As science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations. Originally, in the history of human beings, everything was mysterious. Fire, rain, birth, death, all seemed to require the action of some kind of divine being. As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a purely naturalistic way. This doesn't contradict religion, but it does takes away one of the original motivations for religion.
My first thought...is this true? Is it true that the more science explains the less need there is for religious explanations? Perhaps for things like fire, rain, and how birth and death occur in a mechanical sense. But can science ever tell us how it all began? Can science ever give us a compelling reason for living? Can science ever tell us why some behaviors are good and others bad or even evil? This next quote from Weinberg will help us understand where he goes with these issues:
We don't see any purpose dictated to human beings in nature. Human life does have a purpose, but it is a purpose that we invent for ourselves. It takes a certain act of courage to look at nature, not see any plan for human beings in there and yet go on and live good lives, love each other, create beautiful things, explore the universe. All these take more courage without having some divine plan that we discover, but one that we rather create for ourselves.
Weinberg believes there is no plan for humans. I'm sure he is not alone. It must be rather depressing to believe this. Makes me wonder "what's the point?" Here's Weinberg's answer to my question from an article in Newsweek from December 2006:
The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.
Wow! There is no point for Weinberg except for what he defines the point of life to be.
So what do you think? Is there inherent meaning in life? In your life? Or is it pointless, meaningless except for the meaning you give it?






