Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
relevant to what?

You said you hadn't said they were irrelevant.

If you find them relevant in some way, you could explore that question.

If you are confident that science has the answers to all ordinary phenomena, and other disciplines provide answers to both some ordinary but also extra-ordinary phenomena and you find that this is relevant, something about these extra-ordinary phenomena may be relevant and point to a deeper meaning that you do not wish to acknowledge at this point.

"What's the meaning of life?" is the central question that motivates all philosophising.

Science is only a sub-discipline that evolved because people were curious about physical phenomena that they wanted to understand in order to make use of them. Their understanding would serve (cf. industrialisation) our meaning. That meaning has always consisted of living on planet Earth for a given number of years, exploiting it and the time at hand, consciously or not. Has it been an end in itself, or was it rather motivated by religion (serve the gods/God) and our struggle for survival?

Scientific discoveries and progress helped to better cope with our physical human condition (discovery of new land, medicine, engineering, etc.). We have always 'worked the land' and struggled with our human condition. Through the ages, people have also sought answers in nature, in gods, in God, for the better, for the worse.

Suddenly Science stands out and claims that the likelihood of a God being there is minimal and cannot be proved. Religion is at the origin of wars, so much harm and inhumanity. So why bother with it? Science can explain almost everything in our world anyway.
WHO is that 'Science' ;) that he claims sovereignty in all matters of knowledge?

It cannot explain what the meaning of life is. Hence life has no meaning, says he. Only your life has a meaning, my life has a meaning and what that is, is only for you, for me to decide.

I find it hard to find individual meaning in an overall meaningless scheme. Why trust science on that? Why not go and look and ask others who have found meaning? Do we stop bothering about life's meaning (as a whole) because we're afraid there will never be a consensus? That seems silly because this question is existential. It speaks of where we come from, where we're going. If others have found answers, why would you, I not find? What if your, my answers differ? They may. They shall give you peace, they shall give me peace and not anyone else.

The very curious thing is that once people try to explore the question, having only themselves in mind and their quest for Truth (with the big "T"), they arrive at a magic moment where they look up and see that they're not alone, that others have found the same. They may have different names for what they've found, describe it differently because our knowledge is always only partial and two people will always see differently but they'll know that they're talking about the same, ~God~.

At that point, however, consensus is no longer an end in itself. It's simply there.


If science claims authority but ignores the question of life's meaning, what can it alone be good for?

by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 09:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series