Their propositions suffer from major metaphysical mistakes. The first is that such questioning irrationally gives a higher status to non-existence. Why favour non-existence over existence ? We know that existence surrounds us : indeed it is a constant of all our cognition, an axiom. So why should non-existence be favoured over it ?
But the most fundamental fallacy here is that non-existence is an abstraction. There is no such thing as a state of non-existence, since by definition, non-existence cannot exist. Likewise, any state of non-existence would entail only non-existence : no-thing can come from nothing. Even if we do feel the need to contrive further explanations for the universe than those accepted by modern cosmology, virtual particles, singularities, or whatever other explanation, cannot come from non-existence. Whatever causal links are possible from a scientific outlook, they are all necessarily based on the existence of potentialities.
Given these facts, there is no inherent logical problem with the existence of a universe, a whole. But what about the parts - that is to say, us ? Within this eternal existence, this dance of change, this tao if you will, what is the meaning of our existence ? This is not only an important question in the history of human thought, but it is also a foundation of all forms of religion and spirituality (let alone rational spirituality) as well.
It is easy to get lost in inherent appreciations of meaning. To understand what I mean by this, consider the anecdote that Richard Dawkins discusses in his book "Climbing Mount Impossible". He was driving around the countryside with his daughter, who pointed out some flowers.
I asked her what she thought wildflowers were for. She gave a rather thoughtful answer. 'Two things', she said. 'To make the world pretty, and to help the bees make honey for us.' I was touched by this and sorry I had to tell her that it wasn't true.
Indeed, wildflowers exist because some genes were placed in adaptative situations that favoured the form of wildflowers. Simple cause and effect. The wildflower itself, or its relationship with the bees, or even the genes, have no inherent purpose or meaning. Their change is governed purely by natural law.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Rational Spirituality topic, please visit the Discussions page.