Forty Two

So what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? Of course, most of my readership will remember the late, great Douglas Adam's answer in his book: 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', in which the greatest computer ever built, after eons of deep thought came up with the profound answer of 42. Brilliant stuff. Today, if you type this question into Google you will be confronted with the same result. But this answer will not do for the religious fraternity. The majority of religions have an answer to this question, and it not 42. Their answer generally evokes some form of eternal reward or punishment after we die based on our morality or lack of it, and most importantly a belief in their specific religion and all that it entails. Different subsets within a religion, consider Christianity for example, will demand adherence to their specific doctrinal stance in order to reap the fruits of eternal bliss or eternal fiery pain. This is particularly so for the fundamental Christian sects. Catholicism, the great bastion of Christianity, no longer believes in a literal hell. For most of its history, Catholicism, according to the infallible Pope, believed in a place of eternal brimstone and fire, however, these days, the infallible Pope no longer holds this view (what a terrible shame). Today's Pope considers hell to be just absence from God- go tell it to the baptists.

These various viewpoints can be subjected to and resolved by simple logic. Only two scenarios can be correct. As most conceptions of the afterlife are mutually exclusive only one can be dripping in verity itself- there can only be one vision of 'heaven & hell' and the means to arrive there. The only other possibility is that none are correct: the only two possibilities, according to logic, are one or nil. If the former proposition is correct, which is the correct one?  Can empirical science categorically answer this most convoluted conundrum? The answer is an emphatic NO. As science is an evidence-based pursuit, and as far as we are aware, according to the strict and rigorous strictures of the scientific method, no one has returned from the afterlife to enable the gathering of evidential data. Therefore, science alone must remain bereft of a theory.  However, this does not mean that science can't help with a possible resolution if allied with logic. From all the empirical data we have, which is extensive, a working organic brain is necessary for consciousness. Heaven and hell must involve some form of consciousness, otherwise what is the point? I should state that the onus is on those religious folk who would posit consciousness without a brain. Some folk state that 'near-death' experiences represent evidence for some form of the afterlife. I would vehemently disagree as in these incidences there is no organic brain death.

An afterlife must be based on a non-organic brain. It is reasonable to ask what is the nature of this awareness during a putative afterlife. Whatever it is, it must involve an energy source of some form. If this is the case, we are in the realm of science. No such energy has been posited or identified. Therefore, the only alternative is to drift into the realm of the supernatural, and you know what I think of the supernatural. Thus a mixture of the supernatural together with simple logic helps to reach a reasonable conclusion. Those favouring an afterlife, of some variety, are generally happy with a  proposed supernatural solution. Indeed, it is considered a virtue to take on board the unexplained as an explanation. After all, religions are based on this other world, supernatural and mysterious principle. This an irrational response and should not be commended. Understandably, this position is an anathaema to science and the scientific method.

This does not answer the question proposed at the beginning of this post. However, suggesting that life and an afterlife initiated and maintained by an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, supernatural deity as an answer to the meaning of life, etc is not one I would support and has no basis in reality and is in no way supported by data or by rational thought. So, that being the case, is there another answer. Many philosophers think that this question is basically unanswerable. However, on this subject, I will boldly posit and put forth an answer that seems appealing at least to myself. 

I contend that there is no meaning to life in any fundamental sense. This is not to say that life is meaningless for living organisms at some other level. I do not think my life worthless unless I’m gripped by my infrequent bouts of despond and deep despair. What I mean to say that there is no guiding artificer, natural or otherwise influencing our existence. In many ways, life is the result of the conditions of the universe at the micro (quantum physics) and macro-level (gravity). As for intelligent life, I will say this: the course of evolution is not directed to any specific end. It is simply a selection process that favours the living unit that has maximal reproductive success in a given environment. This process does not necessarily lead to organisms with high intelligence. Clearly, natural selection leading to intelligence in humans is in many ways a 'happy accident'. The most successful organisms on earth are viruses and bacteria. A none intelligent life strategy is obviously a winning one.   

I know that my conclusion that life is a happenstance of physics and chemistry is not going to be popular. It deflates our ego and despoils our vanity to ponder that life is basically an existence without any underlying meaning or purpose. For those that do not consider my conclusion worthy then perhaps they would be satisfied with the following answer to the ultimate question. The meaning of life, the universe, and everything is forty-two. This answer as good as any other and certainly superior to most.