This is an outline of my talk from the God and Truth VI panel:
I would like to argue three things. First, a common false dichotomy; second, the meaning of meaning; third, meaning and reason.
First, the presentation of the question is a false dichotomy. It isn’t either the secular or the religious. This is similar to the supposed divide between faith and reason. Or science and religion. These tend to mean revealed religion vs philosophical materialism. Revealed religion assumes God the Creator, it opens with this assertion, it does not prove it. Philosophical materialism assumes that all is matter and that matter has always existed. One appeals to scripture and the other appeals to experience or empiricism.
Both revealed religion and philosophical materialism have assumptions that must be critically analyzed for meaning. This is the role of philosophy. Sometimes when we are asking about the existence of God this is called natural theology, or the study of general revelation. Philosophy asks how do we know that all is matter and that matter is eternal? And it asks ho do we know that God the Creator exists and that any given revelation is from God. We cannot simply table pound and say: I know matter exists because I see it, or I know the scriptures are from God because they say they are.
We often find these assumptions, or presuppositions, operating at an unconscious level meaning we are aware of our interpretations and conclusions but not the assumptions that form these. It can take some time to get those into focus.
Working together on any project including the problem of meaning requires our having common ground. I’d like to propose that common ground requires:
- A commitment to reason as the laws of thought
- Integrity and a concern for consistency
- Rational presuppositionalism and critical thinking
- The principle of clarity (some things are clear vs nihilism)
We can go through these and consider what would happen to meaning and arguments if we denied any one of them. Can we avoid nihilism if we deny that anything is clear (if we say nothing is clear)? What if we haven’t been committed to reason, are we willing to admit that? Or, are we willing to change our thinking and reconsider this?
If we do not have these as common ground then we devolve into foolish arguments. Indeed, if there is no common ground there are only foolish arguments. These are not good for the participants and they are not good for the listeners. Wisdom requires avoiding foolish arguments
Second, there are different senses of meaning. Before we can settle on the meaning of life we need to know what we mean by meaning. This is an example of the role of philosophy.
One of these has to do with purpose. To ask what is the meaning of something is like asking what is it’s purpose. And so if we ask what is the meaning of human life we are asking what is the purpose of human life. And this in turn asks what is a human. How do we distinguish human from non-human. This is a use of reason.
This takes us to a second sense of meaning, which is cognitive meaning. We ask what is the meaning of a belief and we are asking for understanding. When something has no meaning in this sense it is meaningless, nonsense, and meaninglessness is unbearable. It not only has no purpose but it makes no sense.
A final sense of meaning: Meaning and hope. We die. Everyone dies. It all goes to nothing. It comes from nothing and goes to nothing. To have lasting hope we must be connected to what is lasting, to what is eternal. If being came from non-being then these aren’t essentially different. Consider implications if all is material. We can deduce theism from highest power.
The problem of meaning especially comes to us in our times of suffering. Can we avoid nihilism if we deny that anything is clear? Does our suffering have any meaning? Is it a call back to stop and think about our assumptions and what is clear? Or is life just one kind of suffering after another until death? And is our hope to simply be freed from suffering (hope springs eternal in the human breast, man never is but always will be blest). So again we are presented with the question of whether we are willing to reconsider our thinking on this matter.
Third, this takes me to my third point. Meaning requires the use of reason. By reason we mean the laws of thought like identity and non-contradiction. This is in contrast to reason as naturalistic thinking, giving reasons, rationalizations.
By reason we know the nature of a thing and the good is according to the nature of a thing. By reason we distinguish “a” from “non-a,” being from non-being, God from non-God, good from evil, meaning from non-meaning. When we call something God that is not God we are speaking nonsense and have lost meaning. When we call something good that is evil we are speaking nonsense. When we say of human nature something that it is not we again are in meaninglessness.
Is it clear to reason that contradictions cannot both be true and cannot both be false? If one is true, the other is false? Given that, let’s consider an example of knowing something that is clear is the distinction between something and nothing. No one confuses these. We might disagree about what something is, or disagree about whether something exists, but that disagreement is built upon our understanding of the difference between existing and not existing.
With that in mind we can see an example of what it means to say that something is clear to reason: being cannot come from non-being. Let’s take a moment to consider how this is clear to reason: First, we can identify the two possibilities that are contradictions: either nothing is eternal or something is eternal. Next, let’s consider the claim that nothing is eternal. This is to say that being can come from being or from non-being; that on this point these two are not essentially different, it is to equate non-being and being. This loses meaning. If the claim that nothing is eternal is meaningless, it cannot be true, then its contradiction must be true: something must be eternal.
Can non-being ever be? If there are no rules governing non-being, could non-being also be being? What is the difference? If someone claims that God does not exist, and also that the universe came from nothing, is like saying that the universe came from God? The purpose of these questions is to highlight the lose of meaning and intelligibility when the distinction between being and non-being is denied and it is said that being can come from non-being.
And so we get an example of our search for meaning and of how something can be known. It is clear that something has existed from eternity. To deny this one must deny reason and the distinction between being and non-being. It is an example of meaninglessness. Once one denies reason at this point it ripples through other areas like our beliefs about God, human nature, and the good. In saying that being can come from non-being we are putting non-being in the place as our God. What would that do to meaning in human life?
Our meaning and our hope, that third sense of meaning, are related to how we connect with what is eternal, what is lasting. And what we believe is eternal is one of the assumptions that philosophy must bring to the surface and critically examine. If nothingness is all we have to look forward to, we came from nothing and go to nothing, nihilism, then there can be no hope and no meaning.
To return to my three points as a conclusion. The problem of meaning is a philosophical problem. The problem of meaning is a problem of the use of reason to understand human nature, God, and the good. Some things are clear about God. When we affirm these we can have a life full of meaning. When we deny these we empty life of meaning and increase forever in meaninglessness. Have we seen what is clear and are we ready to change our thinking?