The three questions
The Wall Street Journal has an essay by Jonathan Sacks adapted from his new book that says religious violence is not god’s fault.
Predictably, he says some things that I find irritating.
What the secularists forgot is that Homo sapiens is the meaning-seeking animal. If there is one thing the great institutions of the modern world do not do, it is to provide meaning. Science tells us how but not why. Technology gives us power but cannot guide us as to how to use that power. The market gives us choices but leaves us uninstructed as to how to make those choices. The liberal democratic state gives us freedom to live as we choose but refuses, on principle, to guide us as to how to choose.
The first thing that jumps out at us is how stale that is, how automatic, how deadened by repetition. “Science tells us how but not why” – recite clichés much? But setting that aside – you can tell from “What the secularists forgot” (and from previous knowledge of Jonathan Sacks) where he’s going – it’s religion and religion only that can “provide meaning.”
But can it? The “meaning” it provides is the kind of “meaning” a box of tools has – “somebody made me.” That’s not really more meaningful than being a product of natural selection over millions of years, and it can be less so. Who wants to be a hammer or a car or even a lovingly crocheted blanket? What’s meaningful about that?
Sacks continues the banal litany:
Science, technology, the free market and the liberal democratic state have enabled us to reach unprecedented achievements in knowledge, freedom, life expectancy and affluence. They are among the greatest achievements of human civilization and are to be defended and cherished.
But they do not answer the three questions that every reflective individual will ask at some time in his or her life: Who am I? Why am I here? How then shall I live? The result is that the 21st century has left us with a maximum of choice and a minimum of meaning.
That’s not necessarily true. Plenty of people find meaning from science: from doing it, from learning about it, from what it tells us. Sacks is correct that science doesn’t give us a bronze plaque with our Meaning inscribed on it, but who wants that anyway? It’s more interesting and more meaningful to create our own over time.
I’ve never seen much comfort, or even content, in theism’s answers to those three questions.
Who am I? A child of [your deity/ies]
Why am I here? God put me here to help fulfill his Great Plan
How then shall I live? Follow the instructions given by my Holy Texts/Priests (fundamentalist answer) * Be Good (liberal answer)
The first two lack the specificity the questions call for. The second answer to the third question also has a specificity problem. The first answer to the third question is where most of the trouble lies.
The fact that (many*) humans are meaning-seeking beings that REALLY, REALLY want there to be meaningful answers to our questions about Life, the Universe and Everything has no bearing on whether those answers are actually there to be discovered.
*those of us who have the privilege to be able to devote time to pursuits other than keeping ourselves and our dependents warm, dry, and fed.
I do, in fact, agree with the rabbi that science has added immeasurably to our understanding of the world and our individual and collective power to alter it to suit our preferences. The teeny tiny problem is that a big thing that science has given us is the ability to question revelation, faith, tradition, dogma, and authority, and it has made it plain to all that a lot of that is horseshit. If Jehovah, the storm god of the ancient Israelites, were real, by using the tools of science we would know loads more about Him now than we did 3,000 years ago, like we know more about everything else. If He were real.
The other thing is, who says the “meaning” I find for myself isn’t better than any “meaning” imposed by unquestioning obedience to ancient religions? Rabbi Sacks? If he wants to persuade me, he could start by trying to be more agreeable.
Where does the ‘then’ in the third question come from? Why do the answers to the first two questions imply anything about the third?
Also: Atheists would have to agree with Sacks that religious violence is not, in fact God’s fault.
Yes, and that’s a very big hurdle, if you ask me.
A question for religious drones such as Jonathan Sacks: what makes you think all people necessarily find these questions meaningful at all? Oh but I see you qualified your generalisation by saying all reflective people, a subtle little sneer at those that don’t give a shit about sprituality.
Battery Hen: Who am I?
Human: You’re a battery hen. We bred you for egg laying.
Battery Hen: Why am I here?
Human: To lay eggs.
Battery Hen: How then shall I live?
Human: Get used to the cage and lay the damn eggs.
Battery Hen: Oh, thank you! Now my life has meaning!
Human: You’re welcome.
…
Human: Where’s the eggs? I’m gettin’ hungry.
Anat,
Seems straight-forward to me: the “then” indicates that the third question is a corollary of the answers to the first two, and the implication is that once knowing one’s identity and purpose, the next need is for knowledge of how to proceed in order to culminate that identity and achieve that purpose.
In this sort of consideration, the fundamental error is a belief in teleology (that things happen for a purpose).
Purpose requires an agent and a goal. These are not-so-hidden premises, but certainly not stated.
(Thoughtful, informed reflective individuals would do well to consider this claim’s epistemic basis)
@John Morales #10
The problem is that teleological thinking comes so naturally. It’s usually of benefit for a being to be able to ascribe purpose to the other (apparently) volition-driven beings in the vicinity. I can look at my cat and see that he is considering whether to jump up onto a forbidden surface. My cat can look at me, and seems to be able to interpret whether I am just walking by or have intent to make a grab for him. Just think of the benefit of understanding the intent and purpose of the creator, owner, and driver of the universe, and how we could be able to fit ourselves into that.
John Morales, I understand Sacks thinks the third answer is a corollary of the first two, I ask what makes him think so, or why should it necessarily be so. Let’s pretend some agent is responsible for 1 and 2. Why should I care when I formulate my answer to 3?
I love the hen answer.
Silentbob wins.
The idea that our life has to have meaning, rather than just our individual actions, is a nonsense.
Yes, I do too. Picture a Like button.