The meaning of life?

November 23, 2022 • by Michael A. Atkins

It seems there are many questions we as humans are constantly asking, some of which have been asked since time immemorial and yet we still haven’t gotten any closer to an answer. The biggest of course: “What is the meaning of life?” I can’t claim to have the perfect answer to this question, but conversations, even contentious ones, that I’ve engaged in have led me to recently draw a singular conclusion.

Ironically this idea came as the result of a debate with a particularly angry atheist about creation vs. evolution——there’s quite an unstable and contemptuous relationship between the two sides. In the midst of numerous ad hominem attacks, something resembling a conversation emerged. I began my answer to the question of creation vs. evolution with an attempt at a modicum of objectivity, essentially suggesting that the difference between these viewpoints isn’t one of evidence vs. superstition, but rather worldview vs. worldview. That ultimately evidence is agnostic of worldview, it is what it is and is shared by all. It is the interpretation of that evidence relying on our paradigms that distinguishes the two positions. The question of course isn’t one of whether evidence exists or even what the evidence is, it’s determining how that evidence applies in light of an historical perspective. The reaction to such a claim, predictably was one of extreme skepticism that any evidence could be reliably used to support a creationist position. Something like “What evidence do you have that absolutely everything was made from absolutely nothing simply by speaking magic words?” To which I responded, “Is the notion that nothing exploded producing everything in the Big Bang really so different?” While engaging in this type of conversation tends to be a bit of a battle, it did none the less advance to some degree or another. I posited that there are only two positions ultimately available in the discussion of origin:

1. Something eternal must exist
2. Everything must have come from nothing

The second option of course is not a tenable position, except for the few to are willing to engage in the intellectually deficient acrobatics of redefining terms like “nothing” as meaning… something other than nothing. I recently watched a debate between Mr. Peter Atkins and Mr. Hugh Ross where Mr. Atkins (no relation) proposed this very thing. As he continually charges dissenters with “intellectual laziness” Mr. Atkins proceeds to solve the problem of everything from nothing by redefining the term that illuminates the problem in the first place. “Nothing isn’t the absence of something” he seems to claim while conflating nothing with everything simply being at equilibrium. This of course in my view is preposterous, in order to have equilibrium you must have at least two things. If the two have opposite effects which cancel each other out, that’s not the same as the two not existing at all; which would be of course the broadly accepted definition of “nothing”. What it appears to me to be happening is an attempt to hold both views simultaneously, or to cling to a paradigm in spite of it’s contradictions. Certainly that must be better than entertaining any possibility of a Creator.

After reaching a consensus with my atheist antagonist, that the first option is the only possibility, I began to realize that there are also two positions available again; because while we agree that something eternal must exist, we have two competing views of what that is. Of course there is a broad consensus that the universe had a beginning, so the options are:

1. The universe had a beginning therefore it isn’t eternal (and something else must be)
2. The universe had a beginning yet is also eternal.

Again for me, the second position makes no sense, yet this seems to be the requirement for holding an evolutionary perspective. Since we have evidence that the universe had a beginning, and we know something cannot come from nothing, and we know the universe exists, something other than the universe must exist eternally. Other than Mr. Atkins’ tweaking terms like “nothing”, he also seems to suggest that causality is a property which requires the existence of time, therefore prior to time causality isn’t required. This is yet again in my view a very poorly formulated argument. From the perspective of a person bounded in time causality is also bounded in time, but there’s no reason cause and effect must be independent of each other, they certainly don’t behave that way. He then precedes to rely on causality when he claims that nothing “rolled over” into something. These types of discussions can get taxing because, while Mr. Atkins is clearly intelligent and articulate, when considered further we invariably reach one dead-end after another.

My own debate took it’s turn when I asked the question that always seems the most important to answer, “Why should anyone give any merit to a viewpoint which eliminates all value and purpose?” The notion that the universe is all there is, and there’s not an ultimate purpose and meaning to any of this, suggests there’s no value in considering the ideas of atheists. Of course the response is “What purpose does it serve to create all of us for a seemingly minuscule period of time in the course of eternity either?” Which itself can be seen as that same old eternal question, “What is the meaning of life?”

Like many before me, I pondered carefully my response for a considerable amount of time. I’m not sure when it dawned on me, but drawing from my Christian perspective it’s clear the answer is “Love”. But what does that really mean? Love is an aspect of relationship. I began to consider all of the things we as humans say and do and deal with in the world around us. All of these questions of science and philosophy, in fact much of human existence is irrevocably concerned with relationships. The relationship between organisms and environment, space and time, chemistry and biology, cause and effect, matter and energy, consumption and conservation, time and money, life and death, good and evil, action and consequence; all of these things are relationships we navigate throughout our lives, drawing conclusions and making choices on the basis of our relationships or the relationship they have to us. We are seemingly being trained to develop an understanding of relationships for some eternal purpose, such as a relationship with our Creator. Our physical being is the mechanism by which this is possible. We being flesh are always in need whether for food, water, warmth, shelter, light and life; we depend on and require what is separate from us. This inherently produces a self-interest, which in turn provides us with the capacity for mutual interest and empathy with each other. Time as well creates another relationship, even for the individual. The relationship between an individual today, and that same individual tomorrow. Each of our actions have their own built-in consequences for ourselves, and we must learn at times to sacrifice self-interest, even for the sake of self-interest. So relationship, with each other and with the Creator becomes in my best estimation, the meaning of life.

This is demonstrated in many scenarios, the best examples seem to be the fact that we innately respond to someone sacrificing their own interest for the interest of another, with great admiration and awe. We call these people heroes, and seek to emulate them in our heart of hearts. The giving of one’s self for another is the epitome of relationship, it represents the best of us. Whether seen in a tragic circumstance where heroes emerge, the love of a mother given unconditionally to a helpless child, or a life given on the cross for humanity; it’s all about relationship.

meaning