Thoughts on Purpose

Questions like 'What is the purpose of life?', 'What is our purpose?' are interesting discussion points. Questions like these have occurred to us all as we grow up and analyse the world in which we live and as we try to define a sense of self.

It was a question which I considered for a time, but I have since come to regard it as less important, or one might even say less valid a question than I had once regarded it. I consider this to be a natural effect of being an atheist. Let me explain why.

First of all, I think it is necessary to establish that there may be said to be different kinds of purpose. The first may be thought of as utilitarian kind of purpose. For example, we might say that the purpose of a wing is to enable the body to which it is attached to fly. Clearly it has been shaped by natural selection so as to be very good at just this particular task. We could attribute similar senses of purpose to the eye, or we might say that the purpose of a saw is to cut wood.

The second kind of meaning that is often intended by the word purpose relates to something different. It has more to do with destiny and has a feeling of intent or planning about it. Many would consider the answer 'procreation' as insufficient when dealing with the question - 'What is the purpose of life? when we are using this definition.

I have come to think that purpose of the first kind given above is the only worthwhile way of asking the question. Throughout this piece I will refer to the definitions of purpose above as type 1 and type 2 respectively.

A lot of people would be happy in answering certain questions assuming that the purpose referred to is that of type 1. Few arguments would be raised if we stated the purpose of a hammer is to knock nails into wood, the purpose of a saw is to cut wood etc. You will notice that the examples used so far are inanimate objects designed by humans. There may be some objections if we use this definition of purpose when it comes to living animals. We can use type 1 for wings, eyes and hands, but as soon as we begin to talk of an entity as a whole, a dog, a cat or a human, this definition becomes less satisfactory for some.

However unsatisfactory we may find answers of the type 1 variety for such profound questions as 'What is the purpose of life', I find the question far more valid when assuming that the purpose referred to is that of definition 1.

I haven't been very thorough in my definition 2 of purpose, but that is because it is mysterious and may not be the same for everybody. Suffice to say that implicit within this classification is that that the purpose has been planted and forms part of a plan or prophecy of some kind; the purpose has been built-in. Similar to the way in which a hammer has been built to hammer nails into wood, the purpose is part of its make-up, but is different from the utilitarian type of purpose. the purpose of our legs is to propel us, our hands to grip and hold, but the purpose of our living, the purpose of life, what kind of answer can one give?

Well, as I hinted earlier, I think the question can only be valid given certain underlying assumptions. Ask a theist, agnostic or an atheist 'What is the purpose of a rock?' and, assuming that we are talking of type 2 purpose, all will probably reply the same - it has no purpose. The purpose of a rock placed behind a door may be a door stop, placed in a wall it may be a building block, or dropped on somebody's head it may be a murder weapon; but these would all be type 1 definitions and are of the utilitarian type. We don't assume that the rock has any intrinsic, underlying and deeper purpose in life. We don't assume this as we think the rock inert, unconcious and insignificant in life.

'What is the purpose of a rock?', is not a valid question when using purpose type 2. I don’t believe that 'What is the purpose of my life?', or 'What is the purpose of life?' are any more valid when using purpose in this sense. It may be unsatisfactory, but the best answer to these questions may actually be 'to procreate', at least this is the best question to the question in the only sense I think we can ask it (type 1).

The reason why I think this, concerns the underlying assumptions that are necessary to make the question valid in a type 2 sense. If you believe that you, as a human being, are different from all the other animals on earth, that you were built with an intrinsic purpose and that you were built by somebody or something, who has placed you at the centre of a grand plan - then I can see why you may feel that there is a greater purpose to life.

If you believe, as I do, that you are made up of the same genetic code as all life on earth (there is no reason not to believe this, it has been demonstrated), that human beings evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection and that all life may be explained without reference to the supernatural - then you may feel that the question is invalid.

It is only when you see yourself as you see the hammer, as something designed with a pre-defined purpose in mind, that you may feel that the question has meaning.

I consider myself part of the plethora of life on earth and not apart or separate from it. Just because evolution has endowed me with consciousness and intelligence of a kind not demonstrated by other animals, I do not think that this means that I have a soul and that other animals do not and I don't think that I can be said to have any more purpose than any other living animal.

Morality Without God

Do you believe that you need to be commanded to be good? Do you believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute, objective concepts defined by a supernatural entity? I don't.

I believe that our notion of good and bad can be explained rationally, without reference to the supernatural. I also believe that the atheist can be seen to have the moral advantage when compared to the religious believer.

Before I outline what I believe, let me explain what I mean when I refer to the concepts of good and evil within a religious context. As far as I have seen, although there may be rare exceptions, religion considers good and evil to be the whim of god. They are not defined by humans, we must accept them as outside of us, as absolutes that escape our revision. Good is good, not because it is - because of any characteristics we naturally associate with goodness, or because we think it is, by reasoning or instinct, but because god says that it is. Good doesn't have to be that which we think is good, it may even be that which we think is evil, its only qualifier is that god says it is good. For instance, I don't think it is good, as detailed in a bible story, that Abraham was willing to kill his son, so to prove his loyalty and obedience to god. As far as the religious position goes, I am wrong and god is right. What Abraham did, moreover what he was prepared to do, was 'good'.

It is interesting to consider what might happen if god were to reconsider what is good and what is bad. Imagine if god decided that indiscriminate murder was good. The religious couldn't argue; they accept good and evil as absolutes outside of human revision. But surely god could re-define good and evil, any omnipotent god surely has it within his, her or it's power, only a divine change of opinion is needed.

If religious people believe good and evil are defined by god, then they must concede that they are not absolute terms, but merely that which god likes or abhors. This surely could change. This seems to me to make the definitions of good and evil to be no less arbitrary than if they were decided by humans. In fact it makes them more so, because they are not set by those to whom they apply.

What is wrong with humans deciding for themselves what they consider good and evil? The religious believer may say that this would leave us all drowning in a sea of moral relativism, with no compass by which discern true good and evil. This is another way of saying: we do not know that which is truly good or evil, without being told. This is simply another argument from authority.

Let's get one stumbling block out of the way. I don't care if good and evil are absolute. I don't care if good and evil exist. All that matters, is that humankind, as a whole, define what we mean by 'good' and 'evil' and set our laws accordingly. I don't see any problems on the horizon using this approach. Does this mean that anything may be permitted? No, it doesn't. I suspect that evolution has had a significant part to play in instilling in us all a set of shared morals. It is easy to see, for instance, how evolution may have favoured those who displayed altruism towards kin or close neighbours, so that this became an inherent characteristic within us all.

Good and evil according to the will of god, surely renders the concepts arbitrary, less intrinsic and less satisfying than if they were evolved characteristics that had emerged as a result of social exchange between our ancestors. I believe that good and evil, as concepts, need only mean things that humans agree as broadly beneficial or hurtful to themselves and others, in specific contexts.

The definition of good and evil may shift over time, according to the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, but I don't imagine that what we consider extremely good or extremely evil will ever switch categories. This may not sit easy with some, they may say that certain things are, by their very nature, evil and must be absolutely so. I don't personally find this a big problem, practically, as I find it hard to countenance a world in which the majority of humankind has decided that something such as indiscriminate murder may be considered good. However, even in the extreme examples, it is the context and the consensus which are important. If all humans, or at least a very large majority, consider something to be good or evil - this is what is important. Whether this something is absolutely, objectively good or evil is not significant, particularly if this simply means that which god likes or abhors.

Ask yourself, do you think that something is good because you think that a supernatural authority has told us so, or because you can see that it has a benefit for humankind? Keep in mind that whatever good you are picturing may not fit into both categories.

Needless to say, I don't accept good or evil as absolutes or as divine concepts; I think these are things that we can define for ourselves. I don't worry about the semantics of the words and I don't mind that the definitions are changeable, in fact, I think that this is a good thing. Without revision, the morality of the bible may struggle to deal with things that the modern world has come to accept or come to abhor, such as homosexuality or slavery, for example. A dogmatic and unrevised concept of good and evil does not leave any room for the reconsideration or reshuffling according to social change.

I think the moral atheist, who considers good and evil, broadly speaking, on a benefit vs pain basis in respect of his or her fellow humans; who is good, not as avoidance of hell, or as an aspiration to heaven, but in deepest sincerity and agreement with the wider population, with whom an evolved, fundamental moral base is shared, may make a greater claim to morality than many who act only as a result of commandment from their god.

Evolution and Religion don't mix

I was greeted at my front door early last weekend by a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. They asked me if God was important to me. I replied with a smile, 'no', and politely took the obligatory 'Watchtower' magazine.

I'm never rude to religious canvassers, despite the juxtaposition of our beliefs. I do not take offence when somebody holds an opinion different from that of my own, but I wonder if I would be greeted with the same politeness if I was to knock on people's doors in an effort to canvass atheist comrades. I am always tempted to invite religious advertisers in for a coffee and a chat about their beliefs. I suppose that in my fantasy I would strip them of their supernatural explanations, with powerful reason and convincing logic. Unfortunately, powerful tools as logic and reason are, they are often rendered useless when used to argue against someone of a faith position. The very nature of religious belief requires a suspension of any natural scepticism and a willingness to believe in things for which there is no or very little evidence, hence 'faith' is required.

Anyway, I flicked through Watchtower and became increasingly irritated. It's clear that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't happy with the theory of evolution, and nor should they be. However, the way they try and deal with this inconvenient (for them) fact, is to completely misrepresent evolution and try and claim their religion as the more rational alternative. They construct a flimsy straw man and then knock it down.

Their position seems to rely heavily on the argument from design. Of all the arguments for religion this may be the most appealing, at least on first inspection. The argument is usually presented as such: Look at this beautiful butterfly (or majestic elephant, or giant redwood, or the human eye or any other complex or beautiful creature or entity), do you believe that this has just sprung into existence, by random chance, rather than designed by god? The answer should be a firm no. Evolution in the form of Darwinian natural selection is not well described by this question, which seeks to misrepresent it entirely.

The argument is really an appeal to ignorance; as soon as one begins to learn about evolution and has a grasp of the basic concept, it is apparent that 'blind chance' is not an accurate description. To see natural selection as the answer to how complex and beautiful animals and organs have come to be, we need only accept that small incremental, adaptive changes have taken place over a huge period of time. Genetic mutations that endow a life form with a competitive advantage mean that the life form is more likely to survive, at least until it has reproduced, and therefore its genes will become disproportionately represented in the gene pool. This is how changes in the characteristics of animals come about and consequently evolution occurs. A complete dissection of evolution would of course require a more thorough explanation, but would also transform this blog into a book. I would recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker', by Richard Dawkins as a good place to start.

The key to evolution is the non-random death of animals as determined by natural selection- as I said, blind chance does not describe the process at work and is a patent mis-selling of the theory.

So, I don't think placing evolution at the unlikely end of the spectrum vs the proposed alternative of a creator god, who punishes sin, answers prayer, cares with whom you have sex, what you eat and so on, is reasonable. With the application of common sense and reasoning alone, it is clear which of the two propositions is the more rational.

Of course, there are religious people who claim that evolution and god are compatible. Or even that evolution is god's work; it is the process god kicked off in order to create us. I don't buy this. Reworking the creation story, Noah's ark and other accounts outlined in the bible in order to accommodate evolution seems too much of a stretch. Why would god 'make man in his image' by a process of natural selection over a period of over 4 billion years?

If a religious person sees evolution as being compatible with their faith and believes that god simply set in place the wheels of motion that started evolution, why is natural selection so merciless? Why do the strong, the predatory and the bullying survive at the expense of the sick, the weak and the lame? If god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then why did he, she or it create humans with the potential to kill, steal etc? Surely one has to accept that god either doesn’t exist, or may not be as benevolent as the believer would like to think. Certainly if god has the all-seeing, all-knowing characteristics that we are led to believe, then god must be morally culpable for human sins.

Evolution shows us how organised complexity may develop from very simple beginnings given enough time and because of its cumulative effect. To place a very complex, infinitely intelligent being as the pre-cursor to this process is to skew the argument entirely. It means that god must require an even bigger explanation. Who made god? An infinite regress is the result of this conundrum.

Some religious people will deny almost all of the literal interpretations of the bible stories and obfuscate their definition of god into something that is less substantial than thin air. But this seems like a tactic designed only to allow a version of god to exist in these enlightened times, it certainly does not seem like the god that was described to me as a child and certainly isn't the god projected from the pulpit. Even with the most vague of god interpretations, the least we can claim is that they are unnecessary. God has become superfluous when explaining the natural world.

For me, the understanding of evolution was a mortal blow for religion. I cannot find a satisfactory way of linking the two.

Roman Catholic Church Child Abuse Scandal

I suppose that most people must now be aware of the crisis affecting the Roman Catholic Church at the moment. At least that's the way it's often expressed: '..the crisis affecting the Roman Catholic Church..' or similar. This gives an indication of the attitude that surrounds the whole sordid affair, particularly that voiced by the RCC. It's as if this is something that has just befallen the RCC, something that has been thrust upon them and is now working to destroy their image, which seems to be the principal concern for many of those representing the Vatican.

Let's look at this a little closer and let's consider, whatever our position - atheist, agnostic or believer - what has happened. I have seen several articles that seem to come at things from this kind of angle: paedophiles exist in all walks of life, not just the RCC.. therefore this is not a problem with the church, but specific individuals that, in this case, happen to exist within the clergy.. what are you having a go at the RCC for?!?

This looks ok on first inspection. Well, maybe not ok, but after thinking for oohh, at least 10 seconds, it didn't sit quite right with me. I realised that this is not reasonable argument for several reasons.

1. The RCC supposedly have divine guidance when it comes to their behaviour; they claim to receive moral instruction directly via the inerrant word of god. Indeed a pope is only installed following a meeting of cardinals during which their aim is to divine the will of god. They have many rules, specific doctrine and are passionate about issues incompatible with their dogma ie. same sex marriage, female bishops, contraception, clearly serious issues, to them if nobody else. Surely these are the people of the world that must be 'good'. It is those who are outside of religion, anybody who chooses a moral path other than that drawn by god's own hand, they must all be drowning in a sea of moral relativism, unable to tell what is truly, absolutely right or wrong.

2. Paedophiles do exist in many walks of life, but one might ask whether the discipline of celibacy that priests follow in the RCC, the suppression of one's natural desires, has anything to do with the number of allegations made against the clergy. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to imply the answer with my question, but I feel the question should be asked.

3. I can't think of another institution or organisation that could, or would try and keep the sexual abuse of children by its members a secret. It seems that Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to Catholic bishops asking that any child rape or molestation cases were referred directly to his office. Matters were not referred directly to civil authorities, but were kept 'in-house' and there are stories of priests being moved to other parishes when their abuses looked like causing problems at their present location.

I don't enjoy it when people try and force their version of right and wrong down my throat, especially when they claim that their beliefs are endorsed by a particular god. The next time you find yourself being preached to, ask yourself whether the person who is doing it is qualified. Ask yourself whether they are any more able to determine what is right and what is wrong than you are.

There is no Karma

There is no karma; there is no justice; there is no order other than natural.

I shiver when people say 'everything happens for a reason'. I shudder everytime an athlete or an earthquake survivor attributes their victory or survival to a particular god or providence.

If we are to attribute our victories and fortunes to a god - and I see no reason why we should - then surely we must also attribute our losses and pain.

If it is god that saves a person's life in the midst if a disaster, then surely it is god who decides to take the lives of numerous others, by default. If god is capable of intervening in earthly affairs and deferring the death of anybody, but chooses to save only a few individuals (or any number other than all) then god is as responsible for allowing their death as of saving the lives of others. On what basis is this decision made? By what merits are the survivors judged worthy of saving? Why would a loving, all powerful creator spare less than all?

How many times have you witnessed a runner or a boxer or a swimmer (you can pick any sport) thank god for their victory? They credit a supernatural being for their victory, but often no mention is made of their genetic predispositon to the sport, their talent, or their hard work. If we believe that god is responsible for making the winner win, then the corollary must follow; god is responsible for making the losers lose. By virtue of the fact that god has not picked one of the losers to win, they have not won - their fate is sealed, even if only due to a positive choice not made in their favour. Although who knows, god might only enjoy picking the losers!

There are examples abound of injustice, the kind we shouldn't expect to see if there existed any karma or benign intervening force maintaining order. All around the world, people and other animals suffer through illness, disease and starvation. People we consider kind may die young and people we consider unkind or worse may seem blessed with boundless luck.

Providence doesn't exist. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa.

The list of examples available in support of my argument, in addition to those mentioned above, are longer than your arm, or even your leg. There are lots of things that I consider irreconcilable with any karma or godly organised providence that people may claim is in-force. Such theodicies as: 'god moves in mysterious ways' and 'it is not for us to know the mind of god' - don't cut it. They are cop-outs and they are insufficient for us to consider them satisfactory explanation of the world's many ills. They should be insufficient for anybody who is intellectually honest.