Winter is fast approaching here in the Midwest and I was pondering the short life spans of the lawn grasses here and how they so readily spring up to life only to loose it a few months later. This conundrum lead me to ask that question on a planetary scale: if photosynthesis becomes impossible in 800 million years, then what purpose do our fellow life forms have in continuing to evolve if all life on this planet will die anyway? I’m still trying to fix my relationship with Jesus, but I assume that the end goal of human life was to establish a relationship with Jesus and be welcomed into the Kingdom of God at the end of our lives. But what about the other life on Earth? Would it have been better if they never evolved in the first place?
1 Like
Meaning is not something we create. It exists based on our ontology. The purpose (intrinsic teleology of final causality) of as thing is dictated by its form (what it is). Since the soul is the form of the body, all living things have a soul. Life exists on a hierarchy:
- Plants have vegetative souls (directed toward nutrition, growth, and reproduction).
- Animals have sensitive souls (they possess vegetative powers, plus the ability to sense, move, and feel pleasure or pain).
- Humans have rational souls (possessing vegetative and sensitive powers, plus the immaterial intellect and will).
Plants and animals lack rational souls and don’t contemplate their purpose or meaning, think about things like justice or have existential crisis. The purpose of a plant or animal is to achieve its physical ends (flourishing). For a lion that generally means hunting, mating, defending its territory (etc). An acorn has the purpose of becoming a tree and so on.
Humans flourish by achieving their physical ends but we also have a rational side (intellect and will).
The purpose of the intellect is to know truth.
The purpose of the will is to love the good.
The highest truth and highest good (goodness itself) is of course God. The ultimate purpose of human life is to know and love God (and ultimately the Beatific Vision in the next life).
Where does that leave plants and animals? They serve the ecological whole and higher natures. Plants take in nutrients and grow, animals eat the plants and humans eat the tasty animals. Animals serve as food, labor and companions. We were given dominion over them in Genesis. Aquinas argued the amazing diversity of life is a testament to the infinite creativity of the divine mind.
These other life forms serve the role God intends them to as part of an ordered earth. It would not have been better if they never evolved in the first place.
Vinnie
1 Like
Ecclesiastes is probably the place to start theologically, however,
Why should the be a meaning to Life?
How can there be a meaning to Life if some are cut short before they have really begun?
Is the desire to identify a meaning a purely human endeavour?
Making life a rite of passage to Heaven diminishes it in so many ways.
Life is.
The only theological meaning I can discern, other than that, is that God created it. What other meaning need there be?
Richard
1 Like
Well, if atheists are correct - ie, there is no God, this life is all there is to existence, and human beings are the result of mindless natural processes - there’s no need to contemplate the meaning of life, bcoz there is none … a human being is a meaningless bag of chemicals, the life of which has no more meaning than the life of a worm.
1 Like
To become more happy, funny, sexy… Get more godlike without ever reaching god. We will most probably connect our brains to powerful computing with human brain interfaces soon. Like a Monkey doesn’t understand a Hollywood-Movie, we don’t understand the sensations and skills we will have. We got concepts today we never had. A simple one, is the Smartphone. A complex one is the quite new word lerve or lurve, to mean deep love between two soulmates. And also, we will get biologically immortal soon. With ever more senses and skills.
The answer to the question is as subjective as the question is and the reasons that any of us ask it. There is no single answer to the question, and for many the question itself is meaningless.
I agree with @RichardG that Ecclesiastes is a good place for a Christian to start. It has been one of my favorite books since I was about your age.
I refrain from @Buzzard 's practice of telling other people what they think about themselves. Particularly as I understand the matter to be subjective. No one can know for someone else.
Finally, to return to my thread on the matter, what does one even mean by the question?
1 Like
In my mind that is like saying the purpose of an eye is not to see because someone was born or went blind. If something prematurely dies or does not “flourish”, it does not follow that it lacked intrinsic purpose or meaning. But yes, another vote for Ecclesiastes.
Fortunately, the physicalism, materialism or scientism so common to atheism is perhaps the least cogent at explaining the world and God’s existence is demonstrable through a number of arguments. So we don’t have to worry about adopting such philosophical systems that are completely inconsistent with our everyday experiences. Nor do we have to engage in performative absurdities – like using our free will to claim our free will is an illusion of evolution, or living life with purpose and meaning while our worldview indicates these things are ultimately made up.
Maybe this is true for modern existentialists who have lost formal and final causality. The latter is so important because once you strip away the idea that our nature has an inherent telos, the purpose or meaning of our lives degrades into some sort of psychological coping mechanism we are forced to invent for ourselves. But for classicists and Christians in general, there is an objective purpose to life and it is anchored in God. We believe this based on special revelation (scripture), our experiences with God and natural theology (reasoning about intrinsic teleology and what we discover in the world). In my mind, the question is as objective as asking what 2+2 is and the answer is just as objective. How we express this objective purpose in practice (vocationally) is subjective.
Vinnie
I am sorry, but, to me, that analogy does not work. The eye is not judged on individuality.
I ask again, why does there have to be a meaning to life, be it religious or otherwise.
Any imposed meaning by God would, by definition, deplete or even remove freedom of choice and free will.
I guess it will always boil down to the existence or not of free will. (and all the rabbit holes entwining around it)
Richard
1 Like
I would agree but that is where form comes into play for me. The next paragraph will lean heavily into Aristotelian-Thomist thinking which may be foreign to a lot of people but that is the basis of my view.
When I say the human eye is meant to see I say that based on its universal form across humanity, not an individual instance. I don’t think it’s remotely controversial to suggest that the purpose of the human eye is to take in light and see things. We are looking at the blueprint, not the bricks. This is an objective truth that is as discoverable as any other. An eye that doesn’t see has a defect or can be said to be a privation of a natural good that ought to be there.
We can apply the exact same principle to human life as a whole. An individual life being cut short is a privation, but an individual tragedy does not negate the objective purpose of human nature nor does a man born blind from birth so that God’s works might be made manifest in him.
I prefer the word purpose. I also find the question a bit odd. It’s like asking why there has to be an age of the earth. I can’t read God’s internal mind. The age of the earth is just a feature of reality and so is intrinsic teleology. Purpose stems from the objective form and function of things.
My framework is different from yours. Having an objective standard does not diminish free will. It simply means there is an objective standard of flourishing that we can freely choose to follow or reject. A rock or acorn has no choice but to follow its telos. Humans as rational beings can choose not to. We can even do all sorts of things that are objectively harmful or dangerous to ourselves. Free will means we can do what we want within our physical limitations but nowhere does it suggest we get to invent what is good for us or what is good in general. We can choose to will the good of another or choose not to. But we don’t get to change the system and say “beating and exploiting my neighbor is willing their good.” We have to make choices from within the confines of reality that is set by God.
If the world did not have intrinsic teleology, it would be unintelligible. The order and regularity we observe in nature would be non-existent and the next time you struck a match, instead of catching fire, it could turn into a squawking chicken.
My view stems from reintegrating formal and final causality into the world. The single biggest intellectual mistake in human history was their removal and history will show this, as it is already beginning to. Modernity has lost its steam and cracks in the foundations are clearly visible.
Vinnie
2 Likes
That is an understatement.
I am sorry, but I find your view cold, even callous. There seems something mechanical and mindless in your view of creation and humanity. I do not like the idea of being born with a specific purpose, even if there is some Scriptural backing for such a view. Perhaps it is true for some set apart, but not for humanity as a whole.
There is no judgmentalism here, just a variance of view. If it works for you, fine, but it doesn’t for me.
For me humans are more than a biological machine with a function, no matter how noble or religious that function might be. I have no interest in dominion, or control, my will is my own, and so is the person near me. theirs. The Universe is more than my setting or home and my influence on it is minimal.
Richard
1 Like
I am not sure why you would find it cold and callous. The idea of intrinsic teleology brings purpose and dignity into every aspect of reality. It is the exact opposite of mechanical and mindless.
I am not saying “Joe was predestined to be a painter” only that reality is saturated with intrinsic teleology and purpose, otherwise our world would lack order and regularity. As a rational agent with intellect and will, seeking truth and willing the good of others is part of our purpose. The highest good and truth is ultimately God. What is not to like about that?
Truth be told, we don’t have to like any aspect of creation if we do not want to but in my view, reality is what it is. We can dislike God using evolution and many Christians do and it still makes me uneasy. But we know that not liking something doesn’t make it false anymore than liking something makes it true. I think we can reverentially question why God creates in such and such ways but we must always avoid the all too human urge, “I could have done better.”
I agree. Animals and plants might appear to be closer to biological machines how I framed it but even they are not akin to biological machines. A machine is an artifact with a purpose (external teleology) imposed on it from the outside. Both plants and animals have souls (forms) and are natural substances (living organic wholes) with intrinsic teleology. No living thing is a biological machine in my view since artifacts and natural substances are very different. I’ll explain since A-T thinking is so foreign to many:
Humans are artificers. I can turn wood and nails into a table (an artifact with imposed meaning). The wood doesn’t have intrinsic teleology to be a table like an acorn has the intrinsic telos to become a tree. It is just wood. This meaning is entirely imposed on pre-existent matter. God is not a mechanic or carpenter. He does not shape preexisting matter into artifacts. He creates from nothing (so important) and authors the very nature of a thing from the inside out. While you see this as some sort of prison, I would say He gifts us with an inherent nature that directs itself toward its own flourishing. But we have control of the wheel. God is not a puppeteer. He gives his creatures the dignity of having their own, real, intrinsic casual powers. So no, natural substances and living things are nothing like machines or artifacts. This is part of why I reject intelligent design because that deals with extrinsic teleology and makes humans like watches or clocks and God a carpenter (no pun intended). Our teleology is not externally imposed, it is intrinsic to our nature and a part of who we are and that is an absolutely refreshing and beautiful view of creation.
Given my view posits the soul as the form of the body and that the intellect is immaterial, rational humans are far more than mere animals which themselves are more than biological machines. Like animals, we need to breathe, eat, rest and so on. But we have a rational and spiritual side that elevates our ontology. But if someone thinks we can flourish without oxygen, they would be mistaken. Jesus did not say men shall not live on bread but that they shall not live on bread alone.
In my view the universe is the result of God’s gratuitous, overflowing love. It does not complete, perfect or benefit Him in any way. It is created and sustained by God’s love at every instant and though we may be small, God’s love is not. Our job is just to do what we can minus our visions of grandeur. As Dr Seuss said, “To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world." As Jesus said, what you did to the least of these, you did to me.
Vinnie
1 Like
I would say that God “imposing” meaning gives more freedom because it gives an arrow to life rather than nothing.
2 Likes
This brings to mind the “Four Spiritual Laws” tract that claims “God has a wonderful plan for your life”. People tend to think of that as “God has a detailed agenda for you”, despite the lack of much indication of any such detailed schedule or itinerary. Instead the “plan” boils down to what God mandated for Abraham, which boiled down to “Head in that direction”, with the details unspecified.
1 Like
Interestingly the concept of dominion per Genesis is illustrated in a text from (IIRC) Tel-el-Amarna which describes the dominion of a king as being the task of caring for all to the best of his ability.
1 Like
A screwdriver has the purpose of turning screws, but may or may not be actually put to that or any other use. There are multiple possible senses of purpose.
Extinct lineages have played their roles in the environment. There’s also the general function of creation as showing God’s creativity, wisdom, and power.
1 Like
Welcome to the community, @CosmoNihil!
I have read a great deal about Ecclesiastes and will definitely go back to it. Thanks!
I suppose that, as @Kendel was alluding to, the meaning of life can be a bit tricky to pin down. I’ve always pondered questions of “how do I know what I’m doing is what God had planned for me to do?” I’ve never believed that God meticulously arranged every detail of my life to bring me to this point now. As I view evolution, I think God allows life to run its course. When he intervenes and how much influence he actually has over my life, I do not know. But, I think that at least knowing that my life is endowed by a Creator is enough to give me a sense of purpose regardless.
Kinda like how we can assume that the universe is intelligible and that we can create laws to predict how it would move.
Understood.
In my mind it is not. Nor is the question itself.
I am a Christian. I accept special revelation. I understand that there is a broad range of ideas of what special revelation tells us and how that message - whatever it is understood to be - is to be applied.
I understand that many do not accept special revelation from the Christian God. And that they may and may not ask about meaning, may understanding the concept of meaning in a variety of ways, and come to a variety of conclusions regarding whatever they understand the question of meaning to be asking. Much as Christians do.
This doesn’t sound any more like a firm foundation that the subjectivity you say you reject.
It sounds like dogmatism held to provide a psychological coping mechanism.
I don’t see faith as a matter if logical conclusions based on sophisticated arguments. Jesus didn’t promote it a such either.