Q: What Is the Meaning of Life? A: There Is No Objective Meaning

August 9, 2008

Almost everyone at some point has wondered about the answer to this question: What is the meaning of life? The answer to this question may help us make sense of our existence. Perhaps we can find out why we are here, and what we are supposed to do whilst we are here.

A theist would answer: the meaning of life is to follow the teachings of [insert religious deity here]. However, unless you are a theist this is not a compelling answer.

I have searched the internet for answers to this question and I have found answers such as: to enjoy every living moment as much as possible, to spread love to those around you, to identify and fulfil your life’s purpose. Yet, as nice as these answers are, I’m afraid they just don’t quite cut it for me, as there seems to be no real logic behind them. Instead they are merely sentiments lacking any credible reasoning.

Perhaps a biologist would answer: the meaning of life is to reproduce. However, even this answer doesn’t quite cut it. Although reproducing is vital for the continued existence of our species, why is the continued existence of our species relevant to my life right now? If the meaning of life is to make more life, then what is the meaning of more life?

So, what exactly is the meaning of life? I think the correct answer to this question can be found in the existentialist line of thought. But what is existentialism? Wikipedia defines it as:

“Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines.”

The idea that ‘existence precedes essence’ is a fundamental concept of existentialism. Basically this means that there is no inherent meaning or ‘essence’ in life. Instead essence is secondary to existence. Essence or meaning is applied by the existent being. This means that the only meaning in life is that which we give it. So in a sense there is no grand objective meaning of life, only the meaning each individual ascribes.

This can be seen as a very empowering statement, empowering the individual to create their own rules and follow their own desires in life. It is up to the individual to create their own meaning. As Jean-Paul Sartre puts it:

“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.”

Meaning is just a human concept after all, and outside of our language, the word meaning is meaningless. Thus the only meaning possible is that which we ascribe. We are compelled to define our own purpose in life. Have fun!

3 Comments | Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ollie

Q: Is There an Afterlife? A: Perhaps, but It Won’t Be Much of a Life!

July 10, 2008

Many people express belief in an afterlife, not just religious folk. Perhaps this belief is useful to some extent? For example, it may help someone get over their fear of death, or it may help someone find peace after losing a loved one. Thus belief in an afterlife serves a purpose, and may provide comfort for those who struggle to cope with the inevitable pitfalls of the human condition.

However, is an afterlife even theoretically possible? If so, what kind of existence could we expect to have? In this life we experience the world through a physical body, a body that decomposes after death. Hence, once our body is decomposed, what could possibly be left of the ‘self’ to enable any meaningful existence?

Firstly, an afterlife for ‘myself’ is only possible if I subscribe to some form of dualism, were I regard ‘self’, or at least part of what makes up ‘self’, as a separate entity independent of the physical body. If ‘self’ is just the physical body, then it is impossible that I will experience an afterlife, since I will cease to exist when my body dies.

Some people think ‘mind’ is this separate entity, sometimes called soul or spirit. They believe the mind is independent of the body, and they believe it lives on when the body dies. This view is known as Cartesian dualism, and is attributed to French philosopher René Descartes.

Cartesian dualism claims that the mind is a non-physical substance, whereas the body is physical and separate from the mind. In fact this is partially right, for the mind is indeed a non-physical substance, but not in the way Descartes thought, it is non-physical in the sense that it merely exists as a concept.

The mind could be defined as a way of interpreting all the various processes of the brain holistically. We use the word mind for convenience, a way of collectively referring to the functions of the brain, such as thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, imagination etc. However, it doesn’t exist as a separate entity; it is instead the aggregate of physical processes in the brain. If one of these processes fails, due to brain damage for example, then the mind is affected.

This conclusion can be illustrated using G. Ryle’s allegory of the foreign university student:

“A foreigner visiting Oxford or Cambridge for the first time is shown a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, museums, scientific departments and administrative offices. He then asks ‘But where is the University? I have seen where the members of the College live, where the Registrar works, where the scientists experiment and the rest. But I have not yet seen the University in which reside and work the members of your University.’ It has then to be explained to him that the University is not another collateral institution, some ulterior counterpart to the colleges, laboratories and offices which he has seen. The university is just the way in which all that he has already seen is organized.”

Ryle uses this as an example of a ‘category-mistake’, in this case the visitor is “mistakenly allocating the university to the same category as that to which the other institutions belong.” This illustrates Ryle’s argument that when we deliberate over what the mind is, we are making a ‘category-mistake’ by assuming it is some sort of quasi-existing entity, leading to what he called ‘the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine’ - the view that the mind is some sort of ghostly entity independent of the body.

Hence, if mind is not separate from the body, then what is? Many New Age thinkers claim consciousness is this separate entity. They capitalize on the fact that scientists haven’t yet found where consciousness is located in the brain. They milk on this fact and make it sound as esoteric as possible, yet it is most likely just another function of the brain. And surely consciousness per se is meaningless? Consciousness is only one aspect of the mind, and without memory, thought or emotion, consciousness is worthless. For how can one have any meaningful experience without thought or emotion?

Therefore, unless other aspects of the mind are separate from the brain, such as thought and emotion, then even if consciousness lived on after death, it would be a pretty meaningless existence. And since thought and emotion can be tied to the brain, it is unlikely that there can be any meaningful existence after death.

This will be my last post for a couple of weeks, since I am going on holiday. :-) But when I get back I hope to answer many more questions!

4 Comments | Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ollie

Q: What Is God? A: An Impossible Human Concept That Is Believed By Billions

July 7, 2008

God is a concept that has undoubtedly shaped human history, for good or for bad. It is estimated that 84% of the world’s population practice some form of religion, through which they express belief in this concept.

This permeating concept has existed in some form or other since the earliest hominids. It’s a concept which has been prevalent and ubiquitous throughout human history, producing intellectual breakthroughs, religiously motivated wars and corrupt paedophilic priests!

Nowadays there are many organised religions and countless subdivisions or sects within those larger religious groups, each sharing a common conception of God, and a common doctrine based on an arbitrary interpretation of some revered hand-me-down book that has been tampered with more times than Michael Jackson’s nose! This book is proclaimed holy by the group in question and studied profusely in order to garner the teachings of ascribed prophets who have dubiously documented the word of God.

From a detached and objective stance one may be forgiven for judging these holy writings as fictitious and fanciful at best, vicious and absurd at worst. However, a skilled theologian knows that the holy writings are mostly symbolic in nature and aren’t meant as literal truths. Instead it is the task of learned scholars to interpret the ramblings as wisdom and metaphysical theories, which speculate the fundamental characteristics of human experience.

If one is willing to accept these interpretations blindly with unquestionable faith, only then can one be saved from eternal damnation, which is the apparent default fate of humankind who are faulty and sinful by nature, despite being created by a supposedly perfect omnipotent and omniscient being who presumably knew in advance what he was creating!?

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” - Gene Roddenberry

The common conception of God as an omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) being is actually a logical impossibility. The paradox is thus: Does God know what he’s going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else? If God knows what will happen, and does something else, then he’s not omniscient. If he knows and can’t change it, then he’s not omnipotent. This simple yet amusing paradox highlights one of the many plausibility problems surrounding such a being, a being that is worryingly embraced by billions of the world’s population.

In most of the religions that have a personalized concept of God, God is clearly a psychotic vengeful dictator, who orders killings and sacrifices in his name. Here are some quotes from the Bible illustrating this evil tendency:

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

Later on God tested Abraham’s faith and obedience. “Abraham!” God called.” Yes,” he replied. “Here I am.” “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you. (Genesis 22:1-2 NLT)

The anger of God rose against them, and he killed their strongest men; he struck down the finest of Israel’s young men. But in spite of this, the people kept on sinning. They refused to believe in his miracles. So he ended their lives in failure and gave them years of terror. When God killed some of them, the rest finally sought him. They repented and turned to God. (Psalms 78:31-34 NLT)

The God of the Bible is an obvious psychopath (by any modern standards), with deep-rooted psychological problems. Yet he is held in great reverence as some kind of omnibenevolent morally perfect being.

These religions with their rival churches and competing factions will welcome just about anyone. Be it prince or pauper, saint or murderer, they will accept you with open arms, as long as you leave your rationality and independence at the door. The will of God is what they preach and complete unquestioning obedience is what they require. “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not.” (Proverbs 3:5 NAB) Thus a cult is born, with an army of devoted docile slaves to do its bidding.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh? After all there are many honourable kind-hearted religious folk out there, who don’t go around preaching their gospel or giving warnings of eternal damnation and the like. Instead they rejoice in private ceremony and seem happier and more content for it. What about these people? Surely religion can’t be all bad if it brings some decrepit old widow peace of mind? Or some hospital bound child a glimmer of hope?

Arguments of this kind are sophistry. Do you not consider it particularly vindictive to preach false hope and delusion to hospital bound children or grief stricken widows? Is that not tantamount to making a mockery of their suffering? Clearly it is immoral to quell people’s pain with false hope and condescending promises of idealistic lands, such as the fabled Kingdom of Heaven or any other fanciful Utopian embellishments of the imagination, whatever they may be. Surely complete acceptance of the truth is the most noble and moral act, whereas offering false hope and delusion is the most cowardly and deceitful act. Yet some would use this argument to justify religion, they would actually consider deceit of this kind to be not just acceptable, but morally commendable.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” - George Bernard Shaw

To summarize, most people who believe in God cling to a conceptually incoherent and contradictory notion of a being, whose character is too flawed and idiosyncratic to be anything other than a product of human imagination. Perhaps the concept of God is something inherent to human psychology, as demonstrated by its ubiquitous presence in human history? Whatever the case may be, I suspect all of these concepts share a similar trait, namely they are just concepts, and incoherent ones at that!

No Comments » | Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ollie

Q: If Everything Has a Cause, What Was The First Cause? A: F*ck Knows!

July 3, 2008

Since this is my first post, I thought it would be apt of me to address the topic of a first cause.

The problem of a first cause is perhaps one of those perplexing mysteries in life that confounds almost everyone at some time or other. The reasoning goes as follows: If everything has a cause, then what was the first cause? And what caused that? And so on. Hence an infinite regress ensues.

Although does there even need to be a first cause? Why can’t an infinite causal chain exist? If there was however no first cause that got the ball rolling, then how did the ball get rolling in the first place? If it was always rolling, how is this possible? Surely causality necessitates a cause for everything, including the causal chain itself? Thus an infinite causal chain seems to violate the rules of causality. Hence it is reasonable to assume that there must have been something which was the first cause, an ‘uncaused cause’ that got the ball rolling.

Furthermore, it’s impossible to traverse an infinite series. For example, if I were to count down from infinity to zero, it would take me an infinite amount of time to reach zero. This means that I would be counting for an infinite amount of time, and thus I would never reach zero. Hence if time is of infinite length, then the present moment would have never been reached. And since the present moment exists, time cannot be infinite. In other words, time is finite.

So what was this first cause? After careful reflection one may be forgiven for regarding this matter incomprehensible. Alternatively, many people resign to some kind of belief in God due to lack of other plausible explanations, i.e. a ‘God of the gaps’.

Let’s look at the famous cosmological argument, which attempts to prove God’s existence by capitalizing on the first cause argument. This argument has several versions, Thomas Aquinas being among one of its most notable proponents. The argument can be summed thus:

(C1) Every event has a cause.

(C2) Nothing can be the cause of itself.

(C3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

(C4) Thus, there must have been a first cause which was not an event.

(C5) If there was a first cause which was not an event, it was God.

(C6) Hence God exists.

This is a valid argument. However, like all arguments for the existence of God it’s clearly not sound. Even if one were to accept (C1) – (C3), there is no reason to accept (C4) or (C5). The cosmological argument seems fairly plausible up until that point, but then like a magician’s sleight of hand, (C4) cunningly conjures God into the picture, and hey presto - God exists. This trickery is clearly unwarranted, for what makes God immune to this regress? Why does God have the privilege of being the uncaused first cause? That is something the cosmological argument fails to address.

Also, even if one concedes to the possibility of conjuring up some arbitrary terminator to the infinite regress and calling it God, there is no reason to assume that this God is endowed with any of the characteristics attributed to, for example, the Christian God (or any other religion for that matter). Perhaps a more suitable name for this first cause would be ‘Big Bang singularity’!? Calling it God is just misleading. Furthermore, quantum mechanics is casting doubt on (C1) and (C2). The current scientific opinion is one that raises intuitive doubt. Apparently the Big Bang spontaneously caused itself. However, this view is advocated by Professor Stephen Hawking, who is a very reputable English physicist!

So what exactly was the first cause? Apparently there wasn’t one! Instead an event (namely the Big Bang) spontaneously caused itself. Regrettably I am forced to conclude that this matter is beyond my comprehension. Hence I stick with my preliminary answer of ‘F*ck Knows!’

3 Comments | Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ollie