Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Answers to the Big Questions

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
Quest,
Thanks for trying but I don’t agree with you; you have not answered my question at all…
What is your question? What do you not agree with?StephenB
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
StephenB, Thanks for trying but I don't agree with you; you have not answered my question at all... I personally think that a lot of atheists and agnostics get turned off by blind religious beliefs and they often turn to other blind religious beliefs wrapped up in the science, nice looking attractive papers... I know that this may be not be easy for some of you here on this blog, but as a believer in God/Supreme Being, I can't blindly accept that "...everything is going to be ok and clear when you get to heaven..." That's is one of the reasons why I have been pointing out the same issue that atheistic-evolutionists have, like on sadwalkblogspot.ca... There...they blindly believe that one day, somehow, abiogenesis and evolution are going to be vindicated... But it doesn't work that way on both sides... I just hate to be a hypocrite...Quest
November 14, 2014
November
11
Nov
14
14
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
KeithS
That’s my main point. The idea that we are obligated to obey our creator simply because he is our creator makes no sense, and the pimply-faced teenager’s basement universe demonstrates that vividly.
We are not obligated to our Creator simply because he made us. We are obligated to our Creator because He created us out of love and for a noble purpose that is consistent with our created nature. To act against our nature is to act against our own best interests. The perverted teenager's basement universe demonstrates only that an evil creator with an evil intent is neither worth loving or obeying. It is a self-contradictory scenario in which the creature's stated reason for being brought into existence is inconsistent with its created nature.StephenB
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
StephenB: By definition, the human intellect and will are immaterial, spiritual faculties created by God.
By definition? No way.
Yes, by definition. The capacity for free will (and the capacity for reasoning), are both defined by theists as a faculty of a human soul. They are not material organs, they are immaterial faculties. That is why the word faculty is used. It is understood that they are not made of matter. Keiths
No, I stipulated that their creator made them so he could watch them have sex. They could still have free will, in which case they could choose whether or not to obey their pimply-faced creator. In turn, he would presumably have the option of punishing them for disobedience.
As indicated, only an omnipotent God can create the faculty of will. Humans cannot create spirit, not can spirit be derived from matter. However, if we put all that aside and mistakenly assume that it was possible for a teenage brat to design creatures with free will, then their purpose would be to use that faculty for its intended purpose, which by definition, could not be for the purpose of his entertainment. Thus, you have created with your scenario two contradictory purposes, one for the creator and one for the creatures. SB: What does any of this have to do with the fact that a created thing cannot be responsible for the reason that it was brought into existence.
I didn’t say it could be. What I said was that it could have its own sense of meaning, apart from the purpose for which it was created.
The issue is what the creature was meant for, not what the creature may imagine that it was meant for. A conscious pencil might perceive that it was meant to open cans, but that perception is obviously misguided since its purpose is inextricably tied to its nature, or its capacity to facilitate writing. The pencil is for writing, not for opening cans. If it tries to be or act like can opener, it will not only fail in its mission, it will destroy itself in the process.
Clarence the Conscious Can Opener might find his meaning in being a paperweight rather than in opening cans.
That is precisely what he cannot do. He cannot find his meaning in being a paperweight because his meaning was decided prior to his existence. He may rebel against his creator and fancy himself as a paperweight, (he may delude himself into believing that he has found a meaning), but it will not be his meaning. It is not what he was meant to be; it is not what he is; it is not his nature. If he had free will, he could, perhaps, pervert his nature and act like a paperweight, ignoring his calling and his nobler functions, just like a human can pervert his nature and act like an animal, submitting to his passions and ignoring his reason, but such behavior in both cases represents a rebellion against nature. A creature is always meant to act in accordance with its nature. If he thinks he has found a kind a meaning that militates against his created nature, he is delusional.
There is no basis for asserting that Clarence’s “true” meaning or purpose must be to open cans, simply because he was created for that purpose.
With that statement, you have abandoned all reason.
Meaning and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps, Clarence the can opener will decide that he was meant to have sex with the ball point pen. It will not matter to you, of course, that his creator did not design him for that purpose because, as you say, meaning and purpose are to be found in the beholder. Clarence has found a new meaning for his life. Are you really willing to go to such an irrational extreme in a futile attempt to avoid refutation? Remarkable.StephenB
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
I have to ask is Keith S the best example of our opposition?Andre
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
We can't be certain, that we can't be certain, that we can't be certain, that we can't be certain........ round and round Keith's relativism goes....... Keith S does not know what life is about.........Andre
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Keith S
Meaning and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.
But we can't be certain of that, right Keith?Andre
November 13, 2014
November
11
Nov
13
13
2014
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
keiths:
How do the inhabitants [of the basement universe] know that their creator’s laws are not just?
StephenB:
They don’t. They don’t have intellects and wills.
You're just assuming that.
You asked if they have moral obligations, which is a separate question. The answer is no.
You said that they aren't morally obligated because the laws aren't just. By what standard? And if the inhabitants can't tell whether they are just, then how do you know that God's laws are just?
Because they serve the purpose for which humans were created. They are the road map for achieving that which we were made for.
That doesn't work, because you just told us that the inhabitants of the basement universe aren't obligated to do what their creator made them for. You need a separate justification. That's my main point. The idea that we are obligated to obey our creator simply because he is our creator makes no sense, and the pimply-faced teenager's basement universe demonstrates that vividly. keiths:
Why do you consider immortality a prerequisite for moral agency?
StephenB:
Moral agency is not possible without the immaterial faculties of intellect and will, and an immaterial self. Immaterial things cannot die because they do not have parts and cannot, therefore, disintegrate.
You're assuming both the existence of immaterial souls and their indivisibility. There are a lot of unjustified assumptions in your comments.
Humans have rational souls and free wills only because a good God created them in His image and likeness.
keiths:
Do you have evidence for that?
StephenB:
By definition, the human intellect and will are immaterial, spiritual faculties created by God.
By definition? No way. That is something you need to demonstrate, not assume.
Your fantasy is unrealistic since the omnipotent power and wisdom necessary to create and hold a universe together is inseparable from the Creator’s goodness. An evil creator, especially one whose sense of purpose is so degraded cannot be omnipotent.
keiths:
Evidence and argument, please.
StephenB:
Omnipotence and immutability are logically inseparable from moral perfection.
More unjustified assumptions.
Anything that is changeable or changing cannot be perfect since all change implies imperfection. If you are changing and moving toward perfection, it means that you are not there yet.
It's possible to change while remaining be morally perfect, as long as the changes don't affect your moral status. keiths:
Let’s stipulate that they [the inhabitants of the basement universe] have free will just like the kind you attribute to humans.
StephenB:
I am afraid that I cannot do that. If they had free will, it would mean that they were meant to be moral agents who have the ability to choose between good and evil, and you have already stipulated that their creator selfishly designed them as slaves.
No, I stipulated that their creator made them so he could watch them have sex. They could still have free will, in which case they could choose whether or not to obey their pimply-faced creator. In turn, he would presumably have the option of punishing them for disobedience.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that a created thing cannot be responsible for the reason that it was brought into existence.
I didn't say it could be. What I said was that it could have its own sense of meaning, apart from the purpose for which it was created. Clarence the Conscious Can Opener might find his meaning in being a paperweight rather than in opening cans. There is no basis for asserting that Clarence's "true" meaning or purpose must be to open cans, simply because he was created for that purpose. Likewise, the "true" purpose of the basement universe dwellers needn't be to have sex for their creator's pleasure, despite the fact that they were created for that purpose. Meaning and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Box, Thank you for your interest.StephenB
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
StephenB, Thank you for answering my questions. That was most helpful.Box
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Box
Do you agree that the prerequisite for moral perfection is immutability wrt morality only?
I think that it is different for God, who is eternally and unchangingly perfect, than it is for humans, who are called on to rise above imperfection by practicing the natural virtues and then supernaturalizing them with Divine grace.
Second question: if omnipotence entails “overall immutability”, how should we envision such a state? Most importantly: if God is immutable is He still a person?
When I speak of immutability, I refer primarily to God's unchanging nature. I don't think immutability in that context rules out personhood. On the contrary, I take the Christian view, which holds that God is three dynamic persons (who God is) and one unchanging nature (what God is). Accordingly, we can have a relationship with God and each other precisely because each of us is a distinct, individual person, albeit not of equal status.StephenB
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Mung @ 84:
Blah, blah blah, etc, etc.
Daniel King
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Big Question #16: Why do ID critics avoid admitting that their posts here at UD are intelligently designed?Mung
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
keiths counsels Daniel King to just ignore me. Sage advice that. Let's step through a few: 3. Who are we? We are persons. According to dictionary.com: who - what person or persons? So to the question, what person or persons are we, DK responds, we are persons. Brilliant!!! 4. Why are we here? Because we are part of Nature. If we were not part of nature we would not be here. Therefore we are here because we are part of nature. QED. 5. What are we here for? To make the most we can of the gift of life. Gift? you think of life as a gift?Mung
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Neil Rickert: The purpose of life is life. Mung: You disagree with the claim that only humans decide meaning and purpose? Neil Rickert: Yes, I disagree with that. You can find some sort of purpose throughout the biosphere. All biological organisms behave in apparently purposeful ways. Glad to hear that I'm not the only one to disagree with the "only humans decide what has meaning" crowd. Mung: Would you say that to answer the question, where does life come from, answers the question, where do meaning and purpose come from? Neil Rickert: They arise from homeostasis. According to Wikipedia:
Homeostasis, also spelled homoeostasis (from Greek: ?????? homoios, "similar" and ?????? stasis, "standing still"), is the property of a system in which variables are regulated so that internal conditions remain stable and relatively constant.
What does it mean to say that meaning and purpose arise from homeostasis, if that statement is even meaningful at all?Mung
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
StephenB,
StephenB: Omnipotence and immutability are logically inseparable from moral perfection. Anything that is changeable or changing cannot be perfect since all change implies imperfection. If you are changing and moving toward perfection, it means that you are not there yet.
Do you agree that the prerequisite for moral perfection is immutability wrt morality only? Second question: if omnipotence entails "overall immutability", how should we envision such a state? Most importantly: if God is immutable is He still a person?Box
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Just to add wherever we may be going, will not have cause & effect.... Also there will be working without toil.Andre
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Quest
#1 to most Big Questions reminds me too much of the old catholic standard answer…I might be wrong but it seems too shallow and without much substance… To me… personally… there has to be more… perhaps more details… as to what “…the glorifying of God and being with him forever…”involves…
A general statement of purpose is not supposed to contain all the details. Its aim is to provide direction. If you are around infinite goodness, there will be countless good things to do, have, and experience. It is not possible to be happy forever and also be bored. Recall the metaphor of having your own mansion.StephenB
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
KeithS
How do the inhabitants know that their creator’s laws are not just?
They don't. They don't have intellects and wills. You asked if they have moral obligations, which is a separate question. The answer is no.
More to the point, how do you know that your purported Creator’s laws are just?
Because they serve the purpose for which humans were created. They are the road map for achieving that which we were made for.
Why do you consider immortality a prerequisite for moral agency?
Moral agency is not possible without the immaterial faculties of intellect and will, and an immaterial self. Immaterial things cannot die because they do not have parts and cannot, therefore, disintegrate. SB: Humans have rational souls and free wills only because a good God created them in His image and likeness.
Do you have evidence for that?
By definition, the human intellect and will are immaterial, spiritual faculties created by God. SB: Your fantasy is unrealistic since the omnipotent power and wisdom necessary to create and hold a universe together is inseparable from the Creator’s goodness. An evil creator, especially one whose sense of purpose is so degraded cannot be omnipotent.
Evidence and argument, please.
Omnipotence and immutability are logically inseparable from moral perfection. Anything that is changeable or changing cannot be perfect since all change implies imperfection. If you are changing and moving toward perfection, it means that you are not there yet.
Let’s stipulate that they have free will just like the kind you attribute to humans.
I am afraid that I cannot do that. If they had free will, it would mean that they were meant to be moral agents who have the ability to choose between good and evil, and you have already stipulated that their creator selfishly designed them as slaves. What does any of this have to do with the fact that a created thing cannot be responsible for the reason that it was brought into existence. In order to create its own reason for being, or its own meaning, the creature would have had to bring itself into existence. Why do you try to argue that a creature can decide what it was ultimately meant for? It is an argument that cannot successfully be defended.StephenB
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck. Does prayer work? Of course not. Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding? Is there free will? Not a chance! What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us. What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes. What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it. Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing. Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it ever had any to begin with. [A. Rosenberg, 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality', chapter 1.]
Box
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
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.
That was my first thought as well. I think he might be able to pass it, though, as long as he put some effort into thinking like someone else. I'm not sure he would see any point to such an endeavor.Learned Hand
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
I wonder whether bible scholars would agree or disagree with any of the theistic answers to the Big Questions... I'm not one of them; quite contrary, but the answer #1 to most Big Questions reminds me too much of the old catholic standard answer...I might be wrong but it seems too shallow and without much substance... To me... personally... there has to be more... perhaps more details... as to what "...the glorifying of God and being with him forever..."involves... We are talking about an eternity here for conscious beings...Quest
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Only just laws are binding.
How do the inhabitants know that their creator's laws are not just? More to the point, how do you know that your purported Creator's laws are just?
It will not matter, however, because the creatures will not have immortal souls, so they can’t be moral agents.
Why do you consider immortality a prerequisite for moral agency?
Their perverse creator does not have the power to create immortal souls in his creatures.
What if he does? How will you answer then?
Humans have rational souls and free wills only because a good God created them in His image and likeness.
Do you have evidence for that?
Your fantasy is unrealistic since the omnipotent power and wisdom necessary to create and hold a universe together is inseparable from the Creator’s goodness. An evil creator, especially one whose sense of purpose is so degraded cannot, by definition, be an omnipotent creator.
Evidence and argument, please.
But let’s suppose that it was possible. The creatures you describe don’t have lives, as such. They are robots.
You are assuming that. Let's stipulate that they have free will just like the kind you attribute to humans. What then?keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Me too, markf. StephenB's comment is full of unsubstantiated assertions like that one.keith s
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
... the omnipotent power and wisdom necessary to create and hold a universe together is inseparable from the Creator’s goodness. An evil creator .... cannot, by definition, be an omnipotent creator.
I am intrigued to see the proof of this.markf
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
KeithS
StephenB, Just so I’m absolutely clear on your position, please answer a couple of questions:
1. Are the inhabitants of the basement universe objectively morally obligated to have sex for the voyeuristic pleasure of their hormone-soaked, pimply-faced teenage creator?
No. Only just laws are binding. It will not matter, however, because the creatures will not have immortal souls, so they can't be moral agents. Their perverse creator does not have the power to create immortal souls in his creatures. Humans have rational souls and free wills only because a good God created them in His image and likeness.
Is their life’s objective meaning to have sex for his voyeuristic pleasure?
Let me interrupt long enough to point something out. Your fantasy is unrealistic since the omnipotent power and wisdom necessary to create and hold a universe together is inseparable from the Creator's goodness. An evil creator, especially one whose sense of purpose is so degraded cannot, by definition, be an omnipotent creator. So, your scenario, while entertaining, is not metaphysically or logically possible. But let's suppose that it was possible. The creatures you describe don't have lives, as such. They are robots. As mechanical tools, they were meant to be exploited for an evil purpose in an evil universe by an evil creator. It wouldn't be all that different from a torture chamber, which was "meant" to make people miserable. That is its meaning; that is its purpose. Not all meaning is noble.StephenB
November 12, 2014
November
11
Nov
12
12
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
#68 Stephenb
Objective morality, on the other hand, is good because it is based the goodness of God’s nature.
And by what standard do you judge God's nature to be good?markf
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
StephenB, Just so I'm absolutely clear on your position, please answer a couple of questions: 1. Are the inhabitants of the basement universe objectively morally obligated to have sex for the voyeuristic pleasure of their hormone-soaked, pimply-faced teenage creator? 2. Is their life's objective meaning to have sex for his voyeuristic pleasure? Please answer yes or no to both questions, and then feel free to add clarifying comments if you'd like.keith s
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Mung #7:
You disagree with the claim that only humans decide meaning and purpose?
Yes, I disagree with that claim. All biological organisms behave in apparently purposeful ways. I thought I had already responded to this, but I must have closed the browser tab instead of posting the comment.
where do meaning and purpose come from?
They arise from homeostasis.Neil Rickert
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Keiths
[objective morality] It can’t be merely because he created us. Recall my hypothetical example from a few months ago, in which humans discover how to create universes and some horny, pimply-faced teenager creates a universe in his basement because he wants to watch the inhabitants having sex. No sensible person would argue that the inhabitants of the basement [universe] are morally obligated to have sex for the voyeuristic pleasure of their creator.
Do you disagree, Stephen? If so, why? If not, then what gives God’s morality (or meaning) objective status?
The question as to whether the meaning conferred on the creature by the creator is moral depends solely on the morality of the creator. That fact has nothing to do with the incontestable fact that the meaning thus conferred must come from the outside, which is the point that you continue to evade. If the creator is a pervert, then the morality conferred on the creatures will be perverse. Objective morality, on the other hand, is good because it is based the goodness of God's nature.StephenB
November 11, 2014
November
11
Nov
11
11
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply