The question posed in the title was answered by the supercomputer Deep Thought after 7.5 million years of binary cogitation. And the final answer to the fundamental, most profound puzzle that has occupied the minds of brilliant individuals for the past 2.5 thousand years is: Forty Two. Well, that is according to the late, great Douglas Adams in his book, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. An excellent book, by the way. However, the BBC series adaptation will haunt me to the end of time. In particular, the incarnation of 'Beeplebrox' with a poorly constructed second head, made of rubber. It was unconvincing and wobbled precariously on Beeplebrox's shoulder. Occasionally, the mouth would move up and down in a parody of a demented ventriloquist's dummy. It looked ridiculous and was disturbingly distracting. Rant over.
As mentioned, the Great Question has fascinated and intrigued our species over the millennia. The question can be put forth in several ways, such as: Is there meaning to the universe? What is the purpose of our existence? Is there an underlying purpose to life? Philosophers contend that there is no answer to these questions. That sounds unsettling. We strive to understand, and we become perplexed when we are thwarted in our quest. Not all are so limited in their understanding. Great systems of thought have solved the conundrum, or so they think. Religions have the answer. In fact, their answer is definitive and true. There is something terrifyingly unsettling in certainty.
Generally, there is no wriggle room when it comes to religious systems. The question is definitely answered by belief in an unknown, invisible, supernatural deity. A deity of superlatives. A deity that acts in space and time and gets things done. Believe, and there is no reason to ask for an alternative solution. God knows the answer to all things, and that should be enough for the devoted. Deities do not directly project their wisdom and knowledge to the common folk; an intermediary is required. A special class of men who act as conduits to pass on god's edicts and other profound stuff to the simple devotee; a cadre of individuals solely devoted to the role. Usually, the work is well paid and not demanding- a good gig if you satisfy the entry requirements.
We don't have to understand the mechanism or minutiae of existence. We have the broad outline, and that should suffice. Asking for clarification or raising objections is strictly forbidden. But here is the rub. Different systems propose different solutions to the ultimate question. Even those who claim to adhere to the same deity offer different resolutions. Compare Catholicism with Jehovah's Witnesses. Both, at the very core of their beliefs, worship Yahweh, an Israelite warrior, storm god; however, their versions of '42' are fundamentally incompatible. This can't be.
Simply put, when it comes to religions, various (take your pick), either one system is correct, or none are correct. This is basic logical analysis that cannot be refuted. Unlike induction, deduction provides absolute knowledge. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion is unassailably true. The thinking man knows this and ponders anew. He knows that so-called religious 'veracity', regardless of type/flavour/cult, is not founded on knowledge but on speculation without evidence. When pushed, the theologian will invariably resort to the concept of 'Faith'. Faith, as a theological vehicle for knowledge acquisition, is a baseless fabrication. Invariably, the believer will falter and resort to 'Faith' as a special form of cognition bestowed by the deity. Not only is the concept dependent on supernatural intervention, but some theologians have the intellectual audacity and breathtaking dishonesty to declare that atheists are denied access to this special form of cognition as a consequence of their nonbelief. Frankly, this is where rational debate must end.
My Personal Journey toward a Solution to the Great Question: Prologue
As a young man of 21, my intellectual development was ragged, fantastic and filled with supernatural causation. It was a time when I earnestly believed in the existence of ghosts. Admittedly, this stemmed from an unsettling visitation by an apparition at the tender age of three. My ghost was no ephemeral shade. It was solid, in vivid colour and materialised within a foot of my bed.
My Story
I awoke to see an old, bespectacled woman seated on a large wooden chair next to my bed. I was transfixed, unable to look away. I still remember how she was dressed, her grey coiffed hair spun into a bun. A shawl was draped across her shoulders. There was something antique about my visitor, as if she belonged to a bygone age. How long my unearthly, unbiden phantasm tarried, I could not tell. Eventually, the image broke and dispersed into a kaleidoscope of fractured colour. During the experience, my visitor remained still, staring, inert and expressionless. The spell was broken, and I ran to my parents' room crying in terror. This vision had a significant impact on my immature mind.
At 21, I should have known better. The hint: my wraith came as I awoke from a deep sleep. I no longer believe in ghosts. That said, our present home is afflicted with a mischievous poltergeist whom I have named Rupert. We never see him; however, he takes delight in hiding my pens, reading glasses, car keys and wallet. He is a very naughty sprite! Flaxen, enough of this nonsensical digression and rambling narrative, you must return to the topic in hand. You have something important to say, at least it is important to you and your understanding and conception of ultimate reality.
I had the fervent hope that I could cover what I wanted to say in one, coherent post. This was not to be. For reasons not apparent to the reader, or the author, to be honest, I have veered from my avowed purpose and found myself mired in narrative verbage that has lurched from 'sensible' to a babbling brook of words, that swirls and disperses into the depths of muddied/muddled soggy inconsequence. Thusly, I have wisely decided to split the post asunder into two (unnecessary redundancy), to prevent 'reader fatigue'. It is my avowed intention to conclude with a second post before the arrival of the new year or the next medication cycle.
No comments:
Post a Comment