Life is just nature’s way of keeping meat fresh.

– Dr. Who, 2005.




In Essay 1 we examined the Christian House of God and found that, while it contains some “T” Truths (mainly in those words which can be reliably credited to Jesus – for example: Love, Forgive, Do unto others), it was an unsafe place in which to dwell – mainly because its Biblical foundations were unsound.

“Unsound” because we found the Bible’s doctrines (for example: Original Sin, Salvation, Trinity, etc.) to be untenable; its special meaning and ultimate purpose of life (basically a one-off test for eternity in either heaven or hell) to be incredible; and the Bible’s god was found to be a brutal, sexist, parochial, male, human “g” god of some ancient tribes (which primitive and brutal Abrahamic god has been the basis of most of the evils which have flowed from the three religions that share it – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

Does this mean that we must necessarily enter the House of Disbelief – that we must necessarily disbelieve in the existence of God; in the existence of any special meaning or ultimate purpose to our existence – that we must necessarily subscribe to Dr. Who’s grim nihilism, above?

In a word – no.

While many feel that to demolish theism is to establish atheism, this is illogical. To demolish, even all of humanity’s “g” gods, is not to necessarily demolish any real “G” God/Divine/Higher Agency that there may be. Similarly, to find our Houses of Gods’ ideas about life’s meaning/purpose to be incredible, is not to establish that there is no special meaning or ultimate purpose to life (our working definitions of such being: “special meaning” – meaning which life has for all of us, above and beyond our own personal meanings; “ultimate purpose” – purpose which life has for all of us, above and beyond our body’s animal purposes).

No, it is entirely logically possible that theism and atheism are both wrong.



While it is not possible for two diametrically opposed positions to be both right, it is entirely possible that they may both be wrong. For example, while theism and atheism can’t both be right about the existence, or not, of any real God – they can both be wrong in that they have wrongly agreed to determine any “G” God’s existence by arguing about a wrong “g” god (in this case the ancient Abrahamic “g” god).

So, Western theism and atheism are based on believing or disbelieving in the existence of a particular god – the Biblical Abrahamic god.

But the outcome of their argument over this primitive, religious “g” god establishes nothing about the existence (or not) of any real “G” God/Higher Agency – it only establishes the fact that they have agreed to argue over the same god. It is entirely possible that there exists a real God which has eluded them both – mainly because they are not searching for any such Truth of a “D” Divine – the old Judeo-Christian god ideally meeting both their purposes. In the case of theism, the Biblical carrot and stick god (equal parts loving and punishing) is ideal for gaining power over the hearts and minds of humanity and, in the case of atheism, this Biblical god is a straw god ideal for the House of Disbelief’s purposes (“ideal” because easily demolished).

The same applies to the existence, or not, of any special meaning or ultimate purpose to our existence. To demolish the House of God’s meaning/purpose of life (that life is a one-off test for a subsequent eternity in heaven or hell), is not to demolish the existence of any real special meaning/purpose to our life – and thereby necessarily establish the absence of any special meaning to life (as per the above definition). We will hunt for any special meaning/ultimate purpose we can find in Essay 3 – but for here, we need to consider that all philosophical positions must be able to stand on their own merits – they are not made more sound by the relative unsoundness of another position, even if it is a diametrically-opposing one.

To give you an example of this, I will tell you about my experiences with water divining – and with water diviners and “S” Sceptics of such. I relate the following story because the implications of it, basically, set me off on this whole exercise in the philosophy of meaning.



I had no particular belief nor interest in water divining until I quit the city to go farming. I planted out a small chestnut grove and, one day, a neighbouring fellow chestnut farmer dropped in for a chat. The season was dry and the conversation turned to water (so to speak). My neighbour was a locally recognised water-diviner and, unasked by me, he set about showing me how to divine water. I was sceptical (more of that in a moment), but went along with him out of neighbourly politeness.

My scepticism was based on a TV show which I had seen some years previously – that seemed, convincingly, to reveal water divining was a hoax. The organisers of the show were “S” Sceptics, who had gathered together a few guys reputed to be successful water diviners – in order to test their claims of being able to “divine” water. The challenge involved underground pvc water pipes – some filled with water, some not – the task for the diviners being to find which pipes had water in them. The diviners agreed to the test, and approved of the neutral referee (a well-known clergyman) that had been appointed by the Sceptics to oversee the process.

None of the water diviners did better than chance at finding which pipes had water in them.

Remembering all this, I was intrigued when my neighbour told me I had the “gift” of water divining after my efforts at detecting water were apparently successful (“apparently” because no holes were dug, the movement of the rods in my hands just coincided with the places where they had moved for him). What was going on? I certainly was not hoaxing myself – nor did I feel in possession of a Divine gift! After he left I did some investigating – firstly making up my own set of divining rods out of fencing wire, then wandering about testing them – finding that, indeed, they turned here and there. While a couple of spots where they turned offered above-ground clues of the presence of water (a well here, a spring there) I had no interest in deliberately making the divining rods turn over these spots. Puzzled, I then sent a letter about all this to the well-known Sceptic who had produced the above TV show. His reply was – patronizing – to put it politely.

I was more intrigued than ever. I then tried to make the wire rods more objective by giving them plastic handles so the wire was free to turn within them – or not – i.e. I couldn’t influence them by squeezing. Then I clipped a line level onto the wire to make sure I was holding them level and not tilting them to make them swing in the plastic handles. Same results – the rods turned at the same places. I tried the rods out on a friend’s place – the rods turning over a spot that he later successfully drilled for a well. Another letter to the Sceptic. Same sort of patronizing reply – with a detectable hint of fear and loathing (of the sort you tend to get from religious fundamentalists if you question their beliefs).

More testing on my part. I found that while the rods would turn over where you would expect an underground aquifer to be located (e.g. between two known surface springs on my property), they also turned in a couple of places where there was obviously no water at all. For example, they would turn over a dry, gravelly creek bed. And, more strangely, they would not turn over a dam full of water – even if I was standing in it up to my knees in it!? Further, they turned over wire fences and long-empty iron pipes in the ground, but not over my p.v.c. irrigation pipes full of water. The penny was beginning to drop. I then got a plastic bucket and a metal one – filling the plastic bucket with water and leaving the metal one empty. You guessed it – the rods turned over the empty metal one, but not over the plastic one full of water.


Water divining was a complete misnomer – it was not about water at all, nor was it a divine gift – but it had a “T” Truth which was potentially useful for finding water: metal wire rods will turn over weak electromagnetic fields such as those around wire fences, metallic rocks in dry creek beds, empty iron water pipes, empty metal buckets, and magnetic fields around underground aquifers comprised of metallic rocks. How is this useful? To find where an underground aquifer is located through “water” “divining”, is to increase your chance of putting a drill down in the right place for sweet drinking water (different from the, often undrinkable, artesian bore water which is deeper and literally everywhere in some parts of Australia). Especially if used in connection with surface clues like certain vegetation and the location/occurrence of known wells (aquifers seldom run in straight lines but if you start at a well or spring and work out from such, you can more likely determine its path with rods).

So, the TV program was an example of two diametrically-opposed positions being wrong – Sceptics were wrong to say water divining was a hoax; water diviners were wrong to think their rods were turning over actual water (and thus that they could find it in pvc pipes).

Another letter to the Sceptic – which I sent with a parcel containing some divining rods which I had made for him – to do his own research (he also has a farm). More fear and loathing in reply. This particular “S” Sceptic was also a columnist with a weekend newspaper and, co-incidentally, his next weekend’s column contained a diatribe against religion. In it I could see the same logical mistakes he had made against water divining – he was attacking certain peoples’ “t” truths (the “g” gods of our primitive religions) rather than trying to find the “T” Truth (about the existence, or not, of any real “G” God).

Another letter to the Sceptic pointing out that maybe he was making the same mistake with religion as he had about water divining – satisfying himself with slaughtering the slow-moving sacred cows of others (their vulnerable “t” truths), rather than hunting for big game (the “T” Truth). I’ll say this for him, he was a great replier to readers’ letters – his next reply, you guessed it, full of more fear and loathing – but lots more fear this time. Another penny dropped – this bloke was not interested in “T” Truth – only in his personal “t” truth because it was comforting to him (if you’d been a communist earlier in your life, as he had been, you wouldn’t want there to be a God either – after all they did kill more people than the Nazis!).

I relate all of this because it made me realise that, while we all have personal “t” truths and that while “s” scepticism is a generally healthy approach in life – fundamentalist “S” Scepticism and “D” Disbelief may be preventing us from finding useful “T” Truths in other areas – just as it did in its flawed approach to finding the Truth of water divining. By “other areas” I was thinking especially of the philosophy of meaning – a field where Scepticism and “M” Materialism have combined with atheism to form a comforting “H” House of “D” Disbelief for some to reside in rather than bravely seeking the Truth of the matter (yes, Virginia, Disbelief can be as comforting as religion). Just as the House of God is mainly about comfort rather than being a brave search for the Truth of any real “G” God (and any credible meaning and purpose to life).



The present orthodoxy of academia and the general intelligentsia is fundamentalist materialism. What this means for their understanding of the human condition is that, fundamentally, they believe we are just our physical matter – just atoms: accidentally existing in the first place; spontaneously and chemically alive in the second place; mechanically evolved the blind selection of random mutations in the third place. Meaning that, necessarily, there can be no God, nor special meaning, nor ultimate purpose to our matters’ accidental, chemical, mechanical, and random existence – which matter fully describes us.

All up, such “D” Disbelief based on such “M” Materialism is one of the prime drivers of the situation we saw in the Introduction: of too many of humanity floundering in a sea of meaninglessness (the other main driver being our incredible religions).

The reason so many are floundering is because said sea is bound by two shores which are hostile to any safe landing. Those “shores” being of the lands upon which the House of God and the House of Disbelief are built – both “hostile” to a belief in special meaning and ultimate purpose – one offering an incredible god, meaning and purpose; the other denying any such outright.

I use the term “House of Disbelief” – we all agree that there is a House of God, but is there a House of Disbelief?



The 18th century period known as the Enlightenment was so-called because it marked the era when philosophy started to emerge into some light, from what had previously been a long era of religion-induced darkness and stasis (most of the West’s main universities had been founded by, and run by, religions). The sparks which ignited the Enlightenment were struck by our growing scientific knowledge – particularly in the fields of astronomy and cosmology – driven by the discoveries of people like Galileo, Brahe, and Copernicus. These brave souls discovered that many of the things about the universe in the Bible are incorrect – especially our supposedly central place in it. Later Isaac Newton refined our mathematical tools, enabling us to better measure and understand our physical world – thereby enshrining the scientific method. Scientific knowledge, under this method, then grew on itself and discoveries about our physical world cascaded forth. Much of that, which had been previously mysterious about our world, was steadily being solved by our sciences – and God was needed less and less as an answer for anything we couldn’t understand (“God works in mysterious ways”). God was, thereby, gradually reduced to a lesser “god of the gaps” – which gaps in our knowledge were being continually shut. It was this process which eventually led to Nietzsche’s famous declaration about the death of God at our hands: “God is dead, and we have killed him!”

Continuing through the post-Enlightenment 19th and 20th centuries, the discoveries of sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, and (Darwinian) Biology rolled on and, as the gaps in our understanding of the physical universe were being reduced, bigger holes were growing in the Bible’s “truths”. As a result, atheism slowly dominated academic philosophy of meaning, and when education became more widely available to the general population in the West, such atheism seeped steadily into the general population. At the same time, our industries, using science’s increased understandings, trundled out a steady stream of marvelous bright shiny things: engines, cars, planes, electronics, medicines, etc., and people in the West came to worship science instead of God. Science was obviously based on “T” Truths because its products demonstrably worked and were making the world a better place. Priests (whose Book and god were now looking more and more incredible – and with an observably lower success rate at making the world a better place) were being replaced by scientists who seemed to have a full understanding of, and be in full control of – an apparently godless world.

Philosophy swung in behind science and “d” disbelief gradually became “D” Disbelief – a belief system, a religion for many – in other words, an “H” House. In this way, philosophy, for so long well described as a “footnote to Plato” – became, instead, the handmaiden of science. And the growing parish of this House of Disbelief were confirmed in their disbelief of God and meaning by the unfolding horrors of the 20th century – which horrors God was evidentially powerless to stop: the First World War; the deadly flu pandemic; the Depression; the Second World War; the Holocaust; the atom bomb (the latter, ironically, a present from physicists – the chief priests of the House of Disbelief). In the vacuum in the philosophy of meaning left by the gradual demise of theism, other competing philosophical “isms” bloomed – not only atheism, but: nihilism; existentialism; relativism; reductionism; determinism; materialism; post-modernism; Neo-Darwinism – and various nasty political secular/atheist “isms” as well, like Nazism and Communism. The secular corollaries of the philosophical isms were meaninglessness and purposelessness – which people attempted to treat with various other isms, like: nationalism, capitalism, sportism, consumerism – and alcoholism.

Towards the end of the 20th century, as the House of God made itself even more incredible by clutching even more tightly to fundamentalism and evangelicalism (literal belief in the Bible), the House of Disbelief became even more established in academia as the default philosophic position – i.e. regarded as established – any other position needing to be justified. In this way Disbelief, itself, thus became a form of fundamentalism, and the House of Disbelief came to share many characteristics with the House of God – it had an incontrovertible Book, saints, priests, zealots, doctrines, dogma, and creed. Viz.:

“B” Book: “On the Origin of Species”.

Saints: Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mill, Bentham, Darwin, Marx, Bertrand Russell, Freud, Camus, Skinner, Stephen Hawking.

Priests: The multitudinous Darwinian ideologues – proud enough of it to label themselves as such: e.g. evolutionary psychologists, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary neuroscientists, etc. etc.

Zealots: Thomas Huxley, Satre, Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, Stenger, Dennet, Harris, Adams, Shermer, Onfray (apologies to anyone I may have missed). 


·         We must only live once.

·         We are just our bodies.

·         There is no right or wrong.

·         Free will cannot exist.

·         Our every behaviour can be fully explained by natural selection.

·         There can be no “ghost in the machine” – we are entirely machine.

·         There is no Absolute “T” Truth – only your and my relative “t” truths.

·         To imagine a human destiny grander than death is folly and ultimate vanity.

·         There can be no God because there is evil.


·         Everything, including us, is determined by a causal chain of mechanistic events in this purely physical, cause-and-effect world.

·         Because only matter and energy exist everything is necessarily devoid of special meaning and ultimate purpose – we can only construct our own personal meanings and only have animal survival/genetic purposes.

·         We can have no soul/self because we are entirely of physical components.

·         Our “souls” are just naturally selected personality traits.

·         We are necessarily insignificant because so minute in a universe which is infinitely large (possibly universes).

·         Philosophy is dead because physics can explain everything” (Hawking).



I believe that everything is matter/energy which accidentally arose from a state of nothing; that life eventually just happened chemically and spontaneously; that we are just our physical bodies which mechanically evolved through natural selection of random mutations for no particular purpose; therefore our lives are necessarily devoid of any special meaning.

A book, popes, saints, priests, zealots, doctrines, dogma, creed – yup, disbelief is an “H” House.

And, like the House of God, the House of Disbelief has a tendency to swarm the high moral ground.



The exponents of Disbelief hold themselves to be the rightful tenants of the high moral ground, seeing themselves as more worthy than the religious who also claim the territory. “More worthy” because: too intelligent to believe in a God; braver because able to laugh in the face of death without the comfort of a caring God or any eternal life in a hereafter; morally superior because they strive to make the world a better place without seeking a heavenly reward; not egotistical because not believing in any anthropocentric human destiny.

Such virtue-signalling is well spelled out by one of the priests of the House of Disbelief – evolutionary psychologist, Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams:

...the virtue of being honest enough and courageous enough to acknowledge unflinchingly that there is probably no God, no afterlife, and no soul; that...we are insignificant in a vast and impersonal cosmos; that existence is ultimately without purpose or meaning; and that the effects of our actions will ultimately fade away without trace...yet to strive to make the world a better place anyway, without promise of eternal reward...who find a certain stark beauty in kindness without reward, joy without purpose, and progress without lasting achievement.

                        “Darwin God And The Meaning Of Life”, P. 308

And this from Professor E.D. Klemke:

An objective meaning – that is, one which is inherent within the universe or dependent upon external agencies – would, frankly, leave me cold. It would not be mine. It would be an outer, neutral thing, rather than an inner, dynamic achievement. I, for one, am glad that the universe has no meaning, for thereby is man all the more glorious.

“The Meaning of Life”, Edited, E.D. Klemke – P. 195 (his italics underlined).




As well as swarming the high moral ground, the House of Disbelief (also similarly to the House of God) tends to react with fear and loathing when its beliefs are challenged – witness the omnipresent sarcasm and loathing in the writings about God and special meaning of most of the abovementioned zealots of the House of Disbelief. This fear and loathing behaviour is typical of fundamentalists who have had their comforting beliefs disturbed – of people who are trying to win an argument to protect their own comforting “t” truths – rather than finding the “T” Truth.

But is this fair? Are there any comforts in “D” Disbelief? Let’s see.



Membership of the House of God is, observably, often driven by the comforts and consolations of religion – but is residency in the House of Disbelief comforting and/or consoling?

What possible sort of comforts could there be in “D” Disbelief?


  • Removal of the fear of death:

Disbelief allows the removal of one of humanity’s greatest fears – the fear of death. If life is just a brief, meaningless interlude in a sea of nothingness, we should have no fear of returning to the nothingness, the non-existence – from which we came. More from Dr. Stewart-Williams:

...the evolutionist must conclude, along with the writer Vladimir Nabokov, that ‘our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness’...Having established this point, we might want to ask why people so consistently fear death. If death is nothing, then surely there is nothing to fear. We do not regret our past non-existence, so why do we regret the prospect of our future non-existence?”  

(Op. cit., P.150)

·         Removal of the fear of judgment and punishment:

Fear of death stems not only from any fear of “non-existence” (of nothing) – it stems even more strongly from the fear of something: the fear of judgment and punishment. To remove belief in any “first cause”/God to the universe and replace it with a belief of an accidental universe(s) in which life just spontaneously occurred then mechanically evolved into us – is to believe in a something-from-nothing-to-nothing universe – with no transcendental reality. If there is no “hereafter”, with a possibly judgmental, punitive god, for instance, then there is no “reap as ye sow“ – what we manage to get away with in life, is over and done with forever and there are no ultimate consequences for our actions – any fear of judgment and punishment is comfortingly removed.


·         Removal of shame:

Some of our behaviours can be (uniquely in the animal world) shameful – crimes against our self – we become ashamed of our selves (“self” being different to animal ego, as we will discuss in Essay 3). Shame can be reduced and/or removed altogether if you can disbelieve there are such things as absolute “right” or “wrong” – nor “good” and “bad” – nor “sin”. The removal of these notions is very much a philosophical consolation offered by membership of the House of Disbelief – a consolation, of which many of the above men listed as “saints” or “priests”, partook freely (Marx, Russell, Satre come quickly to mind).


·         Removal of guilt:

We all harbour some guilt for certain “sins”/actions we regret. We don’t have to be criminal law-breakers to suffer guilt, it can flow from behaviours which, while not against secular laws, can be sins against our relationships with, and obligations to, others – for example: infidelity; abandoning our children after divorce; divorce for petty reasons (like taking a prettier “trophy” partner). And there are sins my grandmother used to call “holding a candle to the devil” – aiding, but not actually doing dirty work against others (for example, belonging to a murderous political party like the communists while not killing anyone personally). Again, some of the above mentioned “saints” and “priests” of the House of Disbelief had plenty of sins like these to be guilty about.


·         Removal of the fear of personal revelation in an afterlife:

The disbelief that there will be any ultimate revelation in an afterlife of our true self is also comforting for many residents of the House of Disbelief. That our public façade could be removed and the failings and weaknesses of our true self exposed is an ultimate fear for many – especially should such revelation be eternally carried in an everlasting afterlife.


·         The comforts and attractions of the libertine life:

As well as the comforting removal of the various unpleasant guilts and fears, listed above, “D” Disbelief offers the positive attractions of a libertine life. If it’s legal, it cannot be “wrong”, immoral, or shameful – if it feels good – do it! This has become the mantra of many in the House of Disbelief.



All up, “H” Houses, like “h” houses, are primarily about shelter and comfort – they are not a search for anything – especially not a search for any Truth of a matter which could be inconvenient and discomforting.

So, time to examine the House of Disbelief to see if this is true of it – or whether said House actually houses the “T” Truth of the human condition (and of the non-existence of any special meaning/purpose to our existence)?

Let’s see.





To understand whether a house or a “H” House is sound – one needs to examine its design, purpose, and fabric – just as we did when we examined the House of God.



The House of Disbelief does not seem to have been built to any design, it just seems to have grown organically over the centuries, especially after the Enlightenment period – spurred by the scientific discoveries of that time which countermanded much of the Bible’s explanations of the origins of our physical world, of the occurrence of life within it, and of humanity’s supposedly central place in the universe. The House of Disbelief thus just evolved gradually as more and more people entered its portals after the Enlightenment and came to sing from the same, increasingly ideological song sheets – usually Darwinist and materialist hymns against special meaning, ultimate purpose, or any God.



In response, religious fundamentalism became strident – opposing, especially, the Theory of Evolution being taught in our schools which countermanded the Bible’s version of the Truth. Religious fundamentalism attempted to dominate education (e.g. the Scopes Trial – where it was put forward that the word of God in the Bible should overrule human knowledge). Many saw the dangers for humanity in such a position and, in reaction, strident atheism (rather than a sensible agnosticism) slowly became entrenched (especially in academia) – eventually forming its own “H” House (of Disbelief) complete with dogma: there can be no God and creed: I disbelieve in the existence of any special meaning or ultimate purpose to our existence because there can be only animal and genetic purposes and personal meanings; I disbelieve in “T” Truth because there can only be personal, relative “t” truths. This House of Disbelief’s prime purpose, then, became opposing the House of God – preaching its nihilistic beliefs derived from our physical sciences’ increasing understanding of our physical world – basically that we were just our fundamental matter: accidentally existing in the first place; spontaneously/chemically alive in the second place; mechanically evolved by nature in the third. Fundamentalist “D” Disbelief, as it became, is well-illustrated in the works of the more strident office-bearers of the House of Disbelief – authors like: Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, and company. These, I like to believe, were mainly driven by a clear understanding of the evils of fundamentalist religion – not only its past evils, but its present dangers and potential for future evils as well. More power to their arms, I say, but is fundamentalism the best antidote for fundamentalism? Warring fundamentalisms usually generate more heat than light, maybe the best antidote to dangerous “t” truths is to find “T” Truths? This essay will examine whether the House of Disbelief is made of truths or Truths. If the former, in Essay 3 we will try to hunt for any Truths we can find.



What comprises the fabric of the House of Disbelief? Like the House of God, the House of Disbelief has foundations, walls and roof. Unlike the House of God, whose (Biblical) foundations were found to be unreliable, the House of Disbelief’s foundations are firm. These foundations are humanity’s scientific discoveries, whose soundness we prove every day by using said discoveries successfully. But upon the House of Disbelief’s sound scientific foundations are built some philosophical pillars – which pillars support the House’s comforting (for some) walls of meaninglessness and purposelessness – and hold up the sheltering roof of atheism. So, while the scientific foundations of the House of Disbelief are sound, the philosophical pillars built thereon are questionable – and it is these pillars which need close examination. 

So, what are they – these “philosophical pillars” of the House of Disbelief?




  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Natural evil.
  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Moral evil.
  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Religious evil.


Are these pillars sound? Let’s examine them, one by one.




  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL – Natural Evil.


I have just finished a book titled: “50 Voices of Disbelief – why we are atheists” (eds. Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, 2009) and, as Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” is the Bible of the House of Disbelief, then this book is that House’s hymnal – containing the voices of some fifty of our best and brightest: philosophers, scientists, medicos, psychologists and academics singing their personal anthems of disbelief. By far the greatest number of them give the existence of evil in the world as the main reason for having either lost, or never formed, a belief in any special meaning/purpose to life (and/or any God).

The evil referred to in the philosophical “Problem of Evil”, as it is known, can be categorized under three main headings: natural evil, moral evil, and religious evil. “Natural evil” referring to injuries, sickness, and death resulting from the always uncaring, often violent, forces, animals and diseases of our natural physical universe; “moral evil” referring to the evil we humans can do; “religious evil” refers to the evil done by religion (usually in the name of God). We will examine the problem posed by the existence of evil in our world evil under those three headings – because, for many, they form three separate, confirming, pillars of the House of Disbelief.

So – natural evil?

Before we launch into an examination of the problem for meaning and purpose that is formed by the perceived existence of natural evil – lest some of you think that I may be writing about natural evil from a sheltered position (i.e. never having experienced it personally) – let me relate that, as a young man, I personally lost belief in any special meaning, ultimate purpose, and/or the existence of any Higher Agency to a personal experience of natural evil round about the time I discovered that my mother had committed suicide when I was a baby – as a result of having post-natal depression from my birth. The abyss of meaninglessness opened at my feet.

Reflecting on others’ (often much worse) experiences of natural evil, softened the personal blow, a little, by letting me know I was not Robinson Crusoe – but also served to confirm my personal “D” Disbelief in any special meaning to life (especially, for example, the suffering and death of children – how could such short lives have any special meaning or purpose?) However, writing these essays, has led me to approach the subject intellectually rather than emotionally. What follows, then, comes from an intellectual consideration of the evidence I uncovered.



The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994) states the “problem of evil” to be: “…the problem of reconciling the imperfect world with the goodness of God.” This essay takes it further – to include also the problem of reconciling said “imperfect world” with the idea that our life in it could have any special meaning or ultimate purpose.

There are two things to be considered from this definition:

1.) Is the world truly “imperfect”?

2.) What must make for “goodness” in a “G” God?

We’ll consider these two questions separately.



One thing that is absolutely settled is that our world is not heaven – only meeting any acceptable definition of the word “heaven” for some people, and for them, only some of the time. All things are definitely not – as the Christian House of God’s hymn would have it: “bright and beautiful” – the natural world being more truly, as Tennyson noted: “red of tooth and claw”. The battle to survive in this our uncaring, competitive, natural, neutral world is undoubtedly, for the great majority of people, constant – and, too often, dire. But must it therefore be, necessarily, “imperfect” – as the dictionary would have it?

Some think so, and some think it is beyond imperfect – to the point of being 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)



Humans are killed by nature’s forces (storms, earthquakes, fires, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis), by its creatures (leopards, sharks, bears, lions, hippopotami, snakes, spiders), and by natural diseases (viruses, bacteria). All up, it is indisputable that ours is a naturally competitive therefore dangerous universe. But, taking that on board, what must we conclude about any purpose and meaning of our universe? In Gould’s words: “…if intent [purpose] be truly manifest, then what can we make of our universe”?

Gould tries to lead any rational attempt to answer by stating that it is “evil by any standard” – the implication being that our universe is necessarily meaningless. Not totally illogical, but it leads to an obvious next question: so what should a meaningful universe look like?



Anyone who loses meaning/purpose to nature’s undoubted dangers needs to explain: how should our universe actually be – for them to accept any credible special meaning and ultimate purpose to our existence in it?

Many, in their arguments against meaning from the existence of apparent evil, imply that our world needs to be Paradise before it can have any ultimate purpose – and before that purpose can have any special meaning. But could any existence in a Paradise be purposeful/meaningful? Pleasant, undoubtedly, but would any existence in such a heavenly state be actually inherently meaningless – because it can have no credible ultimate purpose – other than as a holiday from something more difficult, challenging, creative (especially of self)?  



Firstly let’s imagine what Paradise/Heaven should necessarily be like. For most people, it should be everything our world is not: a world devoid of natural dangers; no mortal challenges; everything pretty; safe; eternal life – and, importantly (for many critics of special meaning) – a level playing field for all: everyone having similar abilities, similar opportunities, and identical experience.

If so, what have we got? Probably a nice place for a picnic – but what sort of special meaning and ultimate purpose could any existence in such a reality have? Where is its creativity?



Now think of our present reality – our actual world: full of beautiful and ugly; dangers and thrills; defeats and victories – full of people with different abilities having different experiences. So what does this make our world? It makes it an impartial, natural, neutral world: a frightening place but full of inspiring beauty; a challenging place but full of personal opportunity; a world full of mortal dangers (some of which, some of us, actually seek for fun); a world and life which must come to an end.

So which place has the greater potential for purpose – Paradise (a non-creative absolute) – or here (our present, hugely creative relativity)?

Relativity allows this and that; now and then; here and there; you and me. Relatively also allows relatively good, better, best; relatively bad, worse, worst – allowing, in turn choice – which allows creativity. As opposed to the absolute which is enduring.



Some think that life is made meaningful through animal, sensual enjoyments (sex, food, drink). Some find meaning in their body and/or its achievements (beauty, excellence in sports). Some find meaning in getting respect/fear (having power, status, fame). Some find meaning in the getting and accumulation of stuff (money, fancy houses and cars, jewelry, clothes). Some find meaning in their children and grandchildren (meeting the animal, genetic imperatives of our selfish genes).

So far, all a bit Darwinian (and spiritually unevolved) but, for most, a meaningful human life also needs to involve the meeting of some of our spiritual needs – for example, some experience of beauty – natural and human-made. Let’s consider that for a moment – say our common seeking and admiration of natural beauty.

Most people enjoy picnics, holidays, excursions to places of natural beauty. The experiencing of our world’s natural beauty involves some challenge, some excitement, some adventure, often some danger – i.e. risking to greater or lesser extents our animal body and its selfish genes – varying from low risk (say a sightseeing car drive) to high risk (say dangerous activities like scuba diving to see the beauties of the underwater world). So what’s going on here with these unnatural behaviours? Risking our genes for beauty is unnatural behaviour to Darwinian ideologists – who believe that the only ultimate purpose in life can be the survival/furthering of said selfish genes.



“What’s going on here” is that while most of us value our bodies, our health, enjoy our animal senses, and seek to further our genes – we sometimes also are driven to brush with natural “evils” (injuries, death) because the experience of beautiful and sometimes dangerous nature can actually add special meaning to our lives (“special” because beyond the humdrum animal/Darwinian survival purpose/meaning of our bodies).

And consider, the beauty and thrills of nature “move” us (not our body’s atoms); “lift” our selves/spirits (again not our body’s matter) – meeting some spiritual need – at the same that it endangers our animal bodies.

There are apparently more factors to the human equation than just the animal?


So, the fact of natural “evil” in our universe does not remove special meaning from our existence in it. But what about ultimate purpose? Let’s hunt further.

Have you ever noticed that meeting our universe’s adversities often brings out the best in your self (two words)?



Often “bad/evil” times bring out the best in your self (bravery, courage, determination, consideration for others) – and “good” times often bring out the worst (greed, laziness, pride)? As the saying goes: “the finest steel comes from the hottest furnace”. Now I’m not advocating bringing bad times upon others, to do them a favour in the form of helping along their creativity of self, just observing the fact that “evil” in the shape of hard times (and, as in Job’s conundrum in the Bible – happening alike to good and bad people indiscriminately) must not necessarily demolish any ultimate purpose to our existence (or even remove a beneficent God – more of that later).

What sort of “ultimate purpose”?

Apart from the artistic creativity, what about spiritual creativity – personal/self growth?



For some, the idea of personal growth from evil is an obscenity; and I understand where they are coming from (there is precious little self-growth in an earthquake or an African drought/famine, for example) – but there is scientific evidence to back up the argument that, sometimes, facing adversity (evil) can lead to growth – i.e. the very existence of evil must not necessarily demolish the existence of special meaning/purpose. This from social psychologist (and Darwinist) Jonathan Haidt:

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.

The Happiness Hypothesis”, Jonathan Haidt (P.144).

Haidt backs up this idea by referring to several studies. In summarising one of them (sociologist Glen Elder’s lengthy study) – 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.”

                        (Haidt, ibid, P.151 – referring to Elder 1974 & 1998.)   

A point to notice here (for future reference) is that, by “them”, these studies are not referring to people’s physical bodies – but to their spiritual selves – i.e. adversity does not make our bodies stronger, but us. The point being: “them”, “we”, “us” – are not our bodies. We will examine our nonphysical “self” in much greater detail in Essay 3.



All of us, at some time or other in our life, will be sick or injured – mostly not drastically – and we will battle through without it changing our lives to any significant extent. However, some will, in their tangle with nature’s hazards, get drastically injured or suffer dire diseases – such that they can’t seem to be having a full life – as we, healthy people would define it. Surely natural evils, resulting in dire physical injury and/or sickness removes the opportunity for self growth from such a life – and the credibility from any theory that life could have a meaningful purpose based around spiritual/self growth?

In a word, no – self growth is still available.

Many who have suffered serious illness and/or physical injury have not had life’s opportunity for self growth removed. On the contrary, often it has led to self-growth. For example, I have just (2008) seen a TV program about children and adults with the disfiguring Treacher-Collins Syndrome who are living meaningful lives – one of whom is successfully studying to be a doctor. I also have in my hand a magazine article about a woman with a type of distorting muscular dystrophy-type disease who is very severely crippled in a wheelchair but is a successful barrister. Also I have read also a 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 – very inspiring, and definitely not a life devoid of the possibility of special meaning. And we all know about the amazing achievements of Stephen Hawking who was crippled early in his life by Motor Neuron Disease. These people are more truly inspiring than any superbly fit Olympic champion. These people have not lost purpose and meaning from their lives – and further, in many cases they have inspired ours to greater meaning and purpose.

So, all up, bodily adversity must not inescapably remove meaning from a life – and can actually be creative of self growth – even happiness (see Haidt, above).



Creativity is the core of our present relative reality. And such creativity is its ultimate purpose (the purpose of anything is what it does – and creativity is what this reality ultimately does). And such creativity allows this reality we exist in meaning (according to what is created – more of that later and in Essay 3).

As we have seen, relativity (as opposed to the Absolute) is the key to creativity. Relativity (good, better, best) drives the evolution of our bodies by nature forcing selection for best (natural selection). But, just as surely, relativity drives the evolution of our selves by allowing us to make selection for what makes us happy, happier, happiest – with our self (evolution of self through unnatural selection is considered at length in Essay 3). Whereas the Absolute is absolute – no creativity there.

Now the idea that our relative universe “allows” us (our selves) to select behaviours for ourselves introduces some big issues (for example, “allowing” introduces free choice and free will) – which issues are anathema to the House of Disbelief. To maintain disbelief in any specially meaningful ultimate purposes to our existence, the House of Disbelief must believe we have no free will – we, and all our behaviours are entirely the result of our bodies’ mechanical evolution through natural selection of whichever random mutations which are most beneficial to our bodily/genetic survival. We will examine free will/choice in depth in Essay 3 – for here we just need to keep in mind: what could a reality without challenge (like Paradise) create?

If the denizens of the House of Disbelief believe that ultimate purpose and special meaning are removed from our existence by the existence of natural evil – do they then believe that only living in Paradise could install such purpose and meaning?


We are starting to develop a philosophy of meaning around the fact that our existence in this relative reality allows us self/spiritual growth/evolution. We will explore this more fully in Essay 3, for here, in our examination of the soundness of the House of Disbelief, we need to consider how said House sees another form of natural evil demolishing such a meaningful purpose as self evolution.

We now need to consider the philosophical implications flowing from the natural evil that is the death of children?



Many have lost their belief in any ultimate purpose and special meaning to life after the death of a child – including Darwin. Darwin was a spiritual person, originally he intended to join the ministry – he did not lose his belief in any God and/or special meaning/purpose when he discovered natural selection – which he originally thought to be God’s method: “laws impressed on nature by the Creator” (Origin of Species, 1st edition Penguin, P. 458). As we can read in his letters, Darwin wrestled with belief and disbelief, but when his dearly beloved young daughter, Anne, died – so did his belief.

Such a loss of a child is enough to remove a belief in any special meaning (and/or in the existence of a Divine) for most. But, Darwinian emotions aside, is this a rational decision? What if we have more than one life?

Say what!?



Darwin, in fact, lost his belief in special meaning and/or any “D” Divine to a common speculation – one that, strangely, both the House of God and the House of Disbelief rely on: the speculation that we must only have one life.

How do we know how many lives (an incarnation of our consciousness/selves in an animal body) we have? The popularity of a “t” truth/speculation does not make it into the “T” Truth. How many times have you heard the statement: “you only live once”? (usually in ads for something very expensive.)

Why do I call the belief of only one life a speculation?

Because it is not supported by any evidence. It is based solely on the observation that our physical bodies are born, die, and turn to dust. But this “proof” relies, in turn, on the assumption that “we” – our selves – are just our perishable bodies. The nature of “self”, and its difference to our bodies, we have only just touched on, above – and more evidence to support the separate existence of self will be discussed at length later and in Essay 3 – but, for here, we’ll just say that to define us solely in terms of our animal bodies is unsafe, and much like defining books solely in terms of their paper: you can do it, but you’ll get an incomplete and totally unsatisfactory answer.



The fact that we are alive once, that the self, our being, our consciousness is associated with an animal body once – is amazing, and only proof of one thing: that it can happen – it is hardly proof that it must never happen again.

This observation from Voltaire is right on the money:

“It is no more surprising to be born twice than it is to have been born once.”

(Voltaire 1694-1778)



As observed, above, the speculation of one life has been enshrined as doctrine by both the House of God and the House of Disbelief.

All our various Houses of God make their living out of selling the story that life is a once-only chance given to newly-minted souls for the purpose of testing their suitability for eternal heaven or hell. Houses of God are built on their claim to have the power to ensure eternal life – which they sell to the gullible with a pitch along the lines of: because you only have one go at life, you had better come to us as we have the power to determine where you end up for eternity. However, it needs to be remembered that, as we saw in Essay 1, all religious speculations about the nature of our universe have been proven incorrect – so what are the chances of religious speculations about the nature of life in it, being any better – especially when it is about a tenet of belief which is so pivotal to the House of God’s power over humans?

The House of Disbelief has a similarly vested interest in the belief that we only live once – it is a major speculatory prop for all the “problem of evil” pillars holding said House up (along with the speculation that we must be just our perishable bodies).

OK, both of our “H” Houses have a vested interest in the belief that we must only have one life – but is there any evidence that we are born more than once?



While there is no evidence that we must only have one life, there is quite some evidence that we (our selves) have many lives/existences/consciousnesses with many different bodies, in many different countries, over many eras, as members of different races and religions – and as both sexes. We will examine the evidence below – when we investigate the last pillar of the House of Disbelief (that life is meaningless because it is a repetitive Sisyphean task going nowhere). And we will examine it also in Essay 3 when we explore the region of the anomalous.


But now we must consider the second point raised by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy’s definition of the Problem of Evil at the beginning of the examination of this pillar of the House of Disbelief: “…reconciling the imperfect [natural] world with the goodness of God”. We will approach this by considering: what should a God to be/do to be regarded as “good” (even to exist)?



While these essays are more particularly aimed at the finding of any “T” Truths there may be about the human condition and, particularly, any special meaning/purpose there may be to our existence – the existence of any higher agency/God is certainly relevant to such a task – if there is no higher agency (whatever its nature) than blind physics, then it could be reasonably argued that the universe is entirely physical, mechanical, accidental (and necessarily meaningless).



Much of the problem that the existence of what we call evil poses for the goodness and/or existence of any “G” God” stems from of what a God must be and do – to exist. It is a problem which has been around for a long time – this from Greek philosopher Epicurus (c. 341-270):

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to,

Then He is not omnipotent.


If he is able, but not willing,

Then He is malevolent.


If He is both able and willing,

Then whence cometh evil?


If He is neither able nor willing,

Then why call him God?”

A bit later than Epicurus, Darwin expressed doubt about a beneficent and omnipotent God when contemplating the following example of natural “evil”:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [a type of wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living body of caterpillars.

                        Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 1860. 

And this from modern philosopher, Dr. Stephen Law:

God is supposed by the Jews, Christians and Muslims to have at least three characteristics: omniscience (that is, He is all-knowing), omnipotence (He is all-powerful), and supreme benevolence. But it seems impossible to reconcile the existence of such a being with the fact that there is a great deal of suffering in the world.  … As God is supremely benevolent, He can’t want us to suffer. As He is omniscient, He knows we suffer. Yet He is omnipotent, so He can prevent the suffering if he wants to...God, if He exists, has all three of these characteristics. Therefore God does not exist.

“The Philosophy Gym”, P. 72 (author’s italics underlined)

So, the problem presented to our Houses of God – by the existence of evil is – if their definition of God is correct (omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent), then He cannot exist if good people (especially little children) suffer. From above, the argument is: “God, if He exists, has all three of these characteristics. Therefore God does not exist.

But should we (who are hunting for “T” Truth) accept religions’ definition of “G” God – given that Essay 1 found theirs to be a “g” god (a “t” truth)? The House of Disbelief readily accepts our Houses of Gods’ definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent) and meaning of life (a one-off test for eternal heaven or hell) because such gods and meanings are so easily demolished. The House of Disbelief is about comfort, security – like all “H” Houses – in this case comfort coming from the disbelief in any all-knowing, judgmental, punishing God (whereas the House of God gets comfort by believing they have control over such a punishing god through faith, praise, and worship). “H” Houses don’t want Truth – only the comfort of their own truths.

And how about special meaning and purpose – is any such removed from our life by apparent non-benevolence in the face of natural evil?



Must any meaning and purpose be removed by any apparent non-benevolence of a real “D” Divine? Such non-benevolence implied because we are free to play/interact in our potentially dangerous natural world without any God’s interference.

Consider, is not the parent who allows their children out in the dangerous world to grow by experience, more deeply benevolent than a parent who keeps his/her children locked away and not benefitting from experience? Must any truly benevolent God prevent us from interacting with life and all its thrills and spills –or would any such “benevolence” take any possible special meaning/purpose from each and every life?

Again, if we are looking for evidence of the presence or absence of special meaning in the way our world actually is, consider for a moment what the opposite to our present impartial and dangerous world would be like – if our lives were lived in a bubble of Divine protection, all things bright and beautiful, no unexpected dramas, challenges, or random dangers – what possible purpose could all our lives lived in such a theme park have, and what possible meaning? Such an unnatural situation would surely prove the existence of a nanny-God, but not the existence of any discernible ultimate purpose or allow any credible special meaning.  



Some feel they have disposed of the problem of natural evil as represented by random 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. For me, Karma is perhaps an all-too-easy answer – and not based on a lot of evidence that our misfortunes are immaculate retribution. It is also an idea that allows us to turn a blind eye to the struggles of others because they are warranted/deserved – and their suffering is needed? While I have argued that suffering must not necessarily remove special meaning, I nowhere argue that it is “needed”.



Another argument from natural evil for meaninglessness and godlessness is that bad things can happen to good people, and good things can happen to bad people – a twist of the Problem of Evil knife into the heart of meaning and purpose, for many. This is an age-old conundrum, and presented in the Old Testament Book of Job. Job was a good, god-fearing and god-obeying person, yet a string of natural misfortunes befell him. But, does the fact that fortune and misfortune are indifferent to your goodness or evilness, render life meaningless?

When people lose belief in any God or meaning because sometimes bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people, they are saying, in effect, that for life to have meaning it should be – at one and the same time – two different things: heaven for good people and hell for bad people. Think – would such a non-natural, metaphysical override to our world add or remove special meaning to our existence in it? Must our present natural world: impartial, uncaring of our goodness or badness – be necessarily meaningless, or is such neutrality the essence of its creativity – and such creativity essential to any meaningfulness and purposefulness it could have?



Life, in this relative reality – in which we find our selves (literally) – is immaculately creative of self. Look around at the people you know – you will see some growing/evolving their self – and some (for various reasons) managing to devolve. While not everybody manages self growth, the opportunity is there – in both life’s evil times and good times. But such growth only occurs because of life’s randomness, its unpredictability, in its neutrality to “good” and “bad” people alike – allowing anything to happen to anybody, at any time.

Can it be rationally argued that a meaningful world must be the opposite of this unpredictable randomness – that a meaningful world must always be “fair”: good to good, bad to bad – a non-random and predictable experience? Consider, what could possibly be the rational meaning and purpose of such a safe joy-ride whose outcome was known beforehand?

Such an idea for meaning – despite the presence of natural evil in our universe – relies on the existence of our nonphysical “self” here – and we will examine, more deeply the evidence for the existence of such in Essay 3 (and the evidence that self evolution/growth does happen through life). But here, we need to consider the counter argument of the House of Disbelief – basically: life may allow us to know and grow ourselves – but then we’re dead! Where’s the meaning in that!?



The attempt to establish “D” Disbelief because our physical body ultimately dies is, of course, predicated upon the following belief/speculations being the “T” Truth – namely that:

1.) What I am calling our nonphysical “self” is, more truly, just a physical product of the vibration of our body’s physical atoms – because vibrate is all atoms can do, and such atoms entirely describe us.

2.) We only have one life.

3.) There can be no reality beyond this real one (because it’s so obviously real) – so there’s nowhere for any nonphysical self to go/evolve into – so what’s the point of any, putative, self evolution?

To which I would answer:

1.) How can our atoms “entirely describe us”? Our atoms are constantly swapping with the universe (we have none we were born with after a few years) – but we continue.

2.) Why? That we are alive once is only proof of one thing – that it can happen – not that it must never happen again.

3.) How do we know this is, necessarily, the only reality there can be? This present reality is barely understood (95% of it is “dark” to us) – and quantum physics implies that this reality is not as real as we think (more of that in Essay 3).



Some Sceptics attack any argument for our universe’s meaning and purpose – which has been based on evidence of human self/spiritual growth – on the basis of such an argument’s anthropocentrism. Some even describe the idea that the universe could be about human spiritual growth as obscene.



For some, the very idea that life could be about the growth/evolution of the human self, an anthropocentric obscenity – millions of animals have suffered and died – just so that we humans can attain self-improvement? An objection well expressed by Darwin:

Some have attempted to explain this [suffering] in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement.

                        Quoted from “50 Voices of Disbelief”, (Edgar Dahl) P. 255

Tennyson’s phrase, that life is “red of tooth and claw” is certainly an accurate description of our universe. The creativity of relativity works through evolution – and evolution leaves a long trail of murders behind it. If life were a movie it would have to come with a warning: “All the animals were killed in the making of this film!” – including, of course, all the human animals. But what are we to make of that fact? What must it necessarily establish – or disestablish? Does the fact that animals have no observable “moral improvement” (or self/spiritual evolution – call it what you will) from their Earthly existence, and seemingly inevitable suffering, remove the fact that many humans observably undergo self evolution – and the special meaning/purpose that such self evolution allows?

I am an animal-lover, and have had many, much-loved dogs and cats in my life – so I am sensitive to Darwin’s point, above. And I have to say that if there is another, perfect, absolute reality (or ascendingly perfect realities) beyond this relative one that our self/soul presently exists in – it will not be “heaven”, “paradise”, or whatever – for me, unless I can rejoin my beloved animals.  As for suffering, no animal suffers more than the human animal – not only do we share the physical sufferings of all other animals, but humanity’s unique level of consciousness leaves us open, additionally, to the greater suffering found in the peculiarly human phenomena of mental sufferings – like guilt, existential angst, shame, unhappiness with self (self-loathing), and mental illness.

I will tackle the mysteries and philosophical implications of humanity’s unique consciousness in Essay 3 – here we just need to note that our suffering associated with experiencing an animal body (e.g. sensual pain, animal emotions like fear) – are necessary for our (and every anima’s) bodily survival. Such suffering must not necessarily remove any purpose from our animal experience; nor does it remove the spiritual factor in the human equation (wherein any special meaning of such purpose rests).

As for the accusation of anthropocentrism – science is coming to the conclusion that there is bound to be life on many other planets, in many other galaxies, maybe in many other universes (we will examine Disbelief based on our insignificant size cf. the rest of the universe(s), later). And if the human condition has spiritual factors (to be explored and evidenced especially in Essay 3) – such will likely be the condition of lifeforms which have evolved as far as ours on other planets – i.e. this universe’s ultimate purpose/special meaning is hugely unlikely to be just about us humans. The “lower” Earthly animals, of course, may also have a spiritual being – most likely, like us, being an integral part of what seems to be a universal consciousness/spirituality? Anyone who has had pets can tell some interesting stories about their spirituality. But that is a huge subject of its own, which I’ll leave to others to pursue – just exploring the Truth of the human condition as we are attempting here is enough of an exercise – but thank your mother for the rabbits, anyway.

The bottom line, here, is that no animal suffers as much as the human animal with its consciousness of its mortality and existential fears (and our medical sciences’ ability to keep our bodies painfully alive for decades past their “use by” dates) – and, while it’s debatable whether such suffering is necessary for self evolution, the existence of suffering by us or any other animal must not necessarily demolish special meaning/purpose to our Earthly existence/experience.


So, how does the House of Disbelief stand after our examination of the first pillar? Hardly demolished – but neither has the natural world been proven as meaningless because of its seeming “evilness”. All up, our universe has just proven to be: neutral at best; always random; unpredictable; challenging – and rewarding. And, potentially, more ultimately purposeful and creative of special meaning for being so.

Neither has any God been disproven – nor found. At the most, perhaps some sort of higher agency hinted at because of our existence’s immaculate opportunity to know and grow our self?

But there are more pillars of the House of Disbelief constructed out of other varieties of supposed evil. We will now consider the implications for any purpose and meaning to our existence posed by the evil acts humans occasionally do – so-called moral evil.




  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL:  Moral evil.


The evil we humans do: war, murder, rape, torture, theft, violence, and the such like, is commonly called moral evil – and many see it as irrefutable evidence of the absence of any God or any special meaning/purpose to humanity’s existence. For them, moral evil proves that we are nothing more meaningful and/or purposeful than just another animal – further, other animals just kill for survival, but humans purposefully do/are evil. Such proves that we can have no special meaning – and that there can be no Divine, nor design/purpose to life. One of the strongest expressions I have ever encountered of the godlessness and meaninglessness flowing from moral evil comes from Primo Levi:

                        If there is an Auschwitz then there cannot be a God”.

Levi was imprisoned in Auschwitz, eventually killing himself as a consequence of not being able to shake the horrors of his experiences in this evil concentration camp. But, while the evils of the Holocaust are many and undoubted, and Levi’s position of godlessness and meaninglessness to the point of depression and suicide is totally understandable – must nihilism be the necessary philosophical position for humanity to take from the fact that humans can do very evil acts – is the problem of moral evil a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief, and is residency therein the only credible position?

Levi lost belief in a “G” God – we’ll start there – that the existence of human moral evil disproves God.



The arguments against any God from the existence of moral evil are similar to the argument from natural evil that we examined above – if there is a God then “He” would stop moral evil (just as he would stop natural evil) – ipso facto, because there is moral evil there can be no God.

Who has not had any faith they may have in a God shaken when contemplating very evil acts like the Holocaust? Not infrequently, we are onside with Levi’s point. But, as in the above consideration of natural evil, all that has been established about any God from the existence of moral evil – is that we know nothing about the nature of any God that there may be – other than any said Divine is not an interfering, hovering, Nanny. Nothing is actually proven about the non-existence of a God by human evil – just as nothing is proven about the existence of a God by the (much more prevalent) existence of humanity’s good acts.

God, no God, or a God beyond our understanding – there are other arguments against our existence having any ultimate purpose and special meaning derived from what the existence of moral evil says about our nature.



Let’s start by considering what could be the implications about humanity’s nature from the fact that we can do evil acts – for example, is it established that:

·         The nature of humanity is purely animal?

·         Meaningless bodily survival and genetic imperatives can be our only purposes?

·         There can be no nonphysical, spiritual factors in the human equation (which factors could allow our existence to have special purpose/meaning?

To approach something about the nature of humanity from our committal of evil acts, we firstly need to understand a little more about what could motivate the evil deeds humans sometimes do.



Firstly, what is moral evil – is it “a thing in itself” – an object, a drive, a need, something we can possess?

No, evil is not an object we can see and/or hold, it is an act deriving from a thought, and, while we can commit evil, it satisfies no drive or need.

In many ways, evil seems not to describe a presence of something – but an absence – a bit like the word “cold”. We have all experienced cold – we think that we can feel cold when we touch something judged to be “cold” – but in fact we don’t feel cold, we just feel heat being conducted out through our skin (for example, metal always feels colder than wood at the same temperature because it is the better conductor). Physics confirms that cold cannot exist as a thing in itself – Absolute Zero (minus 273 degrees C.) cannot be attained. Since the original, billion-degree conversion of energy into matter at the big bang beginning of the universe everything has heat to some degree. Nothing we call “cold” has cold as a thing in itself, just relatively less heat than something else – usually us.

So, what could the word “evil” describe an absence of?

To commit evil on someone, we definitely need to remove any love we may have towards/for them. Evil then is an absence – as love is a presence.



Love certainly seems to exist – as “a thing in itself”. Most of us have love for certain others – not only animal/Darwinian love of our survival group (tribe etc.) and gene carriers (children, grandchildren, family in general) – but friends, perhaps even from other religions etc. (i.e. other non-Darwinian groups). Some even have love for humanity as a whole.

And love is a need – whereas evil is not. Love observably exists as a need – we seek it, we want it, we need it, we give it, we get it, we feel it, we feel its absence. Love is integral to us, especially love of self – which is essential for any lasting human happiness (as compared to animal contentment – more of that in Essay 3). But evil is not integral to us, our happiness.

So, why do we do evil?



While evil may not actually exist as a thing in itself or answer any animal need of our animal body, it is accepted that we do occasionally commit deeds which can be fairly described as “evil”. Is evil, perhaps, as Paul’s House of God would have it, an original part of the human condition – are we born of, and full of, “Original Sin”? Does Satan exist, as the House of God insists – continually trying to influence us, recruit us into his “team” – in some sort of perpetual and God-sanctioned test of, or battle for, our souls?

I think we need to understand the human condition better than Paul did.



Evil seems to be committed by normal humans (i.e. not pathological, mentally-sick people) as a by-product of trying to achieve something else – rather than it being sought for any satisfaction it offers in itself. For example, evil acts are often committed in the getting of power, money, fame and status. But even if evil acts were done in the getting of these things – the doing of evil was not the sponsoring aim – evil was not the need being satisfied.

So, what sort of “things” are we are seeking when we commit evil – what sort of needs are being satisfied – to see what exactly is motivating our pursuit of these (often unique in the animal kingdom) things? We’ll consider the above-mentioned power, money, fame and status.



There are many types of power, for example: economic, political, religious, sexual, physical. Let’s consider physical power (fairly simple, but much that is involved in it applies to the other avenues of power). When a bully bashes a weaker individual, what’s going on? Basically the bully is exerting, displaying his superiority over another. But what is the sponsoring need behind such power – is it, as Nietzsche believed, all about humanity’s basically evil need/“will to power” – the main driving force in humans?

Commonly in bullying, there are no ulterior motives like robbery – the bully is just dominating, displaying his superiority – over others, and usually to others – “showing-off” to his followers. Why? As we will discuss, there are two factors in the human equation – the body and the self. The body factor is concerned with physical survival and genetic continuance – which bodily factor drives the display of superior power in bullying as a crude survival tactic (“I’m the toughest, don’t mess with me”) and also sends signals of genetic superiority to potential sexual partners (“your genes will more likely survive if you mate with me”). On the other hand, the self factor in the human equation is concerned with things spiritual, and the happiness all humans seek (uniquely among the animals) depends on being able to love/esteem our self. As well as cowing an opponent, the public “showing-off” of physical power in bullying also impresses others, getting their respect/fear. We commonly need the validation/authority of others before allow ourselves to feel good about, respect/love – our selves. In other words, the bottom line is that the bully is seeking happiness (although at the misery of another). We will examine the evidence for these two distinct body + self factors in the human equation in some depth in Essay 3 – and see more about the key role of how we feel about our selves in the getting of lasting human happiness.

Of course, the bully is mistaking his body (usually physically bigger, stronger) for his “self”. Such bullying behaviour often leads, in time and maturity, to self loathing – when/if the bully finally realizes his actual self is not superior but cowardly. Hopefully for the bully, this will happen before his deathbed (we also explore this in Essay 3).

The same sort of motivation is behind other power-driven behaviour in other arenas besides the purely physical (e.g. politics, business, even intellectual power) – but there also it has similar motivations derived from one of the two factors in the human equation: physical or spiritual – about physical/animal/genetic survival or about pursuing our need for happiness through increasing our self esteem/love.

The bottom line is that although evil is frequently done in power-getting of all sorts, evil is not the originating motive/need in such behaviour.



Similarly, the getting of money is usually motivated by both the animal and spiritual factors in the human equation. Money enables animal survival/dominance and genetic continuance – but it also allows love of self. We seek money to buy food, to buy a shelter, to attract a sexual mate – for bodily and genetic survival – but we often pursue money beyond enough to be able to buy sufficient food, shelter, transport, and attract a partner to propagate our genes. Many strive to get extra money to buy a house bigger than mere shelter dictates; a car grander than mere transport needs; jewelry we can’t eat; very expensive watches – what is that all about?

Having a lot of money enables us to feel/appear “successful” – superior to others – especially those who are also striving for money (there is nothing worse than someone who won’t play the game). Apparent material success enables us to feel good about our self – and it also changes peoples’ behavior towards us: deference, envy, jealousy, comments about your cleverness, admiration for your success etc. – all evidence which validates/authorizes us to feel good about our self (something we often need because we tend to be our own harshest judges).



Fame and/or status similarly allows satisfactions for both the animal and/or spiritual factors in the human equation. Status and fame can come from our achievements in many fields, for example: political, religious, sporting, artistic, and academic achievements. As with power and money, status and fame can both help us to better survive physically and genetically – and also changes other peoples’ attitudes and behaviours towards us (drawing attention, recognition, admiration and flattery to us which, again, allows/authorises us to feel good about, to even love, our self).



So, while human moral evil is often done in the getting of power, money, and fame/status – evil is not the sponsoring need. As we have seen, the sponsoring needs are twofold: bodily/genetic survival and feeling good about the self to achieve happiness. As we will see in Essay 3 (where we consider more deeply the phenomenon of the unique human need for happiness) any such self love/respect which is based upon power, money, fame – will only last as long as your power, money and fame lasts – or until the Faustian pact against the soul/self (which is often entered into in the getting of excessive power, money, fame) is called in?


So, the human condition is not as simple as the House of Disbelief needs to believe – we are not just a spontaneously-alive hunk of accidentally-existing matter which has been mechanically evolved by natural selection according to the survival values of random mutations – all our behaviours driven entirely by survival needs and genetic imperatives. There is much that is mysterious in the human condition – the fact that many of our behaviours (even evil ones) are actually ultimately motivated by love (our need to love/feel good about our selves in order to be truly happy) – leaves plenty of room for a credible belief in special purpose/meaning to our existence rather than indicating that residence in the House of Disbelief is the only logical option.

But how about those who seem to enjoy evil – the pathologically evil?



There is, of course, pathological evil – the enjoyment of evil, in and of itself. But pathological means sick – not normal – usually the result of mental disease, brain injury, or psychological damage in childhood.



For Georg Hegel, German Philosopher of the 19th century, human history demonstrated man’s inexorable progression – towards a state of final perfection and spiritual evolution. But fellow German Philosopher (and arch-pessimist), Arthur Schopenhauer, regarded Hegel’s idea (and any notion of a “God of love”) as a tasteless joke. For Schopenhauer, history is not a record of humanity’s spiritual evolution but 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 postmodern 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 hopelessness (or fundamentalist religion for a little comfort) let’s examine Young’s hopeless philosophy a little more closely. What drove these “mega-crimes” – the two world wars, communism, the Twin Towers – was it humanity’s evilness, our need/desire to act as a wolf to each other?



The horrors and evils of the two world wars, while they involved many evil acts, did not arise from any need to satisfy man’s evilness – they arose, as above, from those usual suspects of the human condition – the animal drive for bodily survival and the needs of the spiritual self. Take, for example, the Second World War – begun by the German expansion into its neighbouring countries – but what was the driving motivation: evil? Before Hitler came to power in Germany the situation was grim, huge reparations were still being paid as a result of losing the First World War and the Great Depression was in full swing – meaning that the economy was a mess, hunger was common – this, coupled with their defeat in World War l, meant self-respect was scant. Hitler promised his people two things: 1.) present and future animal survival (“lebensraum” – living room) and; 2.) the restoration of German self-respect/esteem/love (“You are the master race”). Thereby Hitler got the support of the majority of his country – his support was not based on promising his countrymen the opportunity to do evil. Witness the early images of his ascension to power: women throwing flowers and holding up their babies to see him as he drove past.

However, Hitler’s personal hatreds were pathological; his hatred of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, non-Aryans led to the committal of the ultimate madness and evil that was the “ultimate solution” of the Holocaust and concentration camps. Of course, it was not just personal – Hitler had accomplices, but when the full evils of the Holocaust were known after the war, the vast majority of Germans were disgusted – and remain ashamed to this present day – even later generations who were not involved. The, uniquely human, phenomenon of shame will be examined more closely in Essay 3.

And it should always be remembered that the Nazis were defeated by humans – not beings from outer space. Millions of innocent humans risked (and many lost) their lives, their health, their sanity, their futures, their animal and genetic survival (their selfish genes) – under conditions of utmost bravery and often lonely, unwitnessed heroism – in order that bad should be beaten and good prevail. To believe war proves humans are just wolf-like animals, is to forget that, and them.

Lest we forget.


But there are other examples of grand human evils – communism, for example.



Julian Young, above, also outlines the millions killed by communist regimes under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as proof of humanity’s evil nature.

While it is certain that great evils have been done throughout the world by communism – in Russia, China, and Cambodia, for example – are these evils evidence of man’s drive to prey, wolf-like, on his fellow man – proof of our evil and of life’s meaninglessness? To answer this we need to understand: what was the motivation for communism?

While many millions (mainly of their own people) were/are killed by the evils inherent in communism, was/is the opportunity to do evil (which communism allows as a “necessary evil”), the driving force which led to its original creation as a politically system – and/or to its later adoption? No, the founding idea behind communism was actually fairness, equality – Marx's workers’ “utopia”. Communism, the communal ownership and production of goods, actually arose as a reaction against evil – specifically against the evils of the Tsarist regime in Russia; against the oppressive warlords in China; against the unfairness of rampant capitalism in most of Europe (read Dickens, Dostoyevsky and his fellow Russian authors to get the picture of the average existence of workers and serfs before the adoption/creation of communism). Marxist themes were those of equality and fraternity, not any exhortation to do evil – or the meeting of any need to be evil – humanity actually set out to create a utopia, but ended up with a dystopia when the process got high-jacked by the usual core of ruthless people seeking personal power and status.

We also need to consider why communism lost its grip on the hearts and minds of many – rather than take over the world (as many predicted because of its readiness to kill its own people to keep control.)



Communism’s grip started to collapse when the Russian leader, Khrushchev, officially acknowledged to Russians the evils of Stalin’s reign – which acknowledgement spread eventually to the world in general. As a result, communism slowly began to lose its power in its Russian home, and many left the communist party throughout the world. If humanity’s nature was evil, then communism should have attracted humans when its evils were revealed by Khrushchev – rather than repelled them.

So, again, it is observable that communism, like fascism, was rejected by humanity itself – it was not defeated by some outside agency – by some troops from outer space which had to come and intervene against humanity’s evil natures.

And humans are, slowly but surely, becoming anti-war. War, once so readily embarked on as a kind of adventure (look at the pictures and films of jolly troops heading off to the First World War, for example) is now largely spurned by the general populous of free countries.



During the Vietnam war of the mid 20th century, anti-Vietnam war marches and demonstrations were frequent, and many young men who were drafted refused to fight. At the end of said war, returning veterans were often vilified by the public instead of being celebrated as heroes. Contrast that with the fact that, not too many years previously, it was the reverse situation – anybody who did not volunteer to fight in the World Wars was vilified – ladies even handed men who did not go to the First World War (surely one of our most needless wars) white feathers as a sign of the non-combatant’s cowardice.

More recently, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have caused anti-war reactions similar to the Vietnam war.

Also we need to consider all the soldiers who have been psychologically and/or spiritually damaged by their experience of the evils of war.



Those who think we are evil also need to consider: why do so many people emerge from wars with psychological/spiritual damage as a result of the evil things they witnessed; the evil they had done to them; even, the evil they did to others? (see the film “Railway Man”, 2013). Consider the recent Vietnam War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – more American soldiers have committed suicide as a result of their experiences in those wars, than were killed fighting in them. Most of us know, or know of, someone who suffered spiritual damage by their experiences with evil in war. The Australian charity (called “Walking Wounded”) formed for returned military veterans with psychological damage as a result of the evils they experienced in war, reported in 2016 that since 1999, 49 Australian soldiers have been killed in various wars (including Afghanistan and Iraq) – but 239 have suicided after returning – a number which is still increasing. 

What’s going on here, witnessing evil does not damage the human animal body – so what is being damaged? Obviously, witnessing/doing evil is only damaging to the human spirit/soul/self. Curiously, a damaged human soul/spirit/self can be injurious to the human body – physical sickness from self loathing is a phenomenon which has been documented many times.

So, more evidence of a duality in the human condition – two separate factors: body + self – different to the discredited Cartesian body + mind duality. We will examine more evidence for this duality in Essay 3.

But members of the House of Disbelief like to demote what we have been calling “spiritual” factors in the human equation, down to just physical, animal factors – seeing “self” loathing as just changes to the body/brain – more correctly, just psychological, emotional damage rather than spiritual damage. So, what of other animals?



Animals other than humans can be psychologically damaged by brutality/evil done to them (e.g. a dog that has been kicked) but they are not damaged by watching brutality/evil to other animals – a common sight for any pack animal (wild dogs, a pride of lions, antelope) during mating season. Nor are they damaged by evil they, themselves, do to other animals – e.g. a wolf killing a baby deer, a lion tearing apart a baby elephant, a killer whale toying with an injured seal, a cat playing with a crippled mouse, etc. etc. No, there is something different about human animals – who suffer spiritual damage not only by doing, but sometimes just witnessing, brutality.

Further, humans will often risk injury or death to save other human animals – often they will even risk death to save non-human animals, that they don’t own as pets or stock, from attack by other animals or from injury by natural hazards.

And no humans are damaged because of any good things they may do or witness in life. In fact this a ridiculous idea – good deeds, done to us, by us, or just witnessed amongst others only serve to “lift” us – to make us feel happy. But why are we the only animal so lifted – and which part of “us” is lifted? We will consider the idea of human virtue in Essay 3.



All leaders who are trying to encourage humans to do evil have to rely on propaganda. Rather than appealing to our evil nature when urging men to kill in war (which should be easy if we’re evil) leaders have always had to create hate for the enemy through propaganda to galvanise their troops. Hate is the main tool used by cunning leaders to enable the withdrawal of love, to enable separation from our fellow humans – to enable evil acts. It is, in fact, very hard for a human to kill another human face to face. When soldiers become too close to each other they realise their unity and similarities – rather than their manufactured separation, and problems occur for their leaders. For example, opposing troops in France during WW1 climbed out of their trenches and joined together in a celebration of Christmas. These soldiers were very quickly admonished and removed from that section of the battle line by their “superiors”. When the separation which has been manufactured is lost, the consequences for hate are disastrous – speak to a soldier who has had the experience of finding the family photos on the body of a man he has killed.

All up, doing or witnessing evil appears to go against some basic, non-animal part of human nature. We are not evil by nature.



In reply to the above, residents of the House of Disbelief respond that the part of the human condition which I am calling our spirit/soul/self is just animal emotion: psychological, not spiritual – just a product of the body/mind – and naturally selected because it is somehow advantageous for our bodily survival. As we shall see when we examine other pillars of the House of Disbelief, natural selection is “D” Disbelief’s solution for everything mysterious – for them every such behavior (no matter how apparently unnatural) must have been naturally selected – therefore somehow explained away.

However, if we are only a mechanically evolved, naturally selected animal, as these people say, why should the doing and/or witnessing of brutality damage our human spirit or “psyche” (call it what you will) if the soul/psyche is just an animal part of us? Why are we damaged by witnessing/doing/experiencing evil because attacking other animals is what animals naturally do? As we have discussed, animals, other than humans, are never psychologically damaged by the tearing apart another animal – even a baby animal that can’t protect itself – is just seen as easy meat.

So, if the feeling of having done evil is not possible for other animals, then the recognition of what is evil among humans can’t come from our animal factor. If evil is not an animal idea it must come from another place; if there is no idea of evil in nature, it is unnatural. Then, if it is just our idea, are we unnatural? We have natural animal bodies, so maybe it is some other part of us – e.g. our mysterious consciousness/self/soul/spirit?

And that unnatural/spiritual part of us seems to be evolving.



Not so long ago, in term of how long homo sapiens have been around, brutality was very popular – e.g. the Romans’ coliseums, and public executions. But we now shun public executions – we even demonstrate vigorously against capital punishment of any sort. Is this growth of compassion, empathy, and aversion to violence, Darwinian – naturally selected – or is it spiritual evolution?

The House of Disbelief must hold that spiritual factors in the human equation are a myth – we are solely an animal, no better than any other – randomly evolved, in a spontaneous, accidental, and entirely material universe. Especially our spiritual evolution needs to be a myth, we are no different to other animals except that our brains grew bigger because our upright posture freed our hands to use tools – which use expanded our brains (somehow – a bit Lamarckian?). We think better than other animals but are no “better” – we are actually worse because even though our brains are bigger our violence is getting worse.

But is this correct?



Contrary to pessimists like Young and Schopenhauer, we are not getting more evil, but are actually showing many signs of evolution – but only in a part of us which is not our body (our body not having noticeably evolved in the same time). Consider this from Professor Steven Pinker:

In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion ... conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler.

“A History of Violence” – Steven Pinker (Delivered at TED Conference, Monterey, California – about March 2007)

I think it is fair to say that Pinker is a Darwinian 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)

Pinker’s phrase: “we must have been doing something right” is interesting – it is not one you will hear in nature – there is no “right” or “wrong” in nature (more evidence that we are unnatural?)

Pinker extensively examines the evidence for declining human violence in a later book (“The Better Angels of Our Nature”, 2011) and, although rightly pointing out that there is still too much violence in our world, he confirms that it is truly and significantly decreasing. This is mysterious  in a world which is supposed, by consensus academic philosophy, to be entirely non-mysterious, physical, and reductionist – a world where all explanatory arrows are meant to point downward. Mysterious to the point of being “magical” – of even implying, perhaps, a divine, cosmic author?

To writers who have noticed declines of violence, the sheer abundance of them, operating on so many scales of time and magnitude, has an aura of mystery. James Payne wrote of a temptation to allude to ‘a higher power at work’ of a process that seemed ‘almost magical’. Robert Wright nearly succumbs to the temptation, wondering whether the decline of zero-sum competition is ‘evidence of divinity’, signs of a ‘divinely imparted meaning’, or a story with a ‘cosmic author’.

Steven Pinker, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, P. 694

While resisting such ideas himself, Pinker does credit that the door is left open to moral realism:

I can easily resist the temptation, but agree that the multiplicity of datasets in which violence meanders downward is a puzzle worth pondering. What do we make of the impression that human history contains an arrow? Where is this arrow, we are entitled to wonder, and who posted it? And if the alignment of so many historical forces in a beneficial direction does not imply a divine sign painter, might it vindicate some notion of moral realism – that moral truths are out there somewhere for us to discover, just as we discover the truths of science and mathematics?”

                        Ibid. P. 694.

“Moral truths”? Maybe the truly strange thing about recognizing moral evil is the fact that we recognise some of what should be seen as our natural, animal behaviours as being moral or immoral?

Pinker also says: “…we must have been doing something right?” – maybe that “something” is that we are evolving spiritually? We will continually examine this idea throughout these essays because it leaves plenty of room for meaningful purpose to our existence in this reality. But while there is evidence of some spiritual evolution in humanity it is not time yet for human self-congratulation because, dangerously, we do not seem to be evolving as fast spiritually as we are technologically – we have atomic weapons in the hands of primitive theisms and equally primitive atheisms and materialist philosophies. The main thesis of these essays is that the fundamentalist theisms and atheisms that are presently ruling Philosophy are both wrong, and are both substantial hurdles in the race to raise our spiritual evolution before we blow our bodies back to the stardust from which they were constructed.


Next we will examine the pillar the House of Disbelief that has been constructed out of the evils in religion.




  • THE PROBLEM OF EVIL:  Religious evil.


This pillar of the House of Disbelief, created out of the evils committed by our religions, is a staunch one – many have lost faith in the existence of any God and/or of any credible special meaning/purpose to life because of the evils perpetrated by religions – or by folk in God’s name. Some of what we will consider here has already been briefly discussed in Essay 1 (An Examination of the House of God) but, because the evils of religion form such a substantial pillar of the House of Disbelief for so many people, we need to consider it in a bit more depth here – and as a separate pillar.

One of the worst acts of religious evil I have ever read about was described by Journalist Warwick McFadyen:

The most chilling witness account of the carnage of that time [of Boko Haram Muslim terrorists in Nigeria] comes from a security official in the neighbouring province of Yobe. He was describing suicide bombings by two 10-year-old girls in the town of Potiskum. He said: ‘The second bomber was terrified by the explosion [of the first girl] and she tried to dash across the road, but she also exploded.’

            “She also exploded.

            “She was 10 years old.”

                        Sunday Age (Melbourne), January 3, 2016. P. 31.

We have considered, above, the problem for a belief in any God and/or special meaning caused by the existence of moral evil – but the above shocking evil was double jeopardy for any belief in a God or special meaning – not only a moral evil committed by man, but in God’s name. How could any God worthy of the name, let that happen? Many have concluded that there can be no God after such heinous religious crimes. The above newspaper reported that the Muslim leader, who ordered this murderous act, as justifying it by saying: “God had ordered him to slaughter hundreds of people. So he did”.

It certainly made me angry at the Muslim religion, religious people in general, and God – in equal measure – opening up at my feet the, not unfamiliar, bottomless pit of the meaninglessness of human existence. But, in the coolness of later philosophical contemplation, what does such a religious crime necessarily establish about the existence of God and meaning?

It certainly establishes something about the nature of God – that any God/higher agency which exists either chooses not to be an interfering Nanny/God, or is powerless to interfere in this world (surely if God could have, God would have, stopped such an outrage against innocent children in his name)? Thus, again, as we established in our examination of the other “problems of evil”, we see that the nature of God is not what the House of God tells us – for them God must be all of: omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. The above evil act establishes that this is not so. But what does this lack of understanding (by religion), about any God’s nature, necessarily establish about the existence or not of any higher agency worthy of the name “G” God?



As we saw in Essay 1, which examined our Houses of God, religion is the worst thing that ever happened to God. Religion is not even spiritual, being about temporal power over the hearts and minds of humanity through hope and fear, carrot and stick, heaven and hell – being basically about Darwinian survival motives (in this world and the next) – rather than being about finding any “T” Truths, like any real “D” Divine agency. And also, importantly, religions are about protecting religious officers’ power and status by protecting their religious texts – “B” Books, upon which such officers’ temporal power is based.

However, the fact that our religions are not spiritual – and that religions’ “g” gods are incredible and most likely non-existent – does not establish that a “G” God does not exist.



As for what the fact of the existence of religious evils does to the existence of any special meaning/purpose of our life, it can be rationally argued that any supernatural interference with our free will (even in order to prevent the committal of evil) would actually remove any credible special purpose/meaning that our existence could have (just as we saw with the idea of Divine interference to stop natural or moral evils). What could a totally safe, Divinely protected existence in some Earthly theme park – allow in the way of special meaning and/or ultimate purpose?  We are starting to see, in this essay, evidence for a credible special purpose/meaning in the immense creativity of our universe – which creativity is reliant on said universe being natural, neutral – apparently uncaring. There has been, evidentially, some Divine inspiration in several human artistic creativities – but no evidence of any Divine interference.

So religious evil exists, and that fact says nothing about the existence/nature of any real “G” God – but what does the fact of religious evil have to say about us, the source of such evil – about the human condition (and that about any special meaning/purpose to our existence)?



All religions over the years have been steeped in violence and evil. The Judeo/Christian House of God’s foundational “B” Book, the Bible, is a catalogue of god-approved slaughter of men, women, children, horses, swine and oxen. Also getting Divine approval are: ethnic cleansing; slavery; stoning of rebellious sons; sexism; homophobia; diseases and plagues from heaven; and the multifarious evils the Bible’s god has reserved for disbelievers at the “end of days” Armageddon scenario.

Predictably, the history of any House built on such a brutal “B” Book and “g” god will be littered with violence – and its history surely is. For example: the bloody slaughter of dissenting religious minorities (e.g. the Cathars); the murder of opposing denominations (e.g. the Huguenots); burning apostates at the stake; approval of the murderous Christian Crusades; several European wars (e.g. the 30 years war); the tortures of the Inquisition; various pogroms against the Jews. More recent examples include the bloody inter-denominational battles in Ireland, and the frequent pedophilia. And the Christian House of God is not the only one; the battles between the Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East; the continuing Jewish invasion of the West Bank in Palestine; Muslim terrorism (e.g. September 11th) – come to mind.

What does all this say about the Truth of the human condition – given that all religions were created by us, not by God – are we evil?

We need to dig deeper. Most religious evil is committed by religious zealots/terrorists – let’s consider what that reveals of the human condition – about the Truth of us?



At the beginning of Essay 1 we quoted Aldous Huxley: “At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political ideas.”

It is understandable that we should be zealous about our political ideas (dictatorship or democracy; Nazi or not; Communist or Capitalist) because such ideas impinge heavily on our day-to-day life – and chances of survival (think of the effects of Nazism and Communism on daily life). Many a violent protest has been rightly organised against political/social issues which will violently affect our daily lives, but why are some people so zealously violent on behalf of religious ideas – do they think that God can’t look after himself and hand out his own punishments (and for eternity)? Why do we have to turn ourselves into murderers (taking the risk of eternal damnation on our selves) when an omniscient and vengeful god (which is the type of god all terrorists seem to believe in) – will surely hand out a better, eternal, true justice at the end of our lives?

To try and understand religious zealotry, let’s consider what motivated the September 11 mass murder of innocents by religious zealots in New York.



What was September 11 about? Was it about handing out God’s punishment in this world? Was it, perhaps, about getting 72 virgins in Paradise (what do the female suicide/murderers get: 72 stud muffins)? Maybe some feeble-minded martyrs may be after Paradisiacal sex, but for the majority, terrorism is reportedly about repairing a humiliation to their religion – and through that, a humiliation to themselves.

So again, as we found above when we examined moral evil, religious evil is a type of evil which is more about meeting the human need for human happiness through self respect/love – rather than satisfying any human need for evil. In the case of September 11, co-conspirators reported it was about restoring Arab self respect lost from being militarily and economically dominated – very similar motives to the Jewish zealots who attacked the Romans around 70 AD. The New York terrorists were full of hate for the USA generated by the perceived loss of Muslim (and Arab) self-respect caused by American bases being imposed in their religious homeland (Saudi Arabia is the site of Mecca and the terrorists were mostly Saudis). Also American support for the Israelis who had invaded and dominated an Arab country (Palestine – containing the Dome on the Rock – Islam’s second most holy site) has generated a lot of hate. We all get some self respect from the success and strength of our groups (like religion) and, conversely, feel personal humiliation from group humiliation as well.



Most people get some self respect if they belong to a successful group – be it a dominant sports team, a nation which was successful at the Olympic Games, working for a successful company, belonging to a powerful country, a dominant religion, etc. To denigrate, disrespect, or threaten the success of your team/group is to threaten the self esteem of those who identify strongly with it (consider soccer football violence). For many Arabs, not only do they feel their religion has been humiliated, but they feel that their wider nationhood as Arabs has also been humiliated. Since the days when the Mediterranean world was dominated by the Arab Caliphate, the Arabs as a group had few successes and much exploitation. They have been largely brushed aside as people by the West – for example, as their countries were reduced to rubble when they were theatres of two world wars between mighty Western powers; when their oil resources were chopped up between the mighty Western oil companies; when the Palestinians were brushed aside to salve Western collective guilt flowing from the Holocaust which was inflicted on the Jews by a Western country.

Politically, the largely tribal Arab world was chopped up into countries which didn’t previously exist, by various Western Foreign Offices drawing lines in the sand ignoring longstanding tribal boundaries. All the above has led to much Arab anger and feelings of powerlessness. 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)

If you really want a man to hate you, take away his ability to respect himself. You can see the attraction that the terrorist group Isis had/has – in its promise to reinstate the Arab Caliphate of old. Such is more about restoring lost individual self respect – more about the universal need for love than about evil. This from Scott Atran (director of research in anthropology at the CNRS, Ecole Normale Superieure and senior research fellow at University of Oxford) concerning the membership of the terrorist group Isis:

As I told the UN Security Council this spring, what inspires the most lethal assailants in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings but rather a thrilling cause and a call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends…80 percent come from non-religious families…For the most part, they have no traditional religious education and are ‘born again’ to religion through the jihad.


There are other and more complex causes of Arab resentment against the West – especially past political interference in support of corrupt dictatorships (whether secular, theocratic, or a monarchy) which have suited Western purpose – usually to do with oil?



None of the above is an excuse for Arab and/or Muslim religious evil, but rather just an attempt to understand the whys of this recent religious evil and what such say about the human condition and any meaning/purpose to our existence (and/or, perhaps, about any God?).

From a consideration of the above, and from our earlier consideration of other religious evil (committed by all religions), the main motivations for religious evil seem to be two:

1.) Defending one’s own self from perceived disrespect, rather than being about defending a God. Some derive personal success, thus self respect, from their membership of a successful, strong, prominent religion – anything or anyone who lessens/disrespects that religion also lessens such a person’s self.

2.) Religious officers: priests, mullahs, rabbis, etc. – have a vested interest in their religion – their living, status, and power over others depends on the power, status, and success of their religion. Many are prepared to commit evil to protect said living, status, and power.



While there is no doubt that there has been, and there still is being, much evil done by religion – the existence of such religious evil does not disprove any higher agency worthy of the name “God”, nor disprove the existence of any credible special meaning/purpose – just as the many good things done by religion do not prove the existence of God or meaning.

All up, religious evil is not a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief – it is just a problem for the soundness of all Houses of God – specifically their “g” gods, and their meanings of life.



The bottom line for all the various “Problems of Evil”, considered together, is that we live in a neutral natural world – full of people. And life in such an uncaring natural world with all its adventures and dangers, thrills and spills, good and bad people must always involve the occasional suffering of “evils” – natural, moral, and religious. But must life in such a world be necessarily devoid of special meaning and ultimate purpose?

No, not necessarily. It can even be credibly argued that because we will all have to cope with evil, and decide where we stand in relationship to it (e.g. are we evil?) – such an (occasionally) evil world actually provides special meaning/purpose to our existence in it. For example, a life truly lived in this hazardous world, will truly reveal who we are – will provide us an opportunity to “Know Thyself” – a common dictum of many advanced societies. While I am not advocating that everybody should ignore, or excuse evil’s existence, because experiencing it is good for “character-building” (thereby productive of self evolution and thus potentially meaningful) – I am concluding that the existence of evil in all its forms must not necessarily remove meaning and purpose from our existence. And hopefully, the more we come to know our selves (two words) and grow our selves – i.e. the more spiritual evolution we manage – the less evil there will be? Well, at least less moral and religious evil, which is the product of us – but maybe, just maybe, if we advance our spiritual evolution, we may also find better the underlying unity of all humanity (more of that in Essay 3) and also at least cope better with unavoidable natural evils (diseases, natural catastrophes, etc.)


The next pillars of the House of Disbelief are founded on the successes of our physical sciences in explaining our physical world and our existence in it.






Psychologist/philosopher, Professor Steven Pinker regards science as humanity’s grandest achievement – posing (and answering) this question:

“If we were called upon to name the proudest accomplishments of our species, whether in an intergalactic bragging competition or in testimony before the Almighty, what would we say?”

[a few lines on we get his answer]

“…there is one realm of accomplishment of which we can unabashedly boast before any tribunal, and that is science.”

                        “Enlightenment Now”, Steven Pinker, P.385.

Pinker is right, we should be proud of our sciences – and thankful – our present high standards of living and health are based to a large extent upon our sciences’ achievements. But there is such a thing as “Scientism” – the belief that the only way which we can securely know anything about our universe, is through science. Scientism is well stated by member of the House of Disbelief, and philosophy Professor, Alex Rosenberg:

...we’ll call the worldview that all of us atheists (and even some agnostics) share ‘scientism’. This is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when ‘complete’, what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today.”

                        “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality”, Alex Rosenberg – Pp. 6-7.

That our sciences have uncovered “T” Truths about the physical universe is evident in the ever expanding and dazzling array of new products and medicines it lays before us, almost on a daily basis – which products we use regularly and successfully. Pinker is rightly in awe of our sciences’ successes – but is Rosenberg right to say: “that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything”?

What are the philosophical implications if Rosenberg is right – that our sciences and their methods are the: “only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything”?

Well, for starters, philosophy (“Love of knowledge”: Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2016) – is dead!



In his above quoted work, philosopher Rosenberg feels science can pretty much answer all of the big questions philosophy has concerned itself with over the centuries: “Given what we know from the sciences, the answers are all pretty obvious…provided you place your confidence in science to provide the answers. Rosenberg lists some of the biggest philosophical questions, then supplies what he sees as scientism’s answers:

            Is there a God?    No.

            What is the nature of reality?   What physics says it is.

                        What is the purpose of the universe?    There is none.

                        What is the meaning of life?    Ditto…

                        Is there a soul? Is it immortal?    Are you kidding?

                        Is there free will?    Not a chance! ...

What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad?    There is no moral difference between them…

                                    Op cit., Rosenberg, Pp. 2-3 (author’s italics underlined).

So, the end of philosophy is upon us – science knows we are purposeless and meaninglessness because physics knows everything about our “reality”.

Academic philosophy pretty much agrees – installing materialism as the philosophy de jour (basically all there is to our reality is matter and energy). In this way, philosophy has become the handmaiden to our physical sciences – standing, bowed in awe, humbled at the prospect of their (allegedly) rapidly-approaching final integration of all our sciences – into a bullet-proof Theory of Everything. The final solution – allegedly leaving no questions unanswered – surely the end of the philosophy of meaning?



So, is the death of philosophy upon us? Most physical scientists think so, and would be pleased to see its body stuffed, and kept in a glass case in the Museum of the History of Thought. James Gleick, the biographer of brilliant atomic physicist Richard Feynman’s, tells us that:

…Feynman scorned philosophers.” [allegedly describing them as “better suited to cocktail parties than academia.”]

                        “Genius”, James Gleick, P. 429

Atomic physicist, Ernest Rutherford famously said:

                        There is only physics. All the rest is stamp collecting.

Leaving Stephen Hawking to administer the coup de grace:

Philosophy is dead. Physics can explain everything”

“Grand Designs – The Meaning of Life”. (U.K. documentary shown on SBS TV, Australia – December, 2012.)



Accepting all the above, of course, is based on the extent of “your confidence in science to provide the answers” (Rosenberg). But, is any such confidence well placed – can physics “explain everything” as Hawking says – must we necessarily accept Rosenberg’s glib answers to the big questions listed above?

This depends on whether “everything” is physical.



While it has been continually demonstrated that we can credibly place our confidence in our physical sciences’ knowledge of the physical universe – is the universe, in fact, entirely physical? We will be trying to approach an answer that particular question at our examination of the next pillar of the house of Disbelief (Materialism). But, for here, at the examination of this pillar of the House of Disbelief constructed out of scientism, we need to consider whether philosophy must forgo searching for the special meaning and ultimate purpose of life – because there necessarily is none – and just stick to dreaming up nice little, comforting, politically correct, (necessarily personal) meanings like: family, flourishing, career, etc.

Can our meanings be only personal; must our purposes only be animal – can there be no “T” Truths, only personal “t” truths – is the human condition to be only chemically enlivened accidental matter? Or is there special meaning to our existence (beyond our personal meanings); ultimate purpose (beyond our bodies’ animal/genetic purposes); Truths (beyond our personal truths – true for everybody, all the time)?

Does philosophy still have a valid role – or should it stick to being the handmaiden to our physical sciences?



Over the centuries, from the Greek golden age of philosophy – dominated by such giants as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – much of Western philosophy was often, and seemingly well described, as “a footnote to Plato”. Religion also played a leading role in the development of Western philosophy – consider that the House of God established most of Europe’s leading universities during the Middle Ages. Such religious influence also led to the “Dark Ages” for liberal thought but, subsequent to the advances of science (astronomy in particular) Western philosophical thinking was gradually liberated from its religious strictures – supposedly an enlightening process (which was even called the “Enlightenment”) – only to find itself slowly dominated by another fundamentalism: physical science. Such domination was observable to William James (1842-1910):

Although in its essence science only stands for a method and no fixed belief, yet as habitually taken, both by its votaries and outsiders, it is identified with a certain fixed belief – the belief that the hidden order of nature is mechanical exclusively, and that non-mechanical categories are irrational ways of conceiving and explaining even such things as human life.

                                    “The Will to Believe”, William James – Pp. 323-324.

So science had already become fundamentalist in James’ day: “with a certain fixed belief” – and that any non-mechanical explanation of nature was considered “irrational”. Today, as we noted above, we have scientism – where physical scientists scorn philosophy as suitable only for “cocktail parties” (Feynman) – or worse: “dead” (Hawking).

Let’s have a look at the philosophical positions which flow from scientism.



The main positions which have flowed from philosophy’s subservience to science are: Materialism, Determinism, Reductionism, Causalism, Evolutionism and Behaviourism. These positions presently rule modern academic philosophic thinking. They are scions of the scientism family – all close cousins – and when they party together they produce inbred philosophical offspring like: meaninglessness, nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism, atheism – and other such personal philosophies devoid of special meaning, ultimate purpose – and hope.

But are these positions sound – should philosophy be our physical sciences’ subservient handmaiden? Should we all reside within the House of Disbelief?

We need to consider: can physics truly “explain everything” (as Stephen Hawking asserts)?



Our sciences have, indeed, revealed much about our material world and the animals in it. Astronomy and cosmology have established the huge size and complex nature of our universe, and even explored back to its beginnings. Physics has revealed our universe’s great natural laws and forces and understands much of the sub-atomic world. 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. Chemistry has explained the elements, molecules and the power of their combinations – and claims to be on the verge of being able to create life. Neurobiology has shown us how the brain works. Mathematics – “the language the universe was written in” – has been the midwife to the delivery of the above.

As stated above, this has led many scientists to feel that our scientific knowledge is almost complete – that science stands on the verge of an imminent Theory of Everything (basically the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Physics). But some don’t – considering that our physical sciences may yet still have a fair way to go. This from scientist Dr. Bernardo Kastrup:

...there is much room for yet unknown causal influences in the material world: more dimensions of space-time than we can perceive with our senses; “dark matter” that is not made of atoms; “dark energy” that we cannot detect directly; and the macroscopic causal influences that may emerge as the level of complexity of systems move from atoms, to molecules, to tissues, to living creatures, to societies, etc., and which cannot be reduced to the properties of sub-atomic particles.

                        “Rationalist Spirituality”, Bernardo Kastrup, P. 86.

So, exactly what other “unknown causal influences” is there also “much room for”? Is there room for God, for instance? Science has long declared God, as an explanation for our universe, entirely closed out – or, at best, reduced to a “god of the gaps” – as insignificant as those gaps are small. But is this a realistic picture, is God so reduced or closed out?



It often seems that when science closes a gap in our knowledge we open up another at least as large? The amazing, curious world of quantum physics is a good example – it has solved many mysteries but has also opened up deeper mysteries like: the nature of matter (matter or energy – particle or wave?); the possibility of parallel universes; the existence of many more dimensions than our four readily perceptible ones; the phenomenon of non-locality (the entanglement of particles that have ever interacted – such objects permanently affect each other, instantly, even across the universe – which fact violates the speed of light law and suggests that the universe is profoundly different to our understanding of it); and the quantum enigma – the discovery that our observation (consciousness) of matter may be able to directly influence its existence (as matter or wave/energy) – i.e. that this material reality of ours may need our consciousness of it to exist as such.

Nuclear scientist, Amit Goswami feels that in the quantum world he has found evidence of God and downward causation – i.e. examples of occasional causation from the top (a God) down, rather than the always-upward causation of materialism which holds that all causes must be from the sub-atomic up:

We experience a quantum object, but only when we choose a particular facet of its possibility wave; only then, the quantum possibilities of an object transform into an actual event of our experience...Our exercise of choice, the event quantum physicists call the collapse of the quantum possibility wave, is God’s exercise of the power of downward causation.

                                    “God Is Not Dead”, P.23 (author’s italics underlined).

We can “choose a particular facet” of a quantum object. In the famous “box pairs” demonstration of the quantum enigma, we can choose to collapse the quantum possibility wave of an atom (which wave can be, and has been, split into two boxes at once) into a whole atom only in one box by looking into one box, or the other (but it’s always in the box we choose to look into). This is the so-called “quantum enigma” (enigmatic because our observation/consciousness can create physical reality). We will look at more of this enigma and its implications for philosophy, below, and in Essay 3 – but for here, we just need to notice that such is an objective and physical demonstration of the existence of free choice/will (we could have chosen to maintain the atomic separate waviness by releasing the atom’s field from both boxes at once). For Goswami, it is an example of “God’s exercise of the power of downward causation” – but “God”, or not, it is downward, not upward causation – and the end of determinism’s insistence that downward causation cannot/must not exist.

We will examine in Essay 3 another idea of what could be Divine downward causation: the mystery that is the apparent control of our universe’s forces. While those forces sometimes have random effects which are destructive, they are eventually creative (e.g. the evolution of life) – even into the teeth of entropy. Our universe was initially, and continues to be, tightly controlled – never was it out of control. While these essays are not particularly a hunt for any God – if Truth is our goal it must be asked – if our universe is not out of control, who’s in control?


“WHO” – GOD?

It’s not out of order to use the personal pronoun “who” here because the above-mentioned forces (with their crucially fine ratios, laws and constants) were written in an intelligent language – mathematics. We know it’s “intelligent” because we (an intelligence) can understand, speak, and write it – a mystery in itself, which we will also examine (in Essay 3). Such intelligibly controlled forces, ratios, and constants speak of a higher agency – but while the nature of such higher intelligent agency is beyond us – it is not beyond us to rationally believe that our physical universe is not the product of an initial accident, acted upon by chance forces, causing random effects, which were acted upon by blind mechanics to create/evolve us.

Materialists have come up with various theories to explain apparent intelligence away – for example Multiverse Theory – roughly: there are an infinite number of universes, so one like ours – stable, apparently controlled/designed – just had to come into existence by chance. There are a number of problems with such a theory which we will examine more closely, below (at the Materialist pillar of the House of Disbelief) – the point for us to consider here is: while the discoveries by our physical sciences of these forces etc. have certainly reduced the credibility of the existential explanations offered in religions’ pre-scientific books (and the credibility of the humanoid “g” gods depicted therein), they have at the same time opened the possibility of a more interesting, real “G” God (and special meaning/purpose) – unimaginable to our pre-scientific religions.

For example, science’s understandings of the beginnings of our universe in a big bang-type event opens the possibility that the original energy which, according to physics, became matter at the Big Bang was God (or of God, at the very least)? Physics tells us that such energy must have existed “in the beginning” because energy is eternal – being unable to be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics) – some of the key requisites of any real Divinity. Leaving us with the credible possibility that maybe God became the Universe rather than created it? It is in this way that science has opened up much grander ideas about what a “D” Divinity/first mover of the universe could be than our ancient religions could ever imagine – rather than having necessarily destroyed God, possibly science has revealed that God is the universe? “Inasmuch as ye do it unto one of these the smallest of my creatures, ye do it unto me”?

Faced with so much magnificence and mystery, why have the majority of our academic philosophers rolled over and spread their legs to scientism’s meaninglessness? Some haven’t rolled over, of course – for example, respected scientists John Polkinghorne (who took up the priesthood after being a particle physicist) and Rodney Holder (who did the same after being an astrophysicist) – but most have. While our physical sciences have uncovered “T” Truths (true for everybody, all the time) of the physical universe, they are nowhere near a comprehensive TOE: Theory Of Everything – 95% of the universe even remains “dark” to them (dark matter/energy) – quite apart from mysteries like: black holes; the cause of the big bang; how gravity works; the very existence of nonphysical consciousness in an entirely physical universe (let alone its role in the existence of matter; reconciling General Relativity and quantum mechanics.

No, science has not reduced God – to a “god of the gaps” – its discoveries have only revealed the size of the gaps in the walls of the House of Disbelief.

It’s a little bit of a sidetrack from our examination of the House of Disbelief, but it’s worth considering what sort of a God we would create/imagine if we were to start now – given our present scientific knowledge.



Do those who enter the House of Disbelief because of the paucity of our religions’ gods, believe that “G” God must be the Abrahamic man-god of the ancient Hebrews who created the universe in 6 days? Must God be the “g” god of their family’s religion, or that of the country in which they were born – or nothing?

As we have seen in Essay 1, most of our pre-scientific ancestors created their “g” gods in their own image – brutal, male, jealous, revengeful, sexist, parochial – awful gods, out of a hard lands, during violent times. But – must any real God (or any special meaning/purpose of life) necessarily resemble those of any religion?

Imagine if it was possible to completely dismiss humanity’s gods from our minds and start with a tabula rasa in that regard – and with our present scientific understandings. Would we, then, necessarily dismiss the existence of any special meaning, ultimate purpose, and/or the existence of any God/higher agency? And, if not, what sort of God would we construct today, given our present, scientific understandings? Would we ever come up with something like the very human, Abrahamic god of the Hebrew campfires – and ancient imaginings about creation like the Old Testament Adam and Eve stories, and incredible doctrines based on such stories by later doctrinaires – like Paul (e.g. doctrines like Salvation from our Original Sin?).

To clear the mind of the incredible often allows us to see more clearly. One thing which we would see clearly would surely be the immaculate, purposeful, and potentially meaningful creativity of our universe.



The creativity of our overtly uncaring physical universe is amazing, and most likely to be the key to any God – and/or any special meaning and ultimate purpose in nature. Consider this from Professor Stuart Kauffman:

God is our name for the creativity in nature. Indeed, this potent symbol can help orient us in our lives. Using the word God to mean the creativity in nature can help bring us to the awe and reverence that creativity deserves.”

“Reinventing the Sacred” (2008), P. 284 (authors italics underlined)

Kauffman feels that such a task as reimagining the sacred:

“... can be the next stage in the cultural, moral, and spiritual evolution of humanity…More, if we do not seek to reinvent our sacred together, our global retreat into fundamentalisms threatens continued lethality unopposed by a cultural evolution that can invite their willing participation.

(ibid P. 286)



That our universe is creative is observable. And a mystery – to materialists who believe that it was accidental in the first place, chaotic in the second place, and proceeded randomly and mechanically into the teeth of entropy in the third place. Across all this chaos, blind mechanics, and entropy were laid essential forces like gravity, for example – delicately set in fine ratios and crucial constants which allowed the creation of, and the sustainability of, our universe. While physical theories like Inflation Theory, for example, may be towards a credible idea of how our physical universe developed as it did – in the second place – but the question of how/why the great forces and constants of the Universe were there in the first place, all delicately set to make it so creative rather than chaotic and non-sustainable, is nowhere near answered.

And then there is the little mystery of life.



And, as well as being creative of a stable physical world, the universe also created life. How the inert became organic is still one of the great mysteries outside of science’s grasp. The science of chemistry can understand the necessary components of (amino acids etc.) and conditions for life (carbon, water etc.), but not how all the prerequisites beat the unimaginably huge odds to come together spontaneously to create not only the first ping of life, but then cell division, DNA, RNA, etc. Many feel that the science of biology, through evolutionary theory, can explain all mysteries, but while it has a good explanation for the emergence of the various animal species through natural selection once inert physical particles became organic – it has no explanation for that initial unlikely process. We will look into evolutionism as a pillar of the house of Disbelief, below.  


There are also many nonphysical factors in the human equation which are – and must always remain, by definition – outside of our physical sciences and the magisterium of scientism. These nonphysical factors also need to be explained before it can be claimed that scientism is the path towards a full understanding of the human condition.



Even if science finally comes to totally understand how life can eventually emerge from what was originally a billion degree furnace, we have only come to understood the physical half of the human condition. The other half is comprised of the nonphysical factors in the human equation. As we have considered, to describe a human with all our nonphysical complexities (like consciousness) solely in terms of its material body is like trying to describe a book in terms of its paper – you can do it, but you are still way short of what a book is – or the meaning and purpose contained within it.

In the quote above from William James, he spoke of “non-mechanical categories” in the human condition. These would include all our nonphysical behaviours like: our understanding and appreciation of non-Darwinian beauty; the ability of music to lift our spirits (spirits?); our uniquely human concepts of dignity, virtue, and shame; humour; and the essential role of non-Darwinian love (e.g. love for humanity as a whole – i.e. beyond just our gene bearers) in any lasting human happiness. We will examine more of the spiritual and nonphysical, below and in Essay 3, here we just need to recognise that such factors exist, and need to be explained away, before scientism can claim to be a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief.



Contemplating the claims of scientism to be on the verge of understanding everything, Kastrup sums up well:

We seem to live under a collective hallucination that science already has, or claims to have, fundamental explanations for everything in our lives, even though it may not have worked out all the details yet...this is far from the truth, even for most of the “trivial” everyday phenomena. Such a statement is not an attempt to diminish the success of the scientific endeavour: progress has been enormous, and the improvements it has led to in our lives speak for themselves. But it is not scientific to implicitly infer the dominion of existing scientific explanations upon phenomena for which such explanations have not been demonstrated to be sufficient.

                        Kastrup, Op. cit. P.40

And this from Ken Wilber:

With empirical science there can be little quarrel, but with scientism, well, scientism is a different beast…Science became scientism, which means it didn’t just pursue its own truths, it aggressively denied that there were any other truths at all!

                        “A Brief History of Everything”, Ken Wilber, P. 240.



All up, we must conclude that the scientism pillar of the House of Disbelief – constructed out of the supposed ability of science to explain everything about the human condition – is unsound. Scientismists (to coin a word) are far from being able to declare, as Hawking did, that “physics can explain everything” – because there is much about the human condition which is beyond physics. Science is definitely a wonderful thing (or, as James said, more correctly a method) which has brought us many wonderful things – but it has also brought us machine guns, biological weapons, atom bombs, and a host of other terrible inventions. If we have any hope to survive as a species, we need our philosophic and spiritual evolution to keep pace with our technological evolution – rather than deny our nonphysical, spiritual factor exists. Probably the greatest scientist ever – Albert Einstein – said:

            Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (Essay on Science and Religion, 1954)

For me, in Einstein’s above statement I would replace the word: “religion” with the words: “the spiritual”, because this expedition for Truth found in Essay 1 that religion was more Darwinian than spiritual, more about power over man and control over life’s vagaries than finding any spiritual “T” Truths – but the sentiment is the same, science only has an understanding of one factor of the human equation – the physical factor that is our animal body.

All that said, the philosophy of meaning – if it is to move towards the Truth of the human condition and any special meaning/purpose to our existence – needs to employ the scientific method: testing ideas and philosophical hypotheses against rational evidence – and standing always ready for revision in light thereof. 


Now we come to some philosophical positions which flow on from scientism – which, although sharing certain aspects, have enough differences such that they need examination as separate – first: Materialism.






Materialism is basically the belief that our universe is entirely material/physical – everything, including us, is of matter and/or energy – therefore everything can be, indeed must be, explained in terms of their physical fundamentals (and their interaction).

Materialism’s beginnings are usually credited to Hobbes in the 17th century. For him, everything could be explained in terms of matter in motion, including all mental processes – just movements of matter inside an individual’s skull. After Hobbs, and as humanity became more and more impressed by the discoveries of our physical sciences, materialist positions (of varying strengths) began to lurk within many subsequently developing philosophies. When our increasing understanding of the inert physical world was joined, in the 19th century, with Darwinian biology’s power to explain the living world, academic philosophy was gradually confirmed to a materialist (reductionist, determinist, upwardly-causal and downwardly-explanatory) model – able to explain, not only the inert physical universe, but every lifeform in it: all animals, including us humans, were just material machines which were the product of the blind mechanics of an entirely physical universe.



Physics thus laid the materialist cuckoo’s egg in philosophy’s nest. When hatched, the ensuing monstrous materialist baby (the entirely physical nature of our universe and everything in it) hunched out all the other pretty little birdies which were originally contained in philosophy’s nest (like notions of self/soul; free will; God; “T” Truth; any ultimate purpose and/or special meaning to our existence). And academic foster parents rushed to feed this growing giant materialist cuckoo – not lamenting the death of the nest’s original fledglings, but embracing the implications of materialism – like the death of God and the liberalist libertinism this allowed. Materialist philosophical doctrine stated that, because our world is exclusively physical, any meaning or purpose can only be personal (as opposed to special and ultimate); any downward causalism (like God or any other higher agency) must be dismissed as unnecessary; there can be no “T” Truth, only our relative “t” truth; anything nonphysical like self/soul/spirit and free will are just notions driven by animal egotism and/or human hubris (which are just naturally selected “behaviours”).

We search for evidence of “T” Truth throughout these essays, and will search for the existence of self/soul more closely in Essay 3 (and the implications for special meaning and ultimate purpose) – here we need to test the soundness of the materialism pillar of the House of Disbelief – that all is matter/energy.



The key tenets of the materialist model of the world are:

1.    Everything is fundamentally matter/energy (basically the same thing).

2.    The existence of this “mattergy” (to coin a word), and the laws of physics which control it are natural – just occurring accidentally in the universe – therefore not needing a “first mover/God”.

3.    The movement of mattergy under the natural forces determine the creation of every subsequent thing in the universe – including life.

4.    All higher-order phenomena (like behaviours) can be reduced to the locations and momentums of fundamental particles.

5.    Even mental processes like consciousness can be understood and explained in terms of materialist fundamentals.

These tenets of materialism are based on the first and central claim – that everything is of matter/energy (therefore can ultimately be understood and explained by physics and its allied physical sciences). Physics believes it is on the verge of an entirely physical Theory of Everything – just as soon as it unites the Theory of General Relativity and quantum physics – into a “Grand United Theory”. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics work immaculately but are incompatible with each other – at the moment. If such unification is achieved, some believe that such ability of our physical sciences’ to explain everything necessarily heralds the end for philosophy. As we have seen above, some physicists feel we are there already.

We need to examine materialism’s central tenet.



Materialism is a monist (as opposed to dualist), fundamentalist belief – which holds basically that everything (including all our behaviours) is, at bottom, just the energetic interaction of sub atomic particles. From a base, these particles/energy work upward to cause everything in the universe. In the case of us and all our behaviours, subatomic particles/energy form larger atoms, which combine to form various molecules, which form cells, which form brains, which form our ideas, which dictate our behaviours which are learned by physical stimulus-response mechanisms – everything is upward from our elementary particles of matter (not downward from some higher agency like God).



Materialism, as we saw above, derives its present philosophical ascendency in the academic world from the often spectacular successes of physics in particular – and the hubris of physicists (again, see Feynman, Rutherford, Hawking, above). But it has been often observed (after Maslow) that: “to a man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail”. The materialists’ “hammer” is their understanding of the physical world – what materialists like to call “the real world” – their “nail”.

Matter is all physicists allow – because it is all they know.

But anybody who holds him/herself out to be a philosopher needs to consider: is there credible evidence for the existence of any nonphysical parts to the universe – things observably existing, which are not comprised of sub-atomic particles/energy and created by their interactions – nonphysical things not written in the mathematical language of the physical universe – and therefore not susceptible to total understanding and explanation by our physical sciences?



The nonphysical is anything which definitely exists, but which you cannot produce a lump of for our physical sciences to test on their benches, barometers, beakers, and Bunsen burners. So what’s an undeniable example of the “nonphysical” for us to examine?

Let’s have a look at that strangest, most complex of all arrangements of matter and energy (that we know of, so far) – humans.

As we have seen, according to materialist fundamentalism, humans must have a monist, materialist explanation – just like everything else in the universe because there is only matter/energy in the universe. But does materialist monism well describe us – or, as already suggested in our examination of the above pillars – is it a bit like trying to describe a book by only referring to its paper?

It boils down to this: what are “we”; “us”?



We obviously have animal bodies, but are we just those bodies? While we often exhibit behaviours which are driven by our bodily needs (hunger, warmth) and genetic imperatives (breeding) – sometimes we exhibit behaviours which seem to be motivated by something other than our material bodies – for example: our understanding of, appreciation of, and need to experience/create – beauty. We explore beauty at some length in Essay 3 – here we just need to consider whether “we” are just our bodies, or must a full description of “us” include a nonmaterial “something other” – like our selves/souls/spirits (call such what you will) which can be moved by non-Darwinian beauty (e.g. art, literature, dance, music, architecture, landscape, etc.)?

We need to consider what exactly is “moved” – our material particles – or is it our nonphysical selves/souls etc.?



Materialists must have no truck with such a question. In a recent Science documentary (“Human Universe”), physicist, Professor Brian Cox said that “we” are just the product of:

                        “Rules and chance [which] played out together to make us.”

                                    (Shown on ABCTV, Australia, 14/1/2015)

But consider: our body is a collection of atoms which are continually swapping with our surrounding world – animal, vegetable, and mineral. In less than 10 years, not one original atom remains in our present body as it was 10 years ago. However our self (two words) remains the same – albeit with a (varying) amount of self growth. Such self (i.e. not our body’s) growth occasioned by our life experiences and our (i.e. not our atoms’) thoughts about such experiences – and our changing decisions about how to react.

Our decisions, reactions and behaviours are driven by what makes us happy. As we will see in Essay 3, what makes a nonphysical “self” happy is often quite different from what makes a physical body happy. The bottom line here is that our self, our being, cannot be our atoms which are in constant flux – while we are not. We/our self can change, but only through our experiences and our thoughts/decisions about to react to such experiences.

Our body is made of atoms, but we are not. There is not even such a thing as a human atom, let alone such a thing as a Tom, Dick, or Harriet atom.

So we are our self – but what, then, is our self? To determine more about our self, we need to have a look at some of our behaviours and determine what is driving them.



Materialism must hold that because matter is all there is, all of our behaviours are driven, bottom (from the interaction of subatomic particles) upwards – to meet the physical, animal needs and imperatives of our bodies. But do any of our behaviours not answer this description? Are there any driven by nonphysical “things”?

Let’s consider something nonphysical which is observably a part of our selves – something our selves have: our values.



What are our values made of – atoms? No, they are nonphysical. While they may be labelled as “naturally selected” if they lead to out-propagation of our genes, where do values come from to be so selected – random mutations (just particle interactions) to our atoms? But are we just a collection of physical objects to which things can only happen by accidental mechanical interaction with other physical objects – or can we make things happen according to our selves’ values?

While natural selection of random mutations seems to well describe the construction of all animal bodies, and perhaps some human behaviours, we are asking whether (even if only occasionally) our self can ever have higher agency than blind physics. Do we sometimes have free choice?

“Higher agency” than physics; “free choice” – a couple of ideas materialists believe have been pushed out of philosophy’s nest by the giant and hungry cuckoo chick that is physics. We are due to explore free will at some length, below – here we will just consider: are values only a mechanical happening or a choice we do?



Some of our behaviours are obviously animal happenings (feeding, breeding etc.). However, just as obviously, some of our behaviours are not animal happenings but doings, driven by our values. For example, doings like: going to an art gallery; going for a bushwalk; riding a bike/horse for enjoyment; going to a classical music concert etc. These are not animal happenings, no other animals exhibit such non-survival (sometimes even anti-survival) behaviours – these are behaviours which are not only doings which illustrate agency – but are freely chosen. Further, they are doings which have spiritual drivers – “spiritual” because, in the above examples, the motive was the desire to experience non-Darwinian beauty – which experience only serves to lift our spirits (sometimes, we will consider below, at the risk of the survival of our “selfish genes”).

Beauty (Darwinian and non-Darwinian) is a huge subject which we will examine in Essay 3, here we just need to examine the implications for materialism of the difference between happenings and doings. To that end we will consider that some of our behaviours (even those which are observably mechanical, animal happenings) can be altered by our nonphysical selves to become, entirely or in part – doings.



Human values can be observed at work in the way we choose to do some things, which things can be fairly described as causal, mechanical, animal happenings. For example, when we choose to dine (a doing) instead of just feeding our hunger (hunger is a happening); when we make love (a doing – so to speak) instead of having sex (breeding is a happening); enjoy the journey (a doing – raising our consciousness to the moment) rather than rushing through the moment to “get” somewhere (a happening). So, values not only cause some unnatural spiritual behaviours (like attending an art gallery, bushwalking, etc.) but can modify in a spiritual way our causal, mechanical, animal happenings (like eating and having sex) – in other words, our nonphysical selves can make our physical animal happenings be done differently.

To the point that we can experience ecstasy. Consider the ecstasy of making love to someone you love – compared to having sex with a prostitute. What’s the difference which separates the same act – the spiritual. Consider also tantric sex.

Ecstasy? What’s going on there?



By incorporating the spiritual into the animal, humans can experience ecstasy – a much higher level of enjoyment and a distinctly human phenomenon. We will examine ecstasy more deeply in Essay 3, here we just need to see that we can incorporate the spiritual into animal acts – more empirical evidence for the existence of a nonphysical factor in the human equation.

Our human equation should thus be written: human = animal + spiritual – a dualism which contradicts materialism’s monism. More of that, and the necessary nonphysical and/or spiritual conditions for human happiness also in Essay 3 – here we just need to consider that a full description of the human condition is not looking very likely to be materialist – merely fundamental physical particles acting, reacting and interacting mechanically.


So there are plenty of things about us, the human condition, which have nothing to do with matter. We are of the universe – so materialism fails as an explanation of “Everything”. We need to drill deeper into the very idea that is materialism. Let’s drill down to its very bedrock – the beginning of everything.



Materialists believe that because there is no higher agency than blind physics, everything, the entire universe, must have been accidental – further, it must have arisen from nothing.

The present consensus, materialist explanation for the existence of the universe goes basically like this: our present physical universe (or maybe even universes?) is the consequence of an accidental event (energy/matter spontaneously coming into existence) about 13.7 billion years ago. Most scientists are calling this event the big bang, or similar (the big expansion, big inflation, big bounce etc.) and subscribe to various theories by way of explaining the event (String Theory, Brane Theory, Inflation Theory, etc.) – but all envisage basically the same basic explanation of “how”: our universe(s) must have just happened (there’s that word again) – i.e. without the aid of any outside first mover, higher power or “A” Agency like a God.

However, all this accidental “happening” entailed some crucial things – which, upon consideration, appear to be anything but accidental.



The happening which created everything which exists came with certain crucially-tuned forces, intelligible laws, fine parameters, and essential constants – all in delicate balance and within necessary ratios. The laws are “intelligible” because written in an intelligent language – mathematics – which we know is intelligent because we, an intelligence, can speak it. That we, supposedly just stardust, can speak the language said dust is written in is another mystery we will look at more closely in Essay 3 – but, for here, what we need to consider is: how does the existence of these intelligently written and crucially set laws etc. meet the materialist theory that all is accidental and just the product of no higher agency than blind chance?

Let’s have a closer look at the things I have labelled above as: “crucial”, “delicate”, “essential” and “fine” – things whose existence allowed everything to come into existence in the first place – and to continue to exist into the teeth of entropy in the second place.



In the beginning, the seeming chaos of the multi-billion degree “big bang” was comprised of energy/radiation and sub-atomic matter/particles – which particles (once the seeming maelstrom became a little cooler) formed into atoms courtesy of the mysteriously-existing strong and weak nuclear forces – which forces were crucially strong/weak enough to allow the first nuclei of protons and neutrons to come, and hold, together as nuclei. These nuclei were able to capture mysteriously-existing electrons to become simple atoms: hydrogen and helium atoms (after about 400,000 years when the temperature fell below 4000 Kelvins). These simple atoms were compressed together by another mysteriously-existing force (gravity), into giant fusion events called stars – which supermassive bodies eventually burnt up their fuel and collapsed under their own weight with such force that they created some larger, more complicated atoms which were spewed out into the cosmos when the star went super-nova (exploded). These atoms became more numerous and were distributed widely after a few more cycles of star formation and supernova explosion – until less massive stars (like our Sun) were formed with newly gravity-formed planets (like our Earth) captured in their gravitational orbit. Larger atoms crucial for life (like carbon) were in existence by then, and some such atoms – in action with energy and necessary precursors to life (amino acids etc.) – spontaneously became alive.

So, by way of explanation for the beginnings of Everything, sciences tells us that, out of a state of nothing, accidentally-existing matter/energy became accidentally/spontaneously alive. Plenty of large mysteries there. The even larger mysteries of what happened after the inert accidentally became organic (i.e. evolution) we will examine as a separate pillar of the House of Disbelief, below.



So, as well as the abovementioned “mysteriously-existing” forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electro-magnetism) which allowed the existence of something to “happen” (for there to be something rather than nothing), there was the even further mystery that these forces had crucial parameters (like the force of gravity), set in in fine ratios to each other in a universe with delicately-set essential constants (like the speed of light). Such existences and fineness of settings was necessary for the very formation of atoms (the strong and weak nuclear forces allowing the delicate but powerful attraction and repulsion of sub-atomic particles necessary to form, then hold atoms together); the formation of stars (the force of gravity, set as it was, allowed the formation of stars and planets – any stronger and stars would have collapsed, any weaker and they wouldn’t have held together). All of which is without considering the 95% of the universe which our physical sciences know nothing about (except that it exists) – dark matter and dark energy.



Let’s consider what cosmologists have to say about the accidents necessary for the universe to get its accidental ducks into a row – sufficient for the universe to exist:

We really should live in a Universe with just radiation and no matter at all. But we don’t – and one of the most exciting aspects of modern cosmology is trying to understand what monumental accidents happened in the first microsecond of the Universe’s existence.

– Cosmologist Larry Krauss (quoted from “Universe, Couper & Henbest  P. 26). 



Krauss is not exactly getting carried away – he may call them “exciting” and “monumental”, but he still describes the events leading to our universe existing as “accidents”. Let’s consider just how monumental the accident was for the unlikely formation of enough, and suitable, matter to form a universe. Describing the initial moments after the beginning Krauss says:

“Every time a particle of ordinary matter was created, a deadly twin of antimatter was spawned as well. The birth of every electron, for instance, also saw the creation of an ‘anti-electron’, or positron. The two have exactly opposite properties. If an electron and positron subsequently meet up again, they mutually annihilate in a burst of energy. In the young Universe equally matched battalions of matter and antimatter waged war on each other. The skirmishes produced radiation…Why is there any material – matter or antimatter – left in the Universe today?…every now and then, one out of 10 billion interactions might have produced a particle of matter – one more than a particle of antimatter. In the end, you’d have 10 billion particles of antimatter, and 10 billion and one particles of matter. The 10 billion particles of matter and antimatter would annihilate, leaving just the one particle of matter left over. And that little bit extra is responsible for everything we can see today – it’s kinda remarkable!”

(ibid. Pp. 25-26.)

Kinda! Why not 10 billion and one particles of antimatter instead?

And what are the chances of the fine balance between the forces of order and disorder being accidental?



All should be chaos. In an accidental, natural beginning – any accidentally-occurring order should quickly be reduced by entropy. Professor Roger Penrose (mathematics, Oxford) has shown that, the chances of our universe naturally, accidentally having the required amount of order to combat the forces of disorder to produce the complexity we observe, is one in 1010 123 – a number so huge that the number of zeros totals more than all the atoms in the universe!

And let’s consider what astronomy has to say about the delicacy of the ratios, relationships, and proportions between constants.



UK’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, listed six fundamental numbers in his book “Just Six Numbers” – which represent ratios, relationships, and proportions between constants which must fall within narrow parameters for our physical universe to come into existence – and to continue existing:

  1. The ratio of the strengths of the forces of electromagnetism and gravity – determines the minimum size of stars so that their gravity can overcome the repulsive forces that keep atomic nuclei apart, allowing nuclear fusion. Stars being the factories of the more complex atoms (like carbon) which are the necessary building blocks of life.
  2. The proportion of the mass of a hydrogen atom released as energy when it is fused into helium inside a star. Slightly smaller in proportion and nuclear fusion would not happen – slightly larger and all the hydrogen would have been used up during the Big Bang and stars could not exist.
  3. The ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the theoretical critical density which would cause the universe to collapse eventually under its own gravity.
  4. The cosmological constant, or the energy that arises from quantum fluctuations of the vacuum. A larger value the universe would have expanded so rapidly that stars or galaxies would not have had time to form.
  5. The amount of energy it would take to break up a galactic supercluster as a proportion of the total energy stored in all of its matter. If smaller, the universe would be inert and structure-less; larger and the universe would be dominated by black holes by now.
  6. The number of spatial dimensions. With four spatial dimensions the orbits of planets would be unstable, while life would be impossible with just two. 

So how sits materialism’s tenet of accidentalness as an explanation for our universe?



Not securely. The bottom line is this: the fact that something exists at all appears to be because of considerable fine-tuning – written in an intelligent language. Our universe hardly resembles an out of control accident. So, Again, one is tempted to ask the same question we did in the examination of the Scientism pillar of the House of Disbelief, above: if the universe is not out of control, who’s in control?

And consider this:

Our understanding of creation relies on the validity of the laws of physics, particularly quantum uncertainty. But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time, and without a cause of their own?

                                    New Scientist – 23/7/2011, P. 29.

Physics laws were “encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed”? The existence of a higher agency (higher than blind physics) “outside of space and time” is credibly implied – whatever the nature of any “agency” may be (hardly likely to be the 6-day creating god of the Bible).


How about the other tenet of materialism – that our universe emerged not only accidentally – but out of nothing?



Some theoretical physicists feel that there is no mystery, that they can declare that something can come from nothing:

“We can also show that the laws of physics are just what they should be if the universe came from nothing.

Professor Victor Stenger – “Godless Cosmology” (in “50 Voices of Disbelief”, Ed Blackford & Schuklenk P. 116)



Professor Brian Cox, in the above quoted TV documentary stated that the Theory of Inflation emanating from quantum mechanics implies that our matter/universe came from a huge, amorphous, existing energy. (And, further, there is nothing to say that it must stop at one universe – this introduces multiverse theory which has even more implications – which we will examine, below). 

Dr. Kerry Spackman also feels Einstein’s famous E= mc² proves something can come out of nothing:

“...the equal sign in E=mc² means we can go in either direction. Instead of turning matter into energy [e.g. atom bomb] we can also create matter out of nothing but pure energy. This is a truly mind-boggling concept. We can take absolutely nothing but pure energy and make solid matter out of it.

                        “The Ant and the Ferrari” – Kerry Spackman, p. 35.

But, a little problem there – Spackman uses the phrase: “nothing but pure energy”. But is pure energy “nothing”? As Spackman says, E=mc² – energy can be matter – it is never nothing.



The existence of our physical universe could only be out of “nothing” – as above – if the original energy was nothing. But is energy nothing or everything? I don’t think that: (“        ” + mysterious original forces and order = everything) is going to stand as one of the great equations of all time?

And, if the first Law of Thermodynamics is right (that energy cannot be created nor destroyed) – whence the original energy which became matter at the big bang? 

Maybe there is never nothing, but always something?



More from Stenger:

“…let me address probably the most common question theists ask atheists, one they smugly think is the final clincher on the case for God: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’…The eminent philosopher Adolf Grunbaum has shown that the question is ill-conceived because it assumes that the natural state of affairs is ‘nothing’ and some cause was necessary to bring ‘something’ into existence. That argument can be supplemented with a physics argument that something is more natural than nothing.

                                    Stenger, ibid. P.116

Quantum theory also implies there can be no state of emptiness:

And quantum theory tells us that emptiness would have precisely zero energy – far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world.

            New Scientist Magazine (23/7/2011 – P. 29)

So, it looks like the answer to the “why is there something rather than nothing” question – is that there is always “something” – an eternal, absolute, infinite, original energy.

Sounds a bit “G” God-like – albeit not like the human “g” gods of our religions? Further, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that energy cannot be created – maybe God did not create the universe, but became it?

Hmmmmm. We may come back to that panentheistic idea (that God is all that is – everything is God/of God) later?

And did someone say “quantum theory”? Now there’s one strange cat. Matter (so beloved of materialists, but so little understood) may be more in the nature of a field/wave than the classic Newtonian idea of matter. And that is requires our consciousness to collapse/cohere from a wave into a particle – deepens the mystery/enigma that is matter – is it even real?.



After contemplating the strange quantum world, philosopher Jan Westerhoff concludes this about materialist reductionism:

“...we are in a situation where we cannot say that the world of quantum objects is fundamental...The moral to draw from the reductionist scenario seems to be that either what is fundamental is not material, or that nothing at all is fundamental.”

(“Is Matter Real?” – New Scientist, 29/9/2012, Pp.37-47).

Professor Philip Clayton has this to say about how materialism stands after the discoveries of quantum physics:

Quantum physics is not a threat to physics but one of its most impressive successes in the last century. It is, however, a threat to a particular understanding of physics, for it is ultimately incompatible with the world view of materialism that dominated much of the physics of the modern era.  

(“Information and the Nature of Reality”, 2010, Ed. Davies & Gregersen, P. 57 – author’s italics underlined.)

This from theoretical physicist, Henry Stapp:

…the intense intellectual struggles that took place here in Copenhagen during the twenties, principally between Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli. Those struggles replaced the then-prevailing Newtonian idea of matter as ‘solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles’ with a new concept that allowed, and in fact demanded, entry into the laws governing the motion of matter of the consequences of decisions made by human subjects.”

            (Davies & Gregersen, Op. cit., P.104)

And this from neuroscientist, Professor Mario Beauregard:

The quantum world appears different from the physical world…for example a central feature of quantum mechanics is the observer effect…This effect implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed. In other words QM acknowledges that the physical world cannot be fully understood without making reference to mind and consciousness.”

                        “Brain Wars”, Mario Beauregard, P.210

And how does materialism handle the mystery that is the occurrence of life?



After the original energy, sub-atomic particles, simple atoms, stars going supernovae, eventual smaller suns, planets, larger atoms like carbon – life arose on at least one planet which existed in a “goldilocks zone” – that is to say, just right for life (as we know it) to exist. Materialism must hold that life, like everything else in an accidental universe, arose accidentally – chemically and spontaneously – from the accidental physical star stuff of the universe. But such “stuff” was inert, sterile, dead – emerged from a billion-degree maelstrom. So how could it become organic?



Our physical sciences conclude that the enlivening of inert atoms happened on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago – most likely as the end result of physical/chemical action and reaction when organic monomers (e.g. amino acids) forming from organic molecules (e.g. water, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide) and teamed up with other (terrestrial or extraterrestrial) monomers to form organic polymers (protein) – all enlivened (maybe) with the energetic input of lightning?

Fine, possibly true – but how? This from Professor Thomas Nagel: viable account, even a purely speculative one, seems to be available of how a system as staggeringly functionally complex and information-rich as a self-reproducing cell, controlled by DNA, RNA, or some predecessor, could have arisen by chemical evolution alone from a dead environment.

Thomas Nagel.  “Mind and Cosmos”, P.123.

And this from theoretical physicist, Paul Davies:

The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind. …How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable only of pushing and pulling their immediate neighbours, cooperate to form and sustain something as ingenious as a living organism?

(“The Fifth Miracle” P.5)



So maybe the appearance of life no accident, maybe our universe was set up for life to appear?

Belief that life is written into the laws of nature carries a faint echo of a bygone religious age, of a universe designed for habitation. … [but] Many scientists are scornful of such notions, insisting that the origin of life was a freak accident of chemistry, unique to Earth... the chance outcome of a gigantic cosmic lottery.

- Paul Davies, ibid., P. xii.

With such scornfulness – “of a universe designed for habitation” – materialists are stuck with their “chance outcome” theory. Professor Brian Cox (in the above quoted TV documentary) even offers the puzzling logic that life could have occurred by chance – because somebody must win a lottery!? But if materialists like Cox feel they can put forward a lottery-win explanation for the existence of life, they should point out that if life occurred by chance it was equivalent to more than one, trillions-to-one-against, lottery. After the winning ticket enabling a stable universe to exist was drawn out of all the other trillions upon billions of tickets (ways the universe could have been unstable if its parameters and ratios were slightly different) – another single ticket would have to be drawn from another trillion-billion lottery – to enable the existence of life.

Yet another “giant cosmological lottery”. The odds against such exponential accidentalness of are so massive as to be incalculable – to the point that: if lotteries – they were surely rigged.

What physical and chemical processes can transform non-living matter into a living organism?…It is currently being tackled by an army of chemists, biologists, astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians … On the basis of their research, many of them fervently conclude that the laws of nature are, to put it bluntly, rigged in favour of life.

                        Paul Davies, ibid. p.xii

A theoretical physicist talking in terms like “written into” and the laws of nature “rigged” – we need to consider: who wrote?; who rigged? – some sort of higher agency than blind physics? We are entering the region of apparent intelligent design here, a region we will explore more closely in Essay 3 – here we just need to notice, again, that the materialist theory of chance as an explanation for the existence of everything is not looking very likely.

This is before we consider some of the mysteries of the life which arose – for example, human consciousness.



Human consciousness is another huge mystery that we will explore in more detail in Essay 3 (where we search for the “T” Truth of the human condition), but here we just need to contemplate how damaging the existence of consciousness is for materialism – that (supposedly accidentally existing and spontaneously chemically alive) star dust/matter can have consciousness of the universe – to the point of understanding it?!. Further, we have come to such a deep understanding of life that, while not (yet!) capable of creating life, we have become capable of recreating it (for example, by genetic engineering).

Materialism would have us believe that, by chance, humanity – entirely a creature of the universe – has become also a creator of it.

That’s truly weird – that an accidental material product of an accidental mechanical factory, has come to be able to understand the factory to the point of being able to redesign the factory and its products – way beyond Carl Sagan’s original mind-bending analogy of humanity being stardust able to observe the stars.



If a single living cell can be validly described as: “most complex”; “immensely complicated”; “so finessed”; “exquisitely clever; “ingenious” (Paul Davies, above) are there enough superlatives to describe the event of billions of these cells forming and co-operating together to form a human animal which has become conscious and able to understand the process to the point of being able to change it themselves through genetic bio-engineering? In materialist terms, this is: accidental atoms, accidentally forming molecules, which spontaneously became living cells – that mechanically evolved to be able to speak the mathematical language the whole process was written in to the point of recreating the universe!

And then there’s the problems presented to the materialistic world view by what quantum mechanics has discovered about the role of human consciousness.



For the soundness of the House of Disbelief, one of whose main pillars is materialism, consciousness is a huge problem. Materialism, holding that matter/energy is all there is, has to see nonphysical consciousness as the natural product of our bodily meat/brain – much like the liver makes bile. But it seems that it may be the other way around: the observer-effect indicates that subatomic particles do not definitely exist within space and time, but only have the potential to do so – such possibility being resolvable by an observer’s conscious intent! 

Faced with the implications of the quantum enigma, Dr. Mario Beauregard, associate professor at the Neuroscience Research Centre, University of Montreal, urges physicists to:

“…abandon the assumptions of classical physics and the scientific materialist worldview…The time has come for my colleagues to embrace the many possibilities of the universe opened up by the new physics and free their minds from the shackles and blinders of the scientific materialist credo.”

                        “Brain Wars”, Mario Beauregard, P.212.

More on quantum mechanics and consciousness – and what they imply for the Truth of the human condition – in Essay 3.



Materialism is looking a little incomplete – maybe even broken as a model of the universe and everything in it? We’ll leave the last word on materialism to Professor Nagel:

Other forms of understanding may be needed, or perhaps there is more to reality than even the most fully developed physics can describe. If reduction fails in some respect, this reveals a limit to the reach of the physical sciences, which must therefore be supplemented by something else to account for the missing elements. But the situation may be more serious than that. If one doubts the reducibility of the mental to the physical, and likewise of all those other things which go with the mental, such as value and meaning, then there is some reason to doubt that a reductive materialism can give an adequate account even of the physical world...The possibility opens up of a pervasive conception of the natural order very different from materialism – one that makes mind central, rather than a side effect of physical law.

                        Thomas Nagel, Op. cit., – Pp14 & 15


Nagel talks of the “reducibility of the mental to the physical” – let’s look deeper into reductionism and its close cousins determinism, causalism, and behaviourism. These are positions which are similar to each other and are usually held together (i.e. hold one, hold all).






These “isms” are all inbred cousins – the result of closely related physicalism and materialism having unprotected sex. They can be considered together as forming a pillar of the House of Disbelief.

Before we examine this pillar let’s define them.



Determinism is basically the belief that every state or event in our world is determined by some preceding state – even every human behaviour has been pre-determined – any “all-seeing eye” which could view the entire history of the universe all at once, could know the future of the universe and its inhabitants from what had already happened.



Causalism is the belief that this universe is entirely mechanistic – to the extent that all things existing at this moment are the end result of an upwardly causal chain of happenings, extending from the Big Bang up to now. We (and all our present behaviours) are just the end product of this mechanistic universe – we are entirely a physical bit of it – wholly caused by it.



Just a way of coming to the same conclusion by travelling in the opposite direction – starting from now, everything can ultimately be reduced to/traced through the previous behaviour of the particles of which they are comprised – all the way back to the initial happening that was the big bang. All reductionist explanatory arrows point downwards (Weinberg) – as all causal arrows fly upwards.



Behaviourism comes from the softer science of psychology, but flows from the other “isms”, above, which are more the products of the “hard” sciences (physics, chemistry, cosmology). Behaviourism flows from the belief that humans are entirely physical entities in an entirely physical universe – that we have no nonphysical self/soul which has a free will that choses our behaviours – rather, all our behaviours are learned/determined by a previous long chain of physical stimulus-response reflexes. Because we have no free will, our behaviours can be totally understood by physical science using the scientific method – this is well expressed by B. F. Skinner, one of the fathers of the Behaviourism school of psychology:

The hypothesis that man is not free is essential to the application of the scientific method to the study of human behaviour.”

As we noted at the beginning of this essay, that we must have no free will is a dogma of the House of Disbelief. We will examine free will next – here we need to examine the above positions to see if, combined, they form a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief.



So, the determinist/reductionist/causal/behaviourist pillar is constructed out of the belief that everything which exists has been determined by, caused by, or can be reduced through, a chain of physical events extending all the way back to the Big Bang – which “everything” includes us and all our behaviours (which were mechanically determined/selected by nature). No matter how complicated we seem to be, our bodies are the entirety of us – simply the end physical result of a long chain of simple physical events – just a physical aggregation of atoms which has learned to behave in the best way to survive in an entirely physical universe which began from a physical event (a big bang).

Further, our physical sciences have decided that the initial big bang which originated the universe was:

·         an accidental event which

·         occurred in a state of nothing

And that first life:

·         was a spontaneous chemical event

·         which life eventually evolved mechanically into us.

Meaning that we are an entirely accidental, spontaneous, mechanical, purely physical product – thus the human condition is necessarily devoid of special meaning and ultimate purpose – there can only be personal meanings and animal purposes.

Nor is there any God. This entirely accidental and completely physical Theory of Everything entails no “first mover” – having no room for any creator/higher agency/God because there is no need for one – no mystery in the creation of us.



This, then, is a fundamentalist explanation of us. Humanity (once thought so special) has been satisfactorily reduced to fundamental physical bits and all our behaviours reduced to learned responses to our physical world. Those poor souls who previously believed that the nonphysical factors of the human condition (like a self/soul) stood in the road of the successful completion of our physical sciences’ “Theory of Everything” are put out of their misery – we have no nonphysical bits, we can be entirely and satisfactorily reduced to a collection of physical bits that were determined by physical forces which (after the chemical accident that caused such physical bits to be alive) mechanically evolved through natural selection into an animal whose every behaviour is entirely caused by what went physically before.



So we, necessarily, can have no soul/self/spirit (whatever you want to call any such nonphysical component). Neither can we have free will – because physicalist fundamentalists feel they have proven that we are not free agents able to act according to our own will (the exercise of which could underwrite meaningfulness and purposefulness to our existence). As considered in our examination of the preceding pillar of the House of Disbelief, such fundamentalists feel that: “physics can explain everything” (Hawking).

But, can physics “explain everything”?

While it is observable that the material world (which includes our physical bodies) is determinist, causal, reducible to its fundamentals, and many of our behaviours are the mechanical result of our learned responses to physical stimuli – is “a physical body” a full and satisfactory description of us – or is there more to the human condition?

Let’s answer this by determining whether there is anything nonphysical about us – anything which doesn’t obey/can’t be explained by – the laws of physics.



How about consciousness?

All humans have consciousness – and it is a nonphysical part of us. We examine it extensively in Essay 3, but for here, we just need to notice that consciousness is a complete mystery – even/especially to physics. No one has the faintest idea how a collection of physical particles can have the nonphysical property of consciousness:

Possibly the most challenging and pervasive problem in the whole of philosophy. Our own consciousness seems to be the most basic fact confronting us, yet it is almost impossible to say what consciousness is.

The “Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy”, 1996.

It is especially a problem for those who believe the entire universe to be physical (that, of course, is most physicists). This from Professor Thomas Nagel (2012):

Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.

                                    “Mind and Cosmos”, P. 35.

So, physicists can’t explain everything about us.

And it gets more mysterious – the more physics learns about the strange reality we exist in – not less. I refer here to the role consciousness plays in the existence of matter – as matter (rather than as energy) – and what that means for determinism. We are now entering the strange world of quantum mechanics.



Where does quantum physics leave determinism? Consider this from Dr. Gavin Rowland on quantum physics and determinism:

“…it is often said that an immaterial substance cannot influence a material substance because it defies the notion of determinism in classical physics. This argument is easily refuted. The simple answer is that classical deterministic physics speaks of interactions between material objects only. It says nothing about immaterial objects having an effect on material objects. However, we now know that classical physics is an incomplete theory. It requires quantum mechanics to complete it. And quantum mechanics introduces nondeterministic elements…”

                        “Mind Beyond Matter”, Gavin Rowland, P.167.

Here, Rowland is referring to the quantum enigma – “immaterial objects having an effect on material objects” – the strange fact that the existence of our physically “real” world is dependent on our observation (consciousness) of it. It is a huge problem for fundamentalist classical physicalists – this from quantum physicists Bruce Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum:

Classical physics, with its mechanical picture of the world, has been used to deny the existence of anything beyond the strictly mechanistic. Quantum physics denies that denial. It hints of something beyond what we usually consider physics, beyond what we usually consider the “physical world”.

“The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness”, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, P. 204. (authors’ italics underlined)

The quantum enigma is causing a lot of problems for fundamentalist physicalists – who basically can’t answer it – only wish it away. More from quantum physicist, Fred Kuttner:

The experimental facts basic to the quantum enigma are undisputed. But talking of the encounter of physics with ‘non-physical’ stuff like consciousness is controversial. It’s been called our ‘skeleton in the closet’…this reliable and useful physics [quantum physics] challenges any reasonable worldview. It actually denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation.”

“Non-physical stuff”? Kuttner also speaks of the support the quantum enigma gives to the existence of free will:

By your free choice you could demonstrate either of two contradictory physical realities. You can, for example, demonstrate an object to be someplace. But you could have chosen to demonstrate the opposite: that it was not in that place. Observation created the object’s position. Quantum theory has all properties created by their observation.                           

Fred Kuttner – website: “” – 14/5/2015 (author’s emphases underlined).

“By your free choice”? Behaviourism/reductionism/determinism/causalism is not looking too sound? And as we will see in Essay 3, there are other elements in quantum physics (like non-locality) which also present problems for classical physics – and for the physicalist “Theory of Everything” based upon it. For here, we just need to see that “non-physical stuff” like consciousness exists – and that it cannot be reduced to particles determined by, caused by – the four known physical forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces).

And how about that other “non-physical stuff” – like our self (two words).



 Do we, in fact have a nonphysical, spiritual, self, soul?

The notion of self or soul has been central to the ideas of some of our greatest philosophers (e.g. Descartes and Locke); our spiritual leaders (e.g. Jesus: “what will it benefit a man to gain the whole world at the cost of his true self?”); literary greats (Goethe’s Faustian pact with the devil) and Shakespeare (“This above all: to thine own self be true”). And the dictum over the entrance to the Delphic Oracle: “Know Thyself” – has been recognised as ultimate wisdom by many successful civilisations.

Fine, it is indisputable that humanity has long held, and deeply cherished, the belief that we possess a soul/self/spirit (call it what you will) – but does such self actually exist?

The House of Disbelief has to deny the existence of our nonphysical self. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, is a denier – arguing from his belief humans are just physical molecules, that everything about us, even supposedly “nonphysical” things like feelings, memories, self, and ideas of free will – must have a physical explanation to do with the behaviour of our nerve cells made of physical molecules:

You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis”, P. 3.

Some residents of the House of Disbelief attempt to dismiss the problem of the existence of our nonphysical self by likening/equating it with the religious notion of “soul” – thereby painting it with our religions’ incredible brush – thus being able to diminish and dismiss it along with religion. Professor Barry Dainton illustrates this technique:

Immaterial souls have been popular for millennia – and it’s no surprise, offering as they do a route to life eternal in the paradise promised by many religions.”

                                    “Self”, Barry Dainton, P. 24

Darwinist members of the House of Disbelief believe that ideas of special nonphysical factors in the human condition – like soul/self/spiritual – only exist because such ideas have been naturally selected. Ideas of a human self/soul and notions of human free will are comforting, empowering – thus help the people holding them to out-survive and out-breed those who don’t have such ideas. While evolutionists have a natural selection answer for everything, only some are compelling – this one above is not.

Let’s go over their heads and speak to Charles, himself:

In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest ‘ it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body.”

                                    Autobiography, Charles Darwin.

“More in man than the breath of his body”, Charles? Now that’s what we’re looking for – is there more to us than our bodies? If so, then the physicalist reductionist/determinist/causalist pillar of the House of Disbelief is broken.

Let’s see – are any of our behaviours driven by our nonphysical/spiritual self – rather than by our anima/physical bodies?



What human behaviours, if any, are driven by things other than the blind activity of our molecules – and/or are there any which are not naturally selected – not driven by our animal survival and genetic imperatives?

How about human behaviours which produce experiences which are commonly found to be “uplifting” – and/or what about things which “move” us?

Most humans commonly find the following behaviours uplifting and/or moving: bushwalking in areas of natural beauty; visiting art galleries; touring to see beautiful buildings (cathedrals, castles, etc.); going to a music concert; scuba diving; skiing; bike riding; surfing; attending opera; reading poetry; watching ballet; touring sites of natural beauty overseas.

And just what part of us is benefitting, being “uplifted” by these behaviours? Is it our bodies, our atoms – or perhaps some other part of us?



There is nothing intrinsically benefitting our bodies when we engage in these behaviours, nothing which increases our chances of bodily survival or our genetic continuance/dominance. No, it is only the self/soul which gets pleasure from these activities – which is uplifted by these behaviours – which finds them moving or beautiful. Not only do these behaviours not meet any bodily needs nor genetic imperatives, but the body has to spend Darwinian survival and genetic resources (energy, time, money) to engage in these behaviours. There could be said to be some meeting and/or satisfaction of certain mind/bodily needs (the brain has stimulation as a need) in these behaviours, but it is certainly not the body which chooses to initiate these behaviours. Although our body/mind/brain may get involved in the execution of them (working out the ways and means to organise these experiences, e.g. buying tickets, when to travel, what to take) – such brain action only happens after the self has decided to have these experiences. And, as for the neo-Darwinian’s idea that our selfish genes dictate our behaviours, not only are the above behaviours a waste of survival and genetic resources, some of them involve risking our genes’ very survival: riding in an aircraft; travelling in another country; going on a long bushwalk; scuba diving; bike riding on a road; skiing. All these latter activities also have the experiencing of beauty as an intrinsic part of them – and the experiencing of beauty does not lift our bodies/atoms – but our spirits/souls/selves (call such nonphysical part of us what you will). We will examine our strange understanding of, and need to experience and/or create non-Darwinian beauty in Essay 3 (non-Darwinian beauty being different to Darwinian beauty – which is found in things benefitting breeding and survival – such as wide hips, big breasts, strong arms, a fertile valley etc.)..

Thus it is a fair conclusion that the self/soul/spirit exists.

In doubt? Let’s have a closer look at one of those above behaviours which we do because we find them spiritually uplifting – which are, at the same time, risky to our animal and genetic survival.



An example of a dangerous behaviour which involves the pursuit of non-Darwinian beauty and has no survival or genetic paybacks, but only Darwinian costs, is bushwalking. I choose bushwalking because it is a behaviour I do a lot (or did before my knees packed it in). I also choose it because it is a good example of a behaviour which is exclusively indulged in in a recreational, non-Darwinian manner – i.e. not as a professional sporting contest (providing money for survival). The occasional individual may go bushwalking in a Darwinian, ego-driven manner (thus could perhaps be accused of “showing-off” to promote his genes as good for breeding) but the vast majority only do it to enjoy the non-Darwinian beauty of the bush (non-Darwinian because the bush, mountains, waterfalls, lookouts, etc. which are sought and experienced on a walk are rugged, often dangerous, and non-fertile – also full of snakes, bears, cougars, etc.).

Bushwalking (“hiking” for Americans, “rambling” for the Brits) is a recreational behaviour that is almost invariably undertaken in areas of natural beauty, and bushwalkers talk of being spiritually uplifted by such beauty – all at the expense of the body (my rooted knees being a good example).

Unconvinced? Let’s all go for a bushwalk.



Inspired (literally) by photos of, say, the natural beauty of Cradle Mountain, Tasmania, we decide to experience it for our self – “self” cf. our body (which is singularly unmoved by the idea). But the self is crap at organising anything, so the mind (judged to be of the body because a product of our physical brain/meat/body – albeit mysteriously) has to organise the expedition: dates, companions, food, clothing, equipment, travel to site, etc.. Eventually the big day comes, we have travelled to Cradle Mountain and we, the human self/body duality set off on the 5-day walk into the beautiful but dangerous mountains of Tasmania – the self/soul spiritually uplifted by the surrounding beauty; the mind watching out for dangers (snakes, precipices, ankle-twisting rocks); the body puffing, chaffing (hurting under the load). After a hard slog, a lookout is approached and the self/soul strives towards the view – but the mind/body reins it in (“watch the edge”) – while the animal/body, wincing with the pain of its blisters, wonders where it put the chocolate. But the view is attained and the beauty of it overwhelms the human being: the self/soul/spirit soars; the monkey mind stops its chatter; the body feels no pain. After taking “in” the natural beauty of the rugged and dangerous snow-capped mountains, the human being slogs on – the mind/brain/body worried about getting to the hut by nightfall; the body/muscles wanting to stop; the self looking forward to the beauties in the days ahead.

So what, in the human being, benefits from such recreational, non-competitive behaviour? Conceivably the body may get some payback for all the physical danger and genetic risk it was persuaded to undertake – in the shape of some increased bodily fitness perhaps, or the buzz of the feel-good bodily chemicals released by the exercise – but it could have got both from walking around the block. The mind/body also gets some of its undoubted need for mental stimulation, from the expedition – but it could have got such from reading a book. No, the self/soul, was the main beneficiary of this behaviour – being uplifted, moved by the experience, in a way that looking at pictures could never manage – driving the behaviour to exist. All evidence that the self/soul exists.

But some might argue you can build a robot to take a bushwalk. Sure you can, but would a robot ever decide to undertake one – itself – on its own free will? Would it program itself to seek the lookouts? What part of a robot would be “lifted” enough by the experiencing of wild natural beauty, to freely take the trouble and danger?

No, to be human is to be more than a machine – a robot of nature. We have a physical machine/body but there is a nonphysical “ghost” in that machine – our self/soul. All up, Darwin was right – on his own bushwalk in the Brazilian jungle that we contemplated earlier – he was so moved by its rugged beauty (a wild and dangerous beauty that was inimical to his body’s survival) that he concluded there is more to being a human than our physical bodies. While there is no doubt that some of our behaviours are determined by bodily needs, or outside physical stimuli which happen to us, some of our behaviours illustrate that we freely choose to create certain other behaviours to meet our self/soul’s spiritual needs. Such behaviours evidence the existence of both our free will and our self/soul.

Whether the reductionist-determinist-causal-behaviourist pillar of the House of Disbelief is demolished, or not, is up to you – but, observably it has some fractures.


We have only brushed on free will so far. The supposed non-existence of free will is so essential to the House of Disbelief that it can be regarded as a pillar on its own. Time now to examine the soundness of that pillar.




Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.”

“Free Will”, Sam Harris, P.5


Is Dr. Harris (philosopher and neuroscientist) correct? And what implications flow for us as a species, generally (and for this exploration for any special meaning or purpose, in particular) from the existence or not of free will?

Most of us consider that we have free will. Just how important is that notion for humanity?



Certain studies have shown that belief in free will makes people behave in a more moral fashion, and even perform tasks better. Disbelief, on the other hand, tends to bring out our darker sides – for example, two researchers into the subject of free will: Kathleen Vohs and Jonathon Schooler (2002), found that people who didn’t believe in free will were more likely to behave immorally – illustrated in their experiment by cheating in tests and stealing money when they had the opportunity. And, in another study, Vohs et al found belief in free will was a predictor of good job performance. Roy Baumeister from Florida State University found that those who didn’t believe in free will were less likely to volunteer and/or give to charity – and more likely to suffer stress, unhappiness, and to have a lesser commitment to relationships.

The above studies, and others, seem to establish that belief in free will is a good thing for us in particular, and humanity in general, to have – inasmuch as it leads to better behaviours, better life skills, and successful relationships – all likely to be advantageous to our own, and our species’, prospering and survival – and to the survival and multiplication of our genes. This latter point leads to the usual evolutionist argument that: just having the notion that we have free will – has been/will continue to be – naturally selected. The corollary being, for evolutionists, that we don’t actually have free will – we just have the naturally selected notion of free will.

This has led some to propose Illusionism.



Illusionism is the idea that, although free will is in fact an illusion, we should encourage belief in it for the good of society and the survival of humanity – and that we could achieve this by scientists (and their philosopher hand maidens) exercising self-restraint and not disabusing people so readily (as they currently do) of their belief in free will.

Seems a bit cynical and misanthropic, to me. And I have seen no signs of such restraint starting to emerge from the House of Disbelief. Most members of the House of Disbelief, like the above quoted determinist neurophysiologist, Sam Harris, even think we would be better off without the notion of free will at all – that we should stick with what is true because illusions will always hold us back. For Harris, rather than improving human behaviour by conning people into believing that free will exists, we should see all bad behaviour as resulting from the physical state of our brain and attempt to prevent such behaviours by curing the brain. Harris believes that such determinist beliefs can also lead to a more compassionate understanding of bad behaviour – e.g. bad behaviour was not our own (i.e. our self’s) moral “fault” – because 1.) we don’t have a nonphysical “self”; 2.) such bad behaviour was determined by other factors for which we are not responsible. Defense lawyers will be lining up for that one!

Harris is right in holding that illusions tend to hold us back – but maybe belief in free will is not only good for humanity – but the Truth? Plato always thought that the Truth and the good go hand-in-hand. So, is the undoubtedly good-for-humanity belief in free will – also the Truth?



Alright, there’s a task. Where to start? Let’s start with Einstein:

“ ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills.

                                    Albert Einstein, “My Credo” (1932)

Not a good start!

While Einstein is here quoting Schopenhauer, his personal position is made abundantly clear a few lines later when he states: “I do not believe in free will”. But was Einstein’s personal philosophic position as sound as his physics? To determine this, what we need to consider is: while it is observably true that humans can (quite often) “do what he [we] wants”, is it similarly true he “cannot will what he [we] wills”?

Most present-day academic philosophers are on Einstein and Schopenhauer’s side.



As we have seen in our examination of the above pillar made out of determinism, behaviourism, causalism, and reductionism – classical physics finds that everything is determined/caused by another “thing”. Most physicists are classical, thus believing in free will is necessarily excluded from their completely material system – holding any thing’s material state at any point in time can be predicted from/is caused by its material state at an earlier time. We (they believe), being entirely material (of matter), are governed (all our behaviour caused) by the state of our matter – and whatever acts upon it. A good example of causalism thinking comes, again, from Sam Harris, who believes that all human behaviour arises from our neurophysiology:

How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend, and of which we are entirely unaware. We can’t.”

                        “Free Will”, Sam Harris, Pp. 25-6.

But is this the “T” Truth (true for everybody, all the time – under our working definition) – is everything which we think we “intend”, actually caused by prior events that we did not intend? Or can we, make things happen by/of our own free will – as free agents – i.e. without there being any causal antecedent events?

First we must acknowledge that there certainly are some unintended happenings in our physical universe and, thus, in some of our physical bodies’ behaviours.



There are, observably, unintended “happenings” in our physical Universe which cause some of its subsequent events. For example, physical things whose existence must depend on an unbroken chain of physical events stretching back to the Big Bang (comets, supernova, etc.). The physical universe also includes our brains, and physical events/happenings in our material brain (for example, as we will see below, brain damage can cause behaviours we “do not intend”) which are causal behaviours. And there are also certain behaviours, which may look to us sometimes as our apparent “choices”, which are actually made for us by our body’s animal survival and genetic imperatives: to feed, breed, etc. – we do them or else our bodies, and our selfish genes, die.



But can we also act on our own behalf? Are there any behaviours chosen freely by our nonphysical selves – that is, not by our causally created/evolved and deterministic physical bodies?

Let’s again consider values – already encountered in the above examinations of other pillars of the House of Disbelief.  



We each of us have certain values. Such values play a big part in defining us – “us”, our selves – not our bodies. While our values don’t alter our material bodies, can such values lead us to some behaviours which we “consciously intend” – i.e. are not caused by material “events” in our brain but are “doings” – done by us as “agents” according to our “values”?

If so, we have free will.



Some human behaviours appear to be “doings” – things we choose to do – therefore, we appear to be agents able to act on our own behalf. For example, let’s look at three types of human behaviours, to see if they are driven entirely by physical, material events of the universe (which include what our evolved physical body wants/needs to survive), or by what our self/soul wills. These latter would be behaviours which:

1.) Have nothing to do with bodily/genetic survival imperatives.

2.) Actually endanger our bodily survival.

3.) “Lift” our spirits – “move” us, our selves (i.e. not our bodies) – therefore are driven by spiritual values and/or needs.



As we saw in the above examination of the above pillars of the House of Disbelief, we sometimes choose to do certain things which are not driven by our physical bodily survival needs and/or genetic imperatives, but just because we (our selves – two words) find them “uplifting”. In other words, the “we” which chooses such behaviours is not our physical, material bodies but our nonphysical selves/souls/spirits (call such what you will). These behaviours, then, are not bottom-up, cause-and-effect actions stemming from our naturally evolved physical bodies – but are examples of our nonphysical self/soul driving our physical bodies’ particles etc. to do certain things: top-down – because they have no function except the above spiritual one. For example, as we considered at the above pillar: going to an art gallery; going to a musical concert; going to visit a pretty botanical garden; going to visit a distant place of geographical beauty (e.g. Matterhorn, Niagara Falls, Uluru, etc.). And these behaviours are often planned weeks, months, even years ahead – because we know, that even at some point in the future, we (not our bodies) will enjoy the beauty of them (which beauty in the fore-mentioned tourist-type spots is strictly non-Darwinian – i.e. not to do with our bodies/genes survival) and be uplifted by them. We want to do such behaviours consciously – i.e. choosing them consciously knowing that the only reason we are choosing to do such behaviours is that they will make our selves (not our bodies/genes) feel good (even for some time afterwards in the occasional remembrance of them).

In the above behaviours, our self wills our body – often in the teeth of what the body wants/needs. I say this because the above are not only un-Darwinian behaviours, but actually anti-Darwinian behaviours – because they use up bodily survival assets: money, energy, time. Such behaviours are definitely “doings”, not “happenings” (see Kauffman, 2008 – quoted at the examination of the Scientism Pillar, above).

The next behaviours are even more anti-Darwinian – not only using up our bodily-survival and genetic-domination resources but actually endangering our body with its precious (and selfish) cargo of genes.



Such behaviours which endanger the survival of our body and its selfish genetic cargo include – as we saw, above: taking a bushwalk; recreational flying/travelling overseas; doing recreational sports like skiing, bike and horse riding – or more dangerous choices like scuba diving, hang-gliding, parachuting. Again, these behaviours are doings rather than happenings – we freely choose to do them; make them happen – rather than have them happen to us. So what’s the motive – what do we get from such dangerous behaviours when we do them in an entirely recreational non-Darwinian manner (i.e. not professionally)? As we argued above, while these gene-risking behaviours may sometimes allow animal-ego boosting (conceivably a Darwinian/genetic motive); and/or some of them may allow the release of feel-good bodily chemicals like endorphins etc. (conceivably also a bodily motive) just about always our spirits are uplifted by our experience of the natural beauty which is integral to the venues we popularly choose to do these behaviours in: bushwalking/tramping/hiking in Tasmania, the English Lake District, Yellowstone National Park; scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef; touring overseas to areas of scenic beauty (as above: Matterhorn, Niagara Falls, Uluru, etc.).

Speaking as a bushwalker, skier, bike rider, recreational traveler, and scuba diver, I can attest that experiencing beauty is arguably the largest part of the motive in these behaviours. Even as my body sits at my desk, my soul occasionally drifts away and swims with the beautiful fish (and the dangerous-to-my-genes-but-still-beautiful sharks) off Heron Island, or stands in the snow on the dangerous peak of Cradle Mountain looking out over Tasmania’s wild ranges – my body getting no endorphins from exercise, or animal ego boost from the memory – whereas my self/soul is still lifted by the memories. And it is my self which is left feeling that such experiences made all of my life’s vicissitudes worth it – not my body, which is in pain – knees worn out by carrying backpacks, cartilages torn by skiing – nor my brain/mind which is thinking how all the money I have spent chasing/experiencing beauty could have been saved to rather ensure my body’s survival into a financially-uncertain future of old age.

The phenomenon which is our understanding and recognition of beauty is yet another mystery in a supposedly mechanistic world which we will examine more closely in Essay 3 – here we just need to recognise that we freely choose to do some behaviours which not only have no survival benefits, but are actually anti-survivalist – just so our self/soul can be spiritually moved/lifted by beauty in its many forms.

In our selves’ (dangerous-and/or-costly-to-our-bodies-survival) pursuit of beauty – we have willed what we (our selves, not our body) will.



Just what sort of behaviours do I mean by “ethical/spiritual behaviours”? Consider ethical vegetarianism (different to health-driven vegetarianism which some adopt in the belief that it is good for our bodies – therefore is a largely Darwinian behaviour). Ethical vegetarianism (i.e. holding it is wrong to eat fellow animals through spiritual considerations like their beauty and through compassion for animal suffering) is another example of a free-will “doing” – rather than a physico-mechanical “happening”. While it can be logically argued that health-driven vegetarianism is a happening (a survival behaviour) ethical/spiritual vegetarianism is a free choice driven by ethical considerations. Such ethical behaviour is a behaviour of our self, not our body – a doing, a free choice – because meat is actually excellent food for our body and eating it gives us a survival and breeding edge over those who don’t. If our progenitors had refused to eat meat in this natural, competitive world we would not be on top of (this world’s) food chain and now have the luxury of freely choosing not to eat it our selves. So ethical vegetarianism is a top-down, non-causal, free choice/behaviour.



All up, these behaviours can be fairly descried as having been freely chosen, because they are not caused by material things like the interaction of physical particles – nor have they caused random physical changes to our genes – which changes were naturally selected because they were adaptive (i.e. gave us advantages in the battle to survive bodily, in a physical environment of competitive struggle for finite resources). These above behaviours were willed by the self because they lifted the self/soul through the experiencing of non-Darwinian beauty and/or made us feel better about our selves (in the case of vegetarianism). In Essay 3 we (freely) will explore the important role which, how we feel about our selves, plays in any lasting happiness humans attain – here we just need to notice that our bodies may have executed these behaviours, in a manner worked out by our brains/minds (part of our body) as the manner which is most likely to succeed (when to travel, where to travel, equipment to take, etc.) – but it was our non-bodily selves which made them happen at all – and for our self’s/soul’s own reward. Attending musical concerts, ballet, art galleries, bushwalking, travelling for fun, scuba diving, riding, surfing, skiing – are all behaviours which we (our selves, not our bodies)  choose to do freely – in fact, the body would survive better without them.

So, in the teeth of Einstein’s and Schopenhauer’s assertions which opened the examination of this pillar, the above illustrates that we (our self/soul) can and have – willed what we will. And it illustrates/is evidence that the human condition is to be a physical + spiritual duality, which requires both its animal and spiritual factors to be fed and flourish in order to “best live” – rather than the human condition being the materialists’ monism (more of that in Essay 3 as well).

And the question arises: what’s going on with humanities’ will to experience beauty? Perhaps some higher agency has willed this behaviour for its own purposes – perhaps we are the way a “D” Divine spirit/consciousness experiences the beauties of this world – the “moving”, “lifting” of our selves/souls, the “raising” of our consciousness by beauty – being rather the moving/lifting/raising of a universal/Divine consciousness of which our self is an individuation? If so, it could then be said that we have no free will because this universal/Divine consciousness wills spiritual behaviours like these? However, even if free will is considered disestablished for this reason (that even our higher, spiritual behaviours are willed by other agencies – albeit higher “A” Agencies) special meaning/purpose (the main quarry of these essays) is not thus necessarily demolished – rather, perhaps it is established? More of this when we consider the implications which flow from the phenomenon that is consciousness in Essay 3.



Have there been any scientific studies which can back up the existence of free will? Yes there have.

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz studied obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and found that cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) was an effective treatment for many suffering this condition. Where CBT worked it was only because the patients willfully chose not to give their intrusive thoughts attention. By doing so, these OCD patients were not only able to reduce their condition but to bring about physical changes to their material/physical brains (specifically decreased activity in the caudate nucleus) – determined by positron emission tomography. Schwartz’s findings were unpopular amongst his materialist/reductionist colleagues:

At first, whenever I tried to discuss these ideas with my colleagues, the reaction ranged from mere amusement to frank annoyance. Like all of modern science, the field of psychiatry, especially in its current biological incarnation, has become smitten with materialist reductionism, the idea that all phenomena can be explained by the interaction and movement of material particles. As a result, to suggest that anything other than brain mechanisms in and of themselves constitute the causal dynamics of a mental phenomenon is to risk being dismissed out of hand.

                        “The Mind and the Brain”, P. 14, J.M. Schwartz and S. Begley.

Cognitive behaviour therapy has been found to work well by Psychiatrists – but it involves the patient choosing to alter their mental behaviour out of their own free will – it cannot be imposed on anyone against their will. Mindfulness is a key component – an unnatural state which has to be learned –it does not exist as a result of having been naturally selected. Natural/naturally selected states are “fight or flight”, for example – states which enabled us to survive in the jungle but which are often inappropriate in modern society, often leaving us with neuroses like anxiety and depression – which we can choose to combat by, out of our own free will, adopting mindfulness based cognitive behavioral therapy. Studies on Buddhist monks have also found brain/body changes as a result of them meditating deeply – another behaviour which requires our free will to happen.


Such as above argue strongly for the existence of free will, but how about scientific studies that argue against free will?



Physiologist Benjamin Libet (et al 1983) did an experiment in which subjects were wired to an EEG and allowed to make choices. It was found that the motor cortex of their brains showed activity a split second before they felt they had decided to move. Other more recent studies have shown similar results (Haynes, 2011 & Fried et al 2011). 

For me, these are nowhere near truly free-choice behaviours – the subjects were told how to behave (press a button), the only freedom allowed being as to when (to press) and which sort of behaviours were possible (which button). But for Sam Harris this is the end of free will:

There is no question that (most if not all) mental events are the product of physical events. The brain is a physical system, entirely beholden to the laws of nature – and there is every reason to believe that changes in its functional state and material structure entirely dictate our thoughts and actions.

                        Op. cit. Pp. 11-12.

The above are simple actions, nothing like choosing to do way more complicated behaviours like going bushwalking, for example. Deciding to do such may start with seeing a photo of a beautiful region  which photo starts a mental event (an idea), but it is not a physical event which makes the behaviour of a bushwalk happen – rather it is the self/soul which is lifted by the idea  and is the driver which makes it happen (as to what makes certain non-fertile, even dangerous regions, “beautiful” to us is a mystery we will explore in depth in Essay 3).

As for Harris’ assertion that the brain is “a physical system, entirely beholden to the laws of nature”, the brain is definitely a natural/physical organ of our material body – and the mind relies on the brain’s soundness to operate – but our self/soul, as we have seen (and will see more of in Essay3) is not of our brain/mind. The true human duality is not the Cartesian (and disproven) body + brain – but body + self.


Let’s now look at any contribution non-classical physics can make to the question of the existence of free will – let’s consider again quantum physics. As we saw above, when we examined the Scientism Pillar, the quantum world also offers an example of free will – let’s have a closer look at that. 



Consider the objective, physical demonstration of free will/choice recounted by quantum physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner – flowing from the classic “box-pairs” quantum experiment:

You therefore could choose to prove either that each atom had been wholly in a single box, or you could choose to prove that each atom had not been wholly in a single box. You can choose to prove either of two contradictory situations…You freely chose which experiment to do. You have free will… your choices were not predetermined by a physical situation external to your body…”

“Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness”, Rosenblum and Kuttner, Pp. 94-5 (emphases mine).

If you do this experiment “…your choices were not predetermined by a physical situation external to your body” – neither were they determined by some Darwinian imperative internal to their body – choosing either way has no Darwinian result. However, whatever the choice is, it affects (or should that be “effects”?) the physical world. In this experiment free will is shown – experimentally, objectively, to exist – and such free will to have physical consequences, rather than physical antecedents.


Sometimes, of course, our body’s genetic and/or day-to-day bodily survival imperatives are in charge of our behaviours.



Observably, sometimes our bodies/genes are in charge of our behaviours/choices – then survival behaviours happen. For example, when our naturally selected ego pushes the body into lower behaviours whose purpose is not to lift our souls/spirits etc. but to compete with others for food, money, status, power, and other bodily and genetic survival/dominance purposes. “Lower” behaviours because evil is sometimes done by normally good people to ensure their own or their childrens’ bodily survival (thus their genes). And this is where reductionism, determinism, and causalism is evident – many, purely animal behaviours can happen to us.

But sometimes, some behaviours can be both chosen/done and driven/happen – at once – by self and body, together. And when that happens, a most peculiar human phenomenon can occur/be experienced – ecstasy.



When physical happenings and spiritual doings occur at once – when body and soul are satisfied together in the one behaviour – it is possible for us to experience the apparently uniquely human phenomenon of ecstasy. For example, when: making love to someone we love (rather than just having sex); enjoying beautiful food, beautifully cooked – often with love (dining, rather than feeding); enjoying the beauty of our environment (rather than just rushing through it to “get” somewhere). In these situations our body and soul/self are satisfied together in the one behaviour – and we often can experience the lifted feeling that is ecstasy.

Ecstasy is a different high from mere chemical/physical pleasures (e.g. from bodily feel-good chemicals like serotonin or external stimulants like alcohol or caffeine) and different to animal contentment (like a sensual touch or a full tummy). We will explore the phenomenon of ecstasy in more depth in Essay 3, here we just need to notice that it exists – and is more evidence of a spiritual factor in the human equation – which spiritual factor is injurious to the philosophical positions like determinism, reductionism, behaviourism, causalism, and to the non-existence of free will (which latter idea we are presently examining for its soundness).


Another example of human free choice behaviours is choosing to know our selves.



The ancient injunction to “Know Thyself” has long been received as wisdom by many successful civilisations – and Know Thyself has never been taken to mean Know Thy Body. In other words, it is a long- and widely-held understanding that we are our self – not our body – we have a body, but we are our self. We look more closely at this human duality in other places, but for this examination of the existence, or not, of free will we just need to consider that, while the “Know Thyself” aphorism is delivered in the form of an injunction (something we should do), we are totally free to obey said injunction or not. That we can freely choose whether we obey it, or not, is evidenced by the observation that some have evidently come to know their self, and some obviously have made no attempt.

While this Earthly relative reality we find our self in, with a body, does allow us to know our self through how we live and treat others (are we compassionate or cruel; empathetic or selfish; etc.) having such knowledge is not an animal drive of that body. Nor is it likely to have been a naturally selected behaviour – while self-knowledge can be the first step in a process which can lead eventually to happiness with self (more about the essential role of self in lasting human happiness in Essay 3), it can be disadvantageous to our bodily/genetic survival. For example, if we choose to truly know our self, it is more likely to (initially at least) lead most of us into some level of self-loathing.



While choosing to know the self may be widely regarded as wisdom, it is, most often, a rather risky thing for a human to do – quite often as risky to the body’s survival as some of the more dangerous free choices we considered above (e.g. bushwalking, rock climbing, scuba diving, skiing, etc.). Commonly, knowing the true self for the first time, leads most of us to at least some level of self-loathing – not many of us are angels. Self loathing has been shown to be detrimental to the physical body – intense levels of self loathing even can lead to more dire physical sickness and/or depression – sometimes the latter can even lead to suicide. 

Suicide – now there’s another strange thing.



It is well known that self-loathing is a major cause of suicide. This is a paradox for those who think we are only our physical bodies – why would the physical mind/body choose to end its survival (and that of its selfish genes) because the self (not the body) was found to be loathsome? Of course, there are other medical/physiological reasons which can lead to the depth of depression which can lead to suicide, but coming to loath the self is definitely one. In Essay 3 we will consider that choosing to know our selves (and finding the self to be unlovely/loathsome) need not be a dead end (so to speak) – in fact it can lead to what may possibly be life’s grandest opportunity – to choose to grow the self.

This is all we will consider here concerning the existence of free will. So, how stands it?



All up, we have found that we can, and do, freely will certain of our behaviours just because the self feels like doing them – behaviours often driven by our self’s nonphysical values and/or spiritual needs – behaviours which are not just mechanical happenings caused by a, supposedly, entirely physical universe. A free choice behaviour is something which we may do, or may not – not something we must do to survive/breed – something we choose to do, often just because the self is “lifted” by the doing, even though the survival of the material body may be risked and/or our selfish genes disadvantaged, even eliminated.



The ultimate implications of the existence of free will for our exploration towards the “T” Truth of the human condition (and for the existence of any special meaning and ultimate purpose in our lives) is that the human equation has nonphysical, spiritual factors as well as physical, animal/bodily factors. As above – we have bodies, but we are not those bodies.

All up, while there is plenty of evidence that we have a physical, animal body that is subject, like the rest of the physical world, to causalism, determinism, and reductionism – there is also plenty of evidence that something else exists in the full description of the human condition: our self. This is a dualist position – which is rejected by materialists (who are necessarily monists). The usual dualism which has been considered by philosophy after Descartes (and discredited) is a mind + body dualism, but we have come to another type of dualism for the human equation: human = self + body – which accepts that the mind is not separate to the body/brain because it is of it – rather seeing the self as the proper dual factor separate from that body/brain. We will hunt for more evidence of the existence and nature of self in Essay 3.


We now will consider another “ism” which attacks the notion of free will – neuroscientism – a philosophical position which has arisen from the physical science of neuroscience which studies our physical brain.






Many members of the House of Disbelief congregate under this pillar which has been constructed out of the discoveries of neuroscience. In days gone by, under the Newtonian world view, physics used to stop at the boundary of the human body – certainly regarding the human brain as beyond its magisterium – and its products (like the mind, ideas, free will) being seen as more truly within the domain of philosophy and religion. In this way, ideas like free will and classical physics could happily coexist. In the words of physicists Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum:

Scientists could dismiss free will as not their concern and leave it to the philosophers and theologians. That dismissal does not come so easily today as scientists study the operation of the brain, its electrochemistry, and its response to stimuli. They deal with the brain as a physical object whose behaviour is governed by physical laws. Free will does not fit into that picture.

                                    “Quantum Enigma”, P.224.   

As the science that is neuroscience has developed, neuroscientists have been able to show that human thoughts about certain things are always located in the same region of the brain (e.g. religion, sex, empathy, morality). From this, some conclude that to see computer images of the human brain light up in the same place whenever God is contemplated, empathetic thoughts had, or various spiritual/numinous things experienced – is somehow enough to be able to explain such away as just physical phenomena – a physical event/function of the physical brain. Meaning God, notions of our spirituality, nonphysical experiences – even paranormal phenomena like NDE’s – can be dismissed as being just the physical happenings/phenomena of matter (which entirely describes us). Thus any factors of the human condition which were previously supposed to be “nonphysical” can be explained away as entirely physical, thus offering no evidence that the human condition is anything other than matter which has been chemically enlivened – necessarily devoid of special meaning/purpose).

This is another form of physicalism/scientism – specifically neuroscientism – and for many, it forms a solid pillar of the House of Disbelief by establishing that we are entirely physical: matter/energy.

However, not everyone agrees that neuroscience can explain away some of the deeper and more persistent mysteries of the human experience/condition. Author and New Statesman journalist, Steven Poole, likens neuroscientism to a plague:

An intellectual pestilence is upon us. Shop shelves are groaning with books purporting to explain, through snazzy brain-imaging studies, not only how thoughts and emotions function, but how politics and religion work, and what the correct answers are to age-old philosophical controversies. The dazzling real achievements of brain research are routinely pressed into service for questions they were never designed to answer. This is the plague of neuroscientism – aka neurobabble, neurobollocks, or neurotrash – and it’s everywhere.

Quoted from “The Australian Financial Review” – 29th September, 2013 – P. 4 of the Review section (syndicated from New Statesman).

Fair bit of journalese there, but Poole seems to be on the money and goes on to quote Paul Fletcher (professor of health neuroscience at Cambridge University) who is exasperated by those who assume that:

“...activity in a brain region is the answer to some profound question about psychological processes. This is very hard to justify, given how little we currently know about what different regions of the brain actually do.


Fletcher gives the examples of the brain region known as the insula: “nobody really knows what the insula does or that there are many ideas about its possible function” – and the amygdala, whose role in fear has been heavily researched and analysed but which also, mysteriously, has associations with cuddlier emotions and memory. 



Despite most brain areas being far from fully understood by neuroscience, materialists cheer on neuroscientism because it offers materialism a way to explain all human behaviours in terms of states of matter. But while neuroscience is moving continually towards a greater understanding of that part of our physical body we call the brain, and its role in that product of it called the mind – like all the physical sciences, it is getting no closer to understanding the mysteries of how atoms can be mindful. Nor, as we saw in our examination of the above pillars, how the nonphysical self/soul can direct some of the behaviours of our physical body – often against the interests of body and selfish genes – even sometimes to the extent of causing bodily death.



Most neuroscientists try to explain away the idea of the existence of any self/soul/spirit by renaming such, rather, as our “personality” – which they see as just how our mind works – determined by the state of the brain (i.e. we are always physically driven, never spiritually). If this is so, all our behaviours can be reduced to the condition/health of our bodily matter – the state of our physical brain made of particles. For them, personality changes resulting from physical changes to the brain are proof that this is so. An example of this type of reasoning comes from neuroscientist Dr. Kerry Spackman:

Consider the following true story about a dentist who had been happily married to his wife for 23 years. By all accounts he was a devoted father and husband: kind, caring and a pillar of the community. But all of a sudden his personality began to change… Even small things would cause him to fly into an uncontrollable rage...he began to get physically violent with his wife and work colleagues. Eventually, the police were called and he was charged with a serious count of domestic violence...his local doctor ordered a brain scan. This revealed a tiny tumour growing in a part of his brain which linked the rational frontal lobes of his brain to the primitive emotional circuits...As a result his entire personality, his soul, changed...As soon as the cancer was removed the dentist went back to being the same loving, kind and tolerant man he always was.”

“The Ant and the Ferrari”, Dr. Kerry Spackman, P.143 (my underlining).

The above story of behaviour being changed by brain damage is not unique. And it must be accepted that such reports of personality changes linked to brain injury or disease present empirical evidence that our personality can be changed/affected by changes to our brain matter. But what Spackman has done here is to slip in a giant assertion that our personality and our soul are one and the same thing: “his entire personality, his soul changed” (my emphasis).

Is this actually the “T” Truth (again, under our working definition: true for everybody, all the time) – is our “soul”, more correctly, just our personality?

Before we consider the implications of Spackman’s dentist example, first we need to look closer at, and consider what, constitutes our personality.



The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology – ed. James Drever, 1965 (from my university days – must buy a later one!) defines our personality: “… the integrated and dynamic organization of the physical, mental, moral, and social qualities of the individual…[which] appear in the main to comprise the natural and acquired impulses, and habits, interests, and complexes, the sentiments and ideals, the opinions and beliefs…”. The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary (revised 2001) states that personality is: “the totality of an individual’s behaviour and emotional tendencies”. So, our personality, rather than simply being/replacing the word “soul”, as Spackman asserts, seems rather to be much more complicated – made up of many moving parts – nonphysical and physical. Nonphysical parts like: nurture/life experiences (like our education, upbringing, personal traumas); our self/soul’s characteristics (like the extent of our spiritual evolution) – and some physical things like: brain health/damage; our genes (inherited intelligence and/or acuity of mind); the beauty and/or size of our physical body (beauty can have a great influence on personality – ask anyone who has had a relationship with a truly beautiful person – and consider the effect body size can have on personality, e.g. “little man syndrome”).



To see if our spiritual self/soul is more truly our physical matter’s “personality” we need to consider the case of Spackman’s dentist more closely. While the dentist’s personality was changed by physical changes/damage to his brain – was his self/soul also, so changed?

Consider that it was not the dentist’s body (brain/atoms/genes) which risked its survival by deciding to seek a dangerous operation to fix the personality change which said atoms etc. were not happy with – but it was his self/soul – which decided to risk the body’s survival because he (his self) was unhappy with who he had become. Our atoms are not interested in our personality, and our selfish genes are just that – selfish – not interested taking physical risks to get rid of nonphysical things like shame, just so that we can feel better about/happy with our self (two words).

In sum, our personality is 1.) not synonymous with our soul/self; and 2.) our personality changing after physical brain damage does not prove that our self/soul does not exist.

We will discuss more of the mystery of nonphysical things in the human condition (like human shame) in Essay 3, here we just need to consider that the best conclusion about us seems to be that it is not the self/soul or the body/meat/mind which makes up “us” – but, rather, both together. As we are increasingly seeing in this exploration for the Truth of the human condition, the human condition is to be a self + body duality – rather than just a matter monism – because our equation has both physical and spiritual factors. Let’s look more closely at this.



Some neuroscientists try to argue that the self/soul does not exist by using the word “mind” in the same way the word “personality” was used above – by confusing/conflating the nonphysical self/soul with mind (nonphysical but entirely and observably a product of the physical body).

There is no doubt that the mind is of the physical brain/body – even though no one knows how brain matter (just physical particles interacting under known nuclear forces) can generate nonphysical thoughts and memories. Materialist neuroscientists are happy to describe the mind as just “meat thinking” (considered as proven when electrical blips can be seen on a computer which has been wired to a brain – and/or when we see changes to mind after damage to the brain’s meat). But, again, if the self/soul/consciousness is just mind – emanating (albeit miraculously) from body/meat – why would such mind/meat push our body into certain physically and genetically risky behaviours which only reward/lift/move our soul (with the experience of non-Darwinian wild beauty, for example) – like those behaviours we considered previously in our examination of the above pillar: bushwalking, overseas holiday travelling, skiing, bike riding, scuba diving, etc.?

No, as we discussed above, something other than mind/meat seems to be initiating such behaviours that not only waste survival resources, but sometimes risk bodily death. The nonphysical self/soul is the prime/only beneficiary of those behaviours – therefore the prime/only suspect. To counter this, Darwinian residents of the House of Disbelief offer their explanation for everything – natural selection. For them, all common behaviours which exist/continue to exist must have been “selected” for by the physical world (nature) – such behaviours conferring survival advantages.

Let’s see how this explanation fits with the common behaviour we have already considered, above – bushwalking.



How was a risky behaviour like bushwalking naturally selected for? Such a behaviour, as we have considered, only entails survival/genetic risk and only offers spiritual rewards (like being “lifted” by experiencing – usually wild – beauty). While evolutionary rationales can be made for certain other risky, unnatural, anti-survival behaviours (like bravery, generosity, altruism) – however, seeing beauty in wild and dangerous country which is inimical to human survival, is not likely to be selected by nature. Beyond reasonable doubt such behaviours would have been more likely selected out, rather than selected for.

Behaviours like risking bodily/genetic death to experience non-Darwinian beauty, are more evidence of the existence of a self/soul distinct from our body/matter. Another good example of the difference between the brain/body/mind and the self/soul is the seeing and admiration of beauty in a rainbow.



The mind knows what a rainbow is, but the soul never ceases to be moved by its beauty. I live in a beautiful, green rural valley and when a rainbow sometimes crosses it after a rainstorm it is beauteous to behold – although it is just colour. Why my green valley is seen as beautiful could have a Darwinian explanation – green means fertile – therefore arable and a good place to survive, but why are we thrilled, moved by a rainbow’s colour.

To answer the “why” question, let’s consider the “what” – what part of us is moved – brain or self/soul? Let’s consider the experience.

Whenever I notice a rainbow, I am always thrilled, and lifted for a moment by its beauty – just colour. So what was “thrilled”, what was “lifted”? Certainly not my mind – after I have been “moved” by the beauty of the rainbow’s colours, then my mind kicks in: “there are the seven colours; the indigo looks quite distinct; it’s landing in my paddock; wonder if there is a pot of gold?; it’s over there because the sun is across there; I wonder if it indicates that’s the end of the rain – etc., etc.” – while the self/soul rests, quietly pleased somehow by the beauty of the experience as the mind/brain/body chatters on.

The mind is full of words, reasons – but the self/soul has no words:

The heart [soul/self] has its reasons, which reason [brain/mind] does not know.

Blaise Pascal (with apologies)



The practice of meditation is another example of the difference between brain/mind/body and self/soul/consciousness. Meditation is an exercise in which the body/mind is quietened so that soul/self/spiritual consciousness can be accessed – even raised (consciousness raising to a “peak moment”). Those who have meditated successfully can tell you the difference between the (animal) monkey mind and the self/soul/consciousness.

But there is a newly-named branch of neuroscience which is studying exactly that – what goes on in the brain during meditation, religious experience, out-of-body phenomena, and numinous experiences in general. It’s called Neurotheology and/or Biotheology, but one could suspect such titles incorporate the word “theology” (the study of God) out of irony – those calling themselves “neurotheologists” or “biotheologists” are usually atheists out to prove that god only “exists” in the brains of certain people whose brains/bodies function in certain ways.

We will look into this area because, while our exploration is more concerned with the Truth of the human condition and any implications such has for any special meaning and ultimate purpose to our existence, (rather than the Truth of the existence of any God), Neurotheology does have some implications that the human self/soul may also only exist in our minds/emotions.  



Andrew Newberg (“The Metaphysical Mind: Probing the Biology of Philosophical Thought”) is a leading neurotheologist, who is investigating whether God only “exists” in our minds/emotions – i.e. we have only created “Him” – not God, us. Newberg has noticed that those who pray have increased activity in the limbic system and the parietal lobe – the former regulating emotion and the latter responsible for orienting oneself in space and time. If Newberg and his colleagues are correct, spiritual/numinous experiences are only evidence that some human brains are built in such a way that transcendent experiences come easily:

It seems that the brain is built in such a way that allows us as human beings to have transcendent experiences extremely easily, furthering our belief in a greater power.”

Quoted from article p.16 “The Age”, Melbourne 1/7/2014 – Reporter, Julia Llewellyn Smith (London Telegraph).

The Darwinian reasoning flowing from this finding is: God doesn’t exist because “He” is just a state of mind which has just been naturally selected. However, while a religious experience can be shown graphically on a computer screen (which computer can also detect which areas of the brain the impulses are occurring in) what exactly is proven? Even if it is established that religion only exists in people who exhibit certain brain activity – have you thus demolished the existence of God – or only established that certain brain activity establishes that a certain person is religious? How does the occurrence of certain lobe activity in certain people who only think they are experiencing and/or contemplating God prove that God (and/or our self/soul) does not exist? As Graham Ward (Professor of Divinity at Oxford University) says:

In any case, the temporal lobes light up for any kind of excitement, not just religious experience.

                                    (Quoted in the above “The Age” article p.16.)      

And what of atheists? Some other neuroscientists have noticed that atheists and theists have different levels of activity to each other in the pre-frontal cortex region of the brain – thought to be the main region which controls emotional feelings. Does this mean that atheism has also been naturally selected too (and is also demolished by the same Darwinian logic used on God, above)?



Maybe so – because we have identified that the House of God and the House of Disbelief both give comfort – and anything which gives comfort would be an aid to survival therefore be naturally selected. Maybe neurotheology has established that it is as I initially believed at the start of these essays – that both theism and atheism are wrong?

Even if neuroscience can locate religiosity in the brain, such only has something to say about religion – not God. Even if our Darwinian religions and their incredible, man-made “g” gods are successfully demolished, such is hardly to demolish any real “G” God there may be (and/or to demolish our self/soul along with it). As we considered in Essay 1, to demolish corrupted religion may actually remove a hurdle from the path towards finding any real “G” God and credible meaning/purpose?



Some neurotheological researchers have tried to prove that nonphysical experiences like religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and Near Death Experiences – have physiological explanations – i.e. entirely to do with the physical state of our body/brain resulting from physical things acting upon it (like electromagnetic fields). To this end, Canadian neuroscientist Michael Persinger (Ruttan, Persinger and Koren, 1990) invented what came to be called the “God Helmet” to see if religion/the religious experience could be simulated artificially. The results showed that 80% of his subjects reportedly sensed their deity – leading Persinger to conclude that divine visions, spiritual numinous experiences, and any out-of-body type experience were probably nothing more than the result of brains being subjected to energy fields. His experimental results are controversial and have not proven to be replicable – one experiment by Uppsala University (2005) tried hard to do so, but failed.

Other researchers like neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard, quoted above, have found evidence which contradicts the materialist view that “we”, our self/soul, are just our mind/brain meat. Beauregard makes a case for the separate existence of our soul in The Spiritual Brain (2009) and “Brain Wars” (2012).  



A spiritual, numinous experience is not necessary for a belief in a human self/soul and/or a “G” God/higher agency. It is possible to believe in such, just intellectually. These essays, for example, have uncovered evidence to enable a rational (rather than spiritual) belief in a “G” God, a human self/soul, and a special meaning and ultimate purpose to our existence – through grinding intellectual inquiry rather than any spiritual epiphany and/or numinous experience.

Whether these essays have uncovered enough evidence to allow others a rational belief is another story, but they are guaranteed not to give you a spiritual experience. All up, establishing certain religious, or numinous/spiritual, or Near Death, or intellectual religious belief always light up certain areas of the brain in neuroscientific experiments – neither proves, nor disproves those experiences and/or beliefs as the “T” Truth – or not.

But there is another materialist/neuroscience school of thought encouraged by work in the field of artificial intelligence – Functionalism.



Functionalism took over as the materialist explanation for brain-mind phenomena with the demise of the Behaviourist school of psychology. Functionalism is an attempt at a physicalist, neuroscientific account of the mystery of the mind emboldened by work on artificial intelligence – resulting in the view that our minds can be seen as just complex machines/computers. This from Dr. Gavin Rowland:

Functionalism views mental processes mounted on the brain in a way that is analogous to computer software mounted on hardware, with the old behaviourist terms of stimulus and response merely replaced by the computer jargon of inputs and outputs. The mind is viewed as part of the machine, running an extra level of learned behaviour, but all the time based entirely on the physico-chemical brain.”

“Mind Beyond Matter: How the Non-Material Self Can Explain the Phenomenon of Consciousness and Complete our Understanding of Reality”, Gavin Rowland, Pp. 151-2.

Rowland goes on to demolish the analogy of human brains/minds as computers by pointing out: 1.) computers are serial processors whereas brains process information on many pathways at once; 2.) computers use a digital system whereas brains use analog – the information brains process being a continuum not divisible into discrete bits (binary digits); 3.) “there is no evidence that suggests a computer has an inner life of any sort…they do not shed any light on the puzzle of first-person subjective experience.” As we considered above, you can build a computer that can go on a bushwalk, but you cannot build one that would wish to go on one of its own account in order to experience beauty – as we do.



Above we also spoke of self and/or consciousness. Consciousness is a huge and problematic mystery for materialists.

The phenomenon of the arrival of life into the originally inert universe, and then the phenomenon of some of that life coming into consciousness, meant that one object of the universe (e.g. one of its evolved products – humanity) became subjective – that is to say, able to look at, think about, and have ideas about other objects – even the object (the universe) that created it – becoming “stardust observing the stars” (“Cosmos”, Carl Sagan). Further than that, humanity (at least – maybe other extra-terrestrial life as well) has, through its consciousness, been able to not only observe the stars, but even understand the stars because of its strange ability to speak the mathematical language the cosmos is written in. Consciousness has made us objects/subjects; created/creators; bodies/souls – and materialism’s objective model of the universe is broken. Nuclear physicist, Dr. Amit Goswami, puts the problem for the attempted neurophysiological/objective understanding of humanity well:

Consider that an objective model always seeks an answer to the question in terms of objects. Thus neurophysiologists seek to understand consciousness in terms of other objects: brains, neurons, etc. The underlying assumption is that consciousness is an object. But consciousness is also a subject – that which does the looking and thinking about object(s).

                                    “God Is Not Dead”, P. 18 (2012 ed.)

There is some evidence emerging that our brains may be a transceiver of consciousness (perhaps to and from universal consciousness?), rather than the materialist explanation that all experience (including our consciousness) is generated by brain activity. More of that in Essay 3.



In conclusion we can say that humans exhibit behaviours driven by nonphysical factors in the human equation which are outside of the magisterium of physical sciences like neuroscience. This from Psychologist, Professor David Fontana:

Science and the scientific method pause before non-physical realities such as mind and the soul. Science studies the brain, which is a physical organ, but the assumption that the mind is no more than a function of the brain and therefore also physical is just that, an assumption.

                                    “Life Beyond Death”, Fontana Pp. 2-3.

Our examination agrees with what Fontana is getting at here but, personally, I’m inclined to use the word “self” rather than “mind” for that part of us which is truly us (i.e. not our body). As neuroscience shows (e.g. the case of the dentist considered, above), our mind can be affected by the state of our body (disease, injury, drugs etc.) – therefor our mind can be safely considered as just of the brain. But Fontana’s point is still intact, “non-physical realities” like our self/soul are “more than a function of the brain”, and therefore we are more than just our physical body.


We will hunt for more evidence of a human self + body duality below. We now come to the pillar of the House of Disbelief which is evolutionism, another prong of the physicalist, materialist Theory of Everything.






Biological reductionism (a.k.a. evolutionism) is the claim that humans can be reduced/traced back through tiny, mechanical, evolutionary steps (the natural selection of random mutations) to the original single cell of life – which first life, itself, was just a random accident – a spontaneous chemical happening in our accidentally existing universe. In other words, we are reduced to being just the mechanical product of a string of physico-chemical accidents. If this biological reductionism can be established, the philosophical implications are huge: humans, if merely the end result of huge accidents, are necessarily devoid of special meaning and ultimate purpose – no God/higher agency is needed by way of explanation – just chance.

Thus biological reductionism has the potential to form a substantial pillar for the residents of the House of Disbelief. To assess the soundness of such a pillar we need to ask: are we just our evolved physical bodies?

This is a question which we have asked before, and found that there are spiritual factors in the human equation which our physical sciences cannot explain. Here we will see if evolutionism can explain away these apparent nonphysical factors in the human equation – and satisfactorily reduce us back to being just our physical bodies.



Fundamentalist evolutionists claim that the theory of evolution solves any mysteries about the human condition – we can be satisfactorily reduced by their theory, in conjunction with chemistry and physics, all the way back to the original accident – the big bang (not even worth capital letters, just something/everything from nothing). This from Richard Dawkins, zealot of the House of Disbelief:  

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. 

“Blind Watchmaker” (1986), p. xiii.

If Dawkins is right, if evolutionary theory has provided the final piece to a satisfactorily comprehensive physicalist Theory of Everything – then “the greatest of all mysteries” is solved – and our exploration towards the Truth of the human condition, and any special meaning and ultimate purpose to our existence, needs to consider the philosophical implications.



I think that evolutionists have satisfactorily established the evolution of the human body as a fact – beyond reasonable doubt. Any special meaning and purpose thus hinging on whether we are just those bodies. If such is the case, the philosophical implications taken by most academic philosophers is are that there can be no human destiny/significance – and:

“...we’re just bags of genetic material on an Earth overburdened by them.

“godless GOSPEL” [sic], Dick Gross, P. 238.

Human ultimate purpose is thus impossible, as is any special meaning – we can only have the animal/genetic purposes of our bodies, and only any personal meanings which we can create for ourselves. This from evolutionary psychologist, Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams:

“...we all choose little goals for ourselves, and this can make our lives meaningful in the emotional sense of the term. However, if we’re interested in the question of whether life is ultimately meaningful, as opposed to whether it’s potentially emotionally meaningful, well, after Darwin, there is no reason to suppose that it is. There is no reason to suppose that life has any ultimate meaning or purpose.

“Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life” (2010), P. 194



The above amounts to philosophical reductionism, and such reductionism has swept the academic world. To paraphrase Dawkins – the “greatest of all mysteries” of the human experience once upon a time engrossed philosophy, but “it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.”

I think it fair to say that the majority of academics in secular universities are evolutionists – disciplines carrying the “evolutionary” tag are springing up everywhere: evolutionary psychologists, evolutionary neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, etc.. But, in its haste, evolutionist academia’s belief “that it is solved” has ignored many “little” unsolved mysteries – some of which we have already looked at in this essay – like:

·         the existence of perpetual energy (which must always exist because it cannot be created);

·         what made that energy materialise as matter “in the beginning”;

·         what are the chances of the resulting, intelligible (written in an intelligent language), and finely-tuned universe being accidental;

·         the amazing creativity of such a universe if accidental;

·         how life began (organic chemistry proceeding from non-organic chemistry) from the inert products of a necessarily sterile billion-degree maelstrom;

·         the existence of nonphysical things like consciousness, humour, beauty, and the human self in an entirely physical universe.

Such haste in declaring the end of mystery is probably as a result of academic philosophy’s overt antitheism – flowing from its clear-eyed observation of the dangers religion poses for humanity’s survival. More power to their arm, but you cannot defeat incredible religious fundamentalism by the adoption of another equally incredible one (materialism/physicalism) – however politically correct that latter fundamentalism has become.

And, is it the done deal that Dawkins proclaims – has evolutionary theory – allied with the materialism, reductionism, determinism, causalism, behaviourism that we have already examined (and found wanting) been able to complete the physicalist Theory of Everything? This from Professor Thomas Nagel:              

Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect....the orthodox naturalistic view is that biology is in principle completely explained by physics and chemistry, and that evolutionary psychology provides a rough idea of how everything distinctive about human life can also be regarded as an extremely complicated consequence of the behaviour of physical particles in accordance with certain fundamental laws.

“Mind and Cosmos: Why the materialist Neo Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false”, Thomas Nagel – Pp. 5 & 19.

The question, again, for us searchers of the Truth of the human condition is: are “we” just our bodies, just a collection of sub-atomic particles acted upon by “…certain fundamental laws”? Can such fundamentalism fully and truly explain the human condition – or is it akin to trying to explain a book by only referring to its paper?



Let’s see – is there any evidence that we may be more than the “… consequence of the behaviour of physical particles”?

Again – how about our self (two words). We have already considered something of the human self – we need to consider more – maybe such, rather than our evolved animal bodies is more truly “us”?



Evolutionism may well be the full explanation for the form of the human body, but it hardy establishes that we are just our bodies. Consider this from Nobel prize-winning neurophysiologist, Sir John Eccles:

I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition...we have to recognise that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.

                 Sir John Eccles (neurophysiologist) – Nobel laureate 1963.  

Stirring stuff, and we will examine more of the self and the spiritual world in Essay 3 – but here, is there anything to back up Eccles strong statement (apart from Eccles impressive learning and achievements)? Eccles mentions “the human mystery” – let’s delve into what sort of mystery could there be about us? Let’s search for it in some of our nonphysical factors. Firstly, do we have any such “factors”?



To determine these, we first need to approach more closely a credible answer to the question: what exactly is a human being? Was Sir John Eccles right, as well as our obvious animal bodies “existing in a material world” – are we also “spiritual beings with souls”?

While there are, observably, physical, animal factors in the human equation (and it seems that our bodies most likely evolved in accordance with evolutionary theory), just as observably, there are nonphysical, spiritual factors as well – which (often unique in the animal kingdom) factors seem to better define us, our selves – than our evolved matter does.

What exactly are these factors, and what is the evidence for their existence?

We have already examined something of the mystery of our knowledge and appreciation of non-Darwinian beauty and how such beauty lifts our spirits, during the examination of various other pillars of the House of Disbelief, above – but there are other mysteries, like: how ironic existential humour came to exist in a mechanical world; why some music can lift our spirits; why we seek to be happy when other animals just seek to be; how only non-Darwinian love of self can make us lastingly happy; how human behaviours have unnatural ideas like right, wrong, shame, and dignity in a natural world where such feelings are not shared by completely natural animals; and non-Darwinian altruism. We will examine all of these nonphysical factors of the human equation closely in Essay 3, but here we will just have a closer peek at a couple – non-Darwinian love and non-Darwinian altruism.



Reviewing life towards the end of his own, Darwin wrote in his autobiography:

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).

Evolutionists tend to see love in evolutionary terms – e.g. parental love, romantic love (or lust), group love – all of which can all be argued to have natural selection advantages. However, Darwin in the above quote is talking of “gaining” the love of our family – not about the love for our family (which familial love is usually motivated by the fact they bear your genes – and such “love” safeguards your own selfish genes’ survival). Darwin also mentions gaining the love of “his fellow men” – why is the approbation of unrelated fellow men important to us when the only meaning neo-Darwinians can discern in their mechanical world is the dominance of our selfish genes over the genes of our fellow men? Is it ultimately, as evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright says, just another form of self-interest – are we only seemingly altruistic, but more truly:

 “…a species with conscience and sympathy and even love, all grounded ultimately in genetic self-interest.”

“The Moral Animal”, P.378.

For evolutionary ideologues, altruism must be naturally selected – because that is all they “know” – our apparent love of, and sympathy for, our “fellow men” ultimately must be just self interest. Let’s have a closer look at that assertion.



Evolutionists have worked out neo-Darwinian rationales to explain away the mystery that is human altruism in a supposedly mechanical world – where every behaviour should be selfish – because driven ultimately by selfish genes. Such evolutionist explanations for what appears to be genetically contrary behavior, basically state that we sometimes risk our genes, in the present, for the greater good of our genes in the future. For them, all altruism falls under the following headings:

·         Kin altruism: helping/rescuing kin who are in trouble. While often risky for our own body’s survival, such personal gene sacrifice ensures the greater number of our genes will survive through our genetic group’s survival – therefore it has been naturally selected.

·         Group altruism: rescuing members of our social group, even if they are non-kin. Grouping is a good survival technique for our own genes – thus naturally selected.

·         Payback (or reciprocal) altruism: rescuing even non-group members in the expectation of a future payback. Basically storing goodwill potentially valuable for our future genetic survival.

Fine, I’m sure these, above, personal gene-risking behaviours have some larger genetic offset which may sometimes outweigh the demise of the original possessor’s genes – but there are some altruistic behaviours which don’t fall into these categories. I’m calling them non-Darwinian altruism?



As an example of non-Darwinian altruism consider the behaviour of risking our genetic cargo to rescue people outside of the above groups. It is not uncommon, given the extent of foreign tourism, for humans to rescue total strangers and foreigners in mortal danger – people outside of our kin group; outside of our social group; outside of our country; outside of any rational expectation of potential payback.

And there are some altruistic behaviours which are even stranger – for example, the rescuing of sworn enemies.



Beyond the above non-Darwinian altruism of risking of our genes when there is no hope of genetic return, we sometimes even risk our supposedly selfish genes to rescue the enemies of our genes. Consider this example of rescuing enemies in warfare:

…we had to decide what to do with the wounded German…So I lifted him up and put him on my back. There was one of those vicious 88mm guns manned by the Germans on a hill nearby and it put a few bursts past us as we set off…another shell thundered out and came so close I stumbled and fell over…I picked him up and started walking again. Another shell roared by and exploded about fifty yards behind us. I just kept walking…I walked right up to the [German] tent…I said, ‘Here’s your bloke.’ I put him down, turned around and begun to walk back.”

                        “Dangerous Days”, Ernest Brough Pp. 120-1.

This is genetic double jeopardy – rescuing someone who not only has genes which could compete with your selfish genes, but who is trying to kill you and your genes! This is not an isolated story, there are many similar wartime examples of dangerous altruism to rescue an enemy. And there are other examples of risking our genes purely out of compassion – all genetic risk and no genetic payback – for example, rescuing animals of a different species.



We risk, and sometimes lose, our lives trying to save animals (pet, stock, or wild) that do not belong to us – therefore not involved in any way in our own survival. For example, I have in my hands two newspaper articles: one from the Border Morning Mail (Albury, N.S.W.) reporting on the Police Rescue Squad undertaking a 600 km round trip from Melbourne to rescue an old dog from a shaft, and another from the Herald Sun (Melbourne, 2/7/2008) with a photograph showing a man in America who jumped into the sea to rescue a drowning black bear. Richard Dawkins describes payback altruism as basically “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”:

The other main type of reciprocal altruism for which we have a well worked-out Darwinian rationale is reciprocal altruism (‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’).

                                    “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, P. 216.

A “well worked-out Darwinian rationale”? Maybe he is right – the above hero who rescued the black bear did get a few scratches on his back! 



So how can the above ultimate altruisms (of genetic self-sacrifice for no present or future benefit) still exist in any humans today after many millennia of natural selection – if such goes against evolutionary logic by only having the function of risking any possessor’s own genetic survival? Evolutionist, Robert Wright 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) 

So why does that strange, unnatural, human trait for non-genetically-advantageous compassion often override our natural animal survival instincts and the laws of evolutionary theory? How can it exist at all in this later stage of our evolution as a species – given that the possession of such a compassion/morality gene would, in the main, be inimical to survival?

And there is another problem for evolutionism – as we considered above, we sometimes risk our precious genes just for fun?



Many of us risk our precious genetic cargo, from time to time, in the pursuit of “fun”. We do this when we fly interstate, or overseas on a holiday – even when we go for a Sunday drive. But we especially risk our selfish genes when we engage in potentially dangerous recreational activities like skiing, bike riding, scuba diving, bushwalking, surfing, etc. All of these are common activities, and mostly undertaken only for fun (i.e. not Darwinially as a commercial undertaking or as professional sport) – and are usually conducted in areas of scenic beauty – the enjoyment of which is part of the reason for the activity (the Great Barrier Reef, Colorado Rockies, Cradle Mountain, etc.). Most of these activities could be conducted anywhere – why do we most often go to such extensive and expensive trouble to do these risky behaviours in such out of the way, but beautiful locales?

We go to such trouble because the dangerous beauty of these places only serve one purpose – to lift our spirits. So, given that the above behaviours are: 1.) spiritually uplifting; 2.) genetically counter-intuitive because they involve mortal risk – what does this say about the human condition?

Whatever else, it definitely says: that there are spiritual factors in the human equation. Otherwise, if the human condition is as evolutionist ideologues say, we should just stay at home, cosseting and/or spreading our selfish genes? Some spiritually unevolved humans do this latter behaviour, of course, but many more don’t.

Sometimes the thrill of extreme sports (bungee-jumping, mountain climbing, skydiving, hang-gliding) may partly have a physical explanation – such as the physiological “buzz’ from adrenaline and/or the potential genetic gains from “showing off” (attracting members of the opposite sex) – but even these sports tend to be carried out in areas of natural beauty, the experience of which is most often a large part of deciding to do such activities at all. Again – such experience of non-Darwinian beauty only serves to lift our spirits/soul. We will consider a bit more about the mystery of the attraction of “non-Darwinian” (or even anti-Darwinian) beauty – below – and much more of the mystery of our understanding of, and our need to experience, such beauty in Essay 3.

Here we need to consider why it is just us humans, the only animal with the knowledge of its mortality, which risks its genes for no survival advantage? Not only is this a mystery, but more evidence for the existence of free will – because these above behaviours are not causal behaviours, reducible to, determined by, bodily and/or genetic imperatives. Free will is also an enemy of the House of Disbelief and is more fully discussed at other places.

To understand why we engage in genetically-risky behaviours, let’s look at their motivation.



We have already considered, in our examination of the previous pillar of the House of Disbelief, the human motives for certain non-Darwinian behaviours (like going to the art gallery, music, ballet, etc.) and even anti-Darwinian behaviours (risky behaviours like bushwalking, scuba diving, recreational travelling etc.) and, in a nutshell, we found that we do them because they bring joy to our lives through the enjoyment of beauty – both human made and natural beauty. Not only is beauty “integral” to all these behaviours, it is often the main motivator – I, and just about everybody I know have enjoyed some of these behaviours to some extent – when we/they return from recreational travelling and associated behaviours, 90%+ of all the photos are of the natural beauty (most often non-Darwinian – see below) which they experienced.

Beauty – we are prepared to spend Darwinian resources (time, money, etc.) and/or even risk our supposedly selfish genes for beauty? What sort of strange creature are we? According to evolutionism we are just another animal – and it has tried to develop an explanation for our understanding of, and our appreciation of beauty.



Neo-Darwinians have rationales to explain away any potential problems for their evolutionism – variously compelling – or not. The one by which they try to explain away our understanding of, and appreciation of, natural beauty is seriously uncompelling. They hold that a fertile valley looks “beautiful” to us because it is a good place to survive – to appreciate it, to be drawn to it, advantages our genes’ chance of survival and propagation – thus such understanding and attraction has been naturally selected. So why do we see beauty in such places as a snow-capped mountain, a desert, an iceberg – not only non-beneficial to our survival, but inimical to it? We also see beauty in dangerous natural animals – a leopard, a tiger, a shark. Even beauty in dangerous natural phenomena: an approaching storm; a jungle. Darwin, himself, reports in his Autobiography that he was spiritually moved by the beauty of the Brazilian jungle. We will explore the phenomenon which is humanity’s recognition and understanding of what is beautiful, our need to experience it, and especially our drive to create it, in Essay 3 – here we just need to consider how little evolutionism understands of humanity – how little it understands what we need “to best live”.



“How To Best Live?” This has often been described as Philosophy’s central question. We will try to approach an answer to this question in more detail at Essay 3. But for here, our consideration of the fact that the above non- and anti-Darwinian behaviours bring us joy and some satisfaction must lead us to the conclusion that for us humans to best live certainly involves more than just meeting our bodily day-to-day survival and genetic imperatives. In this we also need to also consider what the human need for happiness says about how to best live, and what such need says about the human condition.



Consider the strange human behavior which dominates so much of our lives: striving to be happy (“strange” because other animals just strive to “be”). The necessary conditions for lasting human happiness are to be examined at length in Essay 3, but here we can notice that it is observable lasting human happiness needs spiritual input – happiness from animal, sensual contentment must necessarily be passing (all tickle is no tickle). Human ecstasy also needs spiritual input – for example, making love to someone you love as compared to having sex with a sex worker. We’re getting a bit off the track, but the evidence we have considered so far is sufficient to reasonably conclude that, while evolutionary theory can explain our animal bodies and many human behaviours, it falls well short of explaining all of the human condition. In this essay we are coming to encounter more and more evidence of human duality – the human equation seems to incorporate both animal and spiritual factors. Humanity, whilst it can definitely hear the beat of an animal drum, lends its ear to another tune as well – a more spiritual air – to which it must dance if it is to best live.




We know that genetic survival is integral to a lot of our behaviours (who has not felt the pull of our animal needs and genetic imperatives?) but, again, trying to describe humanity solely in terms of our bodies is like trying to describe a book by only referring to its paper – you can do it but you get an incomplete and unsatisfactory answer. A consideration of the complete suite of human behaviours, animal and spiritual, tends to lead us towards Sir John Eccles’ conclusion, above – that we are spiritual beings with an animal body – i.e. we have bodies, but “we” are not those bodies.



So, what can we conclude, overall, about the soundness of the evolutionism pillar of the House of Disbelief?

We can say that evolutionary theory seems to be able to explain much of how our obviously animal bodies evolved to their present state. But there is plenty which is spiritual in our human behaviour that eludes it – such that an entirely physical and evolutionist description of the human condition will never be successful. Anybody who has lived a life and can still deny the existence of the spiritual has not been paying attention – we are much more than our evolved, physical, animal bodies and an explanation of our spiritual needs and motives is way beyond our biological and physical sciences with their materialist hammer. Anyone standing under the pillar of the House of Disbelief built out of evolutionism is not in a sound position.


We now come to examine the mechanics of evolutionism, natural selection – the mechanical selection by nature of those random mutations which give the possessor greater adaption to the environment – thus greater survival rates and genetic continuance. Many feel that it can solve all of the “mysteries” of the human condition which we encountered and examined above. We’ll call that position natural selectionism.





“Natural selectionism”? Doubt that it exists? Consider this from Professor Richard Dawkins: 

“…cumulative natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence. 

“Blind Watchmaker”, Richard Dawkins P. 392

In the above book, Dawkins admits a penchant for proselytizing: “Certainly it seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade” – so, is this statement just proselytizing hyperbole, or is the human condition truly no longer a mystery because natural selection is the “ultimate explanation for our existence”?



Hardly – at best, natural selection may be able to explain our body’s form, but not “its existence” – as we have already brushed on, before natural selection could happen, several hugely mysterious things had to have already happened:

1.) The physical universe had firstly to come into existence (mysteriously not only finely-set, but written in the intelligible language of mathematics – which language we humans, supposedly just its natural products – can mysteriously speak).

2.) The organic also had to come into existence (mysteriously from inert components which had emerged from a sterile, billion-degree big bang and subsequent supernovae furnaces).

3.) Cell splitting/reproduction had to come about.

4.) DNA, RNA, Genes had to come into existence.

5.) Some mysterious force had to exist to make genetic mutations happen for nature to select.

Only after all these things had happened (and a few I have skipped – like the original existence of uncreatable energy) could natural selection then work its (relatively unmysterious) mechanical creativity. But, however observable and unmysterious the actual physical process evolution is, even Dawkins has no idea as to how the process of natural selection began:

“…we still don’t know exactly how natural selection began on Earth”.

Richard Dawkins, ibid. P.205.

All up, plenty of miracles/mysteries – some needing to be in place before Dawkins’ mysteriously-existing natural selection could do anything! And that’s before we enquire into even deeper mysteries like how relativity emerged from the absolute (physics is still struggling with whether it was absolute nothingness or absolute energy). And “absolute energy” could be what we try to describe when we use the word “God” – the Divine source of everything – “D” Divine because having the attributes considered necessary for such: eternal and unable to be created. However, leaving that aside for another place, here we just need to see that relativity (the existence of this and that, here and there, now and then, you and me – and the existence of relatively good, better, best – all necessary for nature to select from) emerged from the Absolute and is immensely creative – and is the grand enabler of evolution.

So, natural selection is already not looking much like Dawkins’ “ultimate explanation for our (my emphasis) existence” – and that’s before we explore into whether words like “our” (and/or “us”, “we” etc.) should refer only to our animal bodies. As we have already seen, the totality of the human condition comprises many mysterious behaviours motivated by another, nonphysical factor – probably best described as the spiritual self in us.

Further to the behaviours we considered in the above examination of pillars of the House of Disbelief, let’s have a look at some more of our behaviours that natural selection cannot explain. Let’s start with our tendency to engage in unnatural selection?



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 (and/or their own). Because (as well as the above mentioned spiritual factor) humans definitely have an animal factor, we also play an animal role in natural selection. But humans can also be unnatural, going beyond any natural role because we have certain unnatural notions. For example, we consciously make our mind up as to which animals should survive (be selected for) – using all sorts of unnatural notions and measures to decide this – notions like compassion and/or aesthetics. We have particular compassion for some animals based on other unnatural notions: like dolphins (because they somehow seem to relate to us); whales (because they are slow-moving and vulnerable); animals we commonly choose for pets – dogs, cats, birds, fish (because of our nonphysical aesthetic notions we see them as beautiful). We even have unnatural love for animals in general – reflected in the existence of organisations like the RSPCA. And our unnatural aesthetic sense sees us tending to be more likely to protect animals which are cute and cuddly (like koalas, bilbies, sugar gliders, pandas etc.) – such are more likely to be adopted and funded by the public in zoo-driven survival programs than, say, worms (however more useful worms may be in a Darwinian sense – i.e. to our survival).

Much of this is a more recent human behaviour, probably as a result of our spiritual evolution (discussed in depth in Essay 3). In our more natural past we killed off whole species of other animals in a natural manner: 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 (e.g. whales for their oil during the Industrial Revolution).

Sometimes, of course, our behaviours towards other species of life come not from compassion and/or aesthetics, but have purely Darwinian motives – for example, understanding that preserving diversity in all living things (including vegetation – consider the saving of the Wollomi pine for example) is a good survival tactic – we have learned that you never properly know the role of some animals/vegetation in our own survival, nor where the next “wonder drug” is coming from. That is not to say that we don’t sometimes operate in a purely Darwinian manner – we do – preserving some species of life, and/or propagating some breeds for the purely Darwinian motive of ensuring our essential food stocks.

All up, the above also provides more evidence for the animal/spiritual duality of humanity – we are agents for both natural selection and unnatural selection.


We mentioned pets, above. So let’s consider some more of what the uniquely human behaviour of having pets reveals about the Truth of the human condition.



Keeping pets exhibits not only our unnatural selection of which animals will survive because they make good pets, we also use unnatural criteria to determine which animals will be “good” for purpose – like those animals with “nice” personalities; are placid (suitable to being a pet); look “pretty”; drop less hair; etc. We even cross-breed/create certain new/unnatural animals (labradoodles, etc.) just to be pets.

Humans breed and/or create (naturally useless) animals as pets – “useless” in an evolutionary sense because conferring no particular survival or genetic advantages to us – or worse: incurring survival costs to us by using up money and other resources we may need to survive ourselves (money and food spent on pet food, Vet fees, boarding kennels, etc.. Why? Just because we find them beautiful and/or sometimes enjoy their company. While we have bred some animals to do Darwinian jobs for us (e.g. working dogs, guard dogs) we have bred just as many purely for their aesthetics – their “beauty” – such beauty being totally non-Darwinian beauty, subjective, spiritual – i.e. their beauty to our self, not to our bodily/genetic survival.

Evolutionists feel all animal “beauty” is explicable in Darwinian terms – e.g. in humans: big breasts, wide hips etc. (in women); broad shoulders, strong arms (in men) – speed, endurance (in horses) – size and ferocity in a guard dog – etc., etc. And can validly argue that such “beauty” is naturally selected. But what can make a useless pet dog, cat, etc. look beautiful to us? If all of our behaviours only exist because they have been naturally selected, how can subjective behaviour (like pet-breeding/creating driven by a subjective idea of what makes a pet beautiful to look at) even exist in the first place, to be selected in the second place, in a purely objective universe?

All up, only humans design/keep other animals as pets for non-Darwinian beauty reasons – yet another example of human behaviour which has not been naturally selected and more evidence for the existence of free will in humans – it’s not something we have to do, been caused to do, or have learned to do from a chain stimulus-response behaviours/reflexes. It’s behaviour which confers no survival advantages, only costs.



Natural selection holds that we are just an object of a purely objective universe – which means that such behaviour as us seeing non-Darwinian beauty (like in pets) is subjectivity coming from an object of the universe? Does that mean that the totality of the human condition is not completely of the objective universe – or is the universe not a completely objective universe? Weird, that at some point, in some part of the universe, one species stopped being accidental, causal, mechanistic, objective, natural – and acted in an unnatural, subjective way? How can we – animals which have been naturally selected – freely choose to turn away from it and do unnatural selection? This is not to be anthropocentric, that it has happened with our species on Earth, is only to establish that it can happen wherever life has occurred in the universe?



We humans have also evolved ethics – an understanding of our “moral” responsibilities from our consciousness of being in a peak position in the animal kingdom. Just as some breeds of animals owe their very existence to our unnatural sense of beauty, some animals also owe their continued existence to our unnatural sense of ethics – just as some, earlier in our less spiritually evolved, more natural history, owed their extinction to our more natural physical needs. As discussed, some of our “ethical” conservation actions do come from a selfish, Darwinian motive (through our understanding that bio-diversity is 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, Save the Whales, Greyhound Rescue, and the RSPCA for example, are driven as much (or, in some cases, solely) by moral, ethical, compassionate, spiritual motives as by selfish, animal survival motives. All up, our behaviours (freely chosen) mean that evolution is no longer entirely random – we, a creature (object) of our world, have become a (subjective) creator/designer of it. Below we will also have a quick peek at consciousness – which reveals more of our “subject-object” split.

And, while we are on the subject of what the evident existence of human free will means for natural selection, consider that some humans are freely choosing their own genetic demise – definitely unnatural selection if all our behaviours are meant to be driven by our selfish genes.



Many of the fittest human individuals – those who have climbed by their natural abilities to the top of the human food chain – are choosing to drop their birthrate – for all sorts of unnatural reasons. Motives 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?); philosophical reasons (“thinking” peoples’ fear of bringing a child into what they may see as a meaningless, purposeless existence); career reasons (self-love through enhancing our status being more important than gene propagation) – and so on. The bottom line is this: many successful, alpha human individuals have freely chosen not to breed, or breed much less than they would have in nature (wherein all other superior individuals and/or species naturally dominate) – meaning that nonphysical factors (like how they feel about the self) are sometimes more important to them than genetic ones. We will examine the importance love of self plays in our happiness in Essay 3 – here we just need to notice, again, that we are making lots of choices which are not only free, but contrary to nature – unnatural selection.



And, at the same time as the alpha humans are breeding less, our unnatural virtue of compassion for the weak and sick is leading us to (freely choose) to help unrelated genetic competitors to survive and breed (in competition with our genes) through our charities, service clubs, personal donations, and our governments’ policies. We are enabling the survival of the less fit, whereas nature is all about survival of the fittest – advantaging human animals who would have been “selected out” in nature because of their physical and/or mental weaknesses. Not only that, but these individuals can now survive to breed and pass on often congenital problems – and we also freely choose to look after these weak offspring with our advanced (and costly) medical abilities to the point where they too can breed. I’m not saying that this is “good” or “bad” (I am a personal donor to charities benefitting the disadvantaged and a member of a service club, myself) nor that we should adopt eugenics – just observing another indicator that humans are unnatural in an otherwise completely natural, mechanistic world.

On the other side of the coin, we are also moving in the direction of being able to perfect (physically) our offspring through our medical sciences. Many babies are now being examined in the womb for a growing list of natural defects – and, if we so (freely) choose – aborted. We are also beginning to be able to have “perfect” offspring through having our DNA altered (genetic engineering) to get rid of weaknesses, sicknesses etc. and/or to improve desirable traits – if we so choose to.

There are many debates occurring now on the issues involved – like medical abortions for example, or selected sperm donors (freely choose a Nobel prize-winner or a sportsmen). Again I am making no statement as to whether it is “right” or “wrong”, just that it is so – and an example of free, unnatural selection rather than mechanical, causal natural selection.



How, if we are just natural, are we acting in this unnatural way? It seems natural selection does not have humanity (nor those animals and plants chosen by us) entirely in its grip anymore (for better or worse – consider the pro’s and con’s in the debate surrounding genetically modified food).

And nothing better illustrates humanity’s situation of having emerged from the blind control of natural selection, than the human phenomenon of consciousness. 



Humanity is more than Carl Sagan’s analogy of being “stardust observing the stars” (strange enough) – we are actually stardust with consciousness. Consciousness is a huge problem for evolutionary theory – how did inert matter not only become alive, but conscious of itself as matter? Nuclear physicist, Dr. Amit Goswami puts the problem clearly:

The question of how consciousness can evolve in matter is another case in point. ‘Can matter codify consciousness?’ is the hard question. How can interacting objects ever produce a subject-object split awareness? If material interactions can never produce consciousness, to think of consciousness as an adaptive evolved value does not make any sense.

                                    “God Is Not Dead” (2012 ed.), P.119.

How can consciousness be naturally selected from unconscious matter in an evolutionary process that is supposedly mechanical? Even nature cannot select a quality from matter which matter does not possess – no matter how adaptive it is to survival. More from Goswami:

How can nature select a quality from matter that matter cannot process? This shortcoming, to explain intelligent qualities as evolutionary adaption, becomes even more obvious when we ask, ‘How does our ability to discover scientific laws arise?’ Such a discovery has survival value; that is not the question here. The question is ‘Can they arise from the random motion of matter somehow?’ Attempts to prove that this is the case have had no success whatsoever.

                                                Ibid., P. 119.

The big problem for natural selection as a sound part of physicalism’s Theory of Everything is – how can something unphysical like consciousness exist in an entirely physical universe the first place – to be naturally selected in the second place? We are going to examine mystery of the phenomenon of human consciousness more closely in Essay 3 – for here we just need to consider that there is more to the behaviour and abilities of some lifeforms in the universe than can be explained by the natural selection of random mutations which have occurred to matter.



Some evolutionists feel that they have discovered an answer to some of the mysteries in the human condition in the existence of what they are calling: “the god gene” – VMAT2. For such evolutionary ideologues, what I have been calling “unnatural” can be explained away as the natural selection of this physical part of us which has been mutated. The gene, VMAT2 is said to be responsible for mood-regulating monoamine chemicals to the brain’s dopamine and serotonin neurotransmitters. Those of us possessing the relevant gene are supposedly more susceptible to transcendent, religious experiences. By calling it the “god gene”, the implication is also that God cannot exist – “He” has just been naturally selected (because the comfort of believing in a God is good for our health, therefore survival to breed). This is drawing an extremely long logical bow. If we get comfort from religion, it is probably good for us (other research has shown that religious beliefs are beneficial to our psychological and bodily health – religious people having lower blood pressure, better outcomes from heart disease, breast cancer, depression, and/or rheumatoid arthritis) – the question remains, why has it not, in fact, been naturally selected? Religious attendance is dramatically lower in the West than even 50 years ago.

And can the existence of a gene, which regulates “feel good” chemicals at the thought of a protecting father/god, explain the existence of our other more spiritual behaviours. For example, can we only be “lifted” by beauty if we have this gene – or does it just regulate the extent of such lift? And why does the experience of beauty trigger such a lift in the first place, to be naturally selected in the second place? And as we have already discovered in Essay 1, religion and God are hardly synonymous – religion being more Darwinian than spiritual – more about protecting a primitive but Darwinially-useful “g” god (“useful” because about gaining power), than finding any spiritual “G” God. So the “God gene” is really a religious gene, and if its existence is true – if everyone in the House of God has it, and nobody in the House of Disbelief – then if anything at all is explained away, it is just religion, not God – nor the spiritual factors in the human condition which everyone has to a greater or lesser extent. Most people also get the release of feel good chemicals from certain physical things/activities.



To find the full Truth of the human condition we need much more than evolutionary biology. While the evolution of life is an observable fact, there remain many mysteries – both before the fact of evolution (the accidental existence of matter, life accidentally happening to that matter) – and after the fact (mysterious random mutations accidentally happening for blind nature to mechanically select from). Neither can evolutionary theory explain how physical, mechanical processes like these can create the nonphysical – like consciousness – how did nonphysical consciousness exist in the first place in an entirely physical universe, to be selected by nature in the second place? No, Dawkins’ above fundamentalist assertion about how we have resolved all the mysteries of life through our partial understanding of the evolution of our bodies: “that it is a mystery no longer, because it is solved” – is hollow – there is no way evolutionary theory cannot explain all the mysteries of the human condition and thus force us, necessarily, into residency of the House of Disbelief.

To repeat an important point, trying to explain a human being through an understanding of his/her physical body is as unsatisfactory as trying to explain a book by understanding its physical paper. To carry the analogy further, even an understanding of the evolution of writing, the evolution of paper manufacturing, and the evolution of printing – reveals nothing to us of the creation/existence of the nonphysical story which is written in the book and the characters whose story it is – nor how the written word could be beautiful, even spiritual (for example poetry, good literature, etc.). Such story, characters, and literary beauty is the real ultimate purpose and special meaning of a book – not its paper and glue. Just as our lives’ ultimate purpose and special meaning rests in its ability/opportunity to create/evolve our nonphysical selves – not in the way blind nature mechanically evolved created our meaningless bodies from chemically enlivened molecules made of inert atoms. All up, nonphysical factors exist in a human just as surely as they do in a book – both made of matter which evolved from the first single cell lifeform, but both much more than such.


We now examine the pillar of the House of Disbelief constructed out of the belief that there is no special meaning/purpose or God – we just invented such ideas because they are comforting – and they were then naturally selected because the comfort they gave were beneficial to our survival.






Atheists argue that there is no real God, nor any special meaning – both are entirely human inventions which have been naturally selected because they enable us to cope with the existential fears flowing from our knowledge of our mortality. This from prominent atheist, Michel Onfray:

God, manufactured by mortals in their own quintessential image, exists only to make daily life bearable despite the path everyone of us treads towards extinction. As long as men are obliged to die, some of them, unable to endure the prospect, will concoct fond illusions.

                        The Atheist Manifesto, P.13.

Others have said much the same thing – this from Freud about the psychology of the religious impulse:

“…illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most insistent wishes of mankind…man’s need to make his helplessness tolerable

(Sigmund Freud, Civilisation, Society and Religion, Page 208. Penguin, 1985).

Marx offered this – along with some other famous utterances on religion (e.g. “religion is the opiate of the masses”):

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless condition.

(Marx, Economic Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.)

And leading “S” Sceptic author, 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”).

Hard to argue with any of the above statements by our intellectual leaders – they are true as far as they go, but is God and special meaning to our existence thereby disproven? Is it established that any “G” God and special meaning don’t/can’t exist because our ancient forebears invented an incredible “g” god that gave the masses – us otherwise helpless, oppressed creatures – some supposedly Divine opiate to comfort and console us?

In a word – no.

That God and special meaning to our existence “exists only” because we find those ideas “make life bearable” is a weak argument. Logically – it is possible for a God/higher agency to be both comforting and true. Further, while belief in a God can be comforting, it can be equally discomforting – guilt from sinful acts (that we all commit to some extent) and fears of subsequent judgement and eternal punishment by a God – are common products of religion. Thus it could be argued that some/many? Disbelieve in God and special meaning/purpose in order “to make [their] life bearable” – membership of the House of Disbelief being just as comforting as membership of the House of God.



It also needs to be noted that the above utterances tend to be about religion, and, while they seem pretty correct – is to disprove a fallible religious god and an incredible meaning of life to the same as disproving the existence of a real God and any special meaning/purpose to our existence at all? – must they be tarred with religion’s brush, and disposed of together?

No. To recognise the comforts of religion, the fallibility of its human gods, and incredibility of its special meaning of life, no more disproves the existence of any such God and special meaning, than a recognition of the comforts of residency in the House of Disbelief establishes the existence of special meaning/purpose and a real God.  



Further, what is established about the existence a spiritual factor in the human equation if you manage a complete demolition of religion – are the two tied together – in fact, is religion even spiritual?

In a word – no. Religion is Darwinian rather than spiritual, to dispose of religion is not to dispose of the existence of the spiritual.



We have already found in Essay 1 that while religion has some spiritual aspects (usually generated when Freud’s “wishes of mankind” and Marx’s “sighs of the oppressed creature” are expressed in beautiful words, art, buildings, and music) most motives in our Houses of God have Darwinian bases rather than spiritual. For example, the religious officers of our Houses of God sell to the people control over the vagaries of life (droughts, earthquakes, illness etc.) and the certainty of death – through their power over a god. To this end of being able to control their god, our Houses of God created “Him” in male human form – with all the exploitable human frailties: vain (reacting favourably to worship and praise); jealous (demanding sole fidelity); parochial (having a favoured religion and people); awful and brutal (to keep the congregation in fear) – but potentially infinitely generous if we do what the House of God tells us.

Similarly, the House of God’s meaning/purpose of life is Darwinian – about survival of the body – for eternity. In other words our Houses of God accommodate a useful, marketable god and meaning of life – all supposedly “inspired” directly by God – but looking an awful lot like it was rather invented by religious officers for their own control purposes. Judging by its history of evil acts, religion, while undoubtedly capable of being spiritual, is too often about peddling its “t” truths in return for power, control (and money) – rather than being an effort to discover any real spiritual “T” Truths there may be: like a real “G” God, and/or a credible special meaning/purpose to our existence.



So, while our Houses of God house fallible “g” gods and incredible meanings of life which exploit our animal psychological fears, emotional needs, and our Darwinian drive to survive – must the realisation of this establish the House of Disbelief’s own comforting “t” truths; that there is no God, no special meaning/purpose of life, and that the spiritual factor in the human equation does not exist – everything which we label as such, being just psychological and emotional responses of our animal body.

No, you don’t necessarily build a sound “H” House just because you are using the rubble of an opposing House. The demolition of an unsound House does not establish a diametrically opposed House as sound – while two diametrically position cannot both be right, they can both be wrong. We need to look at the House of Disbelief as a standalone building to establish if it is sound. To that end, we need to look at the strengths of its own theories about the spiritual, not just at the weaknesses of the House of God’s theories.



Physical scientists, and their philosophical materialist camp followers, argue that the spiritual cannot exist because the universe is entirely physical. For them, the “things” which I call nonphysical, spiritual factors of the human equation are, more correctly, just physical phenomena generated by the mechanically evolved lump of meat which is our brain – “existing” only because they have been naturally selected – proven adaptive to our species because they provide comfort and thus lead to more successful survival and outbreeding outcomes.

What are emotions? The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (ed. James Drever, 1965) defines emotion thus:

…a complex state of the organism, involving bodily changes of a widespread character – in breathing, pulse, gland secretion, etc. – and, on the mental side, a state of excitement and perturbation, marked by strong feeling, and usually an impulse towards a definite form of behavior.     

So, emotions are of the body: physiological: “bodily changes”, and psychological: “a state of excitement…on the mental side” (i.e. of the physical brain). Should what I have previously been calling “spiritual”, be more truly called emotional and/or psychological – an entirely physical product of an entirely physical body in an entirely physical universe? Does the spiritual exist separately or is it just Darwinian, human religion – and demolishable with religion?



We have considered that religion is Darwinian, but also that the spiritual and religion are not the same thing – that the spiritual exists outside our Houses of God – this from philosopher, Professor John Armstrong:

Religions, cults, and myths are attempts – for better or worse – to organise and guide our inner lives. But the issue of spiritual life can be raised and pursued apart from religion.

                        “In Search of Civilsation” (P. 164)

And this from atheist philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville:

The human spirit is far too important a matter to be left up to priests, mullahs or spiritualists. It is our noblest part, or, rather, our highest function, the thing that makes us not only different from all other animals (for we are animals as well), but greater than and superior to them. ‘Man is a metaphysical animal,’ said Schopenhauer – and therefore, I would add, a spiritual animal as well. This is our way of inhabiting the universe and the absolute, which inhabit us.”

                        “The Book of Atheist Spirituality”, P. 134.

Comte-Sponville recognises that there is definitely more to the human equation than physical factors – there are spiritual factors as well: man is “a spiritual animal”. And I think he is beginning to touch upon a pivotal “T” Truth when he says that our spirit may be “our way of inhabiting the universe and the absolute, which inhabit us”. Maybe our spirit/soul/consciousness is the Divine in us – maybe the way the Divine experiences (even creates some parts of) this physical reality? Consciousness is a huge mystery which we will explore more of, in Essay 3. But the bottom line for here, is that the words “psychological” and “emotional” describe aspects of our animal body, while the word “spiritual” is a word which describes aspects of our nonphysical self.

Unconvinced? Another way to illustrate the difference between the body/emotions and the spiritual/self is to consider the uniquely human phenomenon of our understanding and appreciation of beauty – a nonphysical phenomenon which can, strangely, affect our physical body.



This from Professor John Armstrong:

One of the strangest features of the experience of beauty is its power, occasionally, to move us to tears. Not because we are presented with a harrowing or terrifying image, but because there is something in grace and loveliness that can be, for a moment, heartbreaking. It might be the face of the Madonna in a little thirteenth-century ivory statue from the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris; it might be a Bach cantata that awakens this strange emotion. What is happening to us at these special times of intense responsiveness to beauty?

                        “The Secret Power of Beauty”, John Armstrong, P. 70.

Armstrong well illustrates the difference between our animal and spiritual factors – consider the difference between tears elicited from us by a “harrowing or terrifying image” (an animal emotional bodily response) – and human tears/crying elicited by the grace and loveliness of beauty. What exactly is “moving” us to tears? In the first instance it is undoubtedly our animal bodily emotion – fear, and in the second instance it is undoubtedly not of our body – beauty is making/allowing us to experience joy, ecstasy even. The unnatural human need for happiness we will explore more deeply in Essay 3, here we just need to consider that before we can experience happiness/ecstasy (as opposed to, necessarily, passing  animal satisfaction) the spiritual self/soul needs to be involved. The Rolling Stones’ song “Can’t Get No Satisfaction” became an anthem because it struck a chord with us about the common human frustration of being able to achieve satisfaction/lasting happiness just through  bodily contentment (necessarily passing because all tickle, is no tickle – pain even).

While we encounter beauty through our bodily physical senses (sound – music; smell – a flower; eyes – artworks; taste – beautiful tasting food) the effect of their beauty is on our soul/self. When people talk of being “lifted”, “transported” by beauty, they are not talking about the movement of their body. Beauty appeals to our spirit, soul, self (call it what you will – but not our body). Some might answer that it is possible to analyse beauty with our mind/brain/body – but to do so most often means we will avoid the ecstasy of being spiritually “moved” by it.

Of course, Darwinian physical “beauty” also exists. For example a curvaceous, buxom woman and/or a tall athletic man – but what is “moved” by such animal beauty is an entirely physical/animal part of us. We will consider the difference between Darwinian and spiritual beauty more deeply in Essay 3.


Above, I stated that “D” Disbelief is often as comforting as belief. Time to examine that assertion.



While, observably, many do believe in special meaning/purpose and/or a Divine just on psychological bases (i.e. just because it gives comfort) just as observably, many atheists disbelieve on similar psychological bases: getting rid of a belief in any special meaning/purpose or God and/or continued existence in a hereafter, provides comfort by removing the fear of judgment and/or punishment in said hereafter.

Disbelief is a good antidote for guilt. Guilt has been established by many scientific studies to be very damaging to our health – so a good argument can be made that Disbelief is adaptive – only existing because naturally selected. Whereas, as we have considered, above, while a belief in a “G” God and special meaning can be comforting, it is discomforting in equal measure because it leads to guilt.

Let’s have a look at guilt.



Who of us carries no uncomfortable guilt from living our life? While most of us have not committed serious illegalities and/or statutory crimes, most have committed everyday shameful acts – like: betrayal of friendship; malicious gossip; infidelity; divorce of a spouse to take a richer or more physically attractive partner; abortion; children abandoned in divorce; experienced schadenfreude at the misfortune of others; unethical business conduct; sins of omission; lapses of social and personal morals; personal hurt administered to others; cruelty to animals; racism; sexism; corruption; sexual abuses of power. Who of us has not been guilty of some of these? Some of the people I listed at the beginning of this essay as zealots and saints of the House of Disbelief supported murderous Communist regimes (why is it somehow admirable to have supported Communism, but despicable to have supported Nazism?). The above common sources of feelings of guilt, regret, and shame are more easily carried and/or totally dismissed if you dwell in the House of Disbelief: disbelieving not only such things as the existence of any all-knowing and judgmental God; of any afterlife life review (revealing all our sins, including those we may have “gotten-away with”); any eternal consequences for our actions on Earth – but even the very existence of such things as right and wrong, good and bad.

And such disbelief also allows a libertine life.



Disbelief in special meaning and God has enabled many a libertine approach to life. Some of the people I listed at the beginning of this essay as the zealots and saints of the House of Disbelief were/are also sexual predators of the people in their power/instruction and/or philosophic thrall; had multiple marriages/relationships; abandoned children to carry off trophy wives and/or mistresses – all while still managing to swarm the high moral ground to look down on the weaknesses of believers.

Is this fair, does “D” Disbelief swarm the high moral ground?



Observably. Many “S” Sceptics swarm the high moral ground, looking down on belief as a psychological crutch for the weak – a comfort for those who cannot cope with the thought of death, oblivion, our personal insignificance, and/or our lack of control over life – unlike their own good selves – who have the intellectual integrity and courage to face life and death without needing the thought of a comforting God-the-Father and eternal life in the hereafter. More from Shermer:

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.)

Disbelievers can certainly teach theists a thing or two about smugness!


To sum up, while it is undoubtable that many people believe in a God and special meaning/purpose to life because such belief is comforting, this does not disprove the existence of God or special meaning/purpose. Just as, conversely, the fact that many people choose to disbelieve in a God or special meaning/purpose because such disbelief is also comforting, does not prove the existence of a God and special meaning/purpose.


We now will examine the pillars of the House of Disbelief constructed out of the conclusions of philosophy alone – and using its (sometimes) sharp tools of reason, language and logic.







Many would say that philosophy, with its tools of reason, language, and logic, has managed over the years to dispose of any credible belief in special meaning/purpose and God. Is this true to say, and how did it happen?



Most of the grand, old universities and colleges of the world were started as, or by, religious institutions (e.g. Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbonne, Heidelberg) and most of their original philosophic output was designed to buttress the House of God and reinforce its shaky Biblical foundations. But then along came the likes of 16th and 17th century astronomers Galileo, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and the towering mathematician and scientist, Newton – and the scientific genie was well and truly out of the bottle. The world of academic philosophy was never the same again – no longer an adjunct to religion.



Although the roots of “D” Disbelief were established earlier by the likes of: first philosophers of science (e.g. Bacon); the first materialists (e.g. Hobbes); the rationalists (e.g. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz); and empiricists (e.g. Locke, Berkeley, Hume) – the 18th century “Enlightenment” period is generally seen as the era in which the majority academic philosophic position emerged from its “Dark Age” of often vicious religious power, into the light – switching from its comfortable residency/imprisonment in the House of God to new, more radical accommodation in the House of Disbelief. Safe from the evils of religious persecution, Disbelief in God and special meaning/purpose flowered – fertilized by the steadily increasing discoveries of science. Kant (1724-1804) founded critical philosophy and David Hume (1711-1776), in “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” argued against the monotheistic religions – suggesting that God may be actually 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.

(Hume, “Dialogues”, 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).

Many present-day philosophers feel that Hume’s arguments dug God’s grave. A.N.Wilson (“God’s Funeral”, 1999) describes Hume’s arguments as:

“…devastating …… the disturbing question to which there could not possibly be any answer.

(“God’s Funeral” P. 24).



Hume certainly emboldened many academic philosophers, who felt that they could successfully play the role of assassin, and provide the Divine body to fill the hole that Hume had dug – Nietzsche for example claimed:

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!

                                    Nietzsche, “The Gay Science”, section 125.

And in the train at this god’s funeral were rationalists, materialists, empiricists, proto-nihilists and existentialists – all carrying suitable funerary offerings (slaughtered sacred cows like special meaning and ultimate purpose to life) and grave goods (shattered icons). But who/what was in the Divine grave?



Who had the assembled assassins and iconoclasts dispatched – all and every credible “G” God, or just the ancient, Abrahamic “g” god? Were the funerary offerings the slaughtered corpses of all and every credible special meaning/purpose to life, or just the incredible and tarnished traditional religious special meaning/purpose of life (e.g. life is a test for eternal heaven or hell)? Did the shattered icons truly have the face of “G” God, or just some human “g” god?

Let’s see. 



The Enlightenment was so called because it enlightened us from the darkness of the ignorance that was religious philosophy – we learnt that, as the song would have it: “the things that you’re liable, to read in the Bible – ain’t necessarily so”. But the post-Enlightenment period, which continues to the present, seems not to have been all sweetness and light – it brought some other ideologies to replace religion, which contained their own darknesses: “M” Materialism killed our souls; “S” Scepticism killed special meaning; “E” Evolutionism killed all but animal purposes; “E” Existentialism dug a nihilistic black hole; “R” Relativism killed Truth. The House of Disbelief constructed after the Enlightenment is dark because it doesn’t seem to have any windows?



With the advent of Darwin’s biological discoveries and the continuing advances of our physical sciences, philosophy gradually became the handmaiden of science (rather than the footnote to Plato it had been for centuries). The steady stream of successful discoveries (and useful products) from physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, medicine, biology, and other physical sciences dazzled our philosophers and resulted in various philosophical positions of disbelief: existentialism believed only in the absurdity of life, materialism disallowed souls, reductionism reduced us to atoms, evolutionism to the apes – and meaninglessness and purposelessness became the default position of academia – any other position had to be proven by the scientific method (and only material evidence was allowed). Belief in special meaning, ultimate purpose and God was discredited to the point of becoming disreputable in most academic circles.

But are the reports of the death of God, special meaning and ultimate purpose “greatly exaggerated”? Let’s start with the death of God – was Nietzsche right in announcing that we had killed God? Should God be given a decent, but definitive, burial with academia being the undertaker – or have we been induced to dance on the wrong grave (and empty anyway)?



What exactly has been killed? Definitely, time after time, the gods of our major religions have been repeatedly and convincingly dispatched – with a recent acceleration of philosophical assassins lining up to administer the coup de grace: Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” (2006); Michel Onfray’s “The Atheist Manifesto” (2005); Hitchens’ “God is Not Great” (2007); Dennet’s “Breaking the Spell” (2006); A.N. Wilson’s “God’s Funeral” (1999); Grayling’s “The God Argument” (2013) – being good examples.

All of these 20th century neo-Darwinian polemicists have successfully slaughtered the slow-moving, sacred cows of religion: their incredible “g” gods and their incredible “t” truths about special meaning/purpose. But none have hunted big game – any credible “D” Divine, or any rational “T” Truths there may be. How can you claim to have killed all such without first hunting for every credible “G” God and/or special meaning/purpose – then disposing of them?

To claim the death of God by killing religions’ god is futile – because you have tacitly agreed with religion that such a primitive god is the only possible God there can be – “the one true God”?



Surely, by now, philosophy has settled that religions’ gods are not only dead but never existed – does it not know, with all its brain power and tools, that to encourage dancing on a grave that they know to be empty (of all but a straw god) is a specious act? But they dance on, and on, in publication after publication, settling for the dispatching of personal “t” truths about meanings and “g” gods – rather than finding any “T” Truths there may be about such – which should surely be philosophy’s role.



And ideology as rabid as any religion is evident in the many atheistic academic publications, and lashings of atheistic proselytising. Like the residents of the House of God, inhabitants of the House of Disbelief appear more interested in confirming their own comforting beliefs by gaining converts for their side, rather than finding any Truth – that winning the argument is the thing, and that any such “winning” can be achieved simply by gaining the greater numbers to your argument.

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 [his book] seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade.  (p.xiv).



It is my observation that most atheists are, more truly, antitheists – spurred into their often vitriolic outbursts by the readily evident dangers of fundamentalist religious beliefs, and by various irrational and stupid theistic beliefs which continue to be held in the teeth of contradictory evidence from science and archaeology (Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, God-ordained ethnic cleansing). But many academics seem to be more interested in generating heat, than light and have fallen into fundamentalism themselves (e.g. materialism, reductionism). While it is easy to understand how fundamentalist, quasi-scientific beliefs on creation are bound to engender fear and loathing within the breasts of people who have spent a lifetime gaining rigorous scientific knowledge (like Dawkins in biology), but to make presumptuous claims about solving all life’s mysteries (The Blind Watchmaker: “…it is a mystery no longer, because it is solved.”) shows a desire to win, rather than to discover.



Nobody should presume that academia is solely about the search for golden Truths. “T” Truths can not only be personally uncomfortable if they disagree with your personal “t” truths, but professionally inconvenient if they disagree with the past academic work on which your renown and/or tenure rests. You have to be very brave, personally and professionally, to publish any new idea/discovery which contradicts the ideology de jour of your academic Department.

While much of the recent academic attack on religious belief seems to originate from a good place – a clear recognition of, and fear of, the evils of fundamentalist terrorism – it has to be considered whether combatting incredible fundamentalism with more and equally incredible fundamentalism the most effective way?



Maybe the best way would be to find, or at least approach, a better “G” God? Such would surely be more injurious to religions’ evil and dangerous “g” gods than academic invective? While fully understanding the bound-to-be-ineffable nature of any “G” God – of any Absolute – would most certainly be beyond us creatures, born and experienced only of the relative, surely philosophy can hunt and approach such more nearly than any religion has managed so far?

I’m not suggesting Philosophy loses its credibility by adopting/accepting something silly from the plethora of quasi-credible New Age gods for the above worthy purpose, but that it should use its skills to explore, honestly and non-ideologically, the many nonphysical and mysterious phenomena of our world. Professor Stuart A. Kauffman’s “Reinventing the Sacred” (2008) is a good start, as is nuclear physicist Dr. Amit Goswami’s “God is Not Dead” (2008).


To this, many would reply: “Why must there be a God?”



There is no “must” about it, there either just is a God/higher agency, or not. Whatever the answer, there is no denying the importance of the higher agency/God question to the philosophy of meaning – if there is no higher agency, no “first cause”, then everything is accidentally existing and, because it is observably mechanically proceeding, it is necessarily purposeless – therefore devoid of special meaning. It is a question we should tackle rather than hide away in an unsound House based on (increasingly unsound) materialist fundamentalism. But I suspect that the personal comforts of the House of Disbelief, and the grim fun most neo-Darwinian atheists seem to get from slaughtering the slow-moving sacred cows of dim-witted and/or fearful theists (and the sense of personal superiority it allows) will win out over the desire to find potentially inconvenient Truths? Even academics, are not above enjoying a feeling of superiority over the religious and/or the personal comforts allowed by the removal of the very notion of any higher agency (and the removal of guilt and fear of judgment and punishment that this allows) and/or the removal of any purpose (which we may have failed).


What of quasi-academic institutions like Sceptics Societies?



“S” Sceptics (e.g. members of Sceptic societies and organisations) certainly do play an important role in society when they: attack dangerous Jonestown-type sects; oppose dangerous pseudo-historians like Holocaust-deniers; expose fraudsters in the Paranormal field (which field has some potential in the hunt for any Truths – we will go there in Essay 3); and by opposing always dangerous religious fundamentalism (“dangerous” because the three main religious fundamentalisms have a belief that an eventual Holocaust is God’s will and their “B” Books imply they have a role in bringing this about).

But capital “S” Scepticism feels that identifying wafer-thin possibilities for doubt and/or fraud in a potentially fruitful field of enquiry is the same as establishing it to be totally incorrect in every respect and/or fraudulent.

Sceptics like to think that they only demand evidence, but when the only evidence they allow is material, then their demand is actually for the sole reign of materialism. They claim to be able to decide on the Truth of certain nonphysical aspects of our existence (like our understanding/appreciation of beauty, music, humour and the existence of virtue, shame, consciousness) from their knowledge of the physical sciences and/or feeling that the mystery of all such things has been explained away by the (undoubted) phenomenon of bodily evolution by natural selection – without being able to explain how such nonphysical things exist in an entirely physical, mechanistic universe to be so selected. 



We are all a little sceptical – it is a good survival tool, and healthy skepticism is most likely adaptive, therefore naturally selected – but, like atheism, “S” Scepticism is largely a reaction to certain peoples’ silly “t” truths rather than a search for any “T” Truth. And Scepticism is often a reaction to an oppressive family background of religion and/or from religious schooling. Loathing generated by oppressive religious dogma in their family of birth has created many of our leading Sceptics – as a run through of the biographies of many of the saints and zealots of the House of Disbelief mentioned at the beginning of this essay will attest.

While healthy skepticism is valuable to humanity because it often usefully destroys un-Truths, it should not be mistaken for a search for mysteries which may contain “T” Truths. Those who have carefully studied life’s nonphysical, often mysterious and numinous phenomena and experiences – seldom end up fundamentalist Sceptics. But where to look for such phenomena and experiences?



To hunt the mysteries is to be called a “mysterian” – and, in the eyes of some, to be able to label someone is to discredit them. But I am happy to wear it and add it to all my other ones: pantheist/deist/spiritualist/humanist/and-whatever-tomorrow-may-bring-ist. But the first place to look is surely life’s mysteries – those phenomena not well answered by religions and their Books – nor by our sciences. We need to examine the numinous, spiritual, nonphysical (including, even, the more credible anomalous/paranormal) aspects of life – thoroughly and non-ideologically. How can you say that no explanation higher than mechanics exists if you only examine the physical, material universe, using only the tool that is physical science? Science is more a method than a thing, a successful method when applied where it can/should be, but when it can’t be applied, humans do have other tools which can ring when the Truth is struck.


Essay 3 examines such tools and searches for Truth, using them, in the regions and mysteries of the nonphysical – but here, for the examination of this pillar of the House of Disbelief, suffice it to be concluded that any and every credible, possibly real “G” God and/or special meaning has not been identified and dispatched by academic philosophy or secular (i.e. non-academic) disbelievers/Sceptics in their battle for the hearts and minds of humanity. Nothing has been proven by academia in the hunt for special meaning, ultimate purpose, and/or a “G” God – other than intellectual power is no guarantee against the pull of ideology nor protection from the desire for psychological and emotional comfort. Philosophy, over the years and with its tools of reason, language and logic, has not constructed a headstone for the Divine nor a substantial pillar for the House of Disbelief – but only pushed an increasing number of people into the sea of meaninglessness, wherein they can only cling to rafts of fundamentalism to get by – day to day.


Let’s have a look at another philosophical pillar of the House of Disbelief – one famously popularised by one of the “saints” of Disbelief: Bertrand Russell.





This is a popular pillar of the House of Disbelief and many stand under it. I was advised by Phillip Adams (Australian journalist, “S” Sceptic and devout atheist) that he ceased to believe in God at six years of age, when he posed this question to his mother and she couldn’t answer it. Earlier in the 20th century, Bertrand Russell had made much of the same question in his anti-god polemic: “Why I Am Not a Christian” – which is a tract responsible for confirming many in their disbelief or leading many members of the House of God to abandon their faith and seek residency in the House of Disbelief.



“Who made God?” is certainly a question which has engrossed many people over the years because the god envisaged by our pre-scientific religions was a creator-god who literally made everything – our first Theory of Everything – a convenient answer to any and every mystery which could be proposed by man: “God did it”.

Which answer, as Russell recognized, simply created a bigger mystery: “Who ‘did’ God?” And to throw into doubt this fundamental religious theory was, literally, to throw into doubt all of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) which were based on this creator God.

Here we need to ask, what must God be – to be regarded as such?



We have already discussed in this essay theism’s idea of the nature of God (what God must be) – omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent – but what must God do?

The House of God’s god, most definitely, must make the Universe. The main Christian creed states:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and Earth”.

So, such a belief, held in an obviously cause-and-effect universe, is vulnerable to Russell’s ultimate question: “because everything obviously has a cause, what was the cause of the first causer?”

The House of God flannels this away with a bald statement: God always exist.

While this looks for all the world like a “t” truth (because it is a convenient catch-all statement – with only a book, which we found in Essay 1 to be unreliable, as evidence) which must make us dubious, this must not necessarily stop it from being the “T” Truth. Maybe nothing is created – but everything always exists in some form or other – ultimately determined by relativity, the engine of our creative universe? Some observations from quantum physics are implying that something must always exist and Inflation Theory, implies that matter came from energy “in the beginning”.



The following theoretical physicists concur that something/everything most likely always existed. The following are excerpts from an article in the New Scientist magazine, quoting some of Earth’s leading physicists:

“…something is the more natural state than nothing.

(Victor Stenger – physicist, Colorado Univ.)


According to quantum theory there is no state of emptiness.

(Frank Close – physicist, Oxford Univ.)


Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world.

(Amanda Gefter, New Scientist.)

 – All quoted from “New Scientist”, 23/7/2011, No. 2822 – Pp.28-29.

And classical physics has something interesting to contribute – in the First Law of Thermodynamics – which we know to be the Truth (using our working definition of “T” Truth: because it is always works for everybody all the time). The First Law states that neither energy, nor matter, can be created or destroyed. The big bang “in the beginning”, we are told by physics, was the billion-degree maelstrom of energy becoming matter. Was this always-existing energy/matter – God – not creating the universe, but becoming it?



All up, if everything is matter/energy and it must always have existed, nothing is needed to create it – indeed, nothing can. So, there is no “maker” – whose own maker needs to be found. The original absolute energy was God (or of God at the very least) which became the universe – rather than created it?

Hardly the god of the House of God, but any real God is bound to be way more complicated than our primitive ancestors, who created the House of God’s god, could imagine/construct.

To lose belief in the existence of any Higher Agency and/or any special meaning and ultimate purpose to life – as a result of the “who makes a creator-god?” question – necessitates belief in the first place that the simple Abrahamic creator-god is the only possible Higher Agency there could be. Anyone looking for the “T” Truth, rather than looking for the petty satisfaction (and/or comfort) of demolishing a “t” truth, needs to consider whether the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creator god of Abraham is the only possible higher agency worthy of the name God?


Is the above Divine energy the basic unity of the universe that we hear so much about – everything is God?



The ultimate point here is: the pillar of the House of Disbelief constructed using Bertrand Russell’s “If God made the world, then who made God?” question – is not substantial – it is just another demolition of the ancient creator god of our primitive ancestors. Again, we need to understand that there is a great deal of difference between demolishing ancient religious “g” gods and demolishing “G” God.

While, on this side of the absolute/relative divide, the nature of any Absolute (e.g. creator, becomer?) must remain ultimately ineffable to us creatures of the relative, and ineffability does not disprove the existence of such. The existence of any God does not hang on our perfect understanding – It/He/She/Them/Us? – and especially it does not hang on the understanding of our pre-scientific ancestors.


Next we will examine the idea that we are necessarily reduced to meaninglessness because of our minute size relative to the immensity of the universe.





Homo sapiens also ranks as a ‘thing so small’ in a vast universe, a wildly improbable evolutionary event, and not the nub of universal purpose. Make of such a conclusion what you will. Some people find the prospect depressing.

                                    “Rocks of Ages”, Stephen Gould, P.206.

Because we are, indubitably, “so small” compared to our gigantic universe it can be reasonably concluded that we are “not the nub of universal purpose”. As to whether it can, further, be reasonably concluded that we are (or life itself is) “a wildly improbable evolutionary event” is an idea we explore in other parts of these essays – here we just need to consider what our relatively small size has to say about the human condition and/or the meaning/purpose of our existence?

Many have concluded, that because we are (individually and as a species) physically insignificant in comparison to the size of the whole universe, so must we and any meaning/purpose of our life be similarly insignificant. This particular argument against special meaning has been heard with greater and greater frequency as we discover more and more about the vast scale of our universe. Consider the following without feeling insignificant – if you can:

“…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”, Carl Sagan, P. 196

I’m not sure Sagan has counted all the Earth’s beaches – let alone all their sand grains – but you get the idea. And Sagan is only talking about stars – which, like ours, may have multiple planets – and those may have moons. So many potentially habitable worlds.



Who has not felt an existential flat spot when lying out on a lawn under a clear night sky, contemplating the head-spinning number of just the visible stars? If we wish to explore our universe’s size further, even a pair of binoculars can open up galaxies of billions more stars previously unseen by our naked eyes. Those lucky enough to have looked through a serious telescope for the first time are most often stunned by the revelation of our universe’s size – and humbled by the realisation of our own small physical place in it.

But, does size really matter – does our relative minuteness necessarily indicate our meaninglessness?

I don’t think so, it is not credible that the size of individual lifeforms, relative to the size of their total world, or their total lifeform’s numbers, must dictate any special meaning and purpose they may have. Rather it is the potential and/or ability any such lifeform may have.



Consider the potential of the original single-cell lifeform on Earth – microscopic, very few (maybe only one?) – then look at what happened! An explosion of lifeforms ranging in size from bacteria to blue whales (and while we are on the significance of size, consider that bacteria can reduce blue whales to ocean-floor sediment).

Perhaps even more significant than size is potential ability. Consider that one particular lifeform which proceeded from an original single cell of life on one planet has the ability to speak mathematics – the language the universe was written in. This has allowed that physically insignificant lifeform to uncover many of this vast universe’s physical secrets using the scientific method it created to develop various physical sciences like physics; thereby to reduce the significance of its universe’s size and distances with engineering and rocketry; to recreate parts of the living universe with genetic engineering; to extend its lifespan through chemistry and medicine – perhaps, even one day, to avoid death.

And physical size relative to our giant universe does not remove any special meaning for humanity which comes from nonphysical phenomenon – like our understanding of beauty (and our desire to experience and/or create it); our understanding of right/wrong, good/bad (and our suffering of shame at not meeting these unnatural understandings); and the fact that only love of our (true) self makes us lastingly happy. We will consider many more mysterious nonphysical phenomena in Essay 3, here we just need to consider that size is irrelevant when compared to the mysterious existence of such phenomena in an otherwise physical and mechanical universe – which existence allows our life to have ultimate purpose and special meaning. While the discovery of the immense size of our universe(s) has certainly shaken humanity’s previous central, Old Testament place at the centre of everything – this does not necessarily usher in meaninglessness and indicate that the only rational thing to do is negotiate a lease for tenancy in the House of Disbelief.



Studies also reveal that small physical events (the beat of a butterfly’s wing?) can have huge and long-lasting physical consequences (some say tornados? – maybe not, but you get the idea). And small nonphysical events (like ideas) can have even greater consequences. Consider that individual humans have exerted massive influence (for better or worse) with ideas, or just a single thought – sometimes for many generations – will the repercussions of the thoughts of the likes of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Jesus, Einstein and Marx ever end – and on how many worlds which humanity may inhabit in the future? And it is not just “big” thinkers who are significant – many big, Earth-changing consequences have proceeded from films and/or TV shows – likewise, maybe some of them may be universe-changing events (consider the reach and duration of some radio/TV signals) – whatever will extraterrestrials make of “I Love Lucy” or “Monty Python”? Consider also the idea to put music on the Voyager spacecraft (and the idea of placing the location of Earth on it as well – what will the consequences of that idea – probably nothing, but you get the idea that there can be huge consequences to small ideas).



And individual significance is not contingent on awareness. Individually, in the course of a life, we each will make differences that we are never aware of. An idea is like a virus: spreading, infecting, morphing. It is impossible to conclude on the significance of an individual life because no one individual knows what the whole significance of it is, was, or eventually will be – especially not the liver of a life. Even incorrect ideas can have huge consequences – sometimes being the key to correct ideas with huge consequences.

But while many would acknowledge the foregoing, they would still argue that the universe doesn’t need to be as big as it is – it’s too big for purpose, just too big to indicate any sensible design. Rather such needlessness as the oversize of our universe indicates inefficiencies and, necessarily, lack of design (therefore of a “D” Designer or purpose/meaning).



This from atomic physicist, Richard Feynman:

It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil – which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.

                                    Quoted in “Genius”, James Gleick, P 372.

It certainly seems logical that this, undoubtedly, “fantastically marvelous universe” is indeed too vast a stage just “so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil” – which is the view of religion (and apparently of some geniuses?) But is our universe necessarily too large for any possible/purpose. Certainly there is too much empty space, so many empty worlds – most not only uninhabited, but uninhabitable – if this universe is just about us. But two points here: 1.) why must the universe to be just about us to have special meaning and purpose (as most religions say); 2.) does such size necessarily speak of inefficiency and accident – and against any blueprint/higher agency/God?

Maybe, in the end, our universe’s vast size does matter?



Maybe the present, huge size and density of the universe is immaculate? The following two quotes from cosmologist Dr. Rodney Holder:

…the mean density of matter in the universe at the very beginning has to be within 1 part in 1060 of the so-called ‘critical density’… If the density is smaller than it is by this amount then the universe will expand far too quickly for stars and galaxies to be able to form. If it is greater then the whole universe will recollapse under gravity in just a few months”.

And, describing how our universe’s huge size is critical for the evolution of human beings:

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) Issue No. 12, p. 53. (2006) 

I’m not sure that the universe is just about us, as Holder seems to imply: “…in order for man to exist”; and: “…only if it is so vast could we be here”). However, as well as a cosmologist, Holder is a man of the House of God, which fact could explain his Biblical, anthropocentric approach? But his scientific statements that the vast size of the universe is necessary for its continuing existence – therefore also necessary for the occurrence of life – remain valid. As does the possibility of any higher designing agency and/or any special meaning/purpose flowing from such apparently essential size.

Certainly we can conclude that the vast size and age of the universe is no proof of it being accidental – quite the reverse, such size was essential for life – whatever form it took, and on however many planets it has.



Some see all the empty space in the universe as unnecessary, an indication of inefficiency, lack of blueprint, and accidentalness.  But such “emptiness” has been found by cosmologists to be a complete misnomer – not empty, but full of “dark” matter and energy – dark matter/energy has been discovered to be entirely necessary in its size (and in the extreme delicacy of its ratios) for continued existence of anything and everything.



Rather than be obsessed with trying to draw philosophical implications from the huge numbers surrounding the size of our universe (billions of billions of galaxies, stars, planets, light years, etc.) we should look at the philosophical implications of the mystery of certain other, often microscopically fine, numbers. For example, the previously considered numbers which describe the necessary fine tuning to enable the nonorganic universe and the organic life within it to exist: the mathematical ratios and constants inherent in the universe. There is an even deeper mystery, of course – that we creatures, supposedly just a mechanical result of those numbers, should know them. We will examine this mystery more deeply in Essay 3.

All up, the significance of anything is not contingent on size – even/especially numbers.



The original cell of life on Earth was cosmologically small (i.e. like a human to a galaxy) but consider what that original cell (or few cells?) became. A human cell is a small proportion of a human body – but it can have a big effect in time on the human body (for example, cancer). Every human represents a small but potentially important proportion of our species; and our species in turn represents a small but important part of animalia. While the full extent of the importance of any lifeform cannot be concluded upon until all life has finished in our universe, such significance is certainly not contingent on its size. The significance of any life, including us, is potentially huge, regardless of relative size – it is in our absolute potential that our significance rests (and that of any lifeform) whether species or individual. We may exist for just another second or for a long time; we may achieve, and/or be part of, immensely significant things; our descendants may evolve into an even more significant species – which may even populate the livable Universe (almost daily, more Earth-like, habitable planets are being found). Or a species may come to us, perhaps to interbreed and fill the universe? All of this may have come from one living cell somewhere in the universe? The present significance of every species, of every individual in that species, rests in its potential – and the potential of any species that can speak the language that the universe is written in, is potentially as huge as that universe.


But, just when we get our head around the issue of our significance/insignificance in relation to the size of our universe (and its implications for the existence or not of any higher agencies, design, purpose and meaning) along comes Multiverse Theory! This is the idea, based on certain observations in inflationary cosmology, that there could be more than one universe – indeed, it has even been postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes – a multiverse. This theory has recruited enough people into the House of Disbelief, that it could reasonably called a separate pillar of said House, and we will examine it as such.






Multiverse theory is an extension of the above argument for our meaninglessness through our insignificant physical size – but it does have some further philosophical implications of its own. Presently cosmology calculates that there are 350 billion galaxies in the observable universe and feels sure that it extends well beyond that in the (so far) unobservable universe – perhaps to infinity. An infinity comprised of finite matter? As mind exploding as that is, there is even more to try and get your head around – there is a growing branch of cosmology now which is called inflationary cosmology. Consider this from inflationary cosmologist, Professor Brian Cox:

Inflationary cosmology creates a universe that is massively bigger than the one we can see, but it also provides a mechanism for creating an infinite number of universes. This is called eternal inflation”

Professor Brian Cox – “The Sunday Age” newspaper, 24/7/16, P. 27 – (interviewed by Andrew Masterson).

In the lexicon of today: whatever! Whether we exist in a universe that is infinitely big, or in an infinite number of universes (a multiverse) we are left in about the same place – in a physical arena of unimaginable size. But where does any such multiverse leave us philosophically – in our quest for the Truth of the human condition?

It is a conundrum. Even Professor Cox goes on to admit that: “I don’t know what to make of those things” (i.e. our size-wise insignificance). In our investigation of the pillar of the House of Disbelief preceding this one, we considered the philosophical implications of our small size relative to just this our known, universe – and found that such relative insignificance size-wise must not necessarily remove all special meaning/purpose to our existence. But there are other considerations and some stronger implications for the above arguments which flow if a multiverse exists – such that some feel residency in the House of Disbelief is the only place to be. Let’s see if this is a safe position.



Multiverse theory, for many, demolishes more certainly any design-type arguments for purposefulness (therefor meaningfulness) in our universe – especially anthropocentric arguments, common in religions, which maintain that the purpose of the universe is for our existence – i.e. everything was designed for human habitation. Multiverse theory goes beyond demolishing the idea that our universe was designed for our life – but that holds that it was not designed for any purpose at all – all is totally accidental, therefore meaningless. It argues that, given an infinite number of universes, a universe suitable for life just had to exist – not only “suitable”, but so suitable for life that it just had to occur spontaneously, chemically, accidentally. Therefore all was inevitable – accidental rather than purposeful – even the beginning does not need explanation. Hello multiverse, goodbye any possible cause, higher agency/God? Professor Cox says this about multiverse theories:

In these theories you end up possibly suggesting that our existence is inevitable. You even end up not having to explain the beginning.”

                                                Ibid. P. 27  

So, the multiverse ends not only the mystery of humanity’s existence – but the beginning – of anything/everything?



The secret of the beginning must lie before the beginning – what exactly went BANG! Physics says we can’t talk of “before” the big bang – because time also began at the big bang