The Consumerism of Calvin (yes, that Calvin!)

V'Ger Has Left The Building

One of the more philosophical Star Trek movies was Star Trek: The Motion Picture released in 1979. The plot line wrestled with what makes humans human; what makes a machine a machine; what makes a sentient being sentient; and what might happen when an alien race encounters a human-made probe. The story revolved around a Voyager space probe (the fictional Voyager 6) that had been repaired by unknown inhabitants of an unknown solar system before being sent back to earth to find its creator. Commander Spock gets the most important line in the movie. In a rare expression of human emotions Spock cries for V'Ger and says, "Each of us... at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a God... and asks...'Why am I here? What was I meant to be?'"1

These words came to me once more as I read the news that Voyager 1 had left our solar system (the first of two actual Voyager vessels) making it the first human-made object to explore interstellar space.2 Originally launched on September 5th, 1977, it is an example of "boldly going where no one has gone before." Crossing the boundary into this territory places Voyager into space in which the dominance of our star finally fades to imperceptible levels and allows for the measurement of interstellar magnetic fields, galactic particles, and high energy plasma ejected from other stars. Such measurements will enhance our perception of the universe and contribute to our understanding of fundamental questions like "Why am I here?" and "What was I meant to be?"


1 Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Directed by Robert Wise. Performed by Leonard Nimoy. 1979.
2 http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/353199/description/At_last_Voyager_1_slips_into_interstellar_space

Follow-Up to Information and Meaning

On March 2  I posted Information and Meaning. This cartoon by Bill Watterson is an appropriate follow-up to that blog post. In three frames this philosophical cartoonist captures the angst of many regarding both meaninglessness and medications of choice. (Click on the comic for a larger image.)

Information and Meaning

We have all seen this situation numerous times. We are sitting among friends talking about some subject when someone asks a question to which no one has the answer. Soon, someone pulls out their phone and googles the question (yes, I did just use the verb form of Google; language is always changing). A few seconds later we have the information. Information is ubiquitous. What is not as available is meaning. Alister McGrath has said,

We live in an age when the growth of the Internet has made it easier than ever to gain access to information and accumulate knowledge. But information is not the same as meaning, nor is knowledge identical with wisdom. Many feel engulfed in a tsunami of facts, in which we can find no meaning.1

He speaks of the glut of information and the dearth of meaning.

. . . we cannot make sense of the "shower of facts" with which we are bombarded. There seems to be "no loom to weave it into fabric." . . . . we find ourselves living on the brink of incoherence and meaninglessness. Meaning seems to have been withheld from us - if there is any meaning to be found at all.
Many find the thought of a meaningless world to be unbearable. If there is no meaning, then there is no point in life.2

Those of us who claim to have found meaning find that our hope is sometimes called into question. People ask us how we can possibly believe in such meta-narratives when "all of them are power structures of control." Of course, that last phrase is the proclamation of another meta-narrative.

For my part, I don't ever plan to give up the search for meaning. This is the ultimate "Holy Grail." The quest is as important as the result. There is still hope at the end of the journey if we are willing to engage the question. Yet many have given up the quest choosing instead to medicate themselves with their prescription of choice. They withdraw from the world and from questions of meaning. They fill their lives with entertainment, isolation, depressants, and mood boosters. Perhaps the real problem for the average person is not that the universe might be meaningless but that "the universe might turn out to have a purpose of which he does not approve."3

1 (McGrath 2011, Kindle Loc 91)
2 (McGrath 2011, Kindle Loc 91)
3 (McGrath 2011, Kindle Loc 112)

Contact

I watched the 1997 movie Contact once again. I love this movie because most of the time it seems to be truly wrestling with questions of philosophy, science, and theology. It asks questions that don't get answered (just like real life). It recognizes that there are fundamentalist zealot Christians and there are fundamental zealot scientists. It describes scientists with an openness to faith and describes people of faith with an openness to science. It struggles with the problem of absolute skepticism and with the problem of faith when we have no hard evidence on which to base our faith. It recognizes that some experiences go beyond what can be measured with scientific methodologies. These are very good questions to ask.

I encourage the reader of this blog to give the movie a thoughtful viewing and allow the questions of the movie to become questions we also ask about life, faith, and science. I will quote a few of my favourite scenes from the script to whet your appetite for this movie and this discussion.

The movie is about one woman's determined effort to detect evidence of intelligent life beyond this planet. Early in her life she has this interaction with her father.

"Ellie: Dad, do think there's people on other planets?
Ted Arroway: I don't know Sparks. But I guess I'd say, if it is just us, it seems like an awful waste of space."

Ellie's father passes away and she grows up to become a world renowned scientist who continues to ask the question she asked of her father. She uses large radio telescopes to "listen" for signs of life on other planets. She is part of the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project. It is at this time that she meets Palmer Joss, a charming man of faith. Trained in a catholic seminary, but rejecting some of the vows of ordination, he calls himself a "man of the cloth without the cloth." Ellie asks Joss "So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?" This question is left open for the rest of the movie.

Ellie Arroway eventually receives a message from the Vega star system with instructions for how to build a large machine that transports her to the far reaches of the universe far beyond Vega. As she seeks to describe the things she sees she finds herself at a loss for words.

Ellie Arroway: [Witnessing a celestial light show up close] Some celestial event. No - no words. No words to describe it. Poetry! They should've sent a poet. So beautiful. So beautiful... I had no idea.

Eventually, Ellie meets one of the intelligent beings who sent the message to earth. The being comes to her in a form that makes it possible for it to communicate. It comes in the form of Ellie's father, Ted Arroway.

Alien: You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other.

At the end of her journey Ellie finds herself back on earth but with no evidence that the journey even took place. From her perspective, she was away from earth for about eighteen hours; but from earth's perspective she was never gone. The recording devices show nothing but static and she is left trying to explain a personal experience for which she has no physical evidence.

Panel member: Doctor Arroway, you come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts. Only a story that to put it mildly strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent, dozens of lives were lost. Are you really going to sit there and tell us we should just take this all... on faith?
[pause, Ellie looks at Palmer]
Michael Kitz: Please answer the question, doctor.
Ellie Arroway: Is it possible that it didn't happen? Yes. As a scientist, I must concede that, I must volunteer that.
Michael Kitz: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that if you were in our position, you would respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism!
Ellie Arroway: Yes!
Michael Kitz: [standing, angrily] Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony, and concede that this "journey to the center of the galaxy," in fact, never took place!
Ellie Arroway: Because I can't. I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves, that we are not..., that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish.

William James in an essay on mysticism has said that one of the marks of a mystical experience is its ineffability. That is, for the person who has the experience, “no adequate report of its contents can be given in words."* The movie Contact is exceptionally good at describing this ineffability. One of the last scenes, which would have made a better final scene than the one used, shows an interaction between Palmer Joss, representing faith, and Ellie Arroway, representing science.

News Reporter: Reverend Joss! Reverend Joss, what do you believe? What do you believe?
Palmer Joss: [pause] As a person of faith I'm bound by a different covenant than Doctor Arroway. But our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of Truth. I for one believe her.

At the end of the day, both science and theology seek to find truth. May this movie encourage each of us to pursue truth with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.


*James, William. "Mysticism." In Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, by Louis P Pojman and Michael Rea, 98-114. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2008.

Contact. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Performed by Jodie Foster, David Morse, Matthew McConaughey. 1997.

Why?

A friend and regular blogger (4 Minute Writer) directed me to a blog which asked some questions about why humans exist. She knew this would catch my attention.

Nrhatch wrote: "On an individual basis, I have no problem seeing the meaning for life since I agree with the Dalai Lama: We are here to be happy and to make others happy. But having something to do WHILE we are here is NOT the same thing as having a REASON for being here in the first place. It’s that larger question, the “why?” of it all ~ the raison d’etre for mankind ~ that eludes me." - Spirit Lights the Way, December 19, 2010 http://nrhatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-why-of-it-all/

It seems to me we need to think through the distinction between "the meaning of life" and "the why of life." Is there really any distinction at all? If I find myself at a triathlon, I know the meaning of a triathlon is an event in which people swim, cycle, and run for fun, fitness, and competition. Why I am at the triathlon? I am at the triathlon to swim, cycle, and run for fun, fitness, and competition. There may be other reasons for being at a triathlon. One might be a spectator, a volunteer, an organizer, or a merchant promoting their product. As we add in these other possible "whys," we also add to the "meanings." A triathlon is indeed an event in which people spectate, volunteer, organize, and promote. These are part of the why and the meaning.

Now, let us go back to the question of the existence of humans. If the meaning of life is "to be happy and to make others happy" (a premise with which I disagree but about which I will not argue for the moment), then could it be that the reason why humans exist is "to be happy and to make others happy?" The problem does not lie in the distinction between "meaning" and "why." The problem lies with needing a place to which to ascribe the "meaning" and the "why." We can ascribe the meaning to the universe as Nrhatch has done by saying that "Maybe the Universe wanted an audience to applaud its creation?" (note the capital U and the question mark in the original text). But this is problematic. With a triathlon, we can trace the meaning and the why back to an event organizer or the person or persons who chose to have a triathlon. By establishing the triathlon they gave it meanings and whys. A triathlon cannot give itself meanings or whys just as a universe cannot give itself meanings and whys.

We may not know all of the meanings and whys of our existence. There will always be mystery with regard to the existence of humans and indeed the existence of the universe. For this I am thankful. I like some mystery in my life. For me, the bigger question is, "To what or Who will I ascribe this mystery, these meanings and these whys?" (note the capital W and the question mark in the text).