METHODS OF INQUIRY

Most of us, at one time or another, expend a fair amount of energy in wishful thinking regarding something we want, or something we want to do. It turns out that the more energy we put into the thing we want (i.e., the more we invest of ourselves, and our egos) the more we tend to believe that we are entitled to it. There is something about pursuing a goal that the longer you pursue it, the more you think you should achieve it.

So where am I going with this? Let me suggest the following: religion is not trivial; most people have expended a lot of time thinking about what they believe. Many are still asking the questions, i.e., have made a huge and continuing investment in the decision. And most have arrived at an answer based on emotion, often fear, and irrespective of the facts.

On the other hand, we often agonize over these decisions for no justifiable reason. Nothing is permanent (fact), and all paths lead to the same place (opinion), which in English goes by the name of Death. Through Death, we either find the missing piece of the puzzle (i.e., through some form of life after death), or we find that life has no meaning (at the instant of death). No amount of wishful thinking will change this.

As much as we possibly can, we will construct fact-based arguments, which (ideally) are proven to be true. Remember what we said earlier:

1. A fact is a data point that can be proven true or false.
2. An opinion is a data point that cannot be proven true or false.

There are many types of opinion. I have already mentioned that an opinion in the scientific world is often called a theory. Wishful thinking is an opinion-driven argument. Speculation is the expression of an opinion. We can have an informed opinion, or a misinformed opinion. Regardless of what we call it, it’s still an opinion, unless proven otherwise. Therefore (in my opinion) The Meaning of Life, when taken in its totality, weighs in as an opinion unless we prove otherwise.

Yet intuition (and a certain amount of stubbornness) tells me that we might be able to prove pieces of the great cosmic puzzle. You might see this as an inconsistency, for only a few posts back I pointed out that we were missing part of the definition: The Meaning of Death. Taken in its totality we had to consider both sides of the coin.

But if we can find a smaller “piece” that when taken in its totality, we have a better chance of provng that smaller piece. And if we find enough smaller pieces that are facts on their own, we might be able to discover some new truths.

Copyrite © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

“The Meaning of Life and Other Tall Tales”

THE AUTHOR DISCLOSES HIS BIAS

If I talk about God as though he exists, it isn’t because I have proven (or disproven) his existence, nor does it mean that I accept any of the commonly held views of God. It’s because I don’t have enough information that I am comfortable in either camp. I none-the-less reject that the Earth is evil, that God is inconsistent or that God discriminates. I reject the inconsistencies in the Bible, eternal damnation, torture, favoritism, claims of being chosen (for anything) over others or their beliefs, mass murder by any name (e.g., the Rapture / the Apocalypse ) or any other fear-based approach to proselytizing unquestioning believers.

All roads lead to death, whether we are gone forever, reincarnated from time-to-time, off to another universe or chosen for any variation on this theme. I do not believe that any of the paths we take were meant to discriminate against anyone, to treat others as inferior, or to define who will be turned away—using religion, race, sex, or any other god-given-attribute during creation, whether or not his method of creation involved evolution, rebirth or rubbing two match sticks together. Nobody has the definitive truth, and if we have even a snails chance of learning the truth, it won’t likely happen before we die.

Why An Agnostic?  Why Not A Believer With Explanations?

“God may not play dice with the universe, but he seemingly does so with the lives of its inhabitants; either that, or he has no interest in outcomes.” It was Albert Einstein who said, “I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world.” [Einstein, His Life and Times, 1947] It was I who added the observation that God doesn’t appear to care one way or the other. A believer would say, “God works in mysterious ways,” and ask no further questions. An atheist would say, “the whole universe operates on mathematical probabilities” and think he answered the question. An agnostic never stops asking the question.

We are taught by religious leaders that God is love. This makes more sense than many of the alternatives. If true, then God asks nothing from me, not even belief in his existence. My creation was a gift not unlike the gift of life that I participated in when my children were born. I understand this God. This is the God that expects me to take ownership of my life and for my mistakes. I reject the God that put us on earth to live our lives in constant fear of his wrath. The God that works in mysterious ways. There is nothing mysterious about getting the razor strap off the top shelf and showing us who is boss. This isn’t my God; this is man.

If God exists, and if God created everything, then God forgives our mistakes because to do otherwise would make us God’s mistake. I reject the notion that God creates weaklings so he can punish them for an eternity for their mistakes (or for failing to beg for forgiveness). I reject most interpretations that present God as judge or warrior spewing fire and damnation. If God made me in his image, then it makes even less sense to torture me for my mistakes.

If we are all sinners, and God punishes us for doing what is in our nature, then God has created a perverse universe. This would be the God we curse when we lose our temper and expose our short comings, for he created us with our imperfections. But I do not believe this is anymore than a false God, like the others we have encountered on this page. I do not exclude the notion that we have some responsibility for our actions. For whatever reason, we have been given the awesome responsibility of choice. We must be expected to use it. And we will make mistakes, and we will get up, dust ourselves off and try again.

But the hardest idea to accept in this discussion is that nobody, not even God, waits 2,000 years to punish a child. If you truly believe in God, then forget the Rapture. There will be no Judgement Day. God doesn’t need revenge. (Did Jesus seek revenge?) It is man who seems to need revenge. Neither does God take sides. It is man who takes sides. It is man who wrote the Bible and man who interprets the Bible (or its equivalent) to prove that he is on the right side. And it is man who picks his version of God based on his current needs, and who doesn’t recognize that his choices are inconsistent with a single God, a God of Love.

If I still haven’t made clear why I am an agnostic, let me say this: it’s as much to associate more with those who are still looking, and less with those who gave up years ago. “Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves” [The True Believer; thoughts on the nature of mass movements, Eric Hoffer, © 1951, reprint 2002] I do insist, however, that before I accept the one true God, somebody must prove that I am not being seduced by a cheap imitation.

A final note before closing out this week’s installment: I recently read an excellent new book [Jesus Interrupted; revealing the hidden contradictions in the bible (and why we don't know about them), Bart D Ehrman, 2009]. The author is a well-qualified expert in bible studies and expresses his findings with the care and sensitivity you would expect from a man of his experience. I think everyone over the age of 21 should read this book and listen to his story. Whether or not you are believer, agnostic or even atheist, it’s a good read, well worth your time.

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

“The Meaning of Life and Other Tall Tales”

THE ROLE OF RELIGION

At first, I thought we could avoid the issue of religion with regard to the meaning of life, and I thought we could simplify our approach in so doing. But religion is clearly at the center of this question because religious leaders have altered the original meaning of life by removing the sting of death. We will begin our examination of the role of religion by discussing the three traditional relationships man is said to have with God. These relationships are believers, agnostics, and atheists.

Believers

Most believers are faith-based, which is to say that they believe in God because the Bible says he exists. In Christianity, disbelief is the only unforgivable sin. I would speculate that the reason for this stipulation is that it shuts off arguments that cannot be proved. The problem with blind acceptance is that you may have backed the wrong God. In the time period that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, more than 200 other would-be Messiah’s were traveling around the Middle East in an effort to fulfill the prophesy.

Agnostics

Because neither the existence of God nor the absence of God can be proved with any degree of certainty, some of us—the author included—take a wait and see approach. From the data available, the question of the existence of God remains a question. But with or without proof, I believe with absolute certainty, at the same level of conviction that we find in the faith-based believer, that a “fair and just God” does not hide from his creations for more than 2,000 years, only to come out of hiding to bring down the apocalypse.

Atheists

The atheist is satisfied that if he cannot prove God’s existence, then God does not exist. He ignores the fact that he cannot disprove the existence of God.

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

“The Meaning of Life and Other Tall Tales”

THE AUTHOR EXPLORES AN ALTERNATIVE

While I was working on an opening statement to share my thoughts on the meaning of life, I suddenly had one of those eureka experiences that changes my thinking. It began with an assumption that the only way I can know the meaning of life is to understand its opposite, the meaning of death. My life (my existence in the universe) defines a system, and one cannot study part of a system and expect to get the whole answer. But that is exactly what we do when we only ask part of the question.

So how do we justify excluding death? The Neanderthals are believed to be the first race on earth to bury their dead in a ritualistic ceremony, beginning about 50,000 years ago. Their graves were not a final resting place, however, for they were given the tools required to keep doing what they did in life. The practice of ritualistic burial quickly caught the attention of almost every religion from primitive times to the present day, and they went one better. They formalized the concept of life after death.

If it were the case that we are able to live forever, to talk about the meaning of death would itself be meaningless, i.e., if there is no death, then our language would have no word for death, and there would be no concept of death in our culture. But death is part of every life form known to man, so God must intervene to make man the exception, the only animal that has a means to escape death. This is what religion does. It removes the side that grapples with the meaning of death by promising that believers will never die.

By removal of death from the meaning of life, we distort the outcome. If I were able to live forever, to talk about the meaning of life becomes less urgent, less meaningful in fact, and therefore less relevant). What gives life meaning is death. We will categorize the complete answer as a theory, which is the scientific way of saying an opinion. The significance of this will be discussed later. For now, we capture the theory that life has no meaning without death and death has no meaning without life.

And we make the following observation: the idea that I might live beyond my death exaggerates my importance in the universe. Man is the only species that studies itself. It is difficult for man to be objective in this role. It has only been a few hundred years that we have understood this. But we have had nearly 50,000 years to convince ourselves that we really are that important.

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

“The Meaning of Life and Other Tall Tales”

THE MOST COMMON ANSWERS

Probably the answer most often given in response to the question, “What is the Meaning of Life?” is that we are here to complete something, and this “something” has the status of what we might call our mission in life. The task itself might be simple, but the achievement is apparently important in the grand scheme of things.

Another fairly common answer is that we are here to learn something, although for me it is difficult to understand what I might learn in a physical plane (which we occupy for a few short years) that also applies to a spiritual plane (that we occupy for an eternity). The other concern I have is the school that teaches this lesson is called Hard Knocks.

For many of us, our interest in asking the question centers around the idea of getting clarity regarding our mission, whether it’s a task to be performed or a lesson to be learned. For the religious minded, how they recognize their mission from all of the other choices is not of great concern because sooner or later it will pop into mind and they will know. They are called to service.

Another common answer is that we are here to give meaning to life. Life wouldn’t mean anything if it didn’t include a witness, perhaps. I have even heard it said that we create reality through our actions, which defines the meaning. Either way seems like an invitation to chaos: too many visionaries and not enough work horses.

If I am leaving anything out, or missing the point, please feel free to identify my shortcomings in the comments section of this post. I pretty much don’t have all the answers, so I enjoy hearing from people who have figured out a piece of the puzzle.

THE AGREEMENT (WITHDRAWN)

Because there has been no interest in The Agreement, the offer has been withdrawn.

INTRODUCTION TO THE MEANING OF LIFE

I was amazed at how many people showed up for the post entitled “An Alternative View of God.” You have inspired me to push a little further into the nature of God and the meaning of life. There are so many places to start from, and by definition only one place to end up, that it would be easy to find ourselves bogged down in meaningless side journeys without guidelines, principles, or rules to keep us on track. On the other hand, an excess of restrictions could just as likely have the same result, which is why we invite some serendipity to lighten the road (the Other Tall Tales part).

To make matters worse, however, some of what we are going to explore cannot be proven because we simply don’t have enough data to form a fact-based conclusion. We hereby rule out approaches that are 100% faith-based conclusions because we could write that book in 25 words or less, and we wouldn’t be any closer to resolution of our quandary. Another factor in the decision to stay away from faith-based explanations is that there is a trend in modern religious studies to seek historical explanations for proofs of God (i.e., fact-based explanations), though this trend does not always trickle down to the layman.

The reason for switching titles is simple: I don’t wish to mislead anyone, what I am proposing is not a new form of bible studies. I am certain that the church of your choice can do a better job with that task than I can.

Methods of Inquiry

My approach to God is to discover what is reasonable to believe, based on observed facts rather than on wishful thinking opinions, using the following definitions:  a fact can be proven; opinions cannot. Anything that cannot be proven is, by definition, an opinion. If you prove an opinion to be true, then what you have proved is that it wasn’t an opinion. It was a fact. More importantly if you cannot prove your facts, it’s because they are your opinions.

It is very important to understand when you are talking about facts, and when you are talking about opinions.

It is not at all unusual to think that we are talking about a fact, but learn halfway through the conversation that we were expressing a preference. We can have that discussion if we want, but we must always know if we are coming from fact-based information or from wishful thinking. It saves time, and it helps us to get closer to the truth. Having in general limited ourselves to this constraint, opinions presented as well-reasoned speculation are welcome for discussion. In this context, speculation means theory, and a theory is an opinion we are trying to prove is a fact.

If you found this website of any interest, you may also want to follow this link:

The Problem of God

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

“The Meaning of Life and Other Tall Tales“

What is this gnawing, chewing, bones-breaking

In my inner ear?  Not words, but wailing,

Of a darkened animal past!  Welling up within,

Shrieking, reeking of a Murderous Emergence!

Born of Virgins!  When death, not man,

Is the measure of all things.

What is this emptiness called love?

Not love of God or life but death.

Raped upon a Lightning Plain,

Once upon a Pluvial Rain,

In a not so distant past,

In a not too distant gorge.

I am Risen from an Ape,

Wielding Murder in my gait;

Though my Life’s Nonviolent,

I may kill except in Lent.

Yea, as I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death,

I fear all evil, for the light has gone out.

I drown in the abyss which is myself.

I cast around in darkness, driven, directionless, relentless.

Death is the answer to a thousand things:

Our hopes, our promises, and would-be dreams.

The things undone which I ought to have done;

The things that I’ve done which I ought not to have done.

Death, not man, Is the measure of all things.

Uncommitments: a middle road to Hell,

A place non-extant except in ourselves.

When I consider the mistakes I have made,

The opportunities lost,

Release my Freudian pain.

Embrace my brief respite from the Underworld.

Every man is an Island, alone in the sea of interstellar space.

How can we sit still for the petty, the small, the insignificant

When life has its urgency, conveyed by death?

God is Death and Death is King.

God is Death; Death reigns Supreme.

Death holds my hand, leads me to peace.

I travel with him at my side.

My love of him cannot hide.

The truth rings true; rings and rings until life passes.

I believe in Death the Destroyer Almighty,

The Father of Heaven on Earth,

The Earth, a house of living Dead.

Rite on … Live on.  Why do old men ache so,

Bundled against the weather; a bottle shaped sack,

Twisted by strong hands into a hidden vessel of instant warmth.

Cold air in the face, reminds me I am alone,

Reminds me I am alive.

I have seen death face-to-face, the leveler of all things.

On the third day, he ascended from the living,

ascended from man, whose cousin is the ape.

They rise in me, yet what are these?

Ask the martyr who stands in the street

And passes out God on facsimile sheets.

We face Death alone, just as we did life.

I am shackled by my faith.

You have received the kiss of Judas …

We all must have our Judas.

While I sit here trying to jump start my day, I begin to remember that George W Bush was a man of few words, for the most part because he thought his actions were none of our business. Imagine that … a democracy where the questionable actions of a few are none of our business. Bush was criticized for being the least open / most secretive president ever to serve, and for taking action where none was required.

Obama is one of the most open presidents in modern times, and conducts himself such that almost everything is our business. Yet he too is constantly criticized: for communicating too much and taking too little action. The difference seems to be that Obama understands the dangers of shooting from the hip, and the commitment that must be made for years following such actions.

Particularly offensive is the mantra that Obama must prove himself by taking us into war, in spite of the fact that he stated clearly during the campaign that he would talk first, shoot later (but only if we were under immediate threat). I wonder if some of us have trouble understanding the concept of leadership. Obama is not a manager, or a military professional. He is first and foremost a world leader.

Guess what a world leader does? They communicate, they talk, they guide. They only appear to act to satisfy those who don’t understand that leadership is primarily motivating others to act. Rest assured, the professionals who “manage” the people and resources assigned to our safety and protection make recommendations, but Obama makes the decision (unlike the Cheney / Bush method, where it wasn’t always clear who was in charge). Most of us don’t want that awesome power abused.

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham

The proposed medical care reform program, for which the president is trying to find acceptance, seems to be the biggest fear most of us have, even more threatening than international terrorism. Yet getting access to the most skilled physicians of our time is more difficult, the more talented they are. In a managed care system, we at least have the potential for steering some of their time to those who need it, but otherwise would not get it. In a competitive system, such as our present model, we have the burden of being our own advocate with no guarantee that we will gain access to the experts we need.

The “better” doctors are difficult to enlist in our care because they spend a lot of time as inaccessible. These are the medical professionals who are pursuing fame and glory writing papers and presenting them at seminars, performing studies, performing consulting on the more interesting cases, i.e., those that provide the most interest in terms of career advancement (which is their right in the pursuit of happiness), and pushing many of their duties onto nurses and aids. This isn’t necessarily “bad” and may be what is necessary to encourage the pursuit of advances in medical treatments, but what it means for someone with a serious illness is that in a capitalistic society we compete for resources, whether or not we “manage” health care. The main question is, who will make the decision to allocate those resources?

Which brings me to one last observation before I get off my soapbox: free enterprise is not always in our best interest, just as selfish-self interest is not always our worst nightmare. To claim otherwise is naive. To write off the entire civil service, for example, because we are sure they will screw up the the health care system is ludicrous. From what I have seen over a 30+ year career in managing contracts with the government, the best results are obtained from fostering a “we’re in this together,” partnering atmosphere. If we sit back and expect failure, we will get failure. Better to deal with each individual case where we feel things could have gone better.

Let me summarize: A well-crafted health care program would not only make basic care available to those who can’t afford it, but also would make catastrophic care (i.e., the specialists) more accessible regardless of income. I suppose that’s too much to hope for, and the economics of such lofty goals would be potentially bankrupting, so the focus will remain on basic care issues—the lesser in importance of the two. But we have to start somewhere, and it’s difficult to argue against providing basic care to anyone who needs it.

Copyright © 2009 by Tad Laury Graham