Whether or not life has any purpose is a profoundly important question to answer. As conscious beings, the effect we have upon the world is dependent upon the choices we make and the actions we take. If life has a purpose, and yet we operate in ignorance of it, we run the risk of frustrating that purpose.
Those who believe that life has a purpose view the whole world fundamentally different from those who do not. Those who believe that life has a purpose believe that the universe is fundmamentally ordered. Those who believe there is no purpose believe that the universe is fundamentally chaotic. Observation can be used to support either view. When we look out into the cosmos, we see a universe of discrete objects - galaxies, stars, etc. Matter obeys a consistent set of laws. Everything has order. Yet entropy is a law that seems unbreakable, insisting that chaos constantly increases in the universe, never decreasing, thus guaranteeing an eventual fall into absolute chaos. What purpose could life have in a universe doomed for absolute chaos, and lifelessness? On the other hand, how could order currently exist if entropy was the whole of the law? The existence of order in the universe implies a purposeful creation. And if the universe has order and purpose, then so must self-aware life, arguably the most significant thing in existence.
Among other reasons, I must assume that life has a purpose, because if it does not, ther is no reason for philosophy or reason, or anything at all.
Basic Assumptions: Good and Evil
In the presence of all relevant facts, choices can be accurately and objectively denoted as good and/or evil. Good and evil is not a matter of opinion. Assessment of good or evil is a skill that can be honed to more accurately reflect the objective reality.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
Basic Assumptions: The Nature of Humanity
God created us in His image and sent us here to a world of imperfection. Thus, humans have a dual nature. They tend to strive for the divine, doing what is right, loving and being selfless. And they tend to be selfish, do wrong, and give in to the lower animal-like instincts of this fallen world.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Basic Assumptions: There Is a God
I cannot prove to you that there is a God. You cannot prove that there is no God. We cannot even establish one belief or the other as substantially implausible in any objective sense, although many try. I will probably, from time to time, dedicate time to debunking some of the more popular or common attempts to disprove God, but I am not likely to spend much time trying to prove that He exists.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)