Meaning in Life Is Logically Independent of Questions about the Supernatural

Meaning in Life Is Logically Independent of Questions about the Supernatural

Andrew Sullivan quotes this passage from Jennifer Fulwiler's account of her conversion to Catholicism from atheism:


If everything that we call heroism and glory, and all the significance of all great human achievements, can be reduced to some neurons firing in the human brain, then it's all destined to be extinguished at death. And considering that the entire span of homo sapiens' existence on earth wouldn't even amount to a blip on the radar screen of a 5-billion-year-old universe, it seemed silly to pretend like the 60-odd-year life of some random organism on one of trillions of planets was something special. (I was a blast at parties.) By simply living my life, I felt like I was living a lie. I acknowledged the truth that life was meaningless, and yet I kept acting as if my own life had meaning, as if all the hope and love and joy I'd experienced was something real, something more than a mirage produced by the chemicals in my brain.

This is a good example of what I like to call an argument from dubious dependence. Arguments from dubious dependence generally assume unstated conditional premises which, if made explicit, can be seen to assert a rather dubious relationship between two propositions. Can you spot the sketchy conditionals? There are several here, actually. Here's two:

  • If human achievement and experience is reducible to physical processes of the human organism which expire with the organism's death, then life has no meaning.
  • If lives last no longer than an infinitesimal period of the universe's history, then life has no meaning.  
  • Fulwiler says she felt like she was living a lie, and this makes sense if she had accepted these conditionals and their antecedents, but then kept feeling her life was meaningful anyway. Maybe "living an invalid argument" is more like it. Anyway, as logicians like to say, one woman's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. So, having failed to stop feeling that her live is meaningful, Fulwiler apparently infers that her life is meaningful. But she hasn't given up on her conditionals. So, having affirmed the negation of the consequent, the negation of the antecedent follows. Life is meaningful, so screw science!

    But why accept these conditionals at all? If you ask me, the best reason to think "life is meaningful" is because one's life seems meaningful. If you can't stop "acting as if my own life had meaning," it's probably because it does have meaning. Indeed, not being able to stop acting as if one's life is meaningful is probably what it means for life to be meaningful. But why think this has any logical or causal relationship to the scientific facts about our brains or lifespans? The truth of the proposition "life has meaning" is more evident and secure than any proposition about what must be true if life is to have meaning. Epistemic best practices recommend treating "life has meaning" as a more-or-less self-evident, non-conditional proposition. Once we've got that squared away, we can go ahead and take the facts about the world as they come. It turns out our lives are infinitesimally short on the scale of cosmic time. We know that to be true. Interesting! So now we know two things: that life has meaning and that our lives are just a blip in the history of the universe. 

    This is, I'm confident, the right way to do it. Why think the one fact has anything to do with the other? 

    Here's the best I can do reconstructing a sort of argument for the dubious dependency relationships that underpin Fulwiler's conditionals:

    The experience I get from believing that I'm more than merely physical, that part of me is eternal, and that the universe is a reflection of divine intelligence strikes me as an experience of meaning. I feel confident that I wouldn't have this experience if I didn't believe this supernatural stuff. My explanation for the experienced dependence of the feeling of meaning on these supernatural beliefs is that my experience somehow reflects the objective nature of things. That's why I think there can be no meaning in a merely natural world.  

    Okay. But then what do you do with folks like me who are sure that life has meaning without having any supernatural beliefs at all--who think the question of the meaningfulness of life is logically independent of questions about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural stuff. I think you've got to say we're making a mistake. But what's the mistake? Failing to have the intuition that meaning is somehow connected to the supernatural is a mistake only if this is an intuition we ought to have. But one can't establish that it's an intuition one ought to have without establishing the truth of the intuition in a way that doesn't beg the question. And this can't be done.

    A brief history of human dignity

    What is human dignity? Here's a primer, told through 200 years of great essays, lectures, and novels.

    Credit: Benjavisa Ruangvaree / AdobeStock
    Sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies
    • Human dignity means that each of our lives have an unimpeachable value simply because we are human, and therefore we are deserving of a baseline level of respect.
    • That baseline requires more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose.
    • We look at incredible writings from the last 200 years that illustrate the push for human dignity in regards to slavery, equality, communism, free speech and education.
    Keep reading Show less

    Urban foxes self-evolve, exhibiting Darwin’s domestication syndrome

    A new study finds surprising evidence of the self-evolution of urban foxes.

    A fox at the door of 10 Downing Street on Janurary 13, 2015.

    Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images
    Surprising Science
    • A study from the University of Glasgow finds urban foxes evolved differently compared to rural foxes.
    • The skulls of the urban foxes are adapted to scavenging for food rather than hunting it.
    • The evolutionary changes correspond to Charles Darwin's "domestication syndrome."

    How much can living in the city change you? If you were an urban fox, you could be evolving yourself to a whole new stage and becoming more like a dog, according to a fascinating new study.

    Researchers compared skulls from rural foxes around London with foxes who lived inside the city and found important variations. Rural foxes showed adaptation for speed and hunting after quick, small prey, while urban fox skulls exhibited changes that made it easier for them to scavenge, looking through human refuse for food, rather than chasing it. Their snouts were shorter and stronger, making it easier to open packages and chew up leftovers. They also have smaller brains, not meant for hunting but for interacting with stationary food sources, reports Science magazine.

    Interestingly, there was much similarity found between the male and female skulls of the urban foxes.

    The observed changes correspond to what Charles Darwin called the "domestication syndrome," comprised of traits that go along with an animal's transition from being wild, to tamed, to domesticated.

    The study was led by Kevin Parsons, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Glasgow.

    "What's really fascinating here is that the foxes are doing this to themselves," Parsons told the BBC. "This is the result of foxes that have decided to live near people, showing these traits that make them look more like domesticated animals."

    The researchers are not suggesting you should go out and get a fox as a house-pet just yet. But they are seeing the evolutionary process taking place that's moving the urban foxes along the path towards becoming more like dogs and cats, explained the study's co-author Dr. Andrew Kitchener from National Museums Scotland.

    A fox beneath a tree in Greenwich park, south east London

    A fox beneath a tree in Greenwich park, south east London on May 14, 2020.

    Photo by Glyn KIRK / AFP

    "Some of the basic environmental aspects that may have occurred during the initial phases of domestication for our current pets, like dogs and cats, were probably similar to the conditions in which our urban foxes and other urban animals are living today," said Kitchener. "So, adapting to life around humans actually primes some animals for domestication."

    The specimen came from the National Museum Scotland's collection of around 1,500 fox skulls.

    You can read the study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

    fox sleeping beneath stadium seats

    A fox at the LV County Championship, Division two match between Surrey and Derbyshire at The Brit Oval on April 9, 2010 in London, England.

    Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images

    ​'The time is now' for cryptocurrencies, PayPal CEO says

    Is Bitcoin akin to 'digital gold'?

    Technology & Innovation
    • In October, PayPal announced that it would begin allowing users to buy, sell, and hold cryptocurrencies.
    • Other major fintech companies—Square, Fidelity, SoFi—have also recently begun investing heavily in cryptocurrencies.
    • While prices are volatile, many investors believe cryptocurrencies are a relatively safe bet because blockchain technology will prove itself over the long term.
    Keep reading Show less

    "Clean meat" approved for sale in Singapore

    Singapore has approved the sale of a lab-grown meat product in an effort to secure its food supplies against disease and climate change.

    Credit: Adobe Stock / Big Think
    Politics & Current Affairs
  • Singapore has become the first country to approve the sale of a lab-grown meat product.
  • Eat Just, the company behind the product, will have a small-scale commercial launch of its chicken bites.
  • So-called "clean meats" may reduce our reliance on livestock farming, which kills billions of animals worldwide every year.
  • Keep reading Show less
    Scroll down to load more…
    Quantcast