the time they consider the
question to make the thought of a God an intolerable burden. It’s amazing how
many of the people I have mentioned as heroes of atheism have had multiple
marriages and/or are living the lives of a libertine – with all the guilt of
betrayed families and relationships such a lifestyle entails. These atheists still
manage the high moral ground because they see believers as weak because they
need the comfort of a god, without considering that eventual nothingness is
comforting for the guilty. Disbelievers prefer the notion of oblivion because
they are (as they accuse the religious) in fear of the alternative.
Residency in a “H House – of God and Disbelief – has
a psychological base. But it cannot be argued that the psychological basis of
religion disproves God and special meaning, any more than it can be argued that
the psychological basis of atheism proves God and special meaning.
·
The scale of the universe is so huge that
we are meaningless.
Many have expressed the thought that because we are
individually insignificant in comparison to the universe, so is any meaning our
life may have. This argument against meaning is being heard more frequently as
we discover the vast scale of our universe. Just when we get our head around
Carl Sagan’s analogy of the number of suns in the universe: “the total number of stars in the universe is
greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth”
(Cosmos P. 196), someone comes along
and tells us that there could be more than one universe! Indeed, it has even been
posited that there may be an infinite number of universes – a multiverse (I
will examine the multiverse idea as a separate pillar).
So, we have not only lost our rather comfortable, Old
Testament place at the centre of everything, we discover that we are
insignificant to the point of meaninglessness? Who has not felt an existential flat
spot when contemplating the head-spinning vastness of the universe(s) and our
small place in it?
But, does size matter? Studies reveal that minute
events, like the beat of a butterfly’s wing, can have unpredictable consequences
which go on for ever. In the realm of ideas, humans can even exert massive change
with just a single thought. Some thoughts retain their power to change for
endless generations – will the repercussions of the thoughts of Plato, Socrates
and Aristotle ever end? Big world-, or even universe-changing, ideas stand on
the shoulders of a smaller thought(s). Individually we can, and have, made
large differences that we are not even aware of – significance is not
contingent on awareness. Ideas contained in Earth broadcasts which have
penetrated into space may have made changes in the broader universe. Microbes of
life, or human DNA on spacecraft may make, or have made, even physical changes
in the universe.
Some feel that its very largeness speaks of the
accidental nature of the universe, speaks against purpose, or against Divine efficiency?
Why so much space, why were so many uninhabitable – therefore meaningless – worlds
made just to make this one world possible for us to exist? This from scientist Dr.
Rodney Holder:
“Contrary
to our intuitions, it turns out that the universe needs to be the vast size it
is in order for man to exist. This is the size it inevitably reaches in the
14,000 million years which it takes to evolve human beings….A universe endowed with the mass of a single
galaxy has enough matter to make a hundred billion stars like the sun, but such
a universe would expand for only about a month. Thus the argument that the
vastness of the universe points to man’s insignificance is turned on its head –
only if it is so vast could we be here.”
“Think” (The Royal Institute of Philosophy
periodical) No. 12, p. 53
So, the size, complexity, and vast age of the
universe(s) as now revealed by astronomy and physics is no impediment to its
possible special purpose. It is not fatal to a belief in a “G” God – fatal only
to the ancient everything-created-in-6-days-6000-years-ago “g” god of the Bible
written by our pre-scientific ancestors. The Bible is a parochial document
placing one group of tribes at the centre of the world as God’s “chosen
people”, and the world at the centre of the universe. That the universe has
been revealed to be of immense size (and Earth revealed to be not in its centre
– nor that the sun orbits us) is not a secure pillar of the House of Disbelief,
but a blow against the Judeo/Christian House of God. Again, the rubble of an
opposing House does not make a sound pillar for another.
In time we may even discover other life forms, even
life forms more evolved than ours. This, again, would not be a blow against God
and special meaning, it would not provide a sound pillar for the House of
Disbelief, but only a blow against the House of God’s god – and the stone age Bible.
Some have attempted to explain away the unnatural
order of this universe (“unnatural” because all should naturally be chaos) and
the mystery of life occurring therein, by constructing a multiverse theory.
Multiple universes are inferred as possible from some observations in quantum
physics, and the logic flows that if there are indeed an infinite number of
universes then this universe and the sort of life we find in it was bound to
exist given the infinite number of opportunities presented – a bit like the old
furphy that if an infinite number of monkeys were placed in a room with an
infinite number of typewriters one of them would eventually type Shakespeare’s
entire opus! [This was actually tried on a smaller scale by one researcher and
the chimps managed to defecate on just about all the keyboards and only managed
to begin on what may have turned out to be an infinite number of “ssss’s” had
they not been curtailed].
Multiverse theory creates thousands of millions of
billions of universes, each containing in turn thousands of millions of
billions of stars, planets and moons to explain away the mysteries of this one.
Rather untidy, and leaving aside the giant “if” (no observations of a
multiverse have ever been made), one suspects that Ockham’s razor [the
observation that all great scientific truths are simple and we should be
suspicious of theories that need unnecessary complexity to support them] would
deal with it somewhat harshly.
Even if we do allow a multiverse, for a moment – just
to consider its implications, the mysteries are not erased only multiplied – even
a designer-god still breathes. Other (or all) universes in a multiverse may in
turn each contain unnatural spiritual life just as ours does. The numinous
aspects of life prove that the spiritual can happen in a physical universe. We
know that what can happen, will happen – wherever it can.
Also consider that a creator-God could possibly just
instil suitable universes with the necessary ingredients for life – which
universes were initially accidental and self-occurring – just as this one may
have been. A much more amazing creator-God is possible than the one
extrapolated from the primitive Bible. Until the existence of life, and then
the existence of the spiritual are explained away in this universe, a
multiverse only has the potential to compound the theory of meaninglessness’
problems. Again, the only god demolished by multiverse theory is the old,
tribal, creating-everything-in-6-days one.
Post-modern Theory states that everything is relative
– there are no “T” Truths – only your, or my, “t” truths (no Truths except this,
of course).
We live in a relative world. In the beginning there
was an absolute singularity of energy. As stated above, the relative was born
when this absolute singularity of energy converted/transmuted into matter
causing the Big Bang. Energy is a unity, but matter is separate – allowing the
relative. “This” and “that” became a fact; “here” and “there”; “now” and “then”.
Individual matter meant separation which meant space which meant time. So far
pretty mechanistic, but then a miracle happened – somehow into this mechanical
process came life – the inert became organic – organic chemistry flowed from
inorganic chemistry. And somehow life was reproducing life – and “you” and “me”
became possible.
And the miracles didn’t stop there, somehow life
became perceptive and sentient – and your perception or idea and my different perception
and idea became possible. Your and my different perceptions and ideas meant
your and my truths became possible – relative truths. Is this, necessarily, the
end of the possible existence of “T” Truth? Must all be relative in a relative
world?
THINGS THAT ARE TRUE FOR EVERYBODY ALL THE TIME
No – some things remain True for all of humanity, all
the time – these I refer to when I use the word “T” Truth. Some things in our
relative universe are true for everybody all the time. For example, we do have
animal bodies evidentially – we have experienced our animal drives, needs, and
genetic imperatives. It is also a Truth that the relative universe is creative.
Nobody could disagree with that because of the huge number of its creations,
visible to all.
There are some Truths which are slipperier, such as the
Truths about what really happened in History – always devilishly hard to pin
down – history, as the saying goes, is usually written by the victors. Certain
things were done by certain people to certain other people, and who the
people actually were and what they actually did – is the Truth. But
recorded history has agendas and motives (the Bible is a good example of this)
and while the Truth may not be known any more about certain events, it does not
mean that Truth does not exist.
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEKING THE “T” TRUTH?
The Truth has implications about the existence of any
special meaning in life – which in turn has implications about how we should go
about living to enjoy the experience/opportunity to the utmost.
For example?
One Truth we know is that humans seek to be happy –
rather than just merely seek to be. This has been established to be a “T” Truth
by observation. It is also a Truth that we go about it in different ways – and
than some ways work, some don’t work, and some are actually counter-productive.
Some of our ideas about what happiness is are wrong, some of our ideas about
how to achieve it are wrong – they are our relative “t” truths – but this does
not prevent the statement that humans seek happiness from being a Truth.
I have already searched for some of the Truths about human
happiness, and will attempt to examine it more closely in Essay 3. Here, let’s
just observe that the undoubted existence of personal and relative “t” truths, do
not necessarily remove the existence of “T” Truth. Life in the relative is
creative of self because it demands that we decide, make our own choices – have
our own truths – and our truths create our selves – we become our choices. To
conclude, even though we have our own “t” truths which are relative – absolute “T”
Truths remain. The existence our truths – our gods – our meanings – our purpose,
does not remove Truth, God, special meaning or ultimate purpose.
CONCLUSIONS
This essay found that healthy scepticism – disbelief
– became “D” Disbelief, an “H” House, which has many of the hallmarks of a
religion. The House of Disbelief started with initial “T” Truths (for example:
we are animals and evolution describes how our bodies evolved) but turned them
into doctrines – “t” truths (we are only animals and evolution proves
life is random, causal and meaningless). These, and other doctrines, form the
“t” truths of the House of Disbelief in a process similar to way the Jesus
movement becoming a House – where Jesus’ “T” Truths (love, forgive, do unto
others) were turned into the House of God’s doctrines – “t” truths (Salvation,
Trinity, Original Sin).
This essay found some of the philosophical pillars of
the House of Disbelief are sound
– but they are only sound disproofs of the arguments the House of God uses in
an effort to prove the existence of its primitive god – such as ontological,
cosmological and teleological “proofs”. Science has revealed the real extent
and greatness of our world and universe – more magnificent than our
pre-scientific ancestors were capable of imagining. The god residing within the
House of God is human and small, created when our understanding of the universe
was small. This “g” god is the worst thing that ever happened to “G” God, and
its perception of the meaning of life the worst thing that ever happened to the
very idea of special meaning. Our presently revealed universe cannot be
explained by any religion but, to demolish incredible gods and meaning says
nothing about the likelihood of the existence of God and meaning at all – let
alone what they may be. As demolition rubble does not make sound foundations
for another house. A House cannot be built on disproofs alone.
WHY MUST THERE BE A GOD?
Many ask, “Why must there be a God?” When we came to
understand how our animal bodies evolved to their present state of being, much
of educated humanity came to think that to invoke a God at all, was now unnecessary.
But there is no “must” about God – there either is one, or there is not. Ditto
with special meaning and ultimate purpose.
“D” Disbelief states that there is none – but there
are several elephants in the lounge room of the House of Disbelief. It is one
thing to understand how our bodies evolved, but quite another to understand how
inert atoms became organic – let alone how atoms came to exist in the first
place? (We will examine several other elephants in Essay 3).
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF?
The purpose of anything is what it does. “H” Houses,
like “h” houses, do shelter.
Humanity has always found the notion of being under
the unremitting gaze of an almighty “G“ God, discomforting. We escape from our
childhood into personal freedom and the last thing we want is another all-knowing,
all-seeing, judgemental – eternally punishing “F” Father. The denizens of the
House of Disbelief find it comforting to disbelieve there will be any
revelation of self, any judgement, and/or punishment. They also find it comforting
to disbelieve that there is any good or bad, right or wrong – no need for the
guilt we all accumulate in the course of a life – “if it feels good, just do it!”
An essentially meaningless, libertine life has its attractions, and many of the
saints and zealots of the House of Disbelief listed at the start of this essay lived
such a one.
Although amoral, the denizens of the House of
Disbelief still manage to clamber all over the high moral ground – they boast
they are not fearful of life and death like those timorous souls seeking
comfort in the House of God. They don’t need life after death because their
deeds will live after them, they don’t need special meaning because they have
strong personal meanings. They feel they are more intelligent than anyone who
believes in a God (some of the leading Disbelievers are proposing to call
themselves “Brights”). No need for incense, the smell of sanctimony hangs
heavily in the air.
But all Houses have some Truths. Main stream
religions (and religio-philosophies) like Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism – have “T” Truths and wisdom. The
problem with them – as we saw in Essay 1 – is that they bury the Truths under
their Truths. For me the “T” Truths within the Christian religion come from
Jesus (Love; Forgive; Do unto others) – and the obscuring “t” truths are the
doctrines which all came later (Trinity, Salvation, Original Sin, Virgin-birth
etc.) This does not remove the Truths the House of God has, but does obscure
their light under a bushel.
The same applies to the House of Disbelief, it does
have Truths.
What are they?
THE USEFUL TRUTHS AND ROLES OF DISBELIEF
Scepticism often can play a useful role in a healthy society
– counter-balancing dangerous religious sects and pseudo-historians like holocaust-deniers,
for example. Disbelief does put religion under the microscope and clearly see
its evils – and the misuses it has been put to. For example, to control the
masses by the powerful, and as a comfort. This from two of the leading lights
of the House of Disbelief:
“Religion
is the opiate of the masses” – Marx.
And religion is:
“Man’s
need to make his helplessness tolerable” – Freud.
Truths are always useful. These particular Truths enable
us to see religion clearly for what it is. However, it is invariably forgotten
that these statements are about the credibility of religion – its “g” god and purpose
– not about the possible existence of any rational God and special meaning
(which, I will argue, are Truths we need to seek). They exult in the status quo
(the fallibility of truths that don’t suit their lifestyles) they are not
clarion calls to move forward and explore for the existence of any grander Truths.
THE DANGERS OF DISBELIEF
Ideological “D” Disbelief can also be dangerous. Meaninglessness
tends to lead us into the sort of secular amorality which, can and has,
endangered our planet’s sustainability – consider the vast environmental damage
caused by the secular regimes of communist U.S.S.R.,
Disbelief retards our spiritual evolution by denying it
– even denying the existence of the spiritual at all – preferring to see it as
animal emotions and/or psychological needs. This is dangerous because, as discussed,
our technological evolution is outstripping our spiritual evolution. If we
proceed as if we were solely animals, just another species, we are headed for
extinction – just like any other species.
PHILOSOPHY – THE HANDMAIDEN TO SCIENCE?
Philosophy, for so long recognised as a footnote to
Plato, seems now to have become the handmaiden of science. The scientific
method has been proven to be sound, and our sound physical sciences based upon
that method have produced many useful discoveries for our physical welfare – but
does the prevailing philosophy of academe, based solely upon our physical
sciences, have sufficient ingredients for a satisfactory theory of everything?
Are there only physical factors in the human equation or are there spiritual
factors also?
THE PHILOSOPHY OF GOD AND MEANING IS GOING NOWHERE
The philosophy of God and meaning – surely one of the
most important branches of philosophy – has not evolved much since the debates
and controversies attending the formation of the Christian House of God in the
4th century A.D. Debate was largely ended by the compilation of the
official Bible, and the declaration of it as the word of God – the “B” Book.
The contents of the Bible were protected by murderous sanctions, it even ends
with a curse on anyone who tries to change it.
No serious debate about God and meaning was possible
until the arrival of the rationalist Enlightenment in the 18th
century. But even since then, both sides of the “God vs. no-God” and/or
“Meaning vs. Meaninglessness” debate have had a vested interest in the ancient
Judeo/Christian god. The House of God because its power comes from control over
such a vain and jealous god who responds to the correct worship – and the House
of Disbelief because it is a god so easily demolished. It is this joint vested
interest in the stone-age Hebrew god which guarantees the philosophy of God and
meaning goes nowhere.
Philosophy is meant to translate as the love of wisdom
and/or knowledge, but the first two essays have discovered that neither side in
the “great debate” shows any desire for getting to any Truth – just promoting
their own truths/doctrines, comforts by demolishing those of the opposition.
Winning the argument, proselytising for your side, as if life was like a huge contest
to be won for your side at all costs, seems to be the game – not the gaining of
wisdom or knowledge regardless of whose court it rests in.
New, real “T” Truths may well be discomforting to both
Houses? – as we discovered it was for the proponents and opponents of water
divining in the Introduction to these essays.
DISBELIEF – A NOBLE QUEST?
Some
Disbelievers feel they are on a brave and noble quest to save the world by
demolishing religion with its appalling history, and the equally appalling
prospects it holds for the future survival of humanity.
Disbelievers before
the Enlightenment certainly were brave people, who risked life and limb in
defying the House of God – fully worthy occupants of the high moral ground that
present-day atheists claim. Atheist philosopher Schopenhauer (19th
century) rightly said that since the rise of Christianity over a thousand years
earlier, the power of the Church was such that no Western philosopher approached
the question of the overall character of the world as we know it with a
genuinely open mind. But since about the 19th century and the rise
of science with its attendant “isms”: Darwinism; existentialism;
post-modernism; relativism; materialism – indeed, scientism – the tables are
turned. Now to hold a belief in God and/or special meaning risks credibility –
and requires courage. Disbelief dominates academia in particular, where it is
the “default” setting – to hold otherwise must be proven.
Disbelief now,
however, seems to have become inhabited by bullies – more like a sport than a
philosophy – the sport of slaughtering others’ slow-moving sacred cows. These
intellectual bullies most often have great minds capable of better (Dawkins
comes to mind). Capable of shining a little light perhaps, to illuminate the
journey that is life rather than generating heat in the form of anger and
separation in a world already suffering from too much of both?
To be fair,
some Believers are so stupid and ignorant that they do engender anger (not to
mention being downright dangerous with their promotion of holocaust end-of-time
scenarios). But perhaps the best way to counter dangerous religions may be to
find a more rational Divine, meaning and purpose rather than getting some sport
from killing and re-killing a stone-age god? I am not calling for another
religion, another segregation of people into competing groups – rather an
advance in the understanding of our Divine unity which must remove the need for
competition.
A CALL TO LEAVE
OUR HOUSES
Essay 3 calls for us to emerge from our Houses to
examine unideologically the evidence life presents for any spiritual factors in
the human equation, and what they mean for the philosophy of meaning and
purpose. We will explore for rational special meaning and ultimate purpose, even
for a Divine, “The Road to Truth” – which is life.
Graeme
Meakin, 2003 – Revised 8th February, 2010.
(Link to home page and other essays : www.onthemeaningoflife.com )