I am often asked by...
I am often asked by believers why I abandoned Christianity and how I found meaning in the apparently meaningless universe presented by science. The implication is that the scientific world-view is an existentially depressing one. Without God, I am bluntly told, what's the point? If this is all there is, there is no use. To the contrary. For me quite the opposite is true. The conjuncture of losing my religion, finding science, and discovering glorious contingency was remarkably empowering and liberating. It gave me a sense of joy and freedom. Freedom to think for myself. Freedom to take responsibility for my own actions. Freedom to construct my own meanings and my own destinies. With the knowledge that this may be all there is, and that I can trigger my own cascading changes, I was free to live life to its fullest.
This is not to say that those who are religious cannot share in these freedoms. But for me, and not just for me, a world absent monsters, ghosts, demons, and gods unfetters the mind to soar to new heights, to think unthinkable thoughts, to imagine the unimaginable, to contemplate infinity and eternity knowing that no one is looking back. The universe takes on a whole new meaning when you know that your place in it was not foreordained, that it was not designed for us, indeed, that it was not designed at all. If we are nothing more than star stuff and bio mass, how special life becomes. If the tape were played again and again without the appearance of our species, how extraordinary becomes our existence, and, correspondingly, how cherished. To share in the sublimity of knowledge generated by other human minds, and perhaps even to make a tiny contribution toward that body of knowledge that will be passed down through the ages, part of the cumulative wisdom of a single species on a tiny planet orbiting an ordinary star on the remote edge of a not-so-unusual galaxy, itself a member of a cluster of galaxies millions of light years from nowhere, is sublime beyond words.Michael Shermer, How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, pages 236-237
5 comments:
Vera,
I'm a theistic evolutionist with the personal guess that perhaps God created the laws of the universe to allow interesting self-organization and emergance of structure, life, and intelegance, all by the outworkings of natural law.
I'm clear that this is a personally hopeful guess and that I don't have any strong reason to know that there is God as designer and maker of the laws and matter of our universe. The existance of God outside of our universe/domain or the existance of our universe with fancy laws (without being created), both are extra-ordinary mysteries... and IMO are best when openly acknowledged as exactly this.
Your quote of Michael Shermer includes this, "The universe takes on a whole new meaning when you know that your place in it was not foreordained, that it was not designed for us, indeed, that it was not designed at all."
Design of the laws for emergence would be a whole different type of design that, per what I can see, Michael Shermer doesn't treat in his consideration of this area of philosophy.
People are doing alife design projects all the time, trying to create systems that produce interesting emerence and/or evolution. People have a purpose for creating these alife systems... God, in creating a Universe of natural law, could have a purpose... and thus we could be part of that purpose...
even though the out-workings of nature within the system would be pure cause and effect, as some might describe as without purpose.
IMO this is not a scientific description. IMO there's a fair number of science/philosophy types that take the view that...
science doesn't speak to purpose...
and
science doesn't speak to the absense of purpose...
Why do people like Michael Shermer (who have every reason to have a good understanding of philosophy) fail to treat this perspective? Your guess is as good as mine.
"Design of the laws for emergence would be a whole different type of design that, per what I can see, Michael Shermer doesn't treat in his consideration of this area of philosophy."
B: The problem is that people confuse descriptive laws with prescriptive laws. What we call natural law is a description we humans give to how the universe behaves. The use of the word law in this context does not mean that a law giver or designer is needed. This is a common mistake.
"God, in creating a Universe of natural law, could have a purpose"
B: Why do you think the universe owes us purpose? I am happy to create my own purpose in life.
Why would science have to dictate a "purpose"?
Your guess is as good as mine. ;)
Anonymous, most of my life I have believed that God exists. One day, it occurred to me that maybe he didn't. I can't prove it one way or the other. I had once thought that such a life had no meaning, and I felt sorry for people who didn't believe in God.
But on the contrary, life is meaningful even if there is no God. Isn't it?
Vera--"But on the contrary, life is meaningful even if there is no God. Isn't it?"
What do you think? Since I do still believe in a God, I can't answer your question. My atheist friends tell me that life is meaningful.
I mean, this conversation could go in many different directions, but is much bigger than the creation/evolution issues you deal with here on this blog . . . .
M
I find it strange that many people that believe that life without God leads to nihilism have a really hard time defining what brings meaning in their own life, now, in the present. Keep quizzing a theist on the meaning of life, and it will either equate to everything that really has a materialist basis, or they will throw their hands up at the problem and rely on faith -- that they don't have any idea about what is meaningful, but trust that God has a plan for them.
What will heaven really be like? How will we be fulfilled in heaven, really?
Religion and a belief in God say that they deliver meaning, but this is George Bush style marketing -- call it "No Child Left Behind" and then never deliver. If you say you offer it, and that the alternative cannot, over and over and over and over, people will eventually accept it without really pondering it.
Post a Comment