Ultra pragmatism and scientism has left man with the illusion of an anthropocentric universe which no longer has need or use of a Creator God. But for all the science that builds one atop another, from the smallest sub-atomic universe to the galaxies of immense proportions throughout the vast universe, we no longer see the pervasive mysteries that are cooked into our natural observations and our mathematical and scientific theories – no matter how perfectly they can predict or read the history of being itself. For every finding that is discovered and proved, the age old question of the child is still there: “why?”. For there are things that mathematics and science and logic will never unravel and the “why, how, for what purpose and to what end” questions are only covered over by a thin veil of evermore complicated explanations. It seems we keep peeling back layers of an onion only to find that we still don’t know why there is an onion.
The scientists and the pragmatics amongst us still cannot explain the mystery of a universe (who) creates intelligence which in turn tries to explain itself; which leads us to accept some kind of mechanism at work; an introspective conglomeration of vibrating subatomic and atomic particles with self-consciousness. We take for granted that this (living) universe can be comprehended by a naturally formed bit of the universe – ourselves. The universe somehow has a desire to know itself and it is us (small little sub atomic beings of the cosmos), who are both alive and conscious of this universe that has been bequeathed this task. How utterly wonderful, awe inspiring and mysterious and we are urged to think of it with no more interest than we might have in what we should eat for dinner.
Imagine first why there is anything at all. If I were to be able to hypothetically ask a dead man, according to the beliefs of atheists, if there is anything at all to existence he would have to say from his perspective that it is only an illusion: for he sees, feels, senses or remembers nothing. So to the dead, we are in error and there is no being. And to the living, the dead would be in error as we merely need rely upon our existing living senses.
Secondly, we can imagine then that every bit of energy in the universe has some primal or latent life residing within itself (mysteriously) such that it has its own primal desire for knowing and acknowledging itself. For how do these atoms arrange themselves in man to allow logic or a sense of being? And if that is our belief then we have become committed pantheists. How too, is it that this logical existence (man) has come into being only to grow, then whither and die? What happened to the stability of the atoms from which this life force is created, ebbs then wanes, and then returns to the state of simple atoms once again? What is the purpose then for man to come into being, thinking of itself as alive and logically examining such questions, only to die; like little unexplainable conscious beings of life bubbling to the surface to only burst. So life is mysterious as well. It is a wonder that there are collections of cells, atoms and sub atomic particles that come and go, without any purpose or meaning: no rhyme or reason, and yet we wish to admonish wonder, awe and mystery that permeate creation but is the substance of our faith in God.
Thirdly, why is it that we have a sense of “I-ness” or “ego” and a sense of “thou-ness” or other; the seer and and the seen. Where is the entire cosmological intelligence that is always aware of itself even if we are simply like dying cells being replaced by newer ones? For there is no reason that an atom should become unstable within our bodies in our short, normal lifetimes. Those same atoms existed before I was born and exist after death and yet in this intermediate step between non-existent man and decomposed man there is life and a social, moral and ethical order and construct that binds us together just as sure as the cells of a body bind themselves one to another in order to create a single living human being.
Isn’t it harder to imagine such a universe than to un-imagine it? And that, I think, is what is ultimately the end result when we place all our belief in science; nihilism or nothingness. “Life could be a dream” seems to fit the narrative. For it is meaningless, has no beginning and no end and only exists in those who accept their own consciousness as being real . . . though they will return to whence they came which is non-consciousness or non-being; utter emptiness and nothingness.
So is life better lived with our instinct to have faith in our perceived dignity and worth? To embrace hope for the future of ourselves and all of mankind? And to find the dignity, both morally and ethically to embrace true charity (self-giving love or sacrificial love)? For to give ones life for another in the world of “you only live once” crowd, such sacrifices seem totally out of place.
We are to believe that life with meaning is simply ignorance and so we strip away all the wonder, awe and mystery of life which a loving Creator God provides. A God Who desires man to live well so that we might live together with Him in happiness eternally or to live in an existential world that is ultimately valueless is one’s primary choice in life. And remember that the same process that developed science, logic and all other pragmatic studies were intuited by mankind in the very same way that the other subjects developed. They are naturally occurring in our species. So, is religion any more part of our internal makeup than this new “religion” which denies even itself?