Answers to the Big Questions

_{Barry Arrington

November 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In this post I will be continuing my discussion of “meaning.” In its entry on “meaning” Wikipedia lists the “big questions.” Theists will necessarily answer these questions differently from materialists. Below is my best estimate of how the questions will be answered by the two groups.

Theist’s Answers

Followers of different theistic traditions will answer the questions differently. The following is from a traditional Christian perspective.

1. What is the meaning of life? In the Christian tradition this question is perhaps best answered by the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Q1. What is the chief end of man? A1. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

2. What’s it all about? See 1.

3. Who are we? We are creatures created in the image of God and therefore endowed with unlimited worth. We are partially spirit and partially material.

4. Why are we here? See 1.

5. What are we here for? See 1.

6. What is the origin of life? God created life.

7. What is the nature of life? Life is created and sustained in being by the creator.

8. What is the nature of reality? God created and sustains in being all things

9. What is the purpose of life? See 1.

10. What is the purpose of one’s life? See 1.

11. What is the significance of life? Each life is a gift from God, and we live our lives in the context of our relationship with God. We exist to fulfill a purpose, and our actions have eternal consequences with respect to that purpose. Our every act and thought either advances or impedes that purpose.

12. What is meaningful and valuable in life? See 11.

13. What is the value of life? Since we are created in the image of God, life has infinite inestimable worth.

14. What is the reason to live? See 1.

15. What are we living for? See 1.

Materialist’s Answers

1. What is the meaning of life? There is none.

2. What’s it all about? Nothing.

3. Who are we? We are a bag of molecules that believes falsely that it is conscious.

4. Why are we here? We are a cosmic accident. There is no reason.

5. What are we here for? Nothing.

6. What is the origin of life? Blind unguided natural forces combined with chance and acting in deep time are responsible for all things, including life.

7. What is the nature of life? Life has no intrinsic nature. Living things have no inherent value. A living body has no more worth than an inanimate bag of chemicals. Our false belief in our consciousness does not endow us with worth.

8. What is the nature of reality? Everything can be explained by the interaction of particles in motion.

9. What is the purpose of life? There is none.

10. What is the purpose of one’s life? There is none.

11. What is the significance of life? There is none.

12. What is meaningful and valuable in life? There is no ultimate meaning or value in life. We make up stories to the contrary, but we know those stories are false.

13. What is the value of life? There is no value of life.

14. What is the reason to live? There is no reason to live unless one count’s our subjective desire not to die as a reason.

15. What are we living for? We have no purpose.

Comments

Aleta
Stephen, I made a start at answering your question in 28. No, there is no absolute answer, but the the lack of an absolute answer does not mean that all answers are equally valid.
If there is no answer to the question of which morality is superior, how do you know what answers are valid? What is your standard for making that judgment?
Some answers are better than others in respect to the nature of human beings.
Based on what scale of good, better, and best? Are there bad answers or only progressively good answers?
For instance, human beings want to love and be loved.
Is the morality of love superior to the morality of hate?
Social arrangements and belief systems which foster love are better than ones that don’t.
Why? KeithS says that there is no way to know. Do you disagree with him? If so, on what basis do you make that judgment?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. So in Keith S's own words if I find meaning in eating him, he has no grounds to complain?Andre_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

KeithS
Of higher worth to whom? :-)
Is the serial murderer's morality of higher worth than the morality of one who rescues drowning people?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I made a start at answering your question in 28. No, there is no absolute answer, but the the lack of an absolute answer does not mean that all answers are equally valid. Some answers are better than others in respect to the nature of human beings. For instance, human beings want to love and be loved. That is a fact that doesn't that doesn't need in "absolute" validation - it is an empirical truth about human beings. Social arrangements and belief systems which foster love are better than ones that don't.Aleta_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
So if one person “beholds” cruel sadism as moral and another person beholds it as immoral, there is no way to know which persons morality is of higher worth?
Of higher worth to whom? :-) There is no absolute answer.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

KeithS
Because it was a leading question, and I don’t accept the premise.
It was a perfectly reasonable question. Any rational person could answer it.
Here it is again: Now, tell me why MY sense of purpose and meaning (cruel sadism) is of any less worth than yours?
Right. That was the question.
There is no absolute answer.
Are you the same person who taunts others for refusing to answer questions?
Worth is in the eye of the beholder — even if the beholder happens to be God.
So if one person "beholds" cruel sadism as moral and another person beholds it as immoral, there is no way to know which persons morality is of higher worth?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

OldArmy94,
You are honest, Keith S, by admitting that there is no absolute answer..from the materialist point of view.
It's true under theism, too. Even if God exists, there is no absolute answer. His opinions about what does and doesn't have worth are subjective, just like ours.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Aleta, You use words such as "good", "condemned", "fortunate", and "positive" as if they mean something.OldArmy94_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

5fer, what do you mean by "you people"? You are honest, Keith S, by admitting that there is no absolute answer..from the materialist point of view.OldArmy94_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

It is extremely erroneous black-and-white thinking to believe that if one doesn't believe in some external, ultimate source of meaning by which to structure one's behavior one can choose to be any way one wants to be without any limit whatsoever. This is nonsense: among other things, it is contradicted by the fact the only an extremely small number of people exhibit pathological, psychopathic behavior, for which they are soundly condemned, and millions of people who don't believe in God lead lives that are indistinguishable from their theistic neighbors. We are constrained by human nature: virtually all humans want to love and be loved, want to exercise their talents and take delight in doing so, want to contribute to those around them, and so on. Despite the large cultural differences that exist in people, there is a solid common core of values inherent in us as a species. These qualities are present in children from birth, and arise from their biological nature, not from any philosophical considerations of theism or anything else. I am continually puzzled by this black-and-white thinking. It's as if you believe that only philosophical beliefs are effective in determining behavior, and that you don't take into account at all the complex biological components of our existence. We build meaning starting from the core of the commonality of the nature of human beings, and we build on the cultural background that has been built up over the centuries wherever we happen to live. From this comes some common wisdom about how to live both for the satisfaction of the person and for the good of the society in which the person lives. Obviously that doesn't make anyone perfect, but the majority of people are good people who develop beliefs system that make their lives meaningful. (Unfortunately, for millions of people the difficulties of just staying alive in impoverished or war-torn conditions gets in the way of this development, but for those of us fortunate enough to live in sufficiently affluent conditions, the above is true.) So for those of you who think that materialists can be, and might as well be, nihilists for which anything is OK, you are just flat out wrong. To deny that God exists is not to deny the reality of the positive qualities that are central to our human nature.Aleta_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Barry, you forgot a question in the list: What does God need with a starship?JoeCoder_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Why not address the question as asked?
Because it was a leading question, and I don't accept the premise. Here it is again:
Now, tell me why MY sense of purpose and meaning is of any less worth than yours?
OA94's sense of purpose and meaning might be of less worth to Daniel, but of more worth to OA94. There is no absolute answer. Worth is in the eye of the beholder -- even if the beholder happens to be God.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

5for to OldArmy94
Sounds like you quite enjoyed writing that. Funny how you people are always obsessed with torturing children.
Why not address the question as asked?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

OldArmy94, Sounds like you quite enjoyed writing that. Funny how you people are always obsessed with torturing children.5for_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

KeithS to OldArmuy94
Of less worth to whom? Worth is in the eye of the beholder, just like meaning.
Why not address the question as asked?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

OldArmy94, to Daniel King:
Now, tell me why MY sense of purpose and meaning is of any less worth than yours?
Of less worth to whom? Worth is in the eye of the beholder, just like meaning.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, What would you say if I told you that I found meaning in tormenting you? Emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and physically. My greatest pleasure is the slow destruction of your life and seeing you in misery thrills me more than anything else. Or, to make it even more poignant, what would you say if my purpose in life, from which I derive my meaning, is to take your child (if you are a parent) or spouse (if you are married), and torture them. To take them to my dungeon and inflict as much cruelty and pain as possible is my joy. I find deep meaning in watching the tears of a 5 year old run down his cheek as he cries, "Mommy!", as I methodically indulge in as much pain creation as possible. Now, tell me why MY sense of purpose and meaning is of any less worth than yours?OldArmy94_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Aleta,
Barry, your list of materialists’ answers is so distorted that I wouldn’t even know where to begin,
It's a striking illustration of Barry's inability to escape his own constricted viewpoint, even temporarily and for the sake of argument. He would flunk the Ideological Turing Test for sure.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Daniel, Pay no attention to Mung. No one on either side of the debate takes him seriously.keith s_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Barry, your list of materialists' answers is so distorted that I wouldn't even know where to begin, even though I have addressed some of those points in the other threads on meaning. If you are going to contrast the theist and the materialist, you ought to at least honestly and genuinely present answers that a real materialist might make, not made-up stereotyped caricatures - setting up and knocking down strawmen is, I think, one of the debating techniques we've been urged not to use.Aleta_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky: (real) Materialist’s Answers 1. What is the meaning of life? If by “meaning” you mean a purpose formed in the mind of an intelligent agent like a Creator then the existence of such a purpose will depend on the existence of a Creator. If there is no Creator then there can be no purpose. We see no compelling evidence for the existence of such a Creator and hence no reason to believe in one but neither can we completely rule one out. It’s still an open question.
Why do call yourself a "real materialist"? Your position is profoundly agnostic.Box_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Daniel King
What are you on about? That was in first grade. My nostalgic remembrance obviously went too far over your literalist head. Lighten up and enjoy the gift of life!
I thought that is what I was doing. Why do you take things so seriously. Go take a walk and smell the roses.StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

(real) Materialist’s Answers 1. What is the meaning of life? If by "meaning" you mean a purpose formed in the mind of an intelligent agent like a Creator then the existence of such a purpose will depend on the existence of a Creator. If there is no Creator then there can be no purpose. We see no compelling evidence for the existence of such a Creator and hence no reason to believe in one but neither can we completely rule one out. It's still an open question. 2. What’s it all about? See above 3. Who are we? We call ourselves human beings. Each of us is an incredibly complex and utterly unique arrangement of matter and energy. We are conscious of ourselves and the world around us. That consciousness appears to be inseparable from the physical substrate of the brain. There are no known examples of a consciousness existing without such a physical basis so an obvious inference is that consciousness is in some way a product of the physical brain. We are still trying to work out how that might happen. 4. Why are we here? Maybe there is no reason, maybe there is. We don't know and there's nothing wrong with admitting we don't know. 5. What are we here for? See above 6. What is the origin of life? In the absence of any intelligent agent, it must have arisen through naturalistic means, perhaps from non-living precursors. There is ongoing research which has produced some intriguing results but the honest answer is that, as yet, we don't really know. 7. What is the nature of life? The nature of life are those properties or attributes or behaviors which distinguish a living thing from a non-living thing. This has nothing to do with value or worth which exist only in the mind of a beholder and cannot be derived from the physical nature of the thing valued. I hold my own life and those of my family, friends and cats to be of great value - to me. On the other hand, I have little doubt that to people from some other parts of the world we are utterly worthless. Who is right? 8. What is the nature of reality? Physical reality appears to be built from matter/energy in its many forms and combinations. We are still trying to uncover the true nature of that reality. 9. What is the purpose of life? See 1. 10. What is the purpose of one’s life? In the absence of a Creator, there is no reason why we cannot form our own. 11. What is the significance of life? See discussion of purpose 12. What is meaningful and valuable in life? Whatever is valuable and meaningful to us. 13. What is the value of life? See above. 14. What is the reason to live? For most of us, something is better then nothing. I would rather exist than not. Tragically, there are all too many in this world for whom the reverse is true. 15. What are we living for? See aboveSeversky_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Don't judge Daniel King's life. Oh no! That's WRONG! Daniel King says we decide the meaning of his life, but then complains if we do.
1. What is the meaning of life? Life has whatever meaning you find in it.
But now we find that this not true. Color me shocked. Or not.Mung_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

A quotation from 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality', by (atheist) A.Rosenberg (always good for a laugh)
How about the psychological need to fill the vacuum with meaning and purpose—something religion is supposed to provide? The Purpose Driven Life is not a best seller for nothing. Even so adamant an atheist as Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that a substitute for religion is required and available from science. People ask Dawkins, “Why do you bother getting up in the morning if the meaning of life boils down to such a cruel pitiless fact, that we exist merely to help replicate a string of molecules?” His answer is that “science is one of the supreme things that makes life worth living.” Richard Dawkins gets misty-eyed when he thinks of the general theory of relativity or the symmetry of the double helix or how the invisible hand works to make everyone better off. So what? Why should we be like him? More important, does Dawkins have an argument or a reason or a basis to claim that science makes life worth living for everyone, or only for some people, or just for those smitten by science or scientism, or perhaps exclusively for Richard Dawkins? It’s hard to see how science itself could provide any argument for the supreme or intrinsic value of science or anything else for that matter. That something really is valuable or has meaning is never any part of science’s explanation of why we value it. In fact, its explanation of why we value things also explains away the notion that they have some intrinsic value, independent of our wants, preferences, tastes, and so forth. We saw why this is so in Chapter 5. The argument works just the same for values that are supposed to make life meaningful as it does for norms. That goes for my values as much as yours or Dawkins’s. Science can explain why we value things, but the same goes for values we reject as wrong. That’s why scientific explanations of what we value cannot justify those values or serve as a basis to enforce them on others. Since science is the only possible source of justification, if it doesn’t work to justify values, nothing does. Nice nihilism undermines all values. This also goes for the silly idea of the existentialist philosophers, who realized that science rules out meanings or purpose and so insisted that we each had to create them for ourselves. In pursuit of this misguided idea, there emerged existentialists of many different kinds: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Zen, and every other kind of religious existentialist, as well as communist, socialist, fascist, and humanistic existentialists—existentialists for every kind of meaning or purpose that people wanted their lives to have. Existentialists didn’t see the fatuousness of trying to create something that nature had ruled out as impossible. Creating purpose in a world that can’t have any is like trying to build a perpetual motion machine after you have discovered that nature has ruled them out. Of course, it takes scientism to see this. Existentialists, like almost all philosophers, would have rejected scientism had anyone offered it to them. But secular humanism doesn’t reject science. So, if it needs to vindicate an intrinsic value, goal, or purpose, such as revealing, or reveling in, the beauty of science or the beauty of the universe science uncovers, it’s out of luck. Luckily for us, Mother Nature has seen to it that most of us, including the secular humanists, will get up most mornings and go on living even without anything to make our lives meaningful. The proof is obvious. There is nothing that makes our lives meaningful, and yet here we are, out of our pajamas. The notion that we need something to make life meaningful in order to keep living is another one of those illusions fostered by introspection.
Box_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

why?Mung_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

I find no meaning in your life. You find meaning in your life. But given that the meaning of your life is found only in the meaning others find in your life, who care what you think?
You have some nerve judging my life. And you're incoherent (as usual) to boot. Mind your own business. Thanx.Daniel King_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

LOL. Should I provide a lesson in logic for our struggling materialist friend? Sure, why not? To ask, “Why did God make me,” is to ask about the purpose of my existence. Why = purpose. Didn’t the good sister convey that information to you? Who was your teacher– Whoopi Goldberg?
What are you on about? That was in first grade. My nostalgic remembrance obviously went too far over your literalist head. Lighten up and enjoy the gift of life!Daniel King_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Daniel King
Ah, the nostalgia. As I remember that question right at the beginning of the Catechism, it went this way: “Why did God make me?” The answer was, “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and forever in the next.” Beautiful! (But you’d better get it right, word for word, or Sister would not be pleased.)
LOL. Should I provide a lesson in logic for our struggling materialist friend? Sure, why not? To ask, "Why did God make me," is to ask about the purpose of my existence. Why = purpose. Didn't the good sister convey that information to you? Who was your teacher-- Whoopi Goldberg?StephenB_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Daniel King:
1. What is the meaning of life? Life has whatever meaning you find in it.
I don't believe you. I don't believe you believe you. I find no meaning in your life. You find meaning in your life. But given that the meaning of your life is found only in the meaning others find in your life, who care what you think?Mung_{November 10, 2014
November
11
Nov
10
10
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply