Purpose, plain and simple

[Wulfgar]

I’ve been reading and came across a common objection from non-believers that is fundamentally challenging to the Christian notion of suffering. As Christians we ascribe sin to the purpose of suffering; that’s the bare, basic description of it.

However, my concern is this: Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all? When we talk about suffering we usually take for granted the fact that we are applying meaning to it. Taken a step further we might as well ask: why ascribe purpose to anything? Is purpose necessary derived from things by their nature, or is purpose a subjective concept?

From a strictly scientific level I suppose we could link “purpose” to activity at the quantum level, then the atomic, then molecular, and upwards gradually into the macrocosm of human existence and daily life. Then again, there is always the question of “why” matter, scientific laws, etc. exist at all. Non-believers would suggest that there is no ultimate “why” (although I wonder how they came to this “objective” conclusion).

Alright, so here’s the questions again in a nutshell: What is purpose, and why ascribe it to anything? Obviously any perspectives are allowed but I’d at least like to get some Theist/Christian/Catholic viewpoints on this as the question is ultimately directed to them.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’ve been reading and came across a common objection from non-believers that is fundamentally challenging to the Christian notion of suffering. As Christians we ascribe sin to the purpose of suffering; that’s the bare, basic description of it.

However, my concern is this: Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all?

I don’t think sin is the “purpose” of suffering, but the cause. It’s just cosmic physics:

The further from God we are, the less holiness in the world and the more suffering. The closer we are to God the more Light there is in the world and the less suffering. It’s like an equation.

 

[Wulfgar]

Thanks for clarifying. I was probably getting a bit wordy in the first post.

However, my main concern is still this: why ascribe a purpose to anything? How do we know that things have purposes at all? And what is the precise definition of “purpose”, anyway? I was merely using sin and suffering as an example; they weren’t really the main focus of the question.

Here’s my line of thinking on this topic: Every day we explain things, whether consciously or not. For instance, if I am hungry, the explanation (or purpose) of my hunger is that I am in need of food. Why do I need food? To continue living. Why do I need to continue living? …etc. Ultimately our daily questions - whether or not we consciously ponder them - are somehow linked to fundamental questions of our very existence. They are fair questions, and even if we don’t have strictly empirical answers to them, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have answers.

The point is, when non-believers claim that there are no purposes to certain things, I have to ask how they arrive at that conclusion. As I have demonstrated in the hunger example, we already know that we can answer a handful of questions in the endless chain of “why’s”, so why would the objective answers eventually cease to exist, whether we know such answers or not?

 

[tonyrey]

However, my main concern is still this: why ascribe a purpose to anything?

An excellent question!

How do we know that things have purposes at all?

According to science everything has a physical cause and purpose is a superfluous concept.

And what is the precise definition of “purpose”, anyway?

Goal-directed activity.

Here’s my line of thinking on this topic: Every day we explain things, whether consciously or not. For instance, if I am hungry, the explanation (or purpose) of my hunger is that I am in need of food. Why do I need food? To continue living. Why do I need to continue living? …etc. Ultimately our daily questions - whether or not we consciously ponder them - are somehow linked to fundamental questions of our very existence. They are fair questions, and even if we don’t have strictly empirical answers to them, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have answers.

From a materialist’s point of view nothing is necessary:

O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.

• King Lear

The point is, when non-believers claim that there are no purposes to certain things, I have to ask how they arrive at that conclusion.

If they were consistent they would claim nothing has a purpose!

As I have demonstrated in the hunger example, we already know that we can answer a handful of questions in the endless chain of “why’s”, so why would the objective answers eventually cease to exist, whether we know such answers or not?

Precisely! To insert purpose arbitrarily into a purposeless universe is senseless…

 

[inocente]

I’ve been reading and came across a common objection from non-believers that is fundamentally challenging to the Christian notion of suffering. As Christians we ascribe sin to the purpose of suffering; that’s the bare, basic description of it.

However, my concern is this: Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all? When we talk about suffering we usually take for granted the fact that we are applying meaning to it. Taken a step further we might as well ask: why ascribe purpose to anything? Is purpose necessary derived from things by their nature, or is purpose a subjective concept?

From a strictly scientific level I suppose we could link “purpose” to activity at the quantum level, then the atomic, then molecular, and upwards gradually into the macrocosm of human existence and daily life. Then again, there is always the question of “why” matter, scientific laws, etc. exist at all. Non-believers would suggest that there is no ultimate “why” (although I wonder how they came to this “objective” conclusion).

Alright, so here’s the questions again in a nutshell: What is purpose, and why ascribe it to anything? Obviously any perspectives are allowed but I’d at least like to get some Theist/Christian/Catholic viewpoints on this as the question is ultimately directed to them.

In science, or any other time where facts are important, imho it’s best to never use the word “purpose”. For instance it’s a simple fact to say that the feeling we call hunger makes us want to eat, while saying that is its purpose is only an opinion which might lead to long arguments about whether that’s its sole purpose, who or what gave it that purpose, and so on.

Assigning purpose is so subjective maybe it’s best to never try. We know we can trust someone who tells us that the purpose to life, the universe and everything is 42, otherwise maybe not. I mean it’s great to have a purpose to our own life, but also let others make their own purpose.

 

[Wulfgar]

In science, or any other time where facts are important, imho it’s best to never use the word “purpose”. For instance it’s a simple fact to say that the feeling we call hunger makes us want to eat, while saying that is its purpose is only an opinion which might lead to long arguments about whether that’s its sole purpose, who or what gave it that purpose, and so on.

Assigning purpose is so subjective maybe it’s best to never try. We know we can trust someone who tells us that the purpose to life, the universe and everything is 42, otherwise maybe not. I mean it’s great to have a purpose to our own life, but also let others make their own purpose.

Thanks for the response. I guess my choice of words wasn’t the best, I do agree it’s better to simply use the word “cause” when discussing something strictly scientific or natural, rather than “purpose”. The main thing I was trying to get across was that eventually, once we run out of physical “causes” and exit the realm of science, it would seem that we’d need to start assigning “purposes” to things. Otherwise we run into the problem of an infinite chain of finite causes (i.e., “Why does the chain itself exist in the first place?”)…and I certainly don’t want to jump off the topic.

Well, maybe I just answered my own question, haha. Thoughts?

 

[Julia_Mae]

The point is, when non-believers claim that there are no purposes to certain things, I have to ask how they arrive at that conclusion. As I have demonstrated in the hunger example, we already know that we can answer a handful of questions in the endless chain of “why’s”, so why would the objective answers eventually cease to exist, whether we know such answers or not?

I don’t think it is the objective answer that ceases to exist, but our ability to understand or convey the answer. Sooner or later, as we approach the systems at the basis of the way the Universe works (and “universe” includes everything, including Eternity) there’s no way these little brains can conceive or explain the system. Conversely, because consciousness is not limited to the insides of our skulls, we can actually sometimes experience what we cannot, “back inside” our brains, explain.

Jesus spoke in parables. Everyone who talks about the more esoteric elements of existence has to use analogy. Too many dimensions for our limited space.

There are objective facts, and systems and reasons, but sooner or later we have to accept that they are beyond … and operate in faith.

 

[Wulfgar]

I don’t think it is the objective answer that ceases to exist, but our ability to understand or convey the answer. Sooner or later, as we approach the systems at the basis of the way the Universe works (and “universe” includes everything, including Eternity) there’s no way these little brains can conceive or explain the system. Conversely, because consciousness is not limited to the insides of our skulls, we can actually sometimes experience what we cannot, “back inside” our brains, explain.

Jesus spoke in parables. Everyone who talks about the more esoteric elements of existence has to use analogy. Too many dimensions for our limited space.

There are objective facts, and systems and reasons, but sooner or later we have to accept that they are beyond … and operate in faith.

Precisely.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve been reading and came across a common objection from non-believers that is fundamentally challenging to the Christian notion of suffering. As Christians we ascribe sin to the purpose of suffering; that’s the bare, basic description of it.

However, my concern is this: Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all? When we talk about suffering we usually take for granted the fact that we are applying meaning to it. Taken a step further we might as well ask: why ascribe purpose to anything? Is purpose necessary derived from things by their nature, or is purpose a subjective concept?

From a strictly scientific level I suppose we could link “purpose” to activity at the quantum level, then the atomic, then molecular, and upwards gradually into the macrocosm of human existence and daily life. Then again, there is always the question of “why” matter, scientific laws, etc. exist at all. Non-believers would suggest that there is no ultimate “why” (although I wonder how they came to this “objective” conclusion).

Alright, so here’s the questions again in a nutshell: What is purpose, and why ascribe it to anything? Obviously any perspectives are allowed but I’d at least like to get some Theist/Christian/Catholic viewpoints on this as the question is ultimately directed to them.

Wulfgar:

For the Catholic Christian, there exist four causes. The material and formal causes, the efficient cause (or agent), and the final cause, or purpose. Now, I don’t know why another man would build a house, but I have reasons for the activity. I want to end up with a place to live, raise my family, escape inclement weather, have friends and relatives over for dinner, in other words, participate in all that life (and God) has to offer. I would not build a house just to participate in some spurious activity, a way to waste away my time. Aristotle saw this, and so did Aquinas. So did many others, but, some did not.

As a proof for purpose, or final causality, one might consider that no natural motion is indifferent to its result. Even those tiny, little quantum particles each have motions that are not indifferent to their purposes.

St. Thomas, taking his cue from Aristotle, says that the final cause of a thing has three characteristics:

1. it is that for the sake of which a thing acts;
2. it is the good of the things acting; and,
3. it terminates the action so that the agent comes to rest.
   (Commentary on the Metaphysics, Bk. I, les. 4, n. 71)
   St. Thomas is proposing here that when an effect (repeatedly) follows from a given cause, we attain a sufficient reason why this is so only when we admit that the cause was ordered to produce the effect in question. If a thing did not produce the same (or similar) effect each time it acted, then there would be no order in the universe. In other words, I view it as the verbal referent for the algorithm that is responsible for order in the universe.

God bless,
jd

 

[Elsa1]

I don’t think sin is the “purpose” of suffering, but the cause. It’s just cosmic physics:

The further from God we are, the less holiness in the world and the more suffering. The closer we are to God the more Light there is in the world and the less suffering. It’s like an equation.

May I interject, that although sin may be the cause of suffering, it may not necessarily be the sufferer’s sin, rather the sin of someone else that caused someone else to suffer.

Then again, as mortels, suffering is also in some cases simply part of existance as a living breathing being. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[jimmy]

Assigning purpose is so subjective maybe it’s best to never try. We know we can trust someone who tells us that the purpose to life, the universe and everything is 42, otherwise maybe not. I mean it’s great to have a purpose to our own life, but also let others make their own purpose.

Bwahahaha. And it takes a planet full of apes to figure that out.

 

[Julia_Mae]

May I interject, that although sin may be the cause of suffering, it may not necessarily be the sufferer’s sin, rather the sin of someone else that caused someone else to suffer…

That’s correct. And so, we can choose to suffer for another, to relieve the suffering of complete strangers. By acts of sacrifice, we lessen the suffering in the world by bringing more God into it.

 

[Elsa1]

That’s correct. And so, we can choose to suffer for another, to relieve the suffering of complete strangers. By acts of sacrifice, we lessen the suffering in the world by bringing more God into it.

Well, that’s is an intersting concept but one I refuse to accept. I was not put on this earth to be a sacrifical animal. I was born for much better and greater things than meaningless suffering and so were you. I see no evidence to suggest that if I suffer, some complete stranger suffers less. I think that is nonsense. Also, I am simply not willing to sacrifice my life and happiness in such a way. I don’t see anything in Christ’s teachings that instruct me to be a suicididalist. Christ calls me and you to an abundant life, not misery. Sorry.

 

[Sair]

Thanks for clarifying. I was probably getting a bit wordy in the first post.

However, my main concern is still this: why ascribe a purpose to anything? How do we know that things have purposes at all? And what is the precise definition of “purpose”, anyway? I was merely using sin and suffering as an example; they weren’t really the main focus of the question.

Here’s my line of thinking on this topic: Every day we explain things, whether consciously or not. For instance, if I am hungry, the explanation (or purpose) of my hunger is that I am in need of food. Why do I need food? To continue living. Why do I need to continue living? …etc. Ultimately our daily questions - whether or not we consciously ponder them - are somehow linked to fundamental questions of our very existence. They are fair questions, and even if we don’t have strictly empirical answers to them, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have answers.

The point is, when non-believers claim that there are no purposes to certain things, I have to ask how they arrive at that conclusion. As I have demonstrated in the hunger example, we already know that we can answer a handful of questions in the endless chain of “why’s”, so why would the objective answers eventually cease to exist, whether we know such answers or not?

It depends upon how you conceive the notion of purpose. Certainly we can say that the purpose of eating is to maintain life and health, but why maintain life and health? Because we want to, because it feels good to do so; but why do we want to? Why does it feel good? We don’t know - it just does. Most living things carry the instinct of self-preservation (except for those organisms in which this is outweighed by the reproductive instinct!). Why? As far as we can tell, they just do - there is no reason for life other than the continuation of life, so it becomes rather a circular justification.

As to this being an objective conclusion reached by nonbelievers, well, there’s no evidence, no suggestion beyond the human propensity for storytelling that any other reason exists than “just because”. Humans are notorious for making up stories and inventing purposes to give subjective meaning to our actions - stories about gods and other supernatural phenomena are, considered in a coldly objective manner, nothing more than an extension of our subjective desire for significance in a world that clearly does not - indeed, cannot - care about our welfare.

I don’t know how many other believers experience this, but I actually find it quite liberating to consider that my life has no transcendent, eternal purpose governed by a universal overlord. Why should it? Who do I think I am, really? Purpose, as a philosophical concept, is a very human - and very localised - construction. Life, just on our planet, Earth, has existed for many, many millennia, and will probably continue to exist after the extinction of humans, without any philosophical concept of purpose. At the end of the “why” questions is, as far as we can presently discern, an acceptance that some things just are, whether these phenomena make sense to us or not.

 

[inocente]

Thanks for the response. I guess my choice of words wasn’t the best, I do agree it’s better to simply use the word “cause” when discussing something strictly scientific or natural, rather than “purpose”. The main thing I was trying to get across was that eventually, once we run out of physical “causes” and exit the realm of science, it would seem that we’d need to start assigning “purposes” to things. Otherwise we run into the problem of an infinite chain of finite causes (i.e., “Why does the chain itself exist in the first place?”)…and I certainly don’t want to jump off the topic.

Well, maybe I just answered my own question, haha. Thoughts?

My view is that it’s never useful to “exit the realm of science” because that means we’re trying to reason without having enough evidence, and whenever philosophers do that they come up with wildly differing conclusions. Maybe one of them might be right once in a blue moon, but there’s no way to choose without resorting to chicken entrails.

When we move too far away from what we know, even our questions may turn out to be meaningless (like how many angels can dance on a pin).

Some of the excuses about why God permits suffering are appalling. I remember a debate where an English theologian argued that God allowed the millions to die in the Holocaust because it gave the camp guards an opportunity to show mercy and redeem themselves. Yikes!!! His opponent was Richard Dawkins, and Dawkins tore that obscene argument to shreds, and everyone in the audience knew for sure Dawkins was working for God that night.

 

[inocente]

Bwahahaha. And it takes a planet full of apes to figure that out.

Twas our proudest moment since leaving the trees.

 

[JDaniel]

My view is that it’s never useful to “exit the realm of science” because that means we’re trying to reason without having enough evidence, and whenever philosophers do that they come up with wildly differing conclusions. Maybe one of them might be right once in a blue moon, but there’s no way to choose without resorting to chicken entrails.

When we move too far away from what we know, even our questions may turn out to be meaningless (like how many angels can dance on a pin).

Some of the excuses about why God permits suffering are appalling. I remember a debate where an English theologian argued that God allowed the millions to die in the Holocaust because it gave the camp guards an opportunity to show mercy and redeem themselves. Yikes!!! His opponent was Richard Dawkins, and Dawkins tore that obscene argument to shreds, and everyone in the audience knew for sure Dawkins was working for God that night.

Inocente:

If that was the case, that night, I would sincerely doubt anyone in the audience could comprehend the subtlety of the Theologian’s position. I’d say the audience was made up of schoolyard bullies that were there only for the fight. How sad.

God bless,
jd

 

[Elsa1]

Inocente:

If that was the case, that night, I would sincerely doubt anyone in the audience could comprehend the subtlety of the Theologian’s position. I’d say the audience was made up of schoolyard bullies that were there only for the fight. How sad.

God bless,
jd

Can you please explain the “subtlety” of the theologian’s position as described? I would LOVE to read that one! Thanks!

 

[JDaniel]

Can you please explain the “subtlety” of the theologian’s position as described? I would LOVE to read that one! Thanks!

Elsa1:

Welcome to CAF. Are you in the Dawkin’s corner?

God bless,
jd

 

[Elsa1]

Elsa1:

Welcome to CAF. Are you in the Dawkin’s corner?

God bless,
jd

As I have not seen the debate the post refers to, I can’t say if I would be squarley in Dawkins’s corner. I can say this however based on the information provided: to consider the slaughter of millions of human beings as a reason and justification for a handful of German '“spiritual enlightenment” seems to me nothing more than a spiritually empty and intellectually vile excuse for mass murder.

So, as I said, I would indeed LOVE to read what the more “enlightened” forum posters here can say about that. It will be an interesting read.