Being fortunate to live in a society where we are free to challenge the beliefs and values of generations past, I, like many others, have wrestled with life’s great questions - where did we come from, why are we here, has Stephen Fry ever experimented with a different hairstyle. My feelings have changed over time and I am sure they will continue to do so.
We are living in a supposed age of enlightenment, tolerance and equality; and yet so many people remain fearful of asking life’s fundamental questions, let alone attempting to answer them. It is a damning indictment of the lack of human advancement that in too many societies, brutal, antiquated, patriarchal laws, designed to subjugate the masses, reduce freethinking to a by-word for dissidence and eliminate any questioning, publically at least, from all but the bravest.
The one thing common to all societies, however limited their choice, is that of belief. Whether to believe in the cold beast that is science or the beguiling temptress of the divine. The goal of physicists everywhere is to devise one unifying theory of everything, a theory that will explain where we have come from, how we are here, and where will we end up. Those blessed with religious faith will argue that such a theory exists and is encapsulated in the holy scriptures that underpin their particular system of belief.
As will become patently obvious, I am neither a scientist nor a theologian and as such I offer neither divine revelations nor ground breaking theories. However, that will not stop me from purveying my own glib truisms, unoriginal thought and vacuous philosophy. I am sure there are many flaws in my logic but I am not precious about such things and long for a definitive answer, whatever that may be.
By why am I and so many others like me, now and in the past, striving for an answer? On a societal level, it is explained by the insatiable human desire for knowledge and the inextricably linked human desire for what usually comes with knowledge, namely, power, wealth and glory. This and the irrational need to instil order on our surroundings by being able to understand and codify all that we can see. Irrational because the universe is anything other than ordered - it is wild and chaotic, violent and cruel. We may think there is symmetry in the universe, but is it really the human need for order/balance rather than any kind of natural equilibrium? However, although I know it to be irrational, on a personal level my quest for answers is also in part the need for order. Having a highly analytical, logic-driven brain, I struggle with the nature of the problem. That is, the absence of an indisputable answer, the inability to rationalise a definitive ‘truth’ and I find myself driven to fill this void.
I am not alone in wanting to fill this void of the unknown/the unknowable. It is what has driven human thought from the moment we first broke away from being driven purely by our basest desires and began to consider our place in the world around us. Our inability to accept that we do not know the answer (to whatever the question may be), something to which I am particularly prone, has driven humanity’s greatest minds, with scientists and clerics competing tirelessly throughout the millennia to the present day. More pertinently for me (and many others like me) however, is the unwillingness to accept the consequences of a definitive, yet unpalatable answer, so much so that we strive to unify all potential answers in a solution that is universally satisfying.
As to the question of existence, the answer is surprisingly simple. The universe and everything in it was created by chance; by a supernatural being; a combination of the two; or it was not created at all - it simply ‘is’. But what of the consequences of these answers?
The lack of a deliberate act suggests our existence is purely the result of chance. A consequence of this is that life therefore lacks purpose (in the grand scheme of things we are indeed just dust in the cosmic wind) and for me at least this is so hard to accept. A large part of me aches for there to be meaning and not just to satisfy the cravings of my logic-driven brain. I want to say that it is the part of me that welcomes the sunrise, that delights at my children’s laughter and quails at the thought of them suffering. The part that makes me human. I want to say it is this part of me, but I cannot, and not just because the rational part of my brain tells me that these ‘human’ characteristics are probably really nothing more than genetic/environmental imperatives evolved to ensure the continuance of the species.
If there is not some thread of meaning that permeates the fabric of the universe then it is surely nature’s cruellest act - to bestow upon us an unquenchable thirst for knowledge but present us with an answer that takes away that singular human imperative, hope. Our greatest, most-selfish, hope being that the fleeting moments of time we have on this fragile, beautiful planet of ours are not the only moments that our consciousness will ever know. Those who believe in an afterlife in the religious sense would say that it is faith and not hope that drives the conviction of their belief. To me this is semantics (that and the fact that I find it very difficult to see past eternal salvation as being anything other than a human construct - namely a very effective way of controlling the masses with the promise of eternal happiness as the reward for the acceptance of subjugation in this world). The reason that I cling to the possibility of there being a greater purpose is that to think otherwise would be to accept the finality of it all and that is something I cannot bring myself to do. Simply, I do not want to die, nor do I want to be parted from those dearest to me. Again, I know that this is completely irrational - if there is nothing after death, then I will not know that I am dead, so it will not matter. Furthermore, the ‘purpose’ of life would be the positive impact we can have on others, and what a worthy purpose this is.
My rational brain knows what will happen when I die. My synapses will cease to function and all conscious thought I have will cease forever. My body will decay and eventually the atoms that make up my body will disperse back to whence they came. It is this very knowledge that drives my fear, fear of being no more, a fear of nothing. If this is it, then I do not want it to end. It is this desire to prolong my existence that makes the idea of an afterlife extremely attractive. It is this hope that drives me to ignore my rational urges and embrace the illogical thoughts that somehow the self-awareness that defines who I am will somehow carry on outside my corporeal form. Such is the ethereal nature of our consciousness that, even within our own being, it seems separate to our physical bodies. As such, the idea of its existing outside of the physical plane does not feel as alien as it probably should. One could even postulate a Darwinistic hypothesis that an ethereal existence is the next/final stage of evolution. Do I really believe this, probably not - it is merely an attempt to add intellectual justification to a hope that is equally as desperate as believing in the eternal paradise promised by holy texts. But this has not stopped me trying to convince myself as to the possibility that there is more waiting for me in the future other than the grim nothingness of death; trying to convince myself that I am more than a chance assemblage of the remnants of a long dead star.
How has this manifested itself? What ‘truth’ am I so desperately seeking to prove? Am I debunking science? Do I consider the probability of us coming into being purely as a matter of chance as being so great that I am drawn inexorably into the arms of a divine creator? Well, no, I tried, I really did, but I simply could not bring myself to do it.
A significant part of what passes for scientific ‘fact’, and which is used to denounce the existence of the supernatural, is nothing more than theory. And as beautiful as the mathematics may be, one can argue that it is nothing more than an elegant hypothesis and no more ‘proof’ than a man with a divine revelation. In years gone by, such a select group of people, unique in their ability to ‘see life’ in strings of numbers and letters where the majority could not would be seen as insane and locked up for their own protection!
By its own admission, science does not provide all the answers. The ideology of science is that all scientific ‘facts’ are held to be true under proven otherwise (proof in this case being consistent observational evidence that corroborates a mathematical theory). Given how little we have observed (indeed, is observable based on current technology/understanding) of the universe, it would be of no surprise if in twenty years’ time the accepted wisdom were completely contrary to what it is now. This is not a criticism of science - in fact, it is the very basis of science, the on-going search for knowledge. I do not pretend to fully understand the mathematical formulae or the world of quantum mechanics, but I am satisfied that others do and it is the many practical applications of this knowledge that forms the basis of my willingness to accept that the scientific evidence that contradicts religious beliefs is not fabricated. So, I am not debunking science. That does not mean that I necessarily agree with all scientific convention.
The odds are very much stacked against life existing on Earth by chance alone. There are an indeterminate number of variables all with an immensely low probability (such as the probability of the elements forming in the fashion and quantity needed to form the universe as we know it; the probability of the inter-galactic collisions that formed the solar system and the Earth such that the other planets are at such a distance that their gravitational impact kept the Earth at the right distance from the sun on the right orbit for carbon based life to evolve; through to probability of us as individuals being born). To put it in perspective, the odds of a human sperm fertilising an egg is 250 million to 1, not to mention the odds against a pregnancy successfully going to term. When those odds are multiplied up over the many generations of human existence, the numbers are so large (well technically small) they are mind-boggling. When they are then multiplied up to take into consideration the probability of cellular life in any form existing and then again to reflect the probabilities vis-à-vis the formation of the universe etc, the numbers are so big they are almost meaningless. In fact, statistically, it is far more likely that you will win every lottery on the planet, before being hit by a meteorite being piloted by an alien who is talking to Elvis, who in fact turns out to be a future version of yourself who is equally adept at time travel as he is at eating vast quantities of cheeseburgers.
However.
If as science would have us believe, the universe is infinite, then any odds, even those as incomprehensibly long as those which underpin the notion that we are mere beings of chance, are, on a cosmic scale, insignificant (even more so if our universe is one of an infinite number of multi or parallel universes). In an infinite universe, the chance assimilation of space dust into you and I maybe improbable, but it is far from impossible. However, in a universe of infinite possibilities, it just as likely, statistically in any event, that life is a deliberate act, that is it is the creation of a being or beings (intelligent or otherwise).
So, has the longing for something more caused me to accept the possibility that we are the product of the over-active imagination of an eternal omnipotent deity?
I cannot believe in god because god does not believe in me - if he did, he would have blessed me with a body that was not predisposed to break down and stop working in a blink of the cosmic eye and with wisdom enough to make sense of those things I cannot explain. As promised, some vacuous philosophy! However, feeling the need as I do for a sense of purpose and meaning, I can fully understand the warmth and security that faith brings. And if I am seeking to delude myself as to there being something beyond this life, would it not make sense to join with others in the mass delusion that is faith? The camaraderie, sense of belonging, generosity of spirit and well-meaningness that underpins religious services (in the majority of the western world at least) is certainly appealing. Whilst I struggle with those who do not countenance any challenge to their worldview and whose religious ideals are based on blind obedience, I have the utmost respect for those whose beliefs are based on reasoned thought and who acknowledge the ‘leap of faith’ they are taking. Personally, however, I am unable to believe in the (Abrahamic) god of the scriptures for reasons that are long and detailed. Suffice it to say that I am unable to reconcile myself to a benevolent and all loving god that allows millions of innocent people to needlessly suffer and die with the justification being that all will be roses in the next life. Especially a god that (if the apparently infallible voices of this god on earth are to be believed) allows ‘repentant’ paedophiles or indeed murderous jihadis to pass through the gates of heaven whilst those who find love in the arms of someone of the same sex are condemned to hell. To me, this god is an abhorrent human invention used to control the masses for the benefit of the few.
However, one must not let man’s perversion of the ideal of god (under the guise of religion) cloud one's judgement. One must consider the god that created humanity, not the god that humanity created. The Abrahamic and older faiths attributed human qualities to their gods because the anthropomorphisation of god is/was needed to ensure the religious ideals preached resonated with the general masses. However, it is the lack of consistent adherence to these qualities (e.g. a loving god who indiscriminately kills on an inconceivable scale) that cause many, myself included, to denounce these religions and the majority of what they purport to represent. Rejection of the god of the scriptures does not however rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator, one devoid of human qualities.
As a student, my housemates and I once left a bottle of milk to go off. We left it for a couple of weeks and watched what happened as it curdled. Every day, scientists conduct similar (although probably far more hygienic) experiments, growing cultures of bacteria to test different hypotheses or simply sitting back and observing what happens. They are not emotionally attached to the bacteria, as we were not to our mouldy milk - they are merely dispassionate, impartial observers. The idea of life being created by such a being is appealing as it satisfies my desire for a sense of purpose and addresses the lack of feeling in the god of the scriptures, but it still leaves me hollow as I cannot help but feel this is just a way of quenching a desperate thirst for the possibility of something beyond this life.
The idea of something needing to be created (by either a deity or a cosmological event such as a ‘big bang’) is a very human concept. The notion that things could simply exist without the need for any kind of catalyst is alien to us, in every sense of the word. The majority of theories as to the beginning of the universe are framed by the idea that there has to be a point of creation, a beginning of some kind or other. This is because seemingly everything from the smallest creatures to the largest galaxies are born, exist and then die, although in reality, all that is happening is the changing state of the matter which these ‘bodies’ are comprised of. The many strange, counter-intuitive properties of the quantum world demonstrate that the uniformity we perceive in the macroscopic world does not exist and as such, attempts to codify the universe in such are way are likely to be flawed. Although almost impossible to comprehend, the very real possibility exists that the universe could just ‘be’. Constantly existing in a state of everything and nothing, with no definitive beginning or end, or indeed the nothingness of the end simultaneously being the nothingness from which the universe ‘begins’ (so as with many things (although it was meant in a completely different context) Shakespeare could have been right when he said ‘nothing shall come of nothing’ (it is of course obligatory in pieces such as this, where you are trying to appear more learned than you are, to quote Shakespeare)). This therefore further diminishes both the need for a deliberate act of creation and the likelihood of any kind of life after death.
So where does that leave me?
However illogical, despite all the intellectualising, my overriding desire for a sense of meaning, of purpose, remains. My hope is that this random assortment of space dust that I call ‘me’ maintains its current form for as long as possible and my consciousness continues in some form thereafter. I still cling to the possibility that on death we will leave this plane of existence to move on to another, wherever or whenever that may be. The justification for this (other than what is probably no more than statistical/intellectual sleight of hand)? Well, I have nothing but the irrational notion of hope. Hope that there is some point to our existence, hope that I and those I love live long and happy lives and that the short time allotted to us on this planet of ours is not all we have. Ultimately that is all I have to offer - no answers, no great insight, only hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment