What is your life
How should this view be expanded to understand existence more fully?
Yüklə 0,55 Mb.
|
How should this view be expanded to understand existence more fully?Since the time of Thales of Miletus (600 BC), science has progressed in explaining aspects of existence in scientific terms that were previously explained by religious beliefs. This encourages scientists to postulate that all of existence can, sooner or later, be explained by science. Science runs up against three limitations – the explanation of the beginning of existence (“Creation”), the explanation of the timing or delays of natural evolution, and the explanation of the chosen direction in the occurrences of evolution, human cultural development, and personal destiny. Furthermore, the probabilistic or random character of much of natural evolution and history allows science to provide explanations only in hindsight; it does not allow science to make good predictions. This limitation of the scientific view necessarily leads the searching mind to thoughts about the force behind Creation and behind a possible control of evolution in time, direction, history, and personal destiny. The first observation in that direction is the abstract character of all existence manifesting itself by nothing more than fields of the vacuum – with even the subatomic particles possibly being nothing else but miniature or circular waves (strings) in and of the vacuum. This is a rather intellectual and, ultimately, spiritual concept of existence – more so, when augmented by concepts of quantum mechanics. The control of existence by means of the mysterious forces, laws, and constants of nature and evolution through the interference of random or probabilistic events, is equally intellectual or “spiritual”. This leads to an intellectual or “spiritual” view of existence in the universe, further supported by observing the human realm of thought, emotions, and values and by incorporating these human aspects into the concept of the essence of existence. Regarding the meaning and purpose in life, closer observation indicates a value matrix for purpose in life (see prior discussion):
A large segment of mankind and most of us during many phases of our lives are struggling along without ever getting beyond the “basic level”. Most of our middle class and most people in the developed nations stay on the “median level”. Few individuals in any culture dedicate their spare time and resources to the pursuit of the “upper-level” objectives. Many of us live in a combination of all three directions of orientation on all three levels. Comments Regarding a Universe Without God: What Meaning, Purpose, or Ethics? Have the above chapters proven the existence of God and explained the meaning of life? Did the discussion of theodicy leave doubts? What would be left in a view of existence without the belief in a God? Does an atheist – “agnostic” – see “meaning” in existence? Many agnostics are susceptible to superstition, yoga, or pseudo-transcendental experiences of the “mind” and the cults that thrive on those. Life’s meaning can become anything for the atheist, from “being yourself” to Scientology. The more reasonable atheist may find science to be the only source of insight into existence. Science alone, however, can find no meaning in existence. This leaves the options of emotional or self-chosen meanings. In all seriousness, a person can choose a meaning without being fully convinced of its ultimate truth. A person can dedicate his or her life to a cause (and there are many) or to his ethnic clan without logical proof of the necessity to do so or without belief in a Divine order requiring to do so. “Purpose” is somewhat different from “meaning”. What can an atheist (and what does factual science) say about the purpose of existence? With evolution being driven only by whatever genetic changes happened to occur, and whatever was then viable to continue existing, science cannot see a goal-driven “purpose” in general existence. In the case of humans, though, evolution has taken a direction toward the development of the mind, including the development of values and cultures. A human observer of this unusual development in the universe can voluntarily decide to support such evolution or decide only to take advantage of it. Support would consist in pursuing mental development and striving for human values in personal life and in society. Taking personal advantage of humanity’s accomplishments may not be helpful in further developing human potential; it may even be counterproductive to such development. While science does not find purpose in general existence, science obviously observes the specific purpose being pursued by all living beings in fulfilling their natural drives and seeking well-being. Also, there is a self-chosen purpose in goal-oriented societies: whether to reach religious goals, build empires, or just expand their turf. There is culturally established purpose in modern societies, where everybody wants to get ahead in life, enjoy it as best he or she can, and possibly find distinction or fame in public service or unselfish deeds. For an individual, the degree of intellectual or emotional satisfaction derived from a particular approach will determine the approach to take, and this often changes from moment to moment. That is the way most people act, whether they are religious or not. The satisfaction of such personal preferences and emotional needs is all that remains of the atheist’s meaning and purpose of life. To the extent that these needs are on the same genetically given ethical base as those of everybody else, such a position may be acceptable. It becomes questionable whenever it is an “all-for-me”, a “cosa nostra”, or an “all-for-my-people” – even in religious terms as now quite often among the Muslims. When only the striving for money, power, and pleasure remains, it can become devastating for society and the culture of humanity. There is one more correcting influence – the natural drive to improve one’s rank in the pack, one’s standing in society. Scheming or brute force are approaches to reach rank and public recognition of personal value. Gaining public approval, respect, even gratefulness are other approaches. In our democratic society, this need for public recognition tends to correct personal behavior and move it toward the commonly accepted values, even when such corrective forces are not derived from religious or ideological conviction. In a more general sense, one can observe that most ethical behavior is not philosophically founded, but culturally learned. In other words, one’s own ethical values are largely determined by the culture one lives in. Thereby, atheist individuals – as everybody else – generally pursue the ethical standards of their culture as a matter of habit, whether in corrupt selfishness in one culture or in philanthropic generosity in another. In a reasoned approach to ethics in an atheist view of existence, ethical standards, to be valid, do not have to be promulgated by a God through inspired saints or priests (for example, the Ten Commandments). The need for ethical standards can be derived from observation of the world and an interpretation of its needs. Ethical norms may be seen as commensurate with human civilization and the unique opportunities for human society in an otherwise cruel world. As one pursues these thoughts and looks at a world without Divine commandments and without Divine judgment on Earth or in the afterlife, but a world with human freedom and responsibility, the domain of normative ethics becomes a concern of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and the practical needs of society. After all, everybody wants “law and order”. The developments of a public educational system and a system of civil and criminal law in the developed countries has long demonstrated this. The recent public discussion of “values” and morality in all spheres of life and education is further evidence of this trend. However, in a strictly intellectual and rational environment, and under the stresses of society, these discussions hold the danger of gliding into utilitarianism and, at worst, Darwinistic ruthlessness, as demonstrated in the course of the century just ended, whether by the Nazis, the Communists, the bombardment of Dresden, or the fighting factions in the ongoing regional struggles around the world. In atheist civilizations, where the link between God-image and ethics is missing, rational ethical theory and rational ethical rules can be based only on personal or mutual benefit. In practical life, unfortunately, many people seem to be inclined to give the highest priority to personal benefit. This leads to a reduced feeling of obligation to participate in a development of existence aimed at benefit for all. Excessive selfishness makes people ruthless and cynical. There is a specific danger, if personal benefit is seen in terms of wealth and power and if both are obtained. As a matter of experience, wealthy and powerful people become irrational, with a tendency to decadency and aberrations, such as Nero, Stalin, or many successful businessmen and, more so, their heirs have shown. Philosophically, things look a little different when human “happiness” is seen in a broader sense than power-and-pleasure. In that case, the full spectrum of human emotions has to be considered. Human happiness is predicated on a number of natural instincts or behavior patterns which are the foundation of most human emotions in all people. For example, parents generally do love their children and enjoy their children’s well-being. People generally feel loyalty to their family, group, tribe, or nation. Most people are happier if they have something “useful” to do, even if it is only prevailing in professional or political rivalry. Some people do enjoy dedicating themselves to an idealistic cause. Therefore, the purpose of a fulfilled existence in terms of happiness is still, in addition to simple pleasures, the extension and application of one’s knowledge and capabilities, caring for other human beings, the improvement, or refinement of the physical and human environment. A fulfilled life may also contain coping with the temptations of success, but more often with limitations, suffering, failure, and death. However, the sacrifices demanded from each individual for the benefit of society by atheist societies – for example, Communism – are in contradiction to the interests of an atheist individual. Therefore, substitute forces have to be developed: Glorification of class loyalty, a personality cult for leaders, glorification of one’s native country, utopia on one side and threats of an inhuman world on the other side. Where this fails, brute power of those interested in maintaining the system is all too often applied. It is interesting that the materialistic capitalism of the humanely idealistic Western democracies corresponds more to an atheist interpretation of the world than the “scientific materialism” of Communism or Socialism, with their idealistic goals of assistance for the disenfranchised. In Western democracy, a balance of the self-interest of all individuals or interest groups leads to demands for ethical behavior. After all, one should not overlook that all human ethical rules are based on the common, genetically given proto-ethical forces of caring for kin, reciprocity, and group loyalty, subsequently expanded or enforced by thought, learning, cultural pressure, or habit. Rational thought may claim that these natural ethical forces are projected by religious people into their God-image. Even when denying Divine commandments, one can argue – with the world and human nature having been created by God – that the natural ethical forces express God’s intent in Creation. Consequently, atheist and religious ethical norms converge to some degree. The absence of a religious base for ethics and the dangers of utilitarianism make necessary a humanely acceptable formulation of ethical standards and their public enforcement. As shown in the atheist societies of the communist world, the genetic ethical force of clan loyalty, expanded by indoctrination into nationalism or Socialism, may emotionally substitute for religious commitment to unselfishness. However, in the absence of such ideals and governmental enforcement, when nothing balances personal temptation, individual abuse becomes pervasive. The new Russia and, now, China and other rising societies with few ethical ties in either religion or ideology demonstrate this point. Segments of our own society, as well as many individuals among us, demonstrate the same. Do all “values” suffer in an atheist society from a lack of foundation in religion or ideology? Possibly not. Pursuit of the values of “mental growth” and “culture” are among the most important (and most pleasant) gifts of nature to mankind; surprisingly, though, neither is founded in or connected to a particular religion. In the Christian religion, the often excessive burden of artistic decoration of the churches and of priestly appearance is in contradiction to religious teaching, thinly justified as being gifts of the people to God. The actual root of such artistic decorations lies in the high valuation of art in people’s minds. Mental growth usually is restrained – if not suppressed – by religious hierarchies anxious to defend the purity of their teaching and their position. Therefore, societies with weak religious hierarchies or restrictions on thought were historically more creative than the hierarchically dominated ones (see, for instance, the Greeks versus the Jews in antiquity or the Italians versus the Spaniards during the Renaissance). There is also the observation that mental growth leads to the weakening of moral standards. As shown in the earlier chapters, intellectual analyses of gray zones in value judgments have proven to be the servants of the desires of the analyzers and, consequently, are often quite destructive. All caution is justified. However, this severe fault of intellectuality cannot be a justification for the inhibition of all mental growth and inquiry into the wonders of the universe and our existence. If the foundation of life’s meaning and human values is not clear, if religious or philosophical insight is not clear, if the limits of values and the limits of ethics are not clear either – then how does one proceed in daily life? Practical life and the need to give some consistency to the course of one’s own life require that one take a stand, that one decide what one wants to stand for. A final comment on atheism: Things look a bit different, depending on whether one sits comfortably at one’s desk analyzing the world in intellectual terms, or one is in the grips of sorrow or fear for a loved one. Deeply felt prayers to the forces of destiny, to God, are all that presents hope to us humans when we are in deep trouble. And what, in moments of great joy, about destiny and the world? Where would gratitude go? A.3.3. Summary of the View of People in Practical Life, Tempered by Human Sensitivity – and Its Proposed Expansion
How should this view be expanded? At the base of all these statements is a feeling of awe in admiring the grandiose universe. Also at the base is a feeling that there is a spiritual essence. These views may well have been the base of all religious thought and inspiration for mankind. From there on, thinkers and priests may have attempted to provide logical and systematic answers and coherent systems of thought – leading to the known results. There is a conflict between providing for the religious and emotional needs of the people and seeking actual truth. Could it not be that the ultimate truth about the spiritual essence of Creation is too complex, too big for humans to absorb, too far removed from the human world? There may be a need for a religion that allows for various levels of sophistication and providing for various levels of emotional needs. Practical people are quite aware of the limits of ethics. Most people are humanly sensitive, often the humble people more so than the rich and the powerful. Humble people readily understand the need for charitable help given beyond reason. But they also see a right to their own modest enjoyment of life.
(quoted from “What Is Your Life” by H. Schwab, 1968/79) As indicated below in the “Personal Footnote: The History of This Essay”, this writing presents a new version of my earlier essay, written in 1968 and edited in 1979, titled “What Is Your Life?”. There are a number of thoughts in “What Is Your Life?” that I could not use in this new essay. I do not want to lose some of these earlier thoughts. Therefore, I add them – out of context – to this essay in the form of these “Corollary thoughts and comments”: Yüklə 0,55 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|