ON THE MEANING OF LIFE
ESSAY
2 : AN EXAMINATION OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF
Life is just nature’s way of keeping
meat fresh.
- Dr. Who, 2005.
Essay
1 examined the House of God and found its scripture, its god, its doctrines and
its special meaning of life – incredible. Having found that, must I now believe
that there is no God, nor any special meaning? Must I subscribe to Dr. Who’s
philosophy that “life is just nature’s way of keeping meat fresh”?
In
a word – no.
THE
DEATH OF GOD?
The
belief that to demolish religions’ gods is to demolish God, is inherent in philosopher
DISBELIEF
BECAME THE DEFAULT SETTING FOR THE WEST
Of
course,
The
latter half of the 20th century saw even more people crowding into
the House of Disbelief, driven by the rapid advance of scientism and its
camp-follower philosophies like: reductionism, determinism, postmodernism, relativism,
naturalism, and neo-Darwinism. As we now stand in the early 21st
Century, disbelief is the clear, default philosophy for the educated West and materialism,
evolutionary theory, atheism, and meaninglessness rule the academic roost. Presently,
it is belief in God, special meaning, and/or ultimate purpose that has to be
justified – disbelief seems to have become “D” Disbelief – an, “H” House?
Is
this assertion justified?
THE
HOUSE OF DISBELIEF?
Disbelief
has many of the characteristics of the House of God: it has its own bible (On the
Origin of Species); it has its own revered saints (
A
book, saints, zealots, fundamental truths, doctrines, dogmas, a creed – yup,
it’s an “H” House.
FEAR
Many
of the residents of the House of Disbelief even display fear and loathing if
their beliefs are challenged – a characteristic of fundamentalists everywhere.
This is typical behaviour of people who have had their comfort disturbed – it must
never be forgotten that “H” Houses, like “h” houses, are about shelter and
comfort – they are not a search for Truth.
But
what comfort could “D” Disbelief offer?
THE
COMFORTS OF DISBELIEF
Materialism,
the fundamental position of “D” Disbelievers and the overarching academic ideology
de jour, is based on the reductionist belief that all can be ultimately reduced
to – and understood solely in – terms of matter and energy. Materialists feel that
a physical Theory of Everything is not far away – that all sciences will be
united in a Grand Unifying Theory that can explain everything. The exclusion of
any possible higher agency, like God, will be necessary; there will be no room for
inviolable “right” and “wrong”; nor “good” and “bad” – what works socially will
be the ultimate ethic.
This
can be comforting – no need for those old killjoys: guilt and fear. There will
be no revelation of personal sins; no judgement; no punishment; if it feels
good – do it.
There
is no doubt that “D” Disbelief offers comfort from the guilt and fears that
come from behaviours most of us are guilty of from time to time. Behaviours which,
while not against secular laws, are crimes against others – against our obligations;
responsibilities; relationships; duties; loyalties. Some behaviours can be
crimes against love – like: infidelity; divorce to take the trophy partner;
desertion of children; lying; hating. Some behaviours can be crimes against the
self – devolving to animal behaviours rather than evolving the self/soul. And
there can be sins my grandmother used to call “holding a candle to the devil”
(belonging to a murderous organisation like the communists – while not killing
anyone personally). Some of those listed as the “saints” of the House of
Disbelief have committed more than their fair share of the above sins – no
wonder they would like to have the notion of “good” and “bad” and “sin” removed.
This
is not an argument that all people need a fear of God to keep them “good” –
just that accusations from the House of Disbelief that residents of the House
of God are seeking comfort are a double-edged sword. Indubitably, a substantial
number of the residents of the House of God find comfort from the fear of death
and from the fear of punishment, but the accusation of comfort-seeking can be
similarly, and fairly, applied to the residents of the House of Disbelief. Observations
that membership of our “H” Houses is primarily about comfort leads to outrage from
the denizens of both. This is because both Houses are built upon the high moral
ground – the denizens of both hold themselves to be morally superior – especially
to each other.
WHAT’S
THE POINT OF EXAMINING THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF?
The
House of Disbelief has rarely been identified, let alone subjected to
examination. Having previously found the fabric of the House of God to be
unsound, therefore an unsafe place to dwell, I think it only fair that we should
also examine the fabric of the House of Disbelief – if it is also found to be unsound,
maybe its certificate of occupancy should also be revoked – to protect the poor
souls within?
Protect
them from what?
From
missing the opportunity that living with a raised consciousness may offer – a
consciousness raised to factors other than the physical/animal in the human
equation. Living in full consciousness of what it is to be human may be to live
better and discovering “How best to live?” was always supposed to be
Philosophy’s holy grail?. A saying from Gurdjieff comes to mind here: “although
we inhabit a splendid mansion, most of us choose to live in the basement”. Are
we just our basic animal bodies – or is there something “higher” about the
human condition?
I
will explore for factors to the human equation other than the physical in Essay
3 (Along the Road to Truth) – here
the task is to examine the soundness of the House of Disbelief. If it is found
to be unsound then its occupants may be inclined to join the expedition to walk
along the road to Truth that comprises the next essay?
So,
on to our immediate task – is the fabric of the House of Disbelief sound?
THE
FABRIC OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF
What
comprises the fabric of the House of Disbelief?
Like
the House of God, the House of Disbelief has foundations, walls, and a
sheltering roof. But 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 them successfully. Upon this sound fabric, however, are built philosophical
pillars – and it is these which need closer examination. If the pillars of the
House of Disbelief are unsound, then its sheltering roof is not well-supported.
So,
what exactly are the philosophical pillars of the House of Disbelief?
THE PILLARS OF THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF
- THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
– Natural evil.
- “ – Moral evil.
- “ – Religious evil.
- PHILOSOPHY
- DETERMINISM, REDUCTIONISM,
CAUSALITY, MATERIALISM
- SCIENCE
- IF GOD MADE THE
UNIVERSE, WHO MADE GOD?
- EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
– We are just our bodies.
- “ – Altruism is just genetic
self-interest.
- “ – A satisfactory Theory of
Everything.
- THE DUBIOUS
PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS OF BELIEF
- THE SCALE OF THE
UNIVERSE IS SO HUGE THAT WE
- THE MULTIVERSE.
- RELATIVISM – THERE CAN
BE NO “T” TRUTHS IN A RELATIVE UNIVERSE.
Are
these pillars sound? Let’s examine them, one by one.
The
first three pillars of the House of Disbelief fall into a category known as:
“The Problem of Evil”. I examine the problem of evil first because I think it
safe to say that the perceived existence of evil in our world is responsible for
the greatest number of those who have lost belief in the existence of any God
and/or any special meaning to life – or why no such beliefs formed in the first
place. It is a disproof that appeals to the uneducated and educated, equally. I
have just finished a book titled: “50 Voices of Disbelief – why we are atheists” (eds. Russell
Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, 2009) and, if Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” is the
Bible of the House of Disbelief, then this book is its hymnal – containing the
voices of fifty of our best and brightest philosophers, scientists, medicos,
psychologists, 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 God and/or special
meaning.
The
main arguments from evil against any God and/or any special meaning/purpose to
life, tend to fall under the headings: natural evil, moral evil, and religious
evil. “Natural evil” refers to the always uncaring, often violent, forces,
animals and diseases of our physical universe; “moral evil” refers to the evil
we humans sometimes do; “religious evil” refers to the evil done in the name of
God. Whilst there is a similarity in how the logic works under all these heads,
I will examine them separately because there are enough differences for them to
be seen as three different pillars to the House of Disbelief.
- THE
PROBLEM OF EVIL – Natural Evil.
The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy states the “problem of evil” to be: “the problem of reconciling
the imperfect world with the goodness of God.”
Two things to be considered here:
1.) is the world truly “imperfect”?; and 2.) what must make for “goodness” in a
“G” God?
1.) IS THE NATURAL WORLD IMPERFECT?
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, some of the time. All things
are definitely not – as the Christian House of God’s hymnal would have it:
“bright and beautiful” – the natural world being more truly, as
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”,
AN EVIL UNIVERSE?
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 its diseases (viruses, bacteria). It’s a naturally
dangerous and competitive universe, but is intent truly “manifest” in any of
this, do the undoubted dangers of the natural world prove it to be “evil” and
establish it as necessarily meaningless and purposeless?
To
answer this, consider for a moment what shape should a meaningful universe
take?
Let’s
firstly imagine what paradise should be. Probably everything our world is not: all
things “bright and beautiful”, a world devoid of natural dangers, no mortal
challenges, everything pretty and safe – all lives offering equal and identical
experience (a level playing field for all), all people the same. So, what would
we have? Probably a nice place for a picnic – but what sort of ultimate purpose
could such a place have?
Now
think of reality, our actual world: full of beautiful and ugly, full of dangers
and thrills, full of defeats and victories, full of different people having
different experiences. So, what do we have we here? An impartial world full of
often mortal dangers, a frightening place but full of inspiring beauty, a
challenging place but full of personal opportunity. Which place has,
potentially, the greater purpose?
We
will try to approach exactly what sort of “opportunity” life presents to us soon
(more closely in Essay 3 and the Conclusion) but here we need to consider
whether what some calling “evil” is a sound pillar of the House of Disbelief?
Let’s consider the fact that most of us seek danger at some time.
WHY
DO WE SEEK NATURAL DANGER (EVIL)?
That
the natural world is dangerous, is a fact, but why do humans often seek it?
If
our existence is just about fulfilling our animal drives and genetic
imperatives, as the Neo-Darwinians founders of the House of Disbelief say it is,
all our present human behaviours should have been naturally selected towards animal
survival and genetic dominance. But that is not actually how our behaviour is –
most human animals defy such ideological logic some times – some, quite often.
We are constantly doing anti-Darwinian things: surfing, skiing, sailing,
swimming, snorkelling, football, bush-walking, travelling, bike-riding,
hang-gliding. Even the most timid of us often do these things as recreation.
What’s going on? We do these things not for survival, not to spread our genes,
but just for enjoyment – for inspiration.
For
humans, a meaningful life needs to involve some challenge, some excitement,
some adventure, some danger, some experience of our world’s natural beauty – at
some risk to the animal body. Unnecessary risk if the only necessary human
purpose can be about animal and genetic survival. Danger is sought by humans
against our natural drive to protect our selfish genes – what’s going on – are
we humans, in fact, unnatural? Another big question we will approach in Essay 3
but here, danger and its resulting injuries (sometimes fatal) actually adds
special meaning to our lives – it “lifts” our spirits while it endangers our
animal bodies. There are apparently more factors to the human equation than
just the animal?
A
BANG OR A WHIMPER?
Those
who think any purpose in life must be just about physical survival imagine a
vain thing – all lives must come to an end. We are informed in
FACING
DANGERS, ADVERSITY NECESSARY FOR GROWTH?
Have
you ever noticed that “bad” times bring out the best in your self (courage,
determination, consideration) – and “good” times often bring out the worst
(greed, laziness, pride)? For example, great art and music often come from
times of strife. Consider the Renaissance in
It
could even add special meaning? What sort of “meaning”? There is scientific
evidence to back up the argument that adversity can lead to growth. This from
psychologist
“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.”
-
Haidt
backs up this idea by referring to several studies. In summarising one of them
(sociologist
“We can say,
however, that for many people … adversity made them stronger, better, and even
happier than they would have been without it.”
-
(ibid, P151 - referring to Elder
1974 & 1998.)
ADVERSITY
CAN BE CREATIVE FOR MANY
Life,
in this sometimes dangerous, sometimes beautiful world – is immaculately
creative – “for many people...adversity made them stronger, better, and even
happier”. By “them”, the studies above are not referring to people’s bodies,
but to their selves.
So,
our relative world: – safe/dangerous, boring/exciting, ugly/beautiful,
good/evil, you/me allows creativity because of its relativity (what could an
absolute world create?). Relativity not only allows creativity, it drives it – especially the creativity, growth
(“stronger, better...happier”) of our self. That our relative universe
is so creative of self leaves it redolent of potential meaning and purpose. Relativity
leads to evolution – good, better, best – for bodies and selves. Our bodies
pass away, what of our selves?
But there is an elephant in
the living room if we make a House from the observable fact that self evolution
flows from a life.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING
The elephant is the fact
that many lives are shortened and/or blighted by the blind forces of nature –
“natural evil”, if you must. Our physical world may be dangerous, thrilling, challenging,
rewarding, testing – allowing us to learn a lot about our selves thereby and
grow – but some lives are cut short by natural disasters, and/or blighted by
accident or disease. What sort of opportunity do such selves have?
Let’s first consider lives
blighted by accident or disease.
LIVES BLIGHTED BY ACCIDENT
All of us some time will
be sick or injured. Most of us will battle through, but some will have their
lives dramatically altered – is their life necessarily purposeless and devoid
of special meaning?
In a word, no.
Many who have suffered
physical disadvantage through injury (often enjoying life’s dangerous thrills)
and/or disease have not had life’s opportunity for self growth removed – quite
the reverse, 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. 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. Such handicaps make any ultimate purpose difficult to see (or any
Divine), and meaninglessness is a short step away. But we need to look more
closely at the lives of the people I am talking about. One of the people affected
by the disease on the TV program last night was successfully studying to be a
doctor; the other in the wheelchair from the magazine article is a successful
barrister. Also I have read also an inspiring book recently made into a film (The Butterfly in the Diving Bell)
written by a man who could only move one eyelid as a result of a stroke; and we
all know about the achievements of Stephen Hawking. These people are more truly
inspiring than any Olympic champion. These people have not lost purpose and meaning
from their lives – why should we let the existence of accident and sickness
remove it from ours?
Physical disadvantage
indubitably increases the challenges in life, but it does not necessarily
remove its opportunities for self knowledge and self growth. There is much
heroism in a life of physical challenge, many victories others will never know
– many opportunities for growth of self. There is, of course, the fact that
some “challenges” lead to an early death – which can leave a life so brief as
to have no special meaning at all. We will consider that problem in a moment.
But
life is not a level playing field, we have entirely different challenges – and
some even have advantages.
BUT
“Life’s a
bitch, and then you’re dead!”
– (House of Disbelief bumper-sticker)
“Life
is so unfair – it is just not a level playing field!” This is a lament often
heard. It comes from the traditional, ancient religious thinking that life is a
test that we get one go at – then to be judged by a god after death and
allocated our eternal reward or punishment according to how we performed. This
makes no sense at all because life, indeed, is not a level playing field
– we all have different abilities and live in different families, countries and
eras. For many, truly, “Life’s a bitch”, while others appear to live advantaged
lives (by “advantaged” we usually mean they are born physically beautiful, naturally
talented, and/or financially endowed.) If life’s special meaning is that it is creative
of self, shouldn’t we experience advantage and handicaps, both – shouldn’t we
have the opportunity to experience and grow from all the potential – good, bad,
and ugly that life can throw? If we only have one life, there are many
experiences which could have lead to self-growth that we will never have, and frustrations
which can deny self-growth that many others will never have had to face.
And (we now come to the second elephant in our living
room) how about the death of children – what opportunity do they have to “know
and grow” the self?
IF WE ONLY HAVE
Many have lost any idea of
ultimate purpose and special meaning of life after the death of a child –
including
Enough to remove a wavering belief
in any special meaning (and/or in the existence of a Divine) for most. But is
this a rational decision?
“
But maybe we have more than
one life?
Say what!?
How do we know how many
lives we have?
THAT WE MUST ONLY HAVE
Why do I call the belief of
only one life a speculation?
Because it is not supported
by any substantial evidence. It is based solely on the proof that our physical
bodies, observably, are born, die, and turn to dust. But this “proof” relies,
in turn, on the assumption that “we” – our selves – are just our bodies. The
nature of “self” is discussed at length in Essay 3, here I will just say that
to define our selves solely in terms of our animal bodies is like defining
books solely in terms of their paper – you can do it, but you get an incomplete
and totally unsatisfactory answer.
The fact that we are alive
once – that the self is associated with an animal body once – is only proof of
one thing: that it can happen. It is hardly proof that it must never happen again.
“
It also needs to be observed
that the speculation of one life has been enshrined as doctrine by both the House
of God and the House of Disbelief. It is actually the only doctrine that both
our “H” Houses can agree on – being vital to the beliefs of both. This should
be enough to make us suspicious straight away?
RELIGIONS’ VESTED INTEREST
IN THERE BEING ONLY
And we should be
suspicious because, if we think about it, both Houses have a vested interest in
making us believe that we must have only one life. The House of God makes its
living out of selling the story that life is a once-only chance given to a
string of new souls for the purpose of testing their suitability for eternal heaven
or hell – an assertion necessary to its power over humanity – if you only have
one go at life, you had better come to us because we can be instrumental in
where you end up for eternity. But if, as we saw in Essay 1, all religious
speculations about the nature of our universe have been proven incorrect – what
are the chances of this speculation being any better – especially when it is so
pivotal to the House of God’s power over humans?
DISBELIEF’S SIMILARLY
VESTED INTEREST
The House of Disbelief has
a similarly vested interest in the belief that we only live once – its major “problem
of evil” pillar is, in fact, cemented in place by it. The argument goes like
this: if we have only one life then an early death can demolish any special
meaning to our existence based on self growth – if a baby dies there was no
self-growth. Similarly, this natural, neutral, uncaring, random, physical world
can lead to injury and disease – and these can prevent any self growth. If
there is only one life, quite a few lives are therefore meaningless – if many
have no meaning and purpose – how can any?
OK, there may be no
evidence that we must only have one life, but is there any evidence of more
than one life?
EVIDENCE THAT WE
There is some evidence, and
while extensive, it is of varying quality. And its nature is necessarily
subjective – many people have reported the experience of previous lives but no
one can ever bring a lump of another existence in time back for objective examination.
But there is enough evidence from well-credentialed researchers into the area to
support a rational belief that we have as many lives in this relative world as we
need for self-growth.
“I have had many patients who could validate
their past lives in one way or another. Some have been able to find their
children from a recent past life, and the children, still in physical form but
much older than their reincarnated past-life parents, have been able to confirm
the past-life regression memories.”
“Many Lives, Many Masters” –
Now, Weiss is not some New
Age, fuzzy logic, mystic – but a prominent psychiatrist with extensive academic
learning and professional experience. What are the chances he is lying, or professionally
mistaken? You must decide that one. He also cites work from other reliable
researchers: Wambach (1979a & 1979b),
PERSONAL EVIDENCE
There is also such a thing
as evidence from personal experiences – which may be more extensive than
previously considered because many are fearful of revealing such (lest they be
ridiculed). Some have strong personal evidence for believing in multiple lives,
especially those who have experienced
We must now consider the
second point in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy’s definition of the Problem
of Evil (raised at the beginning of the examination of this pillar of the House
of Disbelief) and that is the “goodness” of any God. While these essays are not
particularly about God (more about “t” truths and “T” Truths) we need to
consider God as a “T” Truth – because implied if we find a rational special
meaning and credible ultimate purpose. The nature of any “G” God can be for
others (good luck on that one!)
2.) WHAT MUST MAKE FOR GOODNESS IN GOD?
Much of the problem that the
existence of what we call evil poses for the 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
“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?”
We have not moved very far
since
“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)
So, the problem presented to
our major religions by the existence of natural evil is: if their definition of
God is correct then He cannot exist if any of His defining powers are disproven
– “God, if He exists, has all three of
these characteristics. Therefore God does not exist.”
But should we accept
religions’ “g” gods as definitive of “G” God?
ACCEPTING RELIGIONS’
DEFINITION OF GOD?
The House of Disbelief
accepts our main religions’ definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent,
benevolent) and/or what should be “His” necessary behaviour – interfering in
the natural world like a nanny (providing the right worship, prayer, and faith
is given to Him). It spends no time thinking about what a true “G” God could be
like, but readily accepts religions’ “g” god as the only possible one. Why is
this so? Is it too cynical to imagine that this is because religious
definitions and gods are so easily demolished – is the House of Disbelief
content to demolish “t” truths rather than seek any “T” Truths there may be –
out of vested interest? If so, my point about the House of Disbelief being
primarily about comfort, is established.
Essay 3 hunts further for
evidence of a real “G” God, but here it is relevant to consider whether any
Divine benevolence is in fact disproven by the fact that we are free to
interact with our potentially dangerous world, as we will? Is not the parent
who allows a child to grow by learning from life’s difficulties through
experience, more truly benevolent than a parent who keeps his/her children from
the dangers of life? Again, if we are looking for evidence of special meaning
in the way our world is, consider for a moment what the opposite to our 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 meaning could all our lives lived in such a theme park
have, what possible purpose? Such an unnatural situation might prove the
existence of a nanny-God, but not the existence of any discernible meaning or
purpose.
So much for the dictionary
definition of the problem that the existence of natural “evil” presents for the
existence of any “T” Truths in the shape of special meaning to life in this
universe and/or for the existence, or not, of a “G” God. But there are other
points to be considered in any examination of the support natural evil gives to
the idea of the House of Disbelief’s basic doctrine of meaninglessness.
KARMA
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). This is perhaps an all-too-easy answer
– and not based on a lot of evidence. It is also an idea that allows us to turn
a blind eye to the struggles of others?
BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD
PEOPLE & VICE VERSA
Among the evidence for
meaninglessness that the House of Disbelief cherishes is the fact that bad
things can often happen to good people – and good things can often happen to
bad people – life is so unfair. This is the conundrum presented in the Old
Testament Book of Job. Job was a good, god-fearing and god-obeying person, yet
a string of natural misfortunes befell him. The fact that fortune and misfortune
are indiscriminate – that the universe is indifferent to your goodness or
evilness in its allocation of natural rewards and punishments – adds strength
to the “problem of natural evil” pillar of the House of Disbelief. But is this,
in fact, a sound position to take?
When people lose God and
meaning because bad things are happening to good people and good things
happening to bad people, they are saying in effect that for life to have
meaning it should be – at one and the same time – two different things: heaven
for good people and hell for bad people. Would such a metaphysical override (if
possible in a physical world) add or remove special meaning to existence? Once
again we are moving back to the incredible idea that existence needs to be
paradisiacal to have special meaning. But maybe life in the relative is immaculately
creative of self because of its randomness – in its neutrality to “good” and “bad”
people alike – allowing anything to happen to anybody at any time? Who could rationally
argue that a “meaningful” life must be a non-random experience – everything
happening just when it should – in its “right” place, to the “right” people,
when they are ready? Life, just as it is, in its relativity – its “good” and
“bad” (which are relative terms) – its randomness and neutrality – seems
“designed” to reveal our self immaculately. “Know Thyself” has been seen as
wisdom in many societies. Life (or lives) peels us layer by layer, like an
onion – our self fully and truly revealed – available to be known.
Then what?
After
we come to know our self, life asks us its ultimate question: are we are happy
with the self we have come to know – or unhappy? If unhappy, life allows us to
grow the self – an opportunity some observably take, and some observably don’t.
Know and grow – got to be a lot more meaningful than a safe joy-ride in a fun
park?
As
we have considered, there is more evidence that we have many lives than there
is that we must have only one. Evidence we will consider more deeply in Essay
3.
BUT
SO MANY ANIMALS
Some
would call the idea that life is about the growth/evolution of self, an
obscenity. Millions of animals have suffered and died – just so that we humans can
attain self improvement? The idea is well expressed by
“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”, P. 255 (
“Red
of tooth and claw” is certainly an accurate description of life. But the
creativity of relativity works through evolution – and evolution leaves a long
trail of bones. 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. Some of us die brutally, some easily, some early, some
late, some grandly, some miserably – but it is a moot point whether animals
other than humans have a “better” or “worse” life than us – certainly all my
dogs have had a much easier life than mine. Nature movies constantly show us
lions, leopards etc pulling down their prey. What does this prove? quite
honestly the long, hard human deaths I have personally witnessed have been much
more cruel than these quick deaths. We are kept alive well past our “use by”
dates, but are not allowed the easy deaths we give our pets.
There
are some who say all animals are spiritual beings, maybe we (our selves) have
been, or will be, animals of other species in other existences. We humans
certainly were animals like any other if you go far enough back – we and chimps
share a common ancestor – at one time in the past we were the same
animal before humans evolved away.
What has evolved, exactly? Our
bodies obviously, and our selves – sometimes not as “obviously”, but we will
discuss more evidence for this shortly (and more deeply in Essay 3).
So, how does the House of
Disbelief stand after our examination of the first Problem of Evil pillar? Hardly
demolished, but the natural world has not been proven as “evil” – just neutral,
random, challenging and rewarding – and potentially more creative of special
meaning for it. Neither has any God been disproven. But there are more pillars constructed
out of the supposed evilness of life on our planet which are being used to hold
up the sheltering roof of the House of Disbelief. Next we consider the “evils”
of humanity.
- 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. The arguments against any God and/or special meaning to life from the
existence of moral evil are similar to the argument from natural evil – if
there is a God, then “He” would stop evil – ipso facto, because there is evil then
there is no God. The argument against special meaning/purpose from moral evil
is that it proves we are just another animal – doing whatever it takes to
survive and promote our genes over others’ in a competitive environment – there
is no ultimate purpose to our existence because all our behaviour is directed solely
towards surviving for this purely animal purpose.
But, while some humans do
evil things some of the time, does this prove we are just another animal with
only animal meanings and survival purposes? To approach an answer we firstly need
to understand a little more about evil.
EVIL?
So, what is evil? Does evil
even exist? Is it “a thing in itself” – an object, a drive, a need, something
we can possess – can we “be” evil?
It is my observation that,
while we have all experienced “evil”, the word only refers to a state of
absence of something – not a presence of something which exists – much like the
word “cold”. Like evil, we have all experienced cold – we think that we can
“feel” cold when we touch something cold – but in fact we don’t feel cold, we
just feel heat being conducted out through our skin (metal always feels colder
than wood at the same temperature because it is the better conductor). Physics
confirms that cold cannot exist as a thing in itself – Absolute Zero (minus 273
degrees C.) cannot be attained – 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.
Cold, then, does not
describe the existence of something in itself, just an absence.
EVIL IS AN ABSENCE OF LOVE
Similarly, evil, as used in
reference to people – moral evil – describes an absence, not the existence of any
thing or need. Evil done to other people or animals describes the absence of
love. Love does exist as “a thing in itself”, as a need – we seek it, we
want it, we need it, we give it, it is integral to us – it is the only thing
that when we get it, makes us truly and lastingly happy – love exists.
SO WHAT DRIVES EVIL DEEDS?
While evil may not be an
animal need of our animal body, occasionally, we do deeds which can be fairly
described as “evil” – morally evil. To understand moral evil we need to
understand the reasons why we commit deeds which cause harm to others. Is evil
a part of us – is it, as the House of God would have it, an original part of
the human condition – are we born full of “Original Sin”?
In a word, no.
EVIL IS ALWAYS A BY-PRODUCT
OF SEEKING SOMETHING ELSE
Evil is, observably, only
ever committed as a by-product of trying to achieve something else – it is
never sought for what it, itself, offers. For example, evil is often committed in
the getting of power – but what is the sponsoring need behind the getting of power
– is it, as
So what drives the (not
uncommon) human striving for power?
THE GETTING OF POWER
There are two factors in the
human equation – an animal factor which is of our body, and a spiritual factor which
is of our self/soul/spirit (this will have to remain a bald assertion for now,
but I will examine the evidence for it extensively in Essay 3) – and it is not
uncommon for both human factors to drive a behaviour at once. The human pursuit
of power is a good example of this. When we pursue power it is quite often to
enable our bodily and genetic survival, and, just as often to enable self
esteem/love.
Neo-Darwinians would say the
animal factor is all – there is no spiritual factor in the human equation – power
is, first and last, just about animal survival and genetic dominance. But something
else is going on in the pursuit of power – as it is in our pursuit of
money and status. We often pursue money and status for bodily survival and
genetic furtherance, but we just as often pursue beyond enough for bodily
survival (a house much grander than the need for animal shelter; a car flasher
than the requirement of transport; power beyond enough to survive in a
competitive environment; status beyond enough to attract a partner to propagate
our genes with). What’s going on here, these excessive behaviours are foreign to
other animals? We are obviously in pursuit of animal/genetic survival, but – and
unnaturally – in pursuit of something else too.
THE GETTING OF HAPPINESS
That “something else” is the
pursuit of happiness – we think the acquisition of the most money, biggest
house, highest status/fame will make us happy. The human need to be happy is a unique,
unnatural need – “unique” because only humans strive to be happy – “unnatural”
because all other animals just strive to “be”.
We will explore human
happiness further in Essay 3 – here, for the purpose of examining the moral
evil pillar of the House of Disbelief, just let it be said that the sponsoring
need behind the (often evil) actions we take to get power, money status to
excess – is not sponsored by any need for evil. And sometimes, if the doing of
evil is involved in the getting of these things, they will be ultimately
counter-productive – leading to self-loathing and unhappiness.
BUT WHAT ABOUT GRATUITOUS
VIOLENCE
Even our seeming drive for
evil, as expressed in gratuitous violence and wanton cruelty, is actually about
our need for self love. Some achieve self esteem/love by feeling superior to
another (human or animal) – such superiority is sometime evidenced by our being
physically dominant over another being. This is behaviour perpetrated by people
who confuse the body with the self – my body is stronger than yours so I feel
better about my self. Such are people of a lower spiritual consciousness – the
typical bully.
Bullies in human groups
exist, but are the minority – whereas with other herd animals every one is a
bully – sooner or later all males will try to be dominant physically. While a
wolf is always a wolf to a wolf, man is rarely a wolf to his fellow man
(despite what
HUMAN HEROES?
Heroes are the most
respected members in human groups. “Heroes” are dominant individuals in human groups
who choose not to use that dominance to bully others – but for the good of
others. If humans were evil, our heroes should be the most evil in our group –
this only applies to criminal gangs, who behave pretty much like wild animals
to each other (and to other gangs). Heroes in normal, average human groups
typically are heroes because, while they usually have animal strength, they also
have compassion, love, empathy for others – in other words, a raised
consciousness (or spiritual evolution if you prefer). Again, unnatural for an
animal.
Bullies are always very
carful to pick on someone with an animally inferior body to their own, but they
often come unstuck when they pick on someone who has a stronger spirit. Of
course there can be intellectual bullies too, people who feel superior because
they can outdo and/or oppress others mentally.
PATHOLOGICAL 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 sickness or damage. But,
while we are on pathological evil, what about the Holocaust – not everybody
involved in perpetrating that was an abnormal human – surely a theory of humanity
having a spiritual factor (or even the existence of a Divine and/or any special
meaning/purpose to existence) cannot survive the fact of the Holocaust?
THERE
CANNOT BE A GOD
Philosopher,
Primo Levi said:
“If there is an
And
before we draw conclusions about the human race from the Holocaust (and the
possibility of any God or special meaning in our existence) it should always be
remembered that the Nazis were defeated by humans. Millions of innocent people
risked (and many lost) their lives, their health, their sanity, their futures,
their selfish genes – their animal and genetic survival – under conditions of
utmost bravery and often lonely, unwitnessed heroism so that bad should be
beaten and good prevail. To believe Levi is to forget that, and them.
Lest
we forget.
HOW
ABOUT
For
Many
postmodern philosophers believe
“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 world wars, communism, the
WARS
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 from the
usual suspects of the human condition – animal survival and the spiritual needs
of the self. Take, for example, the Second World War – begun by aggressive
German expansion. Before
THE
EVILS OF COMMUNISM
Communism’s
cause started to collapse when the Russian leader,
HUMANS
HAVE BECOME ANTI-WAR
During
the Vietnam war in the late 20th century many young men refused to
fight, and returning veterans were vilified by the public, instead of being
celebrated as heroes – what’s going on there? And, more recently, the
HOW
ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11TH?
Surely
September 11 was pure evil – an example of man being “wolf to man”? What’s
driving Arab terrorism – the supposed 72 virgins in
TAKING
AWAY SELF-RESPECT GENERATES HATE
If
you really want a man to hate you – take away his ability to respect himself.
Some find respect for self through membership of a successful group – a
dominant religion, or sporting group, for example. It is hate generated by the
loss of this respect that is driving terrorists, not satisfying any human need
for evil – just as it drove the violence in
For
many Arabs, their religion is their greatest source of self-respect, their
countries having been taken away (by
“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.”
EVIL
DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH THE HUMAN PSYCHE
Why
do so many people emerge from wars with psychological damage as a result of the
evil things they witnessed, did themselves, or had done unto them if we are
evil? The Vietnam War is a recent example of the damage that experiencing evil
causes to the human psyche – most of us know someone who was damaged by their
experiences with evil. Nobody emerges from war with damage to the psyche
because of missed opportunities to do evil – and nobody is damaged because of
any good things they did or witnessed.
WHY
IS IT THAT ONLY DOING EVIL DISTURB US?
Why
does only evil disturb us? It must go against some basic part of human nature
to do, or witness, evil. Witnessing or doing good things has never damaged
humans, only bad/evil things. In fact, doing and experiencing good lifts our
spirits, makes us happy – invariably – not just sometimes. Witnessing evil is
the reverse – invariably depressing the spirit of healthy humanity. Witnessing
evil does not damage the human animal body, it can only be damaging to the
human spirit/soul/self – more proof that the human condition is to be a spiritual
being with an animal body – that the human equation has animal and spiritual
factors.
THE
NEED FOR PROPAGANDA
Why
do we need propaganda to make us do evil if it is natural to us? 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 overcome man’s more natural state of love – fellowship
for a fellow human. Hate is the main tool used by cunning leaders to enable the
withdrawal of love, to enable separation from our fellow humans – unity is our
more normal state. We have to feel the “enemy” threatens our physical survival and/or
our self-respect – preferably both – to generate enough hate to go out and kill
them. Announcing that a proposed war will be an opportunity to do evil to your
fellow man will not work – it has never been used as a method to drum up an
army. The enemy has to be made out to be somehow alien, evil, separate to us.
It
is 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 separation, and problems occur for their leaders. For
example, opposing troops in
DISBELIEF’S RESPONSE
Some would still disagree – the
alleged spirit/soul/self is just animal emotion – naturally selected for
because it is somehow advantageous for survival. Or it is just psyche – just
part of the animal brain/body, just “meat thinking”.
BUT THE VERY IDEA OF EVIL IS
ONLY A HUMAN
If we are only 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 evil because attacking other
animals is what animals do? Animals, other than humans, are never
psychologically damaged by the tearing apart another animal – even a baby
animal that can’t protect itself. So, if the doing of evil is not possible for
animals, then the recognition of evil 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. If it is just our idea, are we
unnatural?
“ANIMAL ACTS”
We often describe a brutal
act as “inhumane”, or as “an animal act”, and look down on the human
perpetrator. The word brute is one of the worst things we can call another
human – it means an animal. We find brutality disturbing to a part of us – it
surely cannot be our animal body because brutality is natural to animals. Brutality
makes average humans unhappy, but this was not always so – not so long ago
brutality was very popular – e.g. the Romans, and much more recently. public
executions. We are evolving – now we demonstrate against public executions. Is
this growth of compassion, empathy, aversion to violence Darwinian – naturally
selected – or is it spiritual evolution?
SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION?
Some feel 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. Our spiritual evolution is 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. We think more than other animals but are no “better”. We
are actually worse because even though our brains are bigger our violence is
getting worse! We should know better.
BUT
VIOLENCE IS ACTUALLY DIMINISHING
Contrary
to pessimists
“In the decade
of Darfur and
“A History of Violence” –
I
think it is fair to say that Pinker is a resident of the House of Disbelief
(one of his famous quotes being: “man is just a lucky meat puppet”). While he
does not exactly jump to the conclusion that we are spiritually evolving he is
puzzled by our improving behaviour towards each other and other animals.
“Instead of
asking “Why is there war?” we might ask “Why is there peace?” From the
likelihood that states will commit genocide to the way people treat animals, we
must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what,
exactly, it is.” (ibid)
It
is my observation that what we are doing right is the fact we are evolving – spiritually, as well as physically. Pinker’s
use of the word “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.
But, unfortunately it is not time yet for human self-congratulation – self-love
and self-esteem cannot rightly flow just because we are human – dangerously, we
are not evolving as fast spiritually as we are technologically. “Dangerously”
because we have atomic weapons but only primitive theisms and primitive
atheisms – substantial drags on the raising of our consciousness of life, on
our spiritual evolution. I will explore for further evidence that we are
spiritually evolving in the next essay.
WE
This examination of moral
evil has presented more evidence for the conclusion that the human equation is
one of animal and spiritual factors – a conclusion that is itself
injurious to more than just the “Problem of Evil” pillars. Maybe the truly
strange thing about moral evil is the fact that we recognise some of our
natural animal behaviours as moral or immoral?
Next
we will examine the pillar the House of Disbelief that is formed of the evils
in religion.
- THE
PROBLEM OF EVIL – Religious evil.
This
pillar of the House of Disbelief, created from the evils committed by religions,
is a popular one – many have lost faith in the existence of God and/or special
meaning because of the evils of religion.
THE
EVILS OF RELIGION
Countless
millions of people have been, and many are still being, killed in conflicts
caused, or intensified, by religion. Over the centuries religious belief has
been the catalyst for evil and it is still going on today. Recently, the
September 11th terrorists had the name of a god on their lips as
they killed themselves and thousands of innocent people. For many this is proof
of the non-existence of God. But, of course, that is illogical – religions were
not created by God, but by humans. Evils done by religion are not done by God,
they are not disproof of God or proof of God’s evil nature – they are only
proof that humans are prepared to do evil things in the name of their god.
WHENCE
RELIGION?
Over
the millennia most societies have created a religion (or two or three). That is
why there are so many of them, and why they are all different. There are
similarities, of course, and borrowings from previous or adjacent religions,
but no two religions are identical. If “G” God created our religions they would
all be the same. Religions tell us nothing about the nature of God, but the
nature of a religion’s “g” god tells us something about the nature of the society
which created it. Religions’ gods prove nothing about the existence of any true
God, and neither do their actions tell us anything about the nature of any God.
Most
religions start as an attempt to explain the inexplicable – the mystery of the
existence, the creation, of everything we can see around us. And then they
become an attempt to control the uncontrollable – the vagaries and dangers of
our world (droughts, earthquakes, etc.). This usually involves imagining a
higher agency than the visible agencies around us – a supreme agency that created
nature and can control all its forces. If this Higher Agency, this God, can be
controlled then life can be controlled. So religion starts as an explanation
but becomes about power over that explanation. There is precious little of any
“D” Divine in the fundamental process, or in people who can’t get beyond it –
fundamentalists. Some truly spiritual people are drawn to religion in an
attempt to approach the numinous experiences we all will have in the living of
a life, but if any spiritual “T” Truths manage to emerge from these genuinely
spiritual religious people they have to survive the spin-doctoring and
embellishment of the “fathers” of the subsequent House of God – Jesus being a
prime example.
POWER
Religions
commonly devolve to be about the power and status of its officers – the medicine
men, the priests, the clerics – the officers of the explanation and the
controllers of “the power and the glory”. To do this they devise ways (rituals,
objects, words, books, prayers) to get power over the Higher Agency. The power
of the officers of religions comes from their special knowledge learned at a
religious institution, knowledge of what their god wants (usually praise and
worship) and knowledge of the true meaning of a holy “B” Book containing “God’s
Word”. Through their knowledge they have a power over the fate of their
fellows, not only in this life but “from here to eternity”. And religions’
officers guard that power and the status which comes from it jealously – and
sometimes brutally. The fate of
The
potential loss of the House of God’s doctrinal authority through people using
their own brains was a problem the Church had been aware of for some time.
Previous to Tyndale – in the age of Henry VIII:
“Thomas More
and John Fisher … reserved for themselves and men like them the luxury of
debating niceties of scripture, but in the prospect of ‘each one man to be
a church alone’ they saw the collapse of
all theological authority; a time when every man or woman, no matter how
ignorant, would be presumptuous enough to judge doctrine for themselves.
- Simon Schama, A History of Britain, p.285
“Ignorant”?
Its not ignorance they were afraid of, rather it was people using their brains
rather than ignorantly following like sheep.
FAITH
BEFORE KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge
has always been dangerous to the House of God. The House of God has always stressed
the importance of faith over knowledge – even going so far as declaring the
seeking of knowledge to be a sin, our “Original Sin” (eating from the tree of
Knowledge in the Garden of Eden). And they were right to fear education, it has
been education which has brought down most Houses of God – a process starting
especially with the growth in our scientific knowledge. By gaining knowledge of
the Universe, Galileo ran afoul of the House of God by disproving the Bible’s
cosmology. The big danger represented by Galileo and others was that, if the “word
of god” is wrong here – where else?
EVEN
THE
INQUISITION
Among
the many heinous crimes of religion was also the Inquisition – with its Godless
tortures and murders perpetrated in the name of God. The Inquisition was an
example of power corrupting – the (supposedly glorious) end, justifying the use
of the (invariably barbaric) means. The supposedly Divine end was, of course, totally
banal – maintaining the increasingly incredible doctrines of the House of God
which underwrote its officers power over people – “the banality of evil”.
POWER
CORRUPTS
Power
corrupts, but while the power that the officers of Judeo-Christian religions
have over their flocks these days does not usually include the power of life
and death, it still can corrupt them, and many people have lost their belief in
a Divine and/or any special meaning of life when the officers of the House of
God abuse their supposedly Divine power. Paedophilia and rape is not uncommon
and its occurrence most often leads to a loss of belief in God not only for the
victims, but all who hear about it. The priests who do this are a minority and,
of course, really atheists – or extremely stupid.
THE
POINT IS, RELIGION IS OF
The
bottom line of all this for our examination of the evils of religion pillar of
the House of Disbelief is that religions are the construct of humans, not God,
and religious crimes are not committed by “G” God. They are not proof,
therefore, of God’s evilness – nor of God’s non-existence. Maybe they are proof
of any God’s non-intervention policy, but we have already discussed that the intervention
of the Absolute into this relative reality that is our world, would more likely
to remove any rational special meaning (like the creativity of relativity) than
install it.
RELIGION
IS THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO GOD
Religion
is man’s invention – you can tell plenty about a person by the religion they
practice, but very little about God. The fallibility or evilness of a people’s
“t” truths says nothing about the existence, or nature of, any “T” Truth. Religion
is the worst thing that ever happened to “G” God, and religions’ “t” truths are
the worst thing that ever happened to “T” Truth. Religion is venal – Darwinian
not spiritual.
RELIGION IS DARWINIAN, NOT
SPIRITUAL
Religion is supposedly
about the spiritual, but the actuality is that religions and their crude gods
and meaning of life (a once-off test for eternal heaven or hell) are Darwinian,
not spiritual – about survival. The House of God claims power over bodily
survival in this world through “the power of prayer” and even claims power over
survival in the next. Salvation – eternal bodily survival – nothing more
Darwinian than that!
Considered overall, most
atheists are actually antitheists – made “D” Disbelievers by the evils and
stupidities of theism. Religion is the worst thing that ever happened to the
idea of humanity having a spiritual factor but it is not a disproof of it –
only proof of the obvious – the animal factor in the human equation.
THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS
EVIL
Quite a bit of the history
of religion reads like a litany of evil: the brutal Jewish invasion of “the
promised land” (past and present); the Christian Crusades (very little has ever
exceeded their brutality); interminable European religious wars (30 years war
etc.); the Inquisition; various Jewish pogroms; Muslim terrorism in the present
day – but this has all been a product of the pursuit of Darwinian survival –
proof only of the animal factor in the human equation with nothing to say about
the existence of any God and/or special meaning to life. The “Problem of Evil”
is not a problem for God or special meaning, just a problem for religions,
their gods, their meanings.
BUT
RELIGION
Throughout
the examination of this pillar of the House of Disbelief we have concentrated
on the evils of religion because this is an examination of the Problem of Evil.
But we could have spent just as much space cataloguing the good things that
have been done by religions, and I’m sure that the list of good religious
people is at least as long as the bad.
So,
what have we established?
The
bottom line for our examination of this popular “Problem of Evil” pillar of the
House of Disbelief is this: bad religious people prove nothing about the non-existence
of God or special meaning – just as good religious people prove nothing about the
existence of God and special meaning. All we have proven is that there are good
and bad people.
RUBBLE
FROM AN UNSOUND HOUSE IS NOT SUITABLE TO BUILD A SOUND PILLAR
We
have already established in Essay 1 that the House of God is unsound for many
reasons. Here we have established that the fact that the House of God is
unsound does not make the House of Disbelief any more secure. The rubble from
the demolition of an unsound House does not make good building material for the
construction of a sound one.
Here endeth the
examination of the pillars of the House of Disbelief constructed out of the
problem of evil. But there are plenty more pillars yet.
- PHILOSOPHY
“God is dead! God remains dead! And we have
killed him!”
What
definitely has been killed and interred by the academic literature (
Surely,
by now, philosophy has settled that religions’ gods are not only dead but never
existed – and must suspect that to dance on a grave that contains only straw is
a specious act? But they dance on, and on – in publication after publication,
rather than search for the Truth – for any “G” God in life’s spiritual
mysteries. There might, in fact not be a God, but how can you claim to have
proved that unless you examine the numinous, spiritual aspects of life
thoroughly and non-ideologically – how can you say “G” God is dead, if all you
do is continually execute religions’ “g” gods?
ATHEISTIC
PROSELYTISING
Ideology
as rabid as any religion is evident in the academic publications, and lashings
of atheistic proselytising. Most appear more interested in gaining converts for
their side, just like religion, as if the search for Truth was a team sport which
could be won by greater numbers. Winning the argument is the thing, rather than
a hunt for any Truths or enlightenment. Most academics seem to be more
interested in generating heat, than light.
Too
strong? In the preface to “Blind Watchmaker” Dawkins states openly :
“You have to
become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate’s trade…Certainly it [the
book] seeks to inform, but it also seeks
to persuade.” (p.xiv).
ACADEMIA
IS NOT SOLELY ABOUT SEARCHING FOR TRUTH
Nobody
should presume that academia is solely about the search for golden Truths. “T” Truths
can be not only personally uncomfortable if they disagree with your truths, but
professionally inconvenient if they disagree with the ideology de jour of your
academic Department.
But
one can understand the anger that is often evident in academic atheist
publications. Fundamentalist, quasi-scientific beliefs (on creation, for
example) are bound to engender fear and loathing within the breasts of people
who have spent a lifetime gaining rigorous academic and/or scientific knowledge
– like Dawkins (biology). But to make presumptuous claims about solving all
life’s mysteries, as Dawkins manages in The Blind Watchmaker: “it is a mystery no longer, because it is
solved.” – shows a desire to win rather than discover.
THE
BEST WEAPON AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Many,
if not most, of the recent, academic, atheistic classics seem to be motivated
by the evils of religion. More strength to their arm – no one could deny that
our iron age religions have been, and still are, among the greatest
perpetrators of murder and torture in human history (and the greatest force for
human separation and the biggest stumbling block in our spiritual evolution)
but if Dawkins and Hitchens and their neo-Darwinian comrades really want to
defeat the present, dangerous religions maybe the best way to do it would be to
find a better “G” God – more likely to destroy religions’ straw “g” gods than their
invective – however entertaining it is. I’m not asking Philosophy to lose its
credibility by adopting incredible New Age gods – of which there are plenty –
but to use its skills to explore, honestly, the many non-physical phenomena of
our world.
But
I suspect that the sense of superiority and the grim fun they get from
slaughtering the slow-moving sacred cows of their dim-witted and/or fear-inspired
opponents is their real aim. And, of course, even academics, are not above the installation
of personal comfort by the removal of guilt and fear of judgement by an awful god.
And who of us does not carry some guilt from the living of life?
And
what of professional “S” Sceptics?
SCEPTICS
DO PLAY A VALUABLE ROLE IN SOCIETY
Sceptics
Inc. does have its role – they do a vital job for the community by attacking dangerous
sects (potential Jonestowns, for example), dangerous pseudo-historians (Holocaust-deniers,
for example), frauds in the Paranormal (we will look for any Truth there in
Essay 3). Perhaps their most valuable role is their opposition to religious
fundamentalism, just about all of which have a belief that an eventual
Holocaust is God’s will. But capital “S” Scepticism tends to be as full of fear
and loathing as any religious fundamentalism, and its belief that the
fundamentals of nature (energy and matter) are all there is – is a fundamentalism,
itself. Sceptics like to think that their only demand is for evidence, but when
the only evidence they allow is material (energy and matter) which can be
tested by the fabled scientific method, then their demand is for materialism.
Yet they claim to be able to decide on the evident nonphysical aspects of our
existence – and their decision is denial – and necessarily, from their
fundamentalist materialist position.
Scepticism
and residence in the House of Disbelief are often in reaction to a background
of religion in family of birth and/or from religious schooling. Loathing
generated by oppressive religious dogma has created many of our leading “S” Sceptics,
but it is antitheist rather than genuinely atheist. Scepticism is a reaction to
non-Truths, but it settles for the destruction of them – not an unuseful role –
but not to be mistaken for a search for any “T” Truth in our existence.
I
search for the nonphysical in Essay 3, but for our examination of this pillar
of the House of Disbelief suffice it to be concluded that nothing has been
proven about “G” God and/or special meaning by academia or by secular “S” Sceptics
in their battle to dispose of religions’ “g” gods and/or special meaning.
Nothing, that is, except the fact that intellectual power is no guarantee
against the pull of ideology, or the desire for mental comfort by lessening the
burden of guilt by removing fear of judgement and/or punishment. The only
lasting monument to the Sceptical “isms” – Atheism, Nihilism, Existentialism,
Materialism – is not a divine headstone, but an increasingly large number of
people floundering between the often annoyingly, smugly ignorant, House of God,
and the equally annoying, often smugly superior, House of Disbelief. People, not
only floundering, but all too frequently drowning in a sea of meaninglessness.
There
are, however, other popular “isms” which form pillars of the House of Disbelief:
- DETERMINISM, REDUCTIONISM, CAUSALITY,
MATERIALISM
“In science there is only physics. All the
rest is stamp collecting.”
For
so long Philosophy was well described as a footnote to Plato, but since the
Enlightenment our blossoming sciences – especially our physical sciences – have
dominated our thinking to the point where now Philosophy is better described as
the handmaiden to our physical sciences. I say this because the philosophical
positions which have come to dominate Philosophy, like: Determinism,
Reductionism, Causality, Materialism, and Naturalism are all siblings – parented
by our physical sciences – with Neo Darwinism as a cousin. Further, these
“isms” have all partied and in-bred – their offspring being meaninglessness,
nihilism, existentialism – and a few other nameless bastards. Let’s firstly have
a look at the philosophical offspring of Physics, before we examine the bastards
of their in-breeding.
DETERMINISM
Every
event is caused by some preceding state. Biological Determinism holds that all
behaviours have been determined – happened, not chosen – by what occurred
before. On a human level, all human personal development – traits and
behaviours – are determined by our genetic inheritance.
REDUCTIONISM
“The
explanatory arrows always point downwards.”
– Physicist,
Reductionism
is the belief that the explanations for higher-order entities are to be found
in lower-order entities. Societies can be explained by looking at people,
people by looking at organs, organs by looking at cells, cells by biochemistry,
biochemistry by chemistry, chemistry by physics, and ultimately – physics by
particle physics.
CAUSALITY
Causality
is the belief that all things existing at this moment are the end result of an endlessly
causal chain of happenings in a purely mechanistic universe. We, as we now
stand, as complicated as we may be, are totally the product of the mechanistic
universe that we were created by, and are living in.
MATERIALISM
Materialism
is the belief that everything in our universe is comprised of the physical – matter
and/or energy – and can be fully described in terms of them. It is opposed to
mind/body dualism.
NATURALISM
Basically
everything is the product of the natural laws that were inherent in the Big
Bang – which played out to form everything that exists – including all our
thoughts and behaviours. Opposed also to dualism – humans are just a physical
part of Nature.
NEO-DARWINISM
We,
and every animal are the end results of a long chain of evolution from the
first, original lifeform. Any random change/mutation of any animal that gives
survival advantages to that animal will tend to be passed on to its offspring –
be naturally selected – through its genes. This includes every behaviour.
FUNDAMENTALISMS
Determinism,
Reductionism, Causality, Materialism, and Naturalism are fundamentalisms. They
hold that everything can be ultimately reduced to its fundamental entities –
matter and energy – and that everything which exists or happens has, and will
be, determined by a long, causal chain trailing back to the Big Bang.
“Everything”, includes all our behaviours – which are not the result of our own
choices, but merely “happenings” – all determined by what went before.
The
bastard offspring of such philosophical fundamentalism are:
MEANINGLESSNESS,
NIHILISM, EXISTENTIALISM
We
know that our physical sciences tell the truth because we successfully use the
fruits of their labours every day. So, when we are told by our physical
sciences that the physical, natural, mechanical, cause-and-effect world is all there
is – we must listen. And, further, when they tell us that “all” is not only
physical, but also accidental – then meaninglessness, nihilism, and
existentialism are the necessary deductions – not only “God is dead”, but
special meaning and ultimate purpose.
But
is the physical world “all there is”? Are there any non-physical parts to the
universe?
THE
NONPHYSICAL
Here
we have to go beyond the remit of our physical sciences – beyond their test
benches, barometers, beakers,
Let’s
examine us humans.
HUMANS
For
reductionists like physicist
“Yet we humans,
who are presumably reducible to physics like everything else, are agents, able
to act on our own behalf. But actions are “doings”, not mere happenings.
Moreover, agency creates values: we want certain events to happen and others
not to happen. How can values and doings arise from particle interactions where
only happenings occur?”
“Reinventing
the Sacred” P. 11 –
If
nonphysical things like human agency exist, which are affected by nonphysical
things like values, then Kauffman’s point against the Reductionist pillar of
the House of Disbelief is well made – and fatal. Let’s have a look.
HAPPENINGS
cf. DOINGS
While
there are, observably, “happenings” in our physical Universe – physical things
which must stretch back to the Big Bang (comets, supernova, etc) – there appear
to be, just as observably, “doings” – things done. Let’s take, for example, our
planet Earth and things we have witnessed on it done by humans – our actions –
to determine if:
- Are we humans
“agents” – are we able to act on our own behalf, i.e. do we have free will?
- Are any of our
actions governed by values we have?
ACTING
ON OUR OWN BEHALF
The
existence of free will, free choice (doings done by agents able to act on their
own behalf) would upset physical fundamentalism (not physics, but philosophy
from physics). Free will would represent a break in the deterministic, causal,
mechanistic, chain used by the “isms” family to explain away all our behaviours.
Physical scientism would find it difficult to reduce everything to particles/energy
flowing from the Big Bang if free will exists. But does free will exist?
FREE
WILL?
Observably,
some human choices are not free – for example, “choices” made for us causally
by our body following its animal imperatives to feed, breed, and survive. Some
of these behaviours we may feel that we have chosen to execute, but all,
ultimately, are driven by animal, survival motives – we do them or we (and our
selfish genes) die – therefore they are not free whatever we may “feel”.
But,
just as observably, we choose some actions which 1.] have nothing to do with
bodily/genetic survival, or 2.] actually endanger our bodily survival, and 3.]
are not delineated in genes which are inheritable. What are these behaviours
and why do we do them?
I
speak of behaviours we choose to do because they make “us” feel good – they
meet the needs of some nonphysical part of us – our self. We are starting to
look at a body/self dualism here, and all dualisms are anathema to the “physical
scientism” family – we will look at the possible duality of the human being in
Essay 3 – here we will stick to our knitting (examining the existence of our
own free-will). Let’s consider the evidence for doings (cf. happenings) that we
freely choose – which are in category 1.] above.
BEHAVIOURS
WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BODILY SURVIVAL
We
choose to do some things simply because they lift our spirits. These behaviours
are not spontaneous and we often plan them weeks, months, even years ahead –
because we know, that even then, we will like
them. We want to do them consciously, for the only reason we know that we – our
selves – will feel good, uplifted during the doing of them and for some time afterwards.
Some nonphysical part of us is, strangely, satisfied. For example: going to an
art gallery, going to a musical concert, going to visit a garden, going to
visit a distant lookout (e.g. Niagra Falls). We are not driven to do them by
any bodily survival or genetic imperatives – they even take bodily survival
assets away – money, energy, time.
How
about behaviours out of the second category above?
BEHAVIOURS
WHICH ENDANGER BODY/GENETIC SURVIVAL
These
are doings (cf. happenings) out of category 2.] above. For example: taking a
bushwalk, travelling overseas, doing recreational sports like: skiing, riding, scuba
diving, hang-gliding, flying. These things are deterministic double-jeopardy –
they not only take up finite survival and genetic assets but they also risk our
bodies and their precious genes. And what is the positive out-take for us? The
only reward is for the self, spirit, soul – us.
So,
to sum up, sometimes our bodies/genes are
in charge and survival behaviours happen – but equally sometimes our
selves are in charge and non-survival (even anti-survival) “doings” are purposefully
done. Of course, it is not that simple when we talk of humans, the most
complex lifeform we know – some behaviours have bodily and spiritual
motivations. For example, skiing: the snow-covered countryside is beautiful and
being in it lifts our spirits while we ski down a slope taking physical pleasure
out of linking our turns gracefully (hopefully) and impressing that snow-bunny
we would like to incubate our genes.
ECSTASY
We
touch on here, the uniquely human ability to experience ecstasy – the experience
and satisfaction of the physical and spiritual factors of the human equation together.
In skiing our spirits are lifted by the beauty of our surroundings while at the
same time our mind/body/ego enjoys the physical aspects of our mastery of a
sport (which is useless for survival). There are other examples of ecstasy from
satisfying the physical and spiritual together – when making love to someone we
love (c.f. just having sex); enjoying beautiful food, beautifully cooked (dining,
rather than feeding) ..... (to be continued in Essay 3).
Free choice is not an action
which is product of a mechanical universe, not something found at the end of a
long, causal, physical, chain, not something determined by something prior –
just something that the self feels like doing. Something discretionary which we
may do, or may not – not something we must do to survive, just something we
choose to do simply because the self is “lifted” by the doing of it. The
implication is that we are not our bodies – we have bodies but the human
equation has other factors – “we” are, more likely, our selves. We explore for
evidence to support this statement more deeply in Essay 3 – here, we just give
warning to whatever is left, clutched to your breast, of the “physical isms”
family.
But wait, there’s more – we
are not finished with the physical isms family here yet.
VALUES
We
need to consider, not only do we have free agency to act, but are some of these
actions driven by values?
The
existence of non-material things like values as “things in themselves” would
upset philosophical positions like the physical isms family – this is where Neo
Darwinism comes to the aid of its cousins. Neo Darwinists would say that any
“values” we hold are just personal constructs, and that they would confer natural
selection advantages onto those who tend to put such values together. Having
values gives a greater chance of survival, thus giving genes containing values
a chance to propagate ahead of other genes with none of these advantageous
characteristics. But how did non-physical things like values (morals, ethics –
virtues) come to exist in a purely physical world of matter and energy in the
first place, to be naturally selected in the second place? And how is the
nonphysical physically inherited? Are non-physical characteristics like values physically
located in our genes – and created by a random mutation – to be physically
inherited?
Values
definitely exist, we see them in the actions, the doings of other humans
every day – and/or the absence of them in humans’ causal happenings. They
also can modify human causal behaviours – happenings can be done
– differently.
KNOW THYSELF – MORE EVIDENCE
OF FREE WILL
“Know Thyself” has long been
received as wisdom by many civilisations, ancient and modern. Whilst it is
delivered in the form of an injunction we are free to obey it or not – we have
to choose to. It is more evidence of the existence of free will that some of us
choose to know the self, and some don’t.
I have already shown that
living a life in this relative reality allows us to know the self. And we have
to freely choose to do that – it is not an animal drive. It is, in fact, a
rather risky animal thing to do – like a lot of the free choices listed above.
It is risky because it is not unusual for self-knowledge to lead to self-loathing
– which is invariably detrimental to the body. Studies have shown that
self-loathing invariably leads to sickness – sometimes fatal – and even suicide.
(Why would the physical mind/body choose to end its genes’ survival because the
self was found to be loathsome when known – something else for the
physical-isms family to consider?)
We will consider in Essay 3
that to find the self unlovely need not be a dead end, so to speak, in fact it
can lead to what may be life’s grandest opportunity – to choose to grow the
self. Here we just need to consider that the fact that life allows us to know
and grow the self as another example of free choice – one that some observably
take, and some don’t because of our observably varying levels of self/spiritual
evolution. There is no animal imperative to know the self – no causal chain
that determines we must know the self for bodily survival. Here we will just conclude
that while there is plenty of evidence that our physical, animal body exists, we
also have evidence that something else exists – our self – because we seek to
satisfy its needs, just as surely as we are driven to meet our body’s needs.
The Determinism/Reductionism/Causal/Materialism/Naturalism
pillar of the House of Disbelief is an unsafe one to choose to shelter
under.
- SCIENCE
Our
sciences have 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 explored its beginnings; Physics has revealed our universe’s great natural
laws and forces and is delving into the mysteries of the sub-atomic; 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; Mathematics – “the language the universe was written in” – has
been the midwife to all this. Many scientists feel that our scientific
knowledge is almost complete – they consider that some of the sciences have
been unified and we are on the verge of a grand Theory of Everything (well, a
theory of everything physical).
GOD
The
discoveries of our sciences have demolished the creation stories of our
religions and most scientists believe that there is no need to postulate the
existence of a Higher Agency to explain the existence of our universe – the
gaps in our spectrum of knowledge, that the idea “God” used to fill, have been
closed.
CLOSE
But,
even in the physical world, as we are closing the gaps on many of its mysteries
we are at the same time uncovering many even more amazing things. “Amazing”
hardly covers the discoveries of the curious world of theoretical physics – quantum
physics being a good example, with its talk of parallel universes, many more
dimensions than our four apparent ones, and its recognition that consciousness
may be able to directly influence the behaviour of matter. So, even as science closes
out religions’ god to a “god of the gaps” by closing down the gaps in our
knowledge of the physical universe, it is at the same opening new mysteries. These
mysteries could possibly lead us to a “G” God – an altogether higher and
grander Agency than our religions were able to contemplate previously – and
perhaps grander ideas about the meaning and purpose of life (well beyond
religions’ model that life is a test for our suitability for heaven or hell)?
Or
not.
IS
A GRANDER VISION OF GOD
Our
pre-scientific ancestors constructed our present “g” gods in their own image –
brutal, male gods of hard lands out of precarious times. If you were able to
wipe their ancient gods from the minds of some of our more intelligent
religious leaders and ask them to devise God armed with our current scientific knowledge,
they would never come up with the Abrahamic god of the Hebrew campfires – for
example. Stand alone Truths should survive – Jesus’ “T” Truths of love, forgiveness,
and doing unto others come to mind – but the Old Testament creation stories (e.g.
“God
is our name for the creativity in nature...” (Op. cit. P. 284)
We should be: “...
reinventing the sacred, with God our chosen symbol for the creativity in the
universe...” (ibid P. 287)
“We do not need
to believe in or have faith in God as the unfolding of nature – this God is
real. The split between reason and faith is healed...And there is a place for
devotion in this view of God. The planet and all of its life are worthy of our
devotion in this reinvented sacred and global ethic.” (ibid P. 288)
The
observable creativity of our supposedly blind physical universe is the path to
finding any “G” God there may be – not that any such God needs anything as
pathetic as worship, just our creative contribution.
SCIENCE
IS OF THE “HOWS”, NOT THE “WHYS” OF OUR UNIVERSE
Physical
science is of the “hows” of our physical universe, but has nothing to say about
the ever-increasing philosophical “whys”. For instance, inflation theory may
answer how our physical universe developed as it did, but the question of why
the great forces and constants of the Universe were in place to make it so
creative rather than chaotic and non-sustainable, is begged. Some scientists develop
a greater belief in God and special meaning the more they learn – like the
respected scientists John Polkinghorne (who took up the priesthood after
being a particle physicist) and Rodney Holder (who did the same after being an
astro-physicist). For most, however, it is the reverse, and we must ask why do
so many intelligent people lose a belief in God with greater scientific
understanding? Did they really believe that religion’s six-day-creating,
man-god of the ancients was the one and only possible God, and that “his” death
at the hands of their sciences must necessarily lead to the death of any belief
in any Divine – and any special meaning as well? Here we pass into the murky
waters of the psychology of disbelief, covered in the discussion of it as
another pillar of disbelief.
A
COMPLETE THEORY OF EVERYTHING NEEDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SELVES
Science
is still short of an understanding of the origin of life (the mystery of the organic
from the inert) and also an all-unifying Theory for the physical universe – but
it seems close to it. There is, observably, a unity in the physical universe
(hence the very word “universe) and a scientific Theory of Everything (physical)
must be possible – but humanity cannot be defined solely in material terms. The
understanding of humanity (and every other lifeform) is way beyond just
understanding our physical world and how energy/matter evolved into our animal
bodies, and any true Theory of Everything about humanity must include an
understanding of our non-physical aspects. For instance, our selves.
OUR
SELVES?
Are
we solely an animal body, or is the human condition more truly a spiritual
being having an animal experience? I will explore for evidence on this matter
in Essay 3, here suffice it to note that
A
SECURE PILLAR?
All
up, while our physical sciences can claim that the ancient creator-god has been
squeezed out of its domain, it can never provide a secure pillar of the House
of Disbelief because, while they can provide answers to the hows of the
existence of our physical world by discovering and measuring its forces and
constants they can never approach an answer to the why they should exist –
except to claim that such forces as ours should exist somewhere if there are an
infinite number of universes – a multiverse. Quantum theory is beginning to
imply that there may be an infinite number of universes – each with the same
creative forces and constants – which would only multiply Disbelief’s problem,
if established. Where do the overriding creative laws come from out of nothing?
And,
of course, there are problems for Disbelief and meaninglessness based on
scientism resulting from the non-physical aspects of humanity. Phenomena like
the existence of our self – discussed briefly above – and other phenomena like
our understanding of non-Darwinian beauty; the ability of music to lift our
souls; dignity; shame; humour – these, and many other non-physical factors in
the human equation, we will explore in essay 3.
And
now, another popular pillar for many Disbelievers.
·
IF GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE, WHO MADE GOD?
This
is a very popular pillar of the House of Disbelief and many stand under it. I
was advised by (leading Australian Sceptic and atheist)
But
to lose belief in a Higher Agency and a special meaning and/or ultimate purpose
to this question is a result of believing that the Judeo-Christian creator god
and special meaning of life is the only possible one.
MUST
GOD BE A CREATOR?
Maybe
nothing had to be “created” because something must always exist? Some theoretical
physicians concur. The following from the New
Scientist magazine (23/7/2011 – No. 2822 – Pp.28-29):
“something is
the more natural state than nothing.”
(
“According to
quantum theory there is no state of emptiness.”
(
“Emptiness
would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the
uncertain quantum world.” (
Does
the always existence of energy/matter necessarily remove a “G” God? Or is the
always existing energy God?
Philosophical
positions often swing around definitions.
DEFINITIONS
OF GOD
We
have already discussed religion’s idea of the nature of God – what God must be (omniscient,
omnipotent, and benevolent) – here we are examining what a God must do. The
House of God’s god most definitely made the Universe – the main Christian creed
states: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth”. Clearly,
their god, must have made everything to exist – leaving them open to the question
of who made the maker? The House of God’s answer is a bald assertion: God is
the “First Cause” – who doesn’t need a maker because we say so.
Religion
is largely assertion (or based on an unreliable “B” Book, at best) but, again,
it has to be asked – is to demolish a religion’s idea about God the same as
demolishing God? Many think so.
PHILOSOPHICAL
DISPROOFS BASED ON THE ANCIENT GOD
“behold then
the theogony of ancient times brought back upon us”
(“Dialogues”, p.168).
And
that God might not even be the Creator. Pre-dating quantum mechanics
“For ought we
know, a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order originally,
within itself”
(ibid. p.146)..
Philosopher
A.N.Wilson feels that, after Hume, speculating on the nature of God it is
pretty much a waste of time.
“devastating ……
the disturbing question to which there could not possibly be any answer.”
(“God’s Funeral” P. 24).
But
After
What
sort of fine-tuning are we talking about – how fine, how crucial? Astronomer
Royal,
- 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. Fusing
stars are the factories of the more complex atoms which are the building
blocks of life.
- The proportion of
the mass of a hydrogen atom released as energy when it is fused into
helium inside a star. Slightly smaller 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 structureless; larger and the universe would be dominated
by black holes by now.
- The number of
spatial dimensions. With four spatial dimensions the orbits of planets
would be unstable, while life would be impossible with just two.
Because
of this mysterious fine-tuning of the mysteriously existing laws and forces we
are surrounded by creativity instead of chaos – by “something rather than nothing”.
Science has therefore hardly established that God does not exist, but, rather
implied the existence of a Higher agency than physics – how can laws exist
without a cause?
“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.
SO
WHO CREATED GOD?
Back
to the original question at the basis of this pillar of the House of Disbelief.
It refers only to the creator god of the Bible, it attempts to demolish that
god by implication and makes no attempt to find the Truth of the existence of any
real “G” God – no attempt to arrive at the mystery of the provision of laws,
forces and constants which really created our universe. Physical science begins
at the creation of the physical universe – it has dominion only over the
physical world which began at the moment of the big bang (through the efficacy
of the scientific method) – it has nothing to say about any always-existing God
– one way or the other. Physics must state that nothing can come “before” Physics
– or its primacy is lost. But quantum physics is not playing the game – stating
there is no state of emptiness – at the big bang, always existing energy
“became” matter, it was not “created”.
We
do not have to ask “who created god?” – “G” God did not “create” the universe,
but became it. There is something rather than nothing because energy/matter cannot
be created nor destroyed.
RELIGION’S
FUNERAL IS NOT GOD’S FUNERAL
The
point here is:
But
·
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – We are just our bodies.
“...we’re just bags of genetic material on an
Earth overburdened by them. ”
(“godless GOSPEL” (sic) p. 238)
Evolutionary Theory has become a fundamentalism – a
Theory of Everything based on one fundamental Truth – the observation that natural
selection evolved our animal bodies. Evolutionary Theorists hold that we, as we
now stand, are merely the result of combined of genetic variations selected as
successful by our environment. This is observably a dispassionate, mechanical
process – and corollaries flowing from this observation are that: 1.) the
universe is mechanical; 2.) we are its product, therefore equally mechanical; 3.)
if all is mechanical – all is necessarily devoid of special meaning.
That we are just matter – “just bags of genetic
material” – is a fairly popular pillar of the House of Disbelief. It is founded
on fairly solid scientific foundations but weaknesses may lie in its corollaries
– let’s examine corollary 2.) which states we are mechanical. Can humans be
successfully, entirely described in terms of our mechanical animal bodies – or
are there more factors to the human equation?
DOES THE HUMAN EQUATION JUST HAVE
Is all human behaviour a product of our genes – causal
and meaningless – totally driven by animal survival needs and genetic
imperatives? Is the human experience well explained by Evolutionary Theory, are
there no mysteries left? Important questions, because if so, special meaning
and ultimate purpose are necessarily removed.
Many neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorists feel that
this is so.
“This book is
written in the conviction that our own experience once presented the greatest
of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.”
(p. xiii).
and:
“cumulative
natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our existence”? (P. 392)
Grand
claims! But there is a vast difference between seeing the mechanics of how
random mutations are naturally selected according to their adaptive benefits in
a relative world, and understanding how the whole immaculately creative process
began in the first place. In a weak moment
Dawkins admits that mystery remains:
“we still don’t
know exactly how natural selection began on Earth”. (P.205)
So,
there is mystery after all – are there any more?
There
are a few.
HOW
DID THE INORGANIC BECOME ORGANIC?
Not
only do we not know how natural selection began, we don’t know how life began for
natural selection to work on – the little question of how the inorganic became
organic? Even if we brush that mystery aside by accepting as a likelihood that
the beginning of life will be solved one day by science, we are still left with
an even greater problem – how does anything come to exist at all? How did even the
inorganic come to exist in the first place to become organic in the second?
“the one
question which Darwinism so dismally refuses to address: namely, how (let alone
why!) anything happens to exist at all. It is existence itself which is
surely the greatest of all mysteries”
(”God’s Funeral”, P. 224 – author’s
italics underlined).
This
is the “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?” question. It remains a
mystery – for now – some theoretical physicists feel that “something” must
always exist. The something-rather-than-nothing question is one beloved of
theologians but, even if it is never fully answered, it does not prove their primitive
god of the Bible.
Let’s
explore another argument beloved of theologians – the mystery of apparent
design.
THE
TELEOLOGICAL (DESIGN) ARGUMENT
I’m
not tendering evidence of Intelligent Design as proof of the ancient god of the
desert tribes – as fundamentalists do – I am just examining one of the popular
Evolutionary Theory pillars of the House of Disbelief by tendering some facts
which don’t sit well with the usual neo-Darwinian belief that to understand how
our animal bodies evolve is enough.
“laws
impressed on matter by the Creator”
(p. 458 The Origin of Species).
But
when his daughter,
But
there are mysteries other than apparent design that are troublesome for
Evolutionary Theory as a theory of everything – mysteries that stem from the
existence of the nonphysical in what is supposedly a purely physical world.
MYSTERIES
OF THE NONPHYSICAL
Non-physical
mysteries like our appreciation of beauty; our understanding of the language
the universe was written in (mathematics); how we – just the dust of stars – came
to observe the stars; how humour came to exist in a mechanical world; why music
moves us; how humans feel shame and dignity in a natural world where they don’t
otherwise exist.
And
love – reviewing life towards the end of his own,
“If he acts for
the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain
the love of those with whom he lives; and the latter gain undoubtedly is the
highest pleasure on this earth.” (p.94).
I
will examine in Essay 3 beauty, mathematics, humour, music, and why love and “approbation
of his fellow men” could be the “highest pleasure on this earth” for a mechanistic,
accidental meat puppet. But here there are more pillars of the House of
Disbelief made out of Evolutionary Theory to be examined. Let’s look more
closely at Evolutionary Theory’s explanation for how Dawkin’s “selfish genes”
can even manage to act, as
.
·
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – Altruism is just genetic
self-interest.
This
pillar of the House of Disbelief is well stated by
“a species with
conscience and sympathy and even love, all grounded ultimately in genetic
self-interest.” (p.378).
Is
humanity well, and completely, described as a species whose every action – even
sympathy and love – are “all grounded ultimately in genetic self-interest”?
COMPASSION,
ALTRUISM, RISKING OUR PRECIOUS
Where
does our conscience, altruism, and love come from if the human condition is to
be a survival mechanism for a bag of genes, and our purpose purely the promotion
of those genes over others’? Why do we often risk our all-important genetic
cargo to protect other people in mortal danger?
THE
DARWINIAN ANSWER
The
House of Disbelief has worked out neo-Darwinian protocols to answer the mystery
of altruism. These come under the headings: kin altruism, group altruism, and payback
altruism. These explanations for genetically contrary behaviour basically state
that we sometimes risk, in the present, our personal genes for the greater good
of those genes in the future.
Kin altruism is
risking our own genes in the rescuing of kin in trouble. Individually risky
behaviour, but a behaviour that will be naturally selected because it protects
a larger number of your gene’s – through your genetic group’s survival.
Group altruism is
rescuing non kin-related social group members in trouble – grouping is a good
survival technique therefore is naturally selected.
Payback (or
reciprocal) altruism is rescuing non-kin in trouble in the expectation of a future
payback – which will help our genes.
Fine,
I’m sure those behaviours have had some genetic offset which may sometimes
outweigh the demise of the original possessor’s genes, but there are some
behaviours which don’t fall into these categories because they not only risk
our genes but aid our genetic competitors. For example: risking our genetic
cargo to rescue strangers and foreigners in mortal danger – people outside of
kin group, outside of our social group, and outside of any rational expectation
of potential payback. But there is something even stranger.
WHY
DO WE RESCUE ENEMIES?
Beyond
risking our genes, when there is ho hope of genetic return, humans have even
risked their selfish genes to rescue the enemies of their genes. For example,
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. And
there are other examples of risking our genes purely out of compassion – no
genetic payback possible, just genetic risk. For example, rescuing animals of a
different species.
RESCUING
ANIMALS
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 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,
“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”,
Maybe
he is right – the above hero did get a few scratches!?
HOW
CAN GENETIC SACRIFICE STILL EXIST?
So
how does the ultimate altruism of genetic self-sacrifice still exist today if
it risks the possessor’s genes without benefit? Wright, in the above quoted
work, steals an old standby from religion – a miracle:
“Given that
self-interest was the overriding criterion of our design, we are a reasonably
considerate group of organisms. Indeed if you ponder the utter ruthlessness of
evolutionary logic long enough, you may start to find our morality, such as it
is, nearly miraculous.”
(Op. Cit. p. 378)
Why
does that strange, unnatural, human trait for compassion often override our
natural animal survival instincts – 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 characteristic is inimical to genetic survival?
And
there is another problem for Evolutionary Theory – why do we risk our precious
genes for fun?
RISKING
GENES FOR FUN
Why
do we risk our precious genetic cargo constantly in the pursuit of “fun”? We do
this when we play non-professional sport (often dangerous, contact ones like
football) and/or non-competitive sports (bushwalking, mountain climbing) – all genetically
counter-intuitive activities involving mortal risk. We even enjoy extreme
sports (skiing off cliffs, skydiving). What is
the delicious thrill in dangerous sports like mountain climbing, skiing, motorbike
and car racing, scuba diving, surfing, flying, hang-gliding?
Even
the majority of those who do not play sport indulge in some form of activity
that is still dangerous to our genes – for example: bushwalking, driving into
the countryside, or foreign travel? Why aren’t we just cosseting our genes –
and why is it just us humans – the only animal with the knowledge of its
mortality, that risks its genes for no survival end?
WHAT
ELSE COULD BE DRIVING THESE BEHAVIOURS?
Is
there anything else we get out of these activities?
When
we succeed at rescuing people, animals, and/or accomplish the playing of sports
we get self-esteem – this could be argued to have Darwinian drivers. But we also
get another strange thing – integral to some activities (e.g. mountain
climbing, skiing, scuba diving, surfing, bushwalking, driving into the
countryside, travelling) is the close experience of our world’s natural beauties
– which experience only serves to stir/feed the soul. So, is the nourishment of
our soul, just as important to us as nourishing our body and/or our bodily/genetic
survival? This leads us to consider the question: what makes an activity in
life, or even a life, truly satisfying to us?
HOW
TO BEST LIVE?
So
–“How To Best Live?” This is often described as Philosophy’s most important
question. One thing is for sure – to best live certainly involves more than
just meeting our bodily survival and genetic imperatives. This implies that
humanity, whilst it can definitely hear the beat of our animal drum, marches to
another tune as well – a more spiritual air?
CAN
A HUMAN BE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN BODILY TERMS?
We
know that genetic survival is integral to our animal bodies – who has not felt
the pull of our genetic imperatives – but when considering the full range of
our motivations it often seems to me that to describe human existence 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 answer. Similarly, we have
bodies, but that is far from the entirety of the human condition. Our best
description seems to be that we are spiritual beings with an animal body
– we are not just our bodies.
Is
there any evidence for this assertion?
EVIDENCE
FOR SPIRITUAL FACTORS IN THE HUMAN EQUATION?
Do
we have spiritual imperatives which must also be met, as well as our genetic
imperatives? To resolve this, let’s consider the idea of human satisfaction –
what gives humans satisfaction?
UNIQUE
HUMAN SATISFACTIONS
Contrast
the animal satisfaction of feeding compared to the human satisfaction we get
from dining (eating a great meal created with skill, art, and yes – even love);
compare the physical satisfaction of the services of a prostitute compared to
the spiritual satisfaction of making love with someone you love; consider also
the fact that we are spiritually moved by music (just the vibration of air
molecules); consider that humans are spiritually moved by beauty.
“WE
CAN’T
One
of the most popular pop songs of all time “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” is an
anthem to the frustrations of trying to get lasting satisfaction solely through
the animal body. It has been my experience of life that anybody who has lived a
life and can still deny the existence of the spiritual has not been paying
attention. In fact, if we do pay attention many of the activities in our lives
that can be described as truly, deeply satisfying address the spiritual. Animal
evolution is a fact of life, as is the fact that we are animals – but equally
so is that, for humans, life seems to be as much about spiritual evolution as
it is about animal evolution.
SPIRITUAL
HUNGER
And
how do we explain the human spiritual hunger witnessed so strongly at the turn
of the millennia – and I refer to spiritual rather than religious (which as we
have already discussed is Darwinian). If the spiritual does not exist, why do
we value spiritual satisfactions as strongly as the animal, and sometimes more
so?
While
genetic imperatives can explain many human behaviours, they fall well short of
a human Theory of Everything. They are only part of the human story, the
existence of spiritual factors, must be considered before a complete human
Theory of Everything can be written.
Genetic self-interest does
not explain all human behaviours – it is not a strong pillar for the House of
Disbelief.
- EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – A satisfactory Theory of
Everything?
Are there any more holes
in Evolutionary Theory preventing it from being regarded as a satisfactory
“Theory of Everything”? There appear to be a few anomalies.
“Anomalies?”
Evolutionary Theory explains
that the original, single-cell lifeforms spontaneously occurring on Earth were
changed gradually by randomly-occurring mutations of their
UNNATURAL SELECTION
One animal created in this
natural way became so evolved that it has separated from its nearest neighbour hugely
in terms of its mental abilities. It came to understand the process of evolution
to the point of becoming able to exert an increasing amount of control over it
– making the process no longer entirely natural. And this animal is now developing
its understanding and control of the process, not causally, but of its own
free-will. It is even freely-debating whether this control over nature is
ethical – ethics? another unnatural thing. This most unnatural animal is, of
course, humans and the debate is the genetic-modification debate – whether
CREATURE AND CREATOR, BOTH
Humans discovered or
created mathematics (a great debate which has not been settled yet) the
language the Universe was written in – and were thereby able to understand the
Universe through our sciences. Science enabled humanity to become evolution (on
Earth’s) most potent force. For example, genetic engineering means we don’t
have to wait for mutations because we can make non-random changes of our
choice. Changes made instantly which would naturally have taken a great amount
of time to occur – or maybe not have occurred at all. And do it consciously,
purposefully, designedly out of our free-will. We have become a creator of our
environment – but still a creature of it – a natural being doing unnatural
things? We are 98.5% the same as our nearest animal neighbour, the Chimpanzees,
but many % more evolved in our cognitive abilities. Why, when we were already on
top of the food chain – what drove that huge gap in the evolutionary spectrum
when it was not necessary?
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 theirs and other species. But humans go beyond this natural
role. We consciously make our mind up as to which animals should be advantaged
– or disposed of. And, even more strangely, we use all sorts of unnatural notions
and measures – notions like compassion; measures like aesthetic values (cute,
cuddly animals like pandas are more likely to be adopted and funded by the
public in survival programs). In our more natural past we killed off whole
species of other animals (for a natural reason – because they were easy prey –
Moas by the Maoris in New Zealand, for example); we drove some to extinction
because they impinged on our survival by being predators on our flocks
(Tasmanian tigers for example); and we drove some useful ones to the brink by
over-exploitation because they were useful to our rising technology (whales for
their oil during the Industrial Revolution). But, more recently as our, apparently
spiritual, evolution advanced, we have called some animals good and protected
them for entirely non natural-selection reasons – i.e. because of our
compassion for them (dolphins, for example) or because we find them “cute”, or
“beautiful” (like koalas for example). This latter is an entirely non-Darwinian
beauty because they have no food value – therefore no survival value. We have
selected positively for them on account of their aesthetic beauty – for how
they move our souls – in other words, for purely spiritual and/or subjective
reasons.
THE SUBJECTIVE OUT OF AN
OBJECTIVE WORLD?
As well as ensuring the
survival of some endangered species, humans have also collected useless animals
as pets just because we find them beautiful and/or sometimes enjoy their
company (like cats and dogs). “Useless” in an evolutionary sense, conferring no
survival or genetic advantages to us
– only incurring survival costs to us
by using up money we may need to survive ourselves. We have bred some of them
to do jobs for us (e.g. working dogs) but many more we have bred just for their
aesthetics – their “beauty” – to us, not to another dog. Why this subjective
behaviour in a purely objective universe? Does that mean that humans are not a
part of it – or is the universe not a completely objective universe? Weird, that at some point, in some part of
the universe – one specie – stopped being accidental, causal, and mechanistic?
OUR ETHICAL POSITION
VIS-À-VIS OTHER ANIMALS
We have also evolved ethics
– an understanding of the “moral” responsibilities of our peak position in the
animal kingdom. Some animals now owe their continued existence to this
unnatural sense of ethics – just as some, earlier in our less spiritually
evolved, more natural history, owed their extinction to our more natural
physical needs. Some of our “ethical” conservation actions do come from a
selfish, Darwinian motive that bio-diversity will be good for our own survival
– but some come equally or wholly from an understanding of the moral
responsibilities that the peak position in the animal world brings. The Green
Movement, 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.
So we, who are meant to be
explained entirely as just another animal, a natural product of our environment
and created accidentally by it, have come (so quickly) to creating our
environment on purpose – to knowingly alter/evolve our own and other species
for both objective and subjective reasons. Evolution is entirely accidental and
random no longer – we, while still a creature of our world, have become a
creator/designer of it.
HUMANS
And we humans are
interfering with natural selection as it impacts on humans too. 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, and
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 life); career reasons (status more
important than genes) – and so on. Many successful types have freely chosen not
to breed, or breed less than they would have in nature – meaning that nonphysical
factors (like how they feel about the self) are sometimes more important to
them than genetic ones.
WE
At the same time, our
unnatural virtue of compassion for the weak and sick is leading us to help unrelated
genetic competitors who are at the bottom of the human food-chain to survive (through
personal aid, our charities, and our government policies) – human animals who
would have been “selected out” in nature because of physical or mental weaknesses.
These individuals (who often have congenital problems) can now survive to breed
– and we can also look after their congenitally weak offspring with our
advanced medical abilities to the point where they too can breed. We are enabling
weak breeding stock to spread their genes which nature would have selected out.
I’m not saying that this is “good” or “bad”, nor that we should adopt eugenics
– just observing that it is so – just more unnatural human acts in an otherwise
natural world.
We
are also moving in the direction of being able to perfect our offspring through
our medical sciences. Many babies are now being vetted for mongoloidism and
dwarfism in the West, and soon many more things. We could soon have “perfect”
offspring –
WE
ARE EMERGING FROM NATURAL SELECTION’S GRASP
How,
if we are just natural, are we acting in an unnatural way? Natural selection
does not have humanity (and some animals and plants chosen by us) entirely in
its grip anymore (for better or worse). Whatever else this is, it is unnatural.
Maybe we will select for spiritual evolution and become higher beings? We just
have to decide what “higher” means.
NO
LONGER JUST “
We
are no longer
While Evolutionary Theory
does explain how our bodies evolved and why we perform certain actions, it
falls well short of a satisfactory “Theory of Everything”. The human condition
is not totally explained by natural selection, nor our behaviours constrained
by its selfish genetic dictates.
·
THE DUBIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS OF BELIEF.
Atheists
state that beliefs in God and special meaning in life have no basis in fact but
are just a product of the wishful thinking of those who need comfort. Belief,
they insist, is just a psychological crutch, a comfort in a tough world – for those
who are weak and cannot cope with the thought of death, and oblivion, or our personal
insignificance and lack of control over life.
Leading
sceptic
“More than any
other, the reason people believe weird things is because they want to. It feels
good. It is comforting. It is consoling.”
(p. 273 “Why People Believe Weird
Things”).
Atheists
like Shermer swarm the high moral ground because they see themselves as having
the intellectual integrity and courage to face life and death without needing
the comforting thought of God-the-Father and life in the hereafter.
“We
[sceptics and scientists] seek
immortality through our cumulative efforts and lasting achievements; we too
wish that our hopes for eternity might be fulfilled.” (p. 6 ibid.)
Atheists
often manage to teach theists a thing or two about smugness!
Certainly,
a lot of people seek immortality through a belief in God, their “belief” being generated
by the fear of death. Certainly people “believe weird things” because it feels
good and is comforting and consoling – rather than because they have uncovered
intellectually convincing Truths after a penetrating search. But, just as
certainly, many atheists disbelieve on similarly psychological bases – getting
rid of any belief in God and special meaning in life can be just as comforting
and consoling – not from the fear of death, but the fear of what comes after.
Getting rid of belief gets rid of guilt at the same time, and who of us carries
no guilt from the living of a life? God also gets in the road of a good time. It’s
not amazing how many of the people I have mentioned as heroes of atheism have
had multiple marriages with all the guilt (partners and children) that often
entails – and/or have lived the lives of libertines. These atheists still
manage the high moral ground because they see believers as weak because they
need the comfort of a god, without considering that eventual nothingness is
comforting for the guilt-ridden. Disbelievers enshrine the notion of oblivion because
they are (as they accuse the religious) in fear of the alternative.
PASCAL’S
WAGER
Another
psychological basis of belief is what has come to be known as “Pascal’s Wager”
– after 17th century French philosopher,
RESIDENCY
IN ANY “H” HOUSE
The
point here is that residency in any “H House – of God, or of Disbelief – has a psychological
basis. Only genuine agnostics (“genuine” because they have searched and found
nothing convincing one way or the other – rather than people have adopted agnosticism
because they are too lazy to think) can claim that there position does not have
a psychological basis.
The
bottom line for the examination of the soundness of this pillar of the House of
Disbelief is, that establishing the psychological bases of belief no more disproves the existence of any real God
and special meaning than the psychological bases of atheism proves the existence of God and special
meaning.
·
THE SCALE OF THE UNIVERSE IS SO HUGE THAT WE
Many
have expressed the thought that because we are individually insignificant in
comparison to the universe, so is any meaning our life may have. This particular
argument against special meaning is being heard more frequently as we discover
the vast scale of our universe. Just when we get our head around Carl Sagan’s
analogy of the number of suns in the universe:
“the total
number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all
the beaches of the planet Earth” (Cosmos
P. 196)
–
someone comes along and tells us that there could be more than one universe!
Indeed, it has even been posited that there may be an infinite number of
universes – a multiverse (I will examine the multiverse idea as a separate
pillar). So, we have not only lost our rather comfortable, Old Testament place
at the centre of everything, we discover that we are insignificant – supposedly
to the point of meaninglessness?
BUT
DOES SIZE MATTER?
Who
has not felt an existential flat spot when contemplating the head-spinning
vastness of the universe(s) and our small place in it? But, does size matter? Studies
reveal that minute events, like the beat of a butterfly’s wing, can have
consequences which go on for ever. So it is in the realm of ideas – individual
humans can exert massive change with just a single thought. Some thoughts
retain their power to change for endless generations – will the repercussions
of the thoughts of the likes of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle ever end? Big,
world-changing (or even universe-changing) ideas stand on the shoulders of
smaller thought(s). Individually we can, and have, made large differences that we
are not even aware of – significance is not contingent on awareness. Ideas
contained in Earth broadcasts which have penetrated into space may even have
made changes in the broader universe?
DOES
THE HUGE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE SPEAK OF AN ACCIDENT?
Some
scientists state that our Universe’s very largeness speaks of the accidental
nature of the universe and/or against the necessary efficiency of any real “D”
Divine – why is there so much space; why is so much of our Universe uninhabitable;
why do so many worlds have to be made to make one suitable for us to exist on? Accident
and inefficiency, of course, speak against any God and/or special meaning/purpose.
But are they established?
This
from cosmologist
“Contrary to
our intuitions, it turns out that the universe needs to be the vast size it is
in order for man to exist. This is the size it inevitably reaches in the 14,000
million years which it takes to evolve human beings….A universe endowed with the mass of a single galaxy has enough matter
to make a hundred billion stars like the sun, but such a universe would expand
for only about a month. Thus the argument that the vastness of the universe
points to man’s insignificance is turned on its head – only if it is so vast
could we be here.”
“Think” (The Royal Institute of Philosophy
periodical) No. 12, p. 53
I’m
not so sure that it takes 14 billion years to evolve a species like humanity? I
feel that there has to be many civilisations out there? Time will tell on that
one, but for this consideration of the vast size of the universe and what it
says about the possibility, or not, of special meaning, suffice it to say that
the size, complexity, and vast age of the universe(s) as now revealed by
astronomy and physics is no impediment to its possible special purpose. The
vast size of the universe (even if it is to just produce humanity) is not fatal
to a belief in a “G” God – fatal only to the ancient everything-created-in-6-days-6000-years-ago
“g” god of the Bible written by our pre-scientific ancestors. The Bible is a
parochial document placing one group of tribes at the centre of the world as
God’s “chosen people”, and that world, in turn, at the centre of the universe.
That the universe has been revealed to be of immense size (and Earth revealed
to be not in its centre) is not a secure pillar of the House of Disbelief, but
a blow against the Judeo/Christian House of God. Again, a sound pillar for a
House cannot be made solely out of the rubble of a failed opposing House.
WHAT
IF WE DISCOVER OTHER LIFEFORMS ON OTHER PLANETS?
In
time we may even discover other life forms – even life forms more evolved than
ours. This, again, would not be a blow against God and special meaning, it
would not provide sound material for another pillar for the House of Disbelief,
but only a blow against the House of God’s god – and its stone-age Bible.
INDIVIDUALS
ARE SIGNIFICANT
A
human is larger – in proportion – to the human species than a cell is to the
human body (there are way more cells in a human body than there are individuals
on Earth) and we all know that an individual cell can have a big effect, in
time, on the human body. Humans are a proportion of the life in the Universe. We
are significant as individuals or as a species because we have a potential that
in the second of writing this has not yet been lived out – it may be to live
for just another second, or for billions of years and populate the liveable
Universe.
Every
individual counts in the story of a species, and every species in the story of a
universe – and every universe in the story of a multiverse.
- THE MULTIVERSE.
Some
have attempted to explain away the mystery of this unnatural universe
(“unnatural” because all should naturally be chaos) and the mystery of life
occurring therein, by constructing a multiverse theory. Multiple universes have
never been observed, but are inferred as possible from some observations in
quantum physics. The logic flows that, if there is indeed a multiverse – an
infinite number of universes – then this universe and the sort of life we find in
it was bound to exist given the infinite number of possibilities and
opportunities presented. This is a bit like the old furphy that if an infinite
number of monkeys were placed in a room with an infinite number of typewriters then
one of them would eventually type
Multiverse
theory creates thousands of millions of billions of universes, each containing
in turn thousands of millions of billions of stars, planets and moons to
explain away the mysteries of this one. Rather untidy, and leaving aside that there
is a giant “if” because no observations of a multiverse have ever been made,
one suspects that Ockham’s razor [the observation that all great scientific
truths are simple and we should be suspicious of theories that need unnecessary
complexity to support them] would deal with it somewhat harshly.
MULTIVERSES
But
even if we do establish the existence of a multiverse the mysteries of
existence are not erased, only multiplied – the mysteries of the existence of
order allowing the existence of something is not explained away by the
existence of even more something. As stated above, quantum observations are
implying that there may, indeed, be an infinite number of universes – each with
mysteriously existing crucial forces and constants with delicate settings
guaranteed to produce something rather than nothing.
Even
if it is established that life does not occur in the other universes our
existence is not reduced into meaningless insignificance – it is made even more
amazing. If it is discovered in all the universes we are not dwarfed into
meaninglessness. It is not the size of a lifeform relative to total life that
governs meaning and purpose but the mysterious fact that it exists at all; that
it is conscious; and the fact that supposedly accidental stardust can speak mathematics
– the language the universe was written in. And other universes in a multiverse
may in turn contain nonphysical phenomena, just as ours does. We will explore
in Essay 3 the way relativity drives creativity, that relativity (good, better,
best) necessarily means evolution, many relative universes, a multiverse, just
means more creativity.
A
multiverse, if proven, must not necessarily kill off all possible special
meaning and ultimate purpose – just make them grander. A multiverse does not
kill off a God, only kills off – yet again – the old-man-in-a-toga-in-the-sky-god
of the ancients.
We
have mentioned that we live in a relative world. This fact forms another pillar
of the House of Disbelief for some.
- RELATIVISM – THERE CAN BE NO TRUTHS IN A
RELATIVE UNIVERSE.
Relativism
is one of the major pillars of the edifice which is post-modern philosophy. Relativism
is the position that everything must be relative in a relative world – including
truth.
Relativism
holds that “T” Truths cannot exist because there can be no absolutes in a
relative world – there can only be our own personal, relative “t” truths. It
could be argued that Relativism is incoherent as a belief system because, under
its own rules, it can only be a relative truth. But, for many, relativism is comfortable
and it has become a substantial pillar of the House of Disbelief – “substantial”
because if there can be no Truth, there can be no special meaning and/or
ultimate purpose – only your, or my, “t” truths (your and my meanings and
purposes) can exist. “Comfortable” because there is no need for guilt etc.
But
is this a secure pillar to shelter under in the House of Disbelief?
RELATIVITY
– IN THE BEGINNING
Science,
through the successful theory of general relativity (and consistent
cosmological observations) tells us that everything – all the matter and energy
which make up our material universe – flowed from a singularity: a unity, an
absolute, which ignited in a big bang:
“At the moment
of ignition, space and time and matter were all created together in a cosmic
fireball.”
“50 Physics Ideas”, P.180 –
“Ignition”?
So what ignited?
We
know from
“Einstein’s
formula E=mc² tells us that so long as there is enough energy E to pay for the
mass m of a particle, the way lies open for matter to be created.”
“The
Goldilocks Enigma”, P. 70 –
In
the beginning, the singular became plural when individual matter explosively emerged
from a singularity of energy at the big bang. Individual matter is separated by
space – allowing “this and that”; “here and there”; and even time – “now and
then”.
RELATIVITY
– MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS?
Plurality
means relativity. In the beginning was an absolute (absolutely nothing,
according to theoretical physics) which spontaneously became relative. We will
explore this further in essay 3 but for now, with a plurality instead of a
singularity individual things (of matter/energy) now stood in space and time in
relation to other things. This is a potentially creative situation – unlike an
absolute. Just how creative, can be seen in the fact of the arrival of life in
the universe – this could never have happened in an absolute. And after the
appearance of life, things became even more creative – not only did individual
matter exist, but individual living things.
Good,
better, best is inherent in relativity – wherein all things exist in relation to
all other things. And selection for “best” is automatic in a finite, therefore
necessarily competitive, environment. Selection for best is done by nature
(natural selection) and, I will argue in essay 3, by humans using different, unnatural
criteria (unnatural selection). This selection process is, of course,
evolution. Here, just let it be observed that relativity is immensely creative
through the process of evolution which it allows, no – forces.
THE
CREATIVITY OF RELATIVITY
What
has evolution created through the selection for good, better, best – anything
“special”, and is there any discernible ultimate purpose to it?
Residents
of the House of Disbelief say “no” – it only created animals driven to do
meaningless acts of survival by their selfish genes – which acts are ultimately
purposeless because we are only our mortal, material bodies which will pass
away into the nothingness from which we, and our material universe, came. But
this is “philosophy-as-handmaiden-to-our-physical-sciences” (whose only expertise,
after all – thus answers to the big questions – rests in their knowledge of the
physical world). Residents of the House of God say “yes”, but, as we saw in
essay 1, its answers follow its vested interests – and are largely incredible.
The next essay searches for answers which may exist without our Houses but here,
suffice it for this consideration of relativity, to say that the undoubted
existence of our relative truths does not necessarily remove the existence of “T”
Truths – because they can also be demonstrated to exist. In these essays I try
to reserve the use of the word “T” Truth to refer to things which are true for
all (universal), all the time (eternal). For example, it is a Truth that we
have animal bodies with animal needs and genetic imperatives – this is true for
everybody, all the time. But whether humans can be completely described in
terms of our animal bodies has not been established as a Truth – it may just be
a materialist “t” truth? The resolution of the “T” Truth about the human
condition is the ultimate quest of these essays.
WHAT
IS THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEKING THE “T” TRUTH?
Seeking
the Truth, especially of the human condition, has implications for Philosophy’s
holy grail – the quest to find the answer to the question “How should we best
live?”
To
illustrate, consider that another “T” Truth we know is that humans seek to be
happy. This has been established to be a Truth by a seemingly endless number of
academic happiness studies. It is also a Truth that we go about achieving happiness
in different ways – and that some of those ways work, some don’t, and some are
actually counter-productive. That is, some of our ideas about what happiness is
and what will surely produce it are not the Truth but our
relative “t” truths (this does not prevent the statement that humans seek
happiness from being the Truth). We will examine the uniquely human phenomenon
of striving to be happy and what it says about the human condition (and how to
best live) in Essay 3, here, let’s just observe that the undoubted existence of
personal and relative “t” truths, do not necessarily remove the existence of
“T” Truths.
Evolution
is a Truth of relativity – its creative tool. Evolution, selection for the best
to survive is allowed, no, forced by relativity. The evolutionary creativity of
relativity may be the core of any special meaning and ultimate purpose to our
existence – depending on what is being created? We shall see.
CONCLUSION
The
foundations of the House of Disbelief are our scientific discoveries and they have
been demonstrated, over time, to be solid – they work. But upon these substantial
scientific foundations the architects of the House of Disbelief have erected numerous
philosophical pillars which have been found by this examination to be unsound. These
pillars are the theories of: materialism, reductionism, determinism, causality,
existentialism, nihilism, neo-Darwinism, relativism, atheism, naturalism.
These
“isms” are “t” truths built upon “T” Truths. The first essay found the House of
God to be unsound because it was built by a similar process.
“H”
HOUSES TURN TRUTHS INTO DOCTRINE
“H”
Houses are, most often, inspired by “T” Truths, but they, also most often, end
up being built out of doctrines – “t” truths.
For
example, the original followers of Jesus were inspired by Jesus’ Truths – especially
his personal trinity of loving one another; forgiving even our enemies; doing
unto others as we would have them do unto us – but when the Christian House of
God came to be constructed centuries later it was built out of the dodgy “t”
truths/doctrines of “H” House builders: Salvation; Trinity; original sin;
virgin birth and more. Similarly, the House of Disbelief was inspired by the
Truths of our physical sciences and Darwin’s elegant Truth of natural selection
– but ended up being constructed out of truths/doctrines like: there is nothing
but matter and energy; everything which exists is the mechanical result of an
original physical accident; the human condition is to be an animal body without
free will; the flaws of religion means that a God cannot exist. If these and
other similar doctrines are sound then, necessarily, existence is devoid of
special meaning and ultimate purpose – only our own, personal truths are
rationally possible.
But
this examination has shown that these doctrines are not sound. For example:
DISBELIEF
CONFLATES
The
Truth of the death of religions’ “g” gods does not establish the death of a “G”
God. Likewise, the Truth that religions’ special meaning and ultimate purpose
are incredible does not demolish the possibility of special meaning and
ultimate purpose. The Truth that religion was constructed as the opiate of the
masses does not mean that there is no Divine.
To
demolish one insubstantial House does not necessarily securely establish a
contradicting one – maybe both are wrong?
THE
RUBBLE OF A DEMOLISHED HOUSE IS NOT NECESSARILY GOOD BUILDING MATERIAL FOR ANOTHER
Many
arguments of the House of God are weak, but this does nothing for the strength
of the House of Disbelief. For example, religious arguments like: the Ontological
(it is agreed that God is perfect, and if a being is perfect it must exist
because if it did not exist, it would not be perfect); the Cosmological (everything
must have a cause, so the universe too must have a cause – that cause is God); and
the Teleological (the universe has order which must have come from an
intelligent designer – that designer is God) are rather weak, but that fact
does nothing to establish various House of Disbelief positions – like materialism,
for example. Many arguments held to be “proofs” of the House of Disbelief, by
its denizens, are only disproofs of House of God’s “proofs”.
But
disbelief does have a useful role.
THE
USEFUL ROLE OF DISBELIEF
Disbelief
puts religion under the microscope and clearly sees the misuses people put it
to. The following quotes are from saints of the House of Disbelief, and are
Truths:
“Religion is
the opiate of the masses” – Marx.
“Man’s need to
make his helplessness tolerable” –
Truths
are always useful. But it is important to understand that these are Truths
about religion – not God. These statements are about the credibility of religion
– its “g” god, and models for meaning and purpose – not about the possible
existence of any rational God and/or special meaning/purpose. They bark against
the truths of our ancient religions, but not against the possibility of Truths.
Healthy
scepticism also plays a useful role in a healthy society – counter-balancing dangerous
religious sects, pseudo-historians (like holocaust-deniers) and fraudsters in
spiritual and paranormal fields. But there is such a thing as unhealthy
scepticism – when the presence of a fraudster is used to discredit a whole
field which could prove fruitful in the search for Truth. My objection to scepticism
is when it is turned into a belief system – “D” Disbelief – a House where
people shelter, rather than seek Truth about the human condition and about life
and how to best live it.
THE
DANGERS OF FUNDAMENTALISM
Fundamentalism
of any sort is dangerous. We have considered the horrors of religious
fundamentalism in Essay 1, but fundamentalist “D” Disbelief has meaninglessness
as its corollary – which often acts as a handmaiden to bloodshed equal to any
caused by religions – consider the various murderous, secular communist regimes
of U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, and Cambodia. But perhaps the greatest danger
presented by our unsound fundamentalist Houses is the barriers they represent
to our spiritual evolution.
What
“danger”?
THE
DANGERS CAUSED BY BARRIERS TO OUR SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
We
presently have reached the point where our technological evolution is way ahead
of our spiritual evolution – we have atom bombs in the hands of amoral secular
regimes (like North Korea) and in the hands of fundamentalist religious regimes.
Everybody is now probably thinking of theocracies like
The
two biggest barriers in the path to our survival are theism and atheism.
THE
PHILOSOPHY OF MEANING IS MORIBUND
The
Philosophy of Meaning – surely one of the most important branches of philosophy
– has not evolved much since the rationalist Enlightenment in the 18th
century. It has devolved into a deadlock between two irreconcilable fundamentalities
– theism and atheism.
On
one side, the argument for a God and
special meaning to life is being carried by theologians reading from ancient,
unchangeable “B” Books set in cement as the word of God and, on the other side,
the argument against God and special
meaning is being carried by academic philosophers who have become the
handmaidens of our physical sciences. Both sides are motivated to protect their
vested “t” truths (power, status, employment, personal comfort) rather than being
motivated to seek “T” Truths – which could be inconvenient.
Strangely,
both sides of the argument have a vested interest in the retention of the Abrahamic,
Judeo-Christian god.
THE
VESTED INTERESTS IN THE JUDEO/CHRISTIAN GOD
The
House of God has a vested interest in a vicious, vain and jealous god because
such a god can instil fear yet be controlled by the correct worship. And the
House of Disbelief has a vested interest in such a god because it is so incredible
therefore so easily demolished – “God is dead...And we have killed him!”
Is
this observation too cynical?
There
is nothing more certain than the fact that the Philosophy of God and Meaning has
gone nowhere because it rarely, if ever, considers the possibility of the
existence of any Divine more credible than the stone-age, Abrahamic,
Judeo-Christian god – nor any special meaning other than the equally incredible
special meanings of life drawn therefrom.
PHILOSOPHY
– THE LOVE OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM?
Philosophy
is defined as the love of knowledge and wisdom, its holy grail is supposed to
be the quest to discover how “to best live”. But these first two essays have
discovered that neither side in the “great debate” shows any desire to uncover any
“T” Truths – exhibiting no real thirst for knowledge or wisdom, rather just a desire
to win the argument. It’s as if the philosophy of meaning is a football game to
be won for your side by proselytizing your truths and gaining the greatest
numbers – rather than about the gaining of wisdom or knowledge through the
discovery of Truths to help us to best live.
The
greatest obstacles in the road to Truth are theism and atheism – not theism or
atheism.
THE HIGH MORAL GROUND
But both Belief and
Disbelief manage to claim the high moral ground.
Disbelievers, before the
Enlightenment, certainly were brave
people who risked life and limb by defying the House of God – fully worthy
occupants of the high moral ground that present-day atheists claim. Atheist philosopher
And Disbelief now, seems
to have become inhabited by bullies – more like a sport than a philosophy – the
sport of slaughtering others’ slow-moving sacred cows. These intellectual
bullies most often have great minds capable of better (Dawkins comes to mind) –
capable perhaps of shining a little light to illuminate the journey that is
life, rather than generating heat in the form of fear and loathing, hate and
separation. The world already has too much of both. To be fair, some residents
of the House of God are so ignorant of science that they engender anger and
loathing in the breasts of scientists (like Dawkins) who have spent a lifetime gaining
scientific learning by adhering to the rigorous rules of scientific method. It
is my observation that most ardent atheists are actually antitheists. But maybe
the best way to counter dangerously ignorant religions may be to find a more rational
Divine, meaning and purpose rather than getting some sport from killing and
re-killing their stone-age god?
WHERE TO
Where would we look for
God and Truth – rather than religions’ gods and truths? Recently (November
2010) at the Monk Debates (held in Toronto) Christopher Hitchens, zealot of the
House of God, was asked which of his opponent’s arguments (Christian, Tony Blair) was most
convincing. His answer was:
“...the sense that there is something beyond
the material – or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent materially with it
– is a very important matter. This is what you would call the numinous or the
transcendent, or at its best, I suppose, the ecstatic.”
“Weekend
Australian”, 17-18/9/2010 (Reported by
I think Hitchens is spot
on. And it is to the non-material, the numinous – even to the ecstatic – that I
now go in essay 3 to search for any “T” Truths that there may be. (Coincidently,
A CALL TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES
The
next essay calls for us to emerge from our Houses to examine without their ideological
walls the evidence life presents for any spiritual factors in the human
equation, and what they may mean for the philosophy of meaning and purpose. In
essay 3 we will explore for rational special meaning and ultimate purpose, maybe
even for a “D” Divine, along “The Road to Truth” – which is life.
Graeme Meakin,
2003 – Revised 25th January, 2012.
(Link to home page and other essays : www.onthemeaningoflife.com
)