When I tell people that I’m agnostic, some confess having difficulty understanding agnosticism, which according to William L. Rowe, reflects on the fact that “human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.” And considering one of the greatest—if not the greatest—mystery in science is the inception of life, but is also one of the biggest miracles attributed to God, so the question is if our limited human reasoning can allow us to elucidate if we came to this existence by a miracle or by mere accident?
Scientists have been able to theoretically trace back the universe’s origin 13.7 billion years until the so called “big bang” and accurately explain how the influence of fundamental forces shaped cumulus of gas into stars, acting as giant ovens to cook heavier elements and release them after exploding, allowing the formation of planets. Planets like ours, that after a time of hectic development, produced a “primordial soup” of inanimate components which by a “whim,” became animated. Fast-forward a few billion years and here we are, wondering what gave life to the lifeless.
We can disregard the story I just recounted and focus on the here and now, to argue that despite the advancements on technology, humankind can bind the elements needed to form molecules and even complex proteins, but despite having all the building blocks of life at our disposal, we can’t blow the “breath of life” and turn them into a self-governing cell that could eventually evolve into a complex being. At this point, no known law in the realms of physics, chemistry or biology can explain the reasoning behind the spark of life.
And that’s why, as we go deeper into the study or the universe and the forces governing reality, both at micro and macro level, is sometimes easier to believe that an external force, a deity, was the responsible of everything, including the miracle of life.
In the 1979 novel, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, from author Douglas Adams, a supercomputer called Deep Thought had been built by to give the answer to the «Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything», which, after eons of calculations, the answer given was simply the number «42». An intriguing response, considering that in ASCII code, number 42 equates the “asterisk”, which translates to “anything” or “everything”. Having this ambiguous response, it makes the creators to ponder if the formulation of the question was indeed correct.
In the novel, is revealed, that Earth is a giant supercomputer which was built to determine what the question actually is, but unfortunately Earth is destroyed by an alien race before completing its computation…
Earth…
A planet-sized supercomputer…
With 8 billion transistors…
Computing the ultimate question of life…
Unfortunately, I don’t own a planet-sized supercomputer, so, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t have the answer of the origin of life.
BUT, before you abandon this blog, I believe what is important to us, is how the two beliefs can positively or negatively impact humanity.
For example, if we acknowledge that we are not an “accident” caused by the disembodied forces in the universe, the conception of a conscious superior being predisposes humankind to have a reason or purpose for existence extrinsic to us. This means, the inability to find the meaning of existence within us, but rather try to guess God’s hidden motives, forcing humanity to create dogmas and beliefs to appease human’s unwavering inquiring.
When we surrender our existence and destiny to a deity it certainly helps providing peace of mind by relinquishing our agency to a divine power, but unfortunately, this creates a series of challenges unique to this line of thinking. Besides the well-known dilemmas about good and evil duality, there are a couple very relevant in today’s world, that I would like to focus on this video:
First is “entitlement.” If we attribute human creation to a deity, and like most of religions, we assume humanity is the pinnacle of the creation, this confers a negative sense of entitlement on the believers. What do I mean by that? By subjugating the entirety of the creation under humanity, we put ourselves on a place of privilege, what cause humans to act with a sense of ownership. Have you ever wondered on which basis climate change is mostly disregarded? The conquer for land, the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources, the slavery of our kind, depredation of ecosystems and species, and if technology allows it, in a no distant future, the depredation of the cosmos as well. All these results of humans’ entitlement in action, in the shape of greed, enabled by a creationist belief spread by most religions.
Second, is the “uniqueness” of our existence. The religious perspective of our existence acknowledges not only our corporeal body but also a “soul” to explain our quest for transcendence to wherever plane the deity is found. One of the main qualities attributed to the soul is its uniqueness. Since millennia, religions have defined this individual relation with our creator to signify our experience, trying to find meaning in our daily lives using the concept of a “special path” chosen by the deity for us. Finding purpose was easier to accomplish when human acted locally before the advent of the internet and the electronical globalization. However, now we can Google all our experiences, either good or bad, just to find out hundreds, if not thousands of individuals have experienced the same, rendering our lives just like one more of the bunch. But more and more I see an insatiable pursuit in social media to outstand from the crowd by trying to signify our experience, and in consequence, unconsciously feeding the fear to justify our existence.
We could argue that this quest for individuality is more a psychological trait of humankind than a religious one, considering atheists suffer from multiple forms of existential dread as well. But I’m citing this as part of the religious perspective for now because it fuels the doubts undermining faith, and even when the religious solution would be to “reinforce” faith, as I mentioned earlier, the nature of human mind is one of constant inquiring, forcing the believer to shut down any critical thinking.
This confrontation between our desire of significance and meaning against the unresponsiveness of the universe regarding the purpose of our existence is addressed by French philosopher Albert Camus, in his book The Myth of Sisyphus, and regards the divorce of these two ideals as “absurd.” Camus elaborates that the realization of this “absurdity” leaves the individual with only three outcomes:
First, “Self-termination,” as an easy “way out” when considering a life devoid of meaning is not worth living.
Second, “Leap of Faith,” which is an escape of rationality, as I mentioned, and which Camus considered a “philosophical suicide.”
And finally, “Recognition,” which in Camus’ terms means “embrace the absurd condition,” and acknowledge that universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we could be truly free as individuals by creating our own meaning and purpose.
If we follow the train of thought of “recognition” and embrace the accidentality in the creation of the universe and in the inception of life, by understanding the infimal odds we had in this “cosmic billiard” to ever come to existence, it can help us appreciate the precious gift we had to wait 13.7 billion years to receive. Considering life like this gift we received by “chance,” it can psychologically help us to accept our existence with humility, with detachment instead of entitlement, by understanding its transient nature. Which sadly we only become aware near the end of our journey.
By recognizing that our biological uniqueness as human beings rely only on the limited number of combinations and mutations that our cells and genes can achieve, we can embrace the fact that our individuality doesn’t depend on the singularity of our experiences or any other extrinsic factors, but rather on the happiness of continuing our individual search for significance despite acknowledging the absurdity of this life.
I consider myself an agnostic, because the knowledge accrued by humankind up until this point fail to provide answers to the most coveted questions, and my experiences have provided evidence that there are unexplainable things still hiding behind a veil of incredulity. However, I think humanity would benefit of collectively start believing that our existence in this universe is a product of chance, and hence we start acting with more humility and accountability for the gift we received even if we didn’t deserve it.
One day, I would like to behold at the flourishing of humankind and be able to think “what a beautiful accident we have become.”
But what do you think? Are we here because of divine intervention, or just the product of an accident? Please let me know in the comments.
M. Ch. Landa
