Phil Lecture 4 part 2 - DR. KENNETH FERGUSON PDF

Preview

Summary

DR. KENNETH FERGUSON...

Description

The basic reasoning behind the religious view ● There is nothing in the empirical, natural world that we observe around us that could give life meaning, purpose, or value. ● We may have the best life, as Tolstoy explains, but this doesn’t mean your life as a whole has value or importance. ● So far as nature, the physical world, is concerned we just exist, perhaps by accident. Nature doesn’t offer any reason why our existence is a good thing. Main thesis of the religious approach ●

●

The meaning and purpose of human life must, therefore, depend on the existence of some transcendent reality – a reality beyond the natural world, that is, on the existence of God and an afterlife. The existence of such a supernatural realm is the only thing that could save us from nihilism since there is nothing in this earthly existence, taken in itself, that could give meaning and purpose to human existence.

Interprets the meaning of life literally ● ●

●

The religious approach interprets the issue of the purpose of life in a very literal sense: The purpose of human life is to fulfill whatever role or purpose God intended for us when he created the universe, just as the purpose of any tool/utensil is to perform the function we intended when we created it. Examples of purposes God had in mind would be: 1) to prove our love for God; 2) to pass the test God has set for us, 3) to share in the glory of God’s creation ….

Daniel Hill’s view in Reading 11 ● ● ●

Hill argues that the religious view of the meaning of life can actually be deduced from the very meaning of the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ The question can only mean “What is the explanation for the existence of life in the sense of the purpose or function for which we exist?” And the only way we could have a purpose in that literal sense is if some intelligent being brought us into existence for a certain reason or purpose.

Hill makes a very blunt claim ●

● ●

“Therefore, atheists must necessarily deny that life has a meaning, since no overall complete explanation of the existence of living things could be given in terms of the purposes of any set of non-divine agents. (from Hill, Reading 11) For our existence to have a purpose just is for us to have a purpose in the mind of an intelligent being who created us.

The role of faith ● ● ●

Of course, we may not be able to fully comprehend how the supernatural, how God, could give meaning to our lives. That knowledge may be inaccessible to us. But it is here that faith, believing in something without having reasons for believing, plays a crucial role. It is faith in God that gives our lives meaning and purpose. This is why, according to Tolstoy, the masses don’t sense any problem about the

meaning of life – they simply have faith that, somehow, there is meaning. The religious approach is problematic ● ● ●

Now, the religious view of the meaning of life may seem plausible enough on the face of it. After all, it’s a view that’s familiar to all of us. We are accustomed to thinking that if there were a God and an afterlife, this would somehow give life meaning. For the most part, people don’t question this. But when you begin to think about it, you see that not everything is so straightforward here. Even if we assume that God does exist, it isn’t clear how this is supposed to resolve issues about the meaning of life.

Problems for the religious view of meaning ●

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

To some extent, the problems for the religious account of the meaning of life mirror the problems raised in the previous slides for the divine command theory of morality. There are several, inter-related, objections: The knowledge problem The clash of values objection A problem of ambiguity An explanation problem The circularity objection

1: the knowledge problem ● ● ●

The problem here is that many people feel there just isn’t any convincing evidence that God exists. But if God doesn’t exist, then, according to the religious view, life would have no meaning. Other accounts of the meaning of life don’t face this sort of problem. Furthermore, many people feel more certain that their lives have meaning than they do of the existence of God. So this suggests that the meaningfulness of their lives must not hinge on whether God exists.

Remember Nietzsche ●

This point reminds us of Nietzsche’s suggestion that theism is a passive form of

●

nihilism. Change just one fact – the existence of God – and theism turns into nihilism, and life suddenly would have no meaning.

●

But many people feel that life’s being meaningful is just not as doubtful or tenuous as this.

2: does the Religious view of the Meaning of Lofe Clas with Modern Values The out-of-date-values objection ●

The thesis here is that religion does not agree very well with the modern emphasis on the importance of certain types of values, such as autonomy, freedom, independence, self-determination, individual rights, and the like.

● ● ● ●

On reflection, it isn’t very surprising that this objection can be raised against the religious view. (see over) The religious world view was developed long ago in societies that were very different from those of today. These societies were undemocratic, they had autocratic rulers, rigid social classes, and little or no room for individual freedom, advancement, and initiative. Instead, the values emphasized were obedience, subservience to authority, conforming to prescribed roles, accepting your place in society ...

Social structure projected onto the cosmos ● ●

●

The values and social/political structures that were dominant in these societies were then transferred to the religions that evolved in them. The relationship between human rulers and their subjects was unconsciously projected onto the cosmos, with God now being the ruler and human beings her subjects. In this way, it seemed quite natural that the meaning and purpose of the lives of individual people would be modeled on that of subjects whose function was to serve and worship God, to follow God’s commands ...

Values have changed ● ● ●

The values and political structures that exist today are very different. As mentioned, the emphasis is on autonomy, freedom, independence, individual rights ... So it is only natural that the view of the meaning of life embodied in religions would clash with contemporary values and institutions. The idea that the meaning of life is to play a certain role in another, higher, being’s plan strikes many people as simply being out of date.

Compare to existentialism ● ● ● ●

We might note here that the clash of values objection against the religious view of meaning is one that is especially emphasized in existentialism (our next topic). Existentialists argue that there is no such thing as an objective, predetermined, universal meaning of life that applies to all human beings. Rather, it is up to each individual to find some way on their own to create meaning and value for their lives. No one else can do this, or decide this, for you. In this way of thinking, the meaningfulness of each person’s life is under his or her

●

● ● ● ●

control. So you can see from this how the existentialist approach to the meaning of life is much better suited to, or more at home with, modern values than the religious view. In fact, of course, it may well be these modern values that indirectly gave rise to the existentialist conception of the meaning of life. The point here isn’t that the clash of values objection on its own falsifies the religious account of the meaning of life. That claim would be too strong. But it does highlight a general respect in which the religious approach does not cohere very well with modern values, that there is tension between them. And so it is a way in which the religious account of the meaning of life seems less than fully satisfying.

3: ambiguity on the word “purpose” ● Kurt Baier “The Meaning of Life” Baiers focus ●

● ●

Baier first notes that some people feel the scientific view of the world that humans just came into existence accidentally as a result of the Big Bang implies that human life has no purpose or value. Since the religious world view entails that our lives do have a purpose, it is seen as preferable for this reason. However, Baier argues that this way of thinking is confused, that it rests on a failure to distinguish two different senses of the word ‘purpose’.

Two meanings of the word ‘purpose’ ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

Sense 1 – “In the first and basic sense, the purpose is normally attributed only to persons and their behavior, as in “Did you have a purpose in leaving the ignition on? Sense 2 – “In the second sense purpose is normally attributed only to things, as in “What is the purpose of the gadget you installed in the workshop?”” Sense 1 involves a person doing things for a reason or goal. Sense 2 involves the function for which a thing was created. A person’s life would have meaning or purpose in sense 1 if the things they did in their life tended to have purposes or goals. If they do things for no purpose or reason, do things randomly or drift aimlessly, as it were, then their lives to that extent would tend to lack meaning. A person’s life would have meaning or purpose in sense 2 only if they were created by some other being for a purpose or function. Here the purpose of one’s existence will be a purpose from that other being’s point of view. If we were not created for any reason, then our lives would have no purpose in sense 2. It is normally considered a good thing for our lives to have a purpose in sense 1. We think peoples’ lives are better if they pursue goals and projects rather than just drifting aimlessly through life. But Baier notes that it is usually considered a bad thing for a person’s life to have a purpose in the second sense b/c it is like being treated as an object. At least we think that having a purpose in that sense need not be of any benefit to the person herself.

Science again ●

The scientific world view is quite compatible with our lives having a purpose in sense 1 – science even expands the possibilities for a purposeful life in this sense by providing us with many more purposes or goals to aim for.

●

The scientific world view entails that our lives don’t have any purpose in sense 2, but that is not an objection to science, for to have a purpose in that sense is to be treated more like an object than a person.

● The conclusion to this objection For these reasons, Baier concludes that it is simply not a valid objection to the scientific worldview that it entails that human life would have no meaning or purpose in the literal sense of that phrase. And, if this is correct, then you can’t argue that a transcendent reality is necessary for human life to have meaning or purpose in any desirable sense of those terms. Robert Nozick (1938-2002) ● ● ● ● ●

Born in Brooklyn, N.Y. Professor at Harvard Contributed to many fields, especially political philosophy and theory of knowledge Most influential works: Anarchy, State and Utopia, and Philosophical Explanations Died of stomach cancer

4: the explanation problem ● ●

●

●

●

Putting doubts about God’s existence aside, how could playing a role in God’s plan gives meaning to our lives? Nozick notes first that this will not give meaning to life if the role we play is too trivial, e.g. if our function is only to put oxygen into the earth’s atmosphere or to plug a leaky faucet. Also, the role we play must be positive – it would not be enough if we were put here by God just as an example to other beings of how not to live, or to provide food for intergalactic travelers. “If it were sufficient merely to play some role in some external purpose, then you could give meaning to your life by fitting it to my plans or to your parents’ purpose in having you.” It might be prudent to follow God’s plan b/c of His power, but that is different. Because it is God, this all-powerful being, we may forget to ask this question. But it does seem to require an answer.

So this leads to the explanation problem ● ● ● ● ●

●

Conforming to the plan of a powerful dictator would not be enough to give meaning to our lives. Discovering that we were created by a race of powerful intergalactic beings for some purpose (for them) wouldn’t give meaning to our lives. How, then, could the fact that God created us for a certain reason give meaning to our lives? Why is the case where we are created by God any different? These points made by Nozick raise the question of how our playing a role in God’s plan is supposed to give meaning and purpose to our lives. And once the question gets raised it becomes very problematic how to answer it. What is God’s plan? What precisely is our role in it? And what is it about this role that is supposed to make our lives meaningful? Religions have never been clear about any of these things. Yet the plausibility of the

religious account of meaning requires convincing answers. What about the happiness of the eternal afterlife? ● ●

●

Now, someone might say that surely the existence of an afterlife in which we enjoy eternal bliss would make our lives worthwhile and meaningful. But would it? What is supposed to be so great about this afterlife? If the answer is the happiness we will experience, then why can’t our happiness in this earthly existence be enough to give life value? Why isn’t hedonism the answer? If the great thing about the religious view is supposed to be the eternal afterlife it embodies, then it seems to collapse into hedonism.

5: the circulatory objection ●

“It seems it is not enough that God has some purpose for us – his purpose itself must be meaningful.” (Nozick)

●

Nozick is suggesting in this remark that the religious account of the meaning of life suffers from a kind of circularity.

● ● ●

● ● ●

God’s plan for the universe must involve genuine meaning, and then our lives might derive meaning and purpose from our relationship to God’s plan. But what gives meaning to God’s plan in the first place? Isn’t this question as difficult to answer as the original question about the meaning of our lives? So the religious solution to the problem of the meaning of life appears circular – it presupposes that the problem of meaningful existence has already been resolved at some other level, at the level of God. The difficulty is that the problem of the meaning of life or existence can be raised for God as well. What is it about God’s nature that gives His existence meaning? Is it His being all-powerful? Perfectly good? Perfectly wise? But how would these attributes make God’s existence meaningful? Without an answer to this question, nothing about our relationship to God could give our lives meaning.

Existentialism again ●

Nozick even raises the possibility that we give meaning to God’s existence!

●

What does God exist for if not to create a universe and make our existence possible?

●

Are we perhaps God’s way of giving meaning and purpose to Her existence?

●

Perhaps God is conforming to the existentialist view of meaning, that everyone must create her own meaning, and this is how God creates meaning for herself. But, in that case, why couldn’t we also create our own meaning? So we wouldn’t then

●

depend on God to give our lives meaning.

Conclusion to the circulatory objection ●

●

Nozick’s main thesis is that we don’t have any clear conception of how carrying out God’s plan, whatever that plan might be, could give our lives meaning and purpose (in a sense that would solve the problem of the meaning of life.) And the reason for this may be that we have no clear conception of what is meant

when we speak of the meaning of life.

Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) ● ● ● ● ● ●

Born into Russian nobility Described as “unable and unwilling to learn” One of the greatest novelists in history Most famous works: War and Peace and Anna Karenina Advocated nonviolent anarchism in later life Argued that God is the only possible source of meaning and purpose for human life

Reply 1 ● ● ●

As against Nozick, it might be argued that the religious view does not treat people as objects to be used by a higher power. This is just a distortion. On the religious view, it is crucially important that people have free will and are fully responsible for their own choices. The idea isn’t that God uses us, but that we freely choose to participate in His plan.

Reply 2 ● ● ●

It may be argued that science has not yet excluded the possibility of a transcendent or supernatural realm. Present-day scientific cosmology, the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, is still incomplete in important respects. Science does not yet have a “theory of everything”. This leaves a window open for a teleological explanation of the universe in terms of the purposes of an intelligent being.

The role of faith ● ●

It is here that someone may invoke faith in the existence of God. Perhaps God’s existence cannot be proven by any empirical evidence or rational argument. But as long as His existence has not been disproven by science, you can make the decision to accept His existence on faith, and then, as it were, build your life around that.

This seems to have been Tolstoy’s basic attitude. ● ● ●

Of course, we cannot really understand how the supernatural, how God, would give meaning to our lives. That knowledge may be inaccessible to us. But it is here that blind faith, believing without having reasons for believing, plays a crucial role. It is faith in God that gives our lives meaning and purpose. This is why the masses don’t sense any problem about the meaning of life – they simply have faith that there is somehow meaning.

Some passages from tolstoy ●

“Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort?. . . How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud!”

●

“I asked: “What is the meaning of my life, beyond time, cause, and space?” And I replied to quite another question: “What is the meaning of my life within time, cause, and space?” With the result that, after long efforts of thought, the answer I reached was: “None.”

●

●

“Having understood this, I understood that it was not possible to seek in rational knowledge for a reply to my question, and that the reply given by rational knowledge is a mere indication that a reply can only be obtained by a different statement of the question and only when the relation of the finite to the infinite is included in the question. And I understood that, however irrational and distorted might be the replies given by faith, they have this advantage, that they introduce into every answer a relation between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution.” “No matter what answers faith may give, its every answer gives to the finite existence of man the sense of the infinite - a sense which is not destroyed by s...