Does The Universe Have Any Meaning?

One of the deepest philosophical questions that has plagued human thought for ages is whether or not our existence has any meaning. There is the existential form of the question that is concerned with whether there’s a point or purpose to our existence. However, there is also the epistemological form of the question that is concerned with whether the universe is meaningful and can be known or understood. It can be argued that the two forms of the question cannot be divorced from each other, but let’s focus on the epistemological form for now.


First let us think about what meaning means. What do we have in mind when we say something is meaningful? To understand this, we must understand the difference between denotation and connotation. In linguistics, denotation refers to the literal or dictionary meaning of a word or expression while connotation refers to the underlying ideas or emotions associated with the word.


When we talk about meaning, we are usually referring to connotation. When I look at a piece of art, I know what it is - I know the way the colors and images are arranged, I know their sizes, shapes, etc. All these are what the art denotes. However, when I inquire about the meaning of the artwork, I’m looking for its connotation - the underlying message, emotion, or idea behind the work. In other words, I’m searching for its interpretation. 


We can observe that connotation or interpretation presupposes purpose, intention, deliberation - attributes of a rational agent. A piece of art has an underlying idea or an associated emotion because it is the product of a rational person. People don't go around looking for the meaning behind the marks a chicken leaves on the ground while searching for food. People try to find meaning behind stories, works of art, etc - things that owe their existence to the exercise of a rational will. 


The atheist presupposes that there is no rational will behind the facts of the universe. Why, then, does he assume the universe is something that can be known or understood? Why does he seek purpose within it?


If the unbeliever were consistent, he would treat the world he experiences no different from the random arrangement of sand on the beach - something that just is and is devoid of meaning or purpose. 


Only the Christian has any philosophical right to try to understand the universe. He knows the universe and history is as a result of God’s plan so, relying on divine revelation, he tries to understand that plan and his place within it. 


This is yet another illustration of the transcendental necessity of Christianity. This is something I go deeper into in The Best Argument for Christianity - you can grab a copy here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more