On Purpose

*If* we are here by accident or for reasons other than being brought about without the intent of usefulness, do we really have a purpose? 

For example, if I make a robot for a specific function (i.e. cleaning my house) the sole purpose of the robot is to clean my house.  Now, I suppose I can use the robot to hang my wet clothes on, thus, one can say the robot has another purpose because I used it for such.  However, when I made the robot I specifically made it for the sole purpose of cleaning my house.  It seems apparently clear to me that when I originally made the robot my original plan was for it to clean my house, but along the way (as time passed) the robot was additionally used with a different purpose from the one initially intended.  So then, the robot's purpose was and still is to clean my house.  The very fact that the robot's purpose changes or broadens to something bigger does not overthrow the fact that the robot has a purpose.  I already acknowledged the fact that my purpose for the robot changed from my initial concept when I made the robot.  If I had foreknowledge[1] of the fact that I would also end up adopting an additional purpose for the robot; the robot would have been built for the purposes of cleaning my house and hanging my clothes.  One then could and should conclude that the robot serves a purpose because it was made for a specific reason.  However, one cannot conclude the robot gave itself purpose, because it served an additional purpose to what it was otherwise intended for.     

Now, suppose the robot had made itself (at face value such an idea seems absurd) or somehow through time the robot came to be (again, such an idea seems absurd) it cannot just decide that it was made with intention, because it was not made for a specific purpose.  Rather, the robot has/had the ability to not be and be at the same time or came about as an accident of nature, but it certainly was not made for a specific purpose.  Should the robot assume to itself it can give meaning or purpose to whatever it wants?  I guess the robot can give meaning to different things, but let us keep in mind the robot itself was not made with intention.  So how can the robot assume it serves some sort of purpose?  I do not think the robot can conclude that it was made with a purpose since it seems it came about accidentally/absurdly.  Therefore, anything the robot gives meaning to is just as absurd as its existence.


_____________________________
[1] While I as the maker of the robot am limited in terms of knowledge God is not.  Therefore, God has facts that allow Him to make non-arbitrary decisions as He has the broadest of information available.

God and Nature

The claim of what nature is and what God is has become a battlefield that the believer and the unbeliever face when inquiring about what is around us and why/how. As we consider the certain claims let us keep in mind that truth cannot change, for if it did, the essence of what made something true could evolve to an entirely different “thing.” By necessity, something that is true MUST be true. For example, we assume nature inherently predisposes something to certain characteristics. It should not astound us then that when studying animals or humans in an empirical model, the model ought to highlight the native attributes of what is being studied.

Keeping this line of thinking in our process of examination let’s look at the following premises:

It may come as a surprise that belief in a beginning does not requite belief in a Beginner. The laws of nature allow the creation of the universe without the need for a creator. Quantum uncertainty, an aspect of physics known as quantum mechanics, allows the small but finite possibility of something coming into being from nothing.[1]

It very well could be that the universe came to be from nothing, but we must note that it is implied that the laws of nature were the cause of something coming out of nothing. So, before I proceed, let us establish the fact that there is no claim that something came out of nothing by nothing; for if it did, it would be an absurd universe. In an absurd universe it would be hard to find answers with an empirical system, because one would have to yield to the reality that the universe is of an absurd nature. It then logically follows that anything is possible including non-ordered/irrational events which would be almost impossible to follow or analyze. I also would like to point out that the writer talks about a finite possibility. If the possibility is finite then it is a possibility with limitations, but what are those limitations?

Can we consider the following?

There are, however, basic problems with the concept. First of all, quantum fluctuations are phenomena that relate to the laws of nature within our universe. The beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. There is every indication that the big bang also marks the beginning of the laws of nature. If this is true, then prior to the existence of the universe there was no nature and therefore there were no laws of quantum mechanics by which to engender the needed quantum fluctuation.[2]

If this theory is correct then logic demands that the possibility of God is likely. If I were to presuppose that the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang (before matter, space, and time) I would still have to yield to the theory that there is something that transcends the current state of the universe. It may very well be that we will never know such a truth within our limited understanding. Even if we cannot know we should still attempt to know what we can know, and use the tools that we have at our disposal. It is my opinion that theology can give a reasonable complement to science, as well as provide life to teleology. Even if I was able to harmonize the certain transcendent makeup of nature I would have no basis in assuming that we are here out of purpose. Rather, the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang and somehow proceeded to predispose the state of our universe. But even if this is true, it behooves the inquirer to wonder how laws were “just there.” Here, those who adhere to naturalism should yield to the certain fact that they have no purpose. Indeed, nature to my knowledge has never been observed and tested to show any elements of emotional/rational attachment to those things that are made from it (nature). On the other hand the Christian has Jesus Christ who shows us how much we matter to God. I am sure this is not a satisfying answer to some, but it might be a possible and reasonable answer none the less.


_________________________
[1] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), pp. 23-24.
[2] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), p. 24.

Morality

The exploration of morality is a very interesting endeavor. It shows the complexity of the challenges we face as a human race. My focus will mostly be on the ontological aspect of morality. The ontology of morality can be defined as:

Ontological: Moral knowledge is about moral reality. How is that reality constituted? Three general possibilities present themselves. (a) Moral reality might be theological in nature, pertaining to (say) the will of God. (b) It might be a non-natural realm that is neither theological nor natural, but sui generis. (c) It might be comprehensible as a part of the natural world studied by science. Each of these possibilities, however, is beset with difficulties, and no viable fourth alternative has been conceived.[1]

Upon reflection on what has been stated one has to realize the predicament of the being of morality. However, it is important to note or understand that if (a) is not true then morality in the final analysis has no meaning. To have a relativistic worldview and give morality some sort of meaning without the concept of God is pure nonsense. For if there is no God then you have no ultimate judge that is incorruptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, and thus true justice will never prevail. So, then we are left with suppositions that are relativistic to specific individuals and situations. If moral knowledge is possible how can it be known under a relativistic worldview? It would be impossible, let us consider the following:

An argument of David Hume provides a more direct threat to the possibility of moral knowledge based on the fact that morals excite our passions and motivate us to act. If morals are based on reason so that they consist in true or false ideas, they would have to be in themselves incapable of having this direct influence on our actions (Hume, Treatise, Book III, Part I, Section I, Paragraph 6.) As he famously said, it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of a finger (Book II, Part III, Section III, Paragraph 6). The argument can be rendered for our purposes as a valid deductive argument from three premises: (1) If moral knowledge is possible, then some moral judgments are beliefs. (2) Our moral judgments by themselves necessarily give us some motivation to act, even without the accompaniment of already existing desires. (3) A belief by itself, unaided by already existing desires, can never give us any motivation to act. Therefore, moral judgments are not beliefs. Therefore, moral knowledge is impossible.[2]

So, Hume leaves us in a world of skepticism and seemingly in a void with no way out. Interestingly enough one cannot have it both ways. If moral knowledge is not possible then, how can it have value? How can the significance of moral knowledge be defined? If moral knowledge is possible and is of importance then surely the oughtness that is part of our being has value. What drives our desires? Nothing? What is guilt? Is guilt a mechanism of mere cultural experiences? These are weighty questions that ultimately define whether human existence has meaning or is insignificant.

If morality is meaningless then why should I try to attain perfection? For morality to be a rational endeavor it must have value. If it has no value it should not be pursued. In order for morality to have significance there must be Ultimate Righteousness. For a more in depth analysis of the significance or the insignificance of morality see the following:

The Moral Argument(s) For God's Existence

Only God gives meaning to morality, and thus I remain rational in believing that there is a God that gives meaning to the being of my moral existence.

_______________________
[1] Ontology
[2] Hume