In approaching the meaning of life we have to examine the nature of meaning
itself. Meaning is by definition the point, or the intended goal. Consider the
point of humans and the universe as seen from monotheistic religion. If life and
the universe is some sort of toy or form of entertainment for some prime mover,
his point, his own entertainment, would then be the meaning of humans and the
universe. Consider the goals of the deities of various cultures. Some strive for
a balance between the forces of 'good' and 'evil'. This balance seems to simply
be a choice of the deity, the way he thinks it ought to be. The concept of a
prime mover as a source of the meaning of life is flawed, because in talking
about an actual point to absolutely everything, we are simply considering the
goals of a being more powerful than ourselves who has chosen one of many
possible goals that humans can conceive of. This is to say that, if a god like
this exists, his goal for life and the universe is not necessarily valid as a
meaning of life, the universe, and himself. For instance, the Bible claims that
the Christian deity created the universe and placed humans in it that they might
be in awe of his power. If this is so, why is worship the correct response? The
meaning of the universe as created by God is the entertainment of God, but what
is the meaning of the larger system containing God and his creations? We could
conceive of an even 'primer' mover, but that simply takes us all the way back
into the wall of infinite regression. When I first read the Bible, it struck me
as neutral on the idea of worship. The Bible flat out tells you that God created
humans so that they would be in awe of him, which amounts to saying God created
us to inflate his ego. We are to God as our pets are to ourselves, sources of
unconditional love. In the book of Job, God essentially makes a gentleman's bet
with Satan that Job's worship is genuine and not inspired by God's kindness. In
other words, you throw a rock at my dog and I'll swing my arm so it looks I
threw it, and we'll see if he still comes when I call him. In the end, Job is
not simply the dog, because he questions God's throwing of the rock. God's
response is consistent with his goal of inspiring awe. Even though the idea of a
bet with Satan is well within Job's grasp, God claims that his purpose was
inconceivable to Job. God is simply fortifying the concept that is critical to
the continuance of human worship: that with inconceivable power comes incredible
intelligence and unknowable purpose. The narrator of the Bible, which is
supposedly God himself, speaking through humans, never directly says that he
should be worshipped. This is merely the interpretation of humans, who may be
created in God's image with one crucial difference, the need to worship. Perhaps
then, God is after the meaning of life. Imagine a being so powerful as to be
able to create and mould the universe, who, like Roman and Greek gods, is only
marginally more intelligent than his creations. Perhaps God, in all his
ridiculous power, cannot change himself. In order to find the meaning of his own
existence he creates the human race so that we might evolve to an intelligence
greater than his own, in much the same way that a computer programmer wishes to
create true AI, an intelligence greater than human, which might 'evolve' within
a computer. We are given the title of pet and the instinct of worship while the
creator waits for a companion in the search for meaning. Of course this is
wrong, or I would have been struck by a lightning bolt during that last sentence
and brought to God's side. Or perhaps God is not aware of his own success yet,
or perhaps I am not the first to uncover God's purpose, and my predecessor is
debating meaning with God as we speak. Or perhaps I am intended to continue to
search from the perspective that has proved so useful. In any case, this may
amount to Christianity being a giant misunderstanding. At the very least, it
means I can walk up to a Christian, tell him I believe in God and everything in
the Bible, and ask him what the candles and the cathedrals are for. Back again
to the one and only point: if a meaning exists it is not necessarily the purpose
of our creation or existence. It has a larger scope, and can refer to the
meaning of the existence of the being or force creating us, if such a force
exists. This whole essay may seem simply a chance to bash Christianity and give
intelligence even more of a right to inspire ego. Yet is not the egotism that is
present in celebrating the most Godlike trait in man, his intelligence, more
forgivable and less blinding than the egotism of equating the meaning of
ourselves to the meaning of the universe?