Searching for Meaning
Dateline: February 24, 1999
Part 2: Equivocation & Meaning
Spiritual Equivocation
Closely related to this issue is the use of the term "spirituality." We hear it a lot, but does anyone really know what is meant by it? I never do - whenever anyone asks about it, I always have to ask exactly what they mean. Some people simply mean deep, inexpressible emotional reactions to events and experiences in our lives. This meaning is one I can readily accept. Few people, however, really mean this. Instead people seem to mean some sort of paranormal connection to some undefined supernatural realm populated by supernatural beings. Specifics vary widely, but that appears to be a summary which fits most. I wish Easterbrook could have done us the favor or explaining his meaning - I don't know if confusion on this issue is due to his own ignorance or deliberate subterfuge.
But as someone once said, when you try to stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get hit by traffic coming from both directions. Theists will be justifiably annoyed by his avoidance of speaking of god in so many crucial areas. Skeptics like myself who read with critical eye will notice his fluidity in terms and wonder what he's trying to hide, and thus be singularly unimpressed by his efforts. He probably would have been better off - and would have written a better book - if he had decided upon one or the other and stayed with it.
But as it is, he didn't find any good reasons to believe in any gods - the few that he offered were old, tired and worn-out versions of standard design arguments. He also didn't do a good job of explaining how and why it is worthwhile to find meaning in our lives because he wasted so much time on superfluous issues, like whether or not the god described in the bible really is omnipotent (evidently in order to "prove" that the Argument from Evil is an invalid objection to the existence of that god, which is also irrelevant).
Atheism without Meaning?
Easter brook's second serious error is one which is all-too-common among a very wide variety of theists. In fact, we find it not simply among unthinking fundamentalists parroting dogma, but even among seriously thinking liberal theists who otherwise provide interesting conversation. This is the equating of nonbelief with a lack of meaning and purpose in life. This insult appears early and runs throughout, as he writes:
...but it is those very people who walk the Earth without any sense that a Maker watches and records their actions who create the conditions that existentialism dreads, whether as street criminals or corporate criminals or soulless leaders of institutions.
So, according to Easterbrook, we atheists and secular humanists are little more than criminals who lead pointless, meaningless lives. When have we not heard theists ask us why we bother to live and why we bother to do good? I personally hear it quite often - and I get annoyed each and every time.
Easterbrook also gets very agitated when he quotes scientists like Richard Dawkins who observe that the universe contains no ready-made meaning for us:
Richard Dawkins, who holds a chair at Oxford University and has become a leading proponent of meaninglessness theory, has written that "in a universe of selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhythm or reason for it." How convenient that someone who has himself gotten "lucky," winning a privileged position in life, sees only a callous universe - not any lack of social commitment by persons of privilege - responsible for the hurts of others.
How does Easterbrook know what sort of social commitments Dawkins has undertaken? And do you notice how, instead of critiquing Dawkins' position logically, he resorts instead to a thinly veiled insult?
For some reason, Easterbrook regards all of this as a failing of modern science and assumes that today's scientific establishment has a special investment in the idea that life is meaningless. At no point does he explain why he doesn't take a cue from humanists and recognize this as an opportunity rather than a tragedy? Instead of lamenting the fact that there isn't a meaning being handed to us upon a silver platter, wouldn't it be better to rejoice in this, since it means that we have the opportunity to find our own, unique meanings?
Sadly, Easterbrook doesn't spend a single paragraph on any sort of humanism, religious or secular, so it seems clear that it never occurred to him that perhaps there are people out there living fulfilling lives, replete with meaning, without bothering to believe in any gods. Perhaps if he had, his book would have been a lot better. But as it is, pretty much the only vague references he makes to nonbelievers occurs in the context of "existentialists" who deny any sort of valid meaning to life at all. Nonbelievers then become nothing more than nihilists, a scourage of civilization
Parting Thoughts
Why is it that theists are so insistent that life can only hold meaning in the context of their god? I'm not sure, but none of the reasons I can think of are very good. To claim that this life cannot have any meaning all on its own and requires some sort of unknown, transcendental entity to give it meaning only devalues this life. It's much the same as saying that a person can have no meaning or value on their own and therefore can only be valued or appreciated through someone else.
Humanists, and most atheists, reject such positions, whether with regards to individual people or with regards to life itself. We recognize that a good and fulfilling life requires no outside justification or validation. A good life is it's own reward, it's own justification. My life is entirely my own, and it is up to me to find my own meanings and my own values. It is impossible for anyone else to give them to me, just as it is impossible for anyone else to value my books for me.
Don't miss the other section:
Part 1: Doubting
|
Make your opinions be heard on the Bulletin Board or Chat Room! |
