Meaning
You’ll have seen this bit of wisdom before – possibly more than once.
In his conclusion, McGrath spoke of the limitations of science. Issues such as the meaning of life, he said, remain outside the scope of science.
In some senses, yes – but does it follow that religion is inside the scope of science? Is that what we’re meant to conclude? Probably, although the Baptist Press doesn’t say so (it’s not clear whether McGrath did or not). At any rate, let’s ponder what may be meant by that familiar trope.
I think what is meant by it is that science interferes with denial and therefore it interferes with certain ways of deriving meaning. I think that’s probably true – but that’s because reality interferes with certain ways of deriving meaning; science in this context is just a source of information about reality. There are others, which are just as likely to interfere with certain ways of deriving meaning. Life, the passage of time, experience, observation can all do that; can and are quite likely to. That’s how it is. We’re weak mortal entities with short lives who tend to love other weak mortal entities with short lives. That brutal set of facts always does tend to interfere with our efforts to derive meaning; it always does mess up ‘issues such as the meaning of life.’ So I would say that what is meant here is not so much that religion helps us to derive meaning, as that religion helps us to deny intrusive bits of reality that would otherwise smash our derived meanings.
Now, I think that’s true – religion does help us do do that. Religion does, and science doesn’t (mostly). But it’s interesting that that’s not the way apologists for religion usually put the matter. They don’t usually even say that religion helps us to protect some illusions and science doesn’t. I suppose that’s because it would be much like a doctor saying ‘I’ll give you a placebo for that.’ But still – it would be more honest.
Ah, the “limitations of science”, which are smaller this week/month/year/century than previously.
This is, effectively a “god of the gaps” argument, which the author should know better than to advance.
When the claims of religions are demonstrably wrong, as they have usually proven to be as time goes by, and as knowledge continues to increase, then trying to retreat into Stephen Gould’s “separate magisteria” is a delaying and defensive, but ultimately futile tactic.
Again (sigh) is this “god” thing part of this universe, or not?
If not – then why bother, and if part of the universe, then why no sign, at all?
It’s SO depressing, having to go round and round this one ……
“This is, effectively a “god of the gaps” argument, which the author should know better than to advance.”
I would mention the “separate magisteria” argument that Dawkins discusses, but we all know he doesn’t know theology, so that can’t be an argument that theologists have used any time since the mid-19th century.
Science affects the meaning of life in some ways. If God is a scientific improbability, then devoting your life to His improbable prescriptions is likely to be a waste of time. In this case, faith is the faith of a confidence trickster’s victim. It is hardly a virtue.
Philosophy helps us to sort out issues of meaning. Religion has some philosophical content. But it is often degenerate and is usually the product of trying to naturalise oppressive political ideology. Apart possibly from pop buddhism.
“But does it follow that religion is inside the scope of science?” No. But maybe McGrath thinks it follows that religion is outside the scope of science? If so, he’s wrong about that too.
As for “issues such as the meaning of life”, science has a lot to contribute. To start with, it can ask “What, precisely, is the issue?” If, for example, the issue is said to be “Does my life have a meaning which extends beyond my death?”, science answers “No, except for as long as other humans remember you, or changes you have wrought continue to have effects.”
Science can also examine the persuasiveness and comfort of the many answers that competing religions give to their many versions of what the issue is, and anthropology and history can examine who invented and refined these answers. Science can say, for example, that ‘to worship a supposed creator’ is not impressive as a meaning of life, and it can count people who say they find it comforting.
You guys are on fire today, Excellent!
Eventually man comes to the point where he asks: “What do I live for?” In other words, one does not find any pleasure in this life anymore, or he only sees very little. One starts asking about pleasure, as well as about the meaning of life. It is because the meaning of life is to feel that one’s egoistic desire is filled. However, if there is nothing to fill it with, then what does one live for?