The notion of purpose, together with the fear of capriciousness, is not exclusive to religion but finds itself the subject of many philosophical as well as some important scientific ones. Before I expound on my understanding of purpose, it must be said that everything must find depiction in either the absolutist school of thought or the relativistic school of thought. For most religious discussions, purpose is absolute: it does not vary from person to person and the soteriological destiny of each man and woman is the same ("to attain oneness with God/to enter Heaver/etc."). Even in the scientific discussion, the notion of purpose comes in when one discusses ontology: why must anything exist at all? The answer to that question, in my opinion, would either conclusively bridge the gap between religion and science or make the argument for atheism invulnerable. In the confines of that "why" lies the purpose of everything.
My notion of purpose is relativistic. Even in religion, one is judged based on one's actions, and there is a faith-based doctrine that keeps them from committing acts that fall outside the purvey of the faith itself; the means are more important than the ends. In such a case, irrespective of whether you're a theist or not, the purpose exists only for you to know whether you're moving closer to something or not - while how you execute that movement is what is being judged (either by a deity or by yourself). Purpose can vary from person to person. I and you can have different carrots hanging from the end of a stick - all that's necessary is that there is a carrot, not the same carrot. However, just beyond the threshold of this belief of mine is where religion takes an altogether different route.
The dissonance arises with an answer the question, "Why did God create us?" I'm agnostic* and I find that question a poor substitute to the acceptance with the fact that we're all the result of one highly fortuitous accident. However, with the notion of God in place (and securely) in the minds of many people, there is an ampoule of pre-determination that has been included: if you are a theist, irrespective of how many purposes you might set for yourself in the short-term (i.e. the period during which you can inhale and exhale), it has been determined by a higher order that Heaven be a desirable destination for you. If someone were to walk up to me now and tell me that I am forbidden from going hunting, I'll be offended. As opposed to hunting as I may be, I'd like to have the option.
Going back to that ontological question asked in the beginning: why must anything exist at all? Setting aside the notion of god for a moment now, it can straightaway be said that the reason for anything to exist is that its existence may serve to be the cause of something else. In other words, an object exists because “it effects” (true even though it is only a casuistic argument). Even if an object may have been created out of a whim, its existence serves to satiate the desire of the creator. If an object is created, it must be solely for the purpose (or, purposes) that is (or, are) attached to it. If not, there is no need for the object to exist. However, when an object is created and then given the capacity to think freely, one is bound to speculate on the contrariness, and that is the speculation that reintroduces the notion of god: that there is an overseer who created us for a purpose and that he is the sole arbiter.
If you look closely, that is a case of an argumentum ad infinitum.
I'll leave you with this quote.
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' - Carl Sagan
* I'm not an atheist because I don't know enough to be one. Moreover, my contention is with godliness as it is being depicted now – as the pseudo-conjecture in whose name religion exists. It is my belief that God is the manifestation of the physical laws of this Universe, and does not demand any faith or subservience.
No comments:
Post a Comment