We always seek answers. Within that truth however, perhaps lies our goal as a species. We are built, it seems, to question, in order to find understanding, which brings comfort and inner peace. Lack of understanding has created most if not all of our differences…and has led to wars, especially religious ones.
Perhaps we are here to find answers. Leaving the unanswered in the lap of a God is a temporary fix. What seems to make sense to me is that our one most valuable asset is not capitalized (for lack of a better word) on. Our ability to find the answers to questions we have. For those questions we can not seemingly find an answer for, I wonder if we have not achieved the proper stage in the evolution of knowledge.
We are here because some confluence of forces brought us here, not all of them our own.
We are not here to find answers, at least not originally. Some confluence of forces brought you to the place you are now, to a place where answers are sought, but that’s not where everyone is, nor why everyone is where they are.
Well…truth be told, the typical approach to the question is teleological, but it doesn’t have to be at all.
It could be approached just like the question, “Why is Earth here?” scientifically.
Typically, however, it is not, you are correct.
Unfortunately, the greatest asset of existentialism, the idea that we are not exactly the golden arsed near deities that we have imagined ourselves to be, seems greatly missed in conversations like this.
To do what we do best and to the best of our ability - planets, galaxies, the universe, are all doing just that too, but we have become at odds with nature.
If there is a God, our commission is the pursuit of Truth, which encompasses all that exists including knowledge, justice, love and beauty. This is for God’s benefit as well as ours.
If there is no sentient God, Truth is still our god and all there is in our world, leaving every other pursuit to be after empty nothingness and the darkening of the spirit in this world.
BTW, the only difference between God and god, for us, is hope, since they are both equivalent with Truth and therefore indistinguishable for us at this point.
I mean all sorts of forces, intentional and physical, ordering and chaotic. Originally speaking, like many religionists, I’m a subscriber to chaos. But I don’t know why the chaos is/was here. I’d sooner say it always was than try to ascribe it some sort of beginning…
Given the evidence available I can only conclude there are two necessities: matter and motion. We could infinitely regress or progress. There’s no necessary pattern, i.e., from chaos to order. There’s no first force either. A first ordering force, perhaps. A first life giving force, perhaps. But no first force.
To speak of religion, or God, I don’t think it answers the question of why there is something instead of nothing. I think it answers the question of how to secure life and prosperity amidst all this chaos.
In Autobiography of a Yogi, Sri Yukteswar connects the word “desire” to the general cause of things. Everything that exists, exists because God desires it so be so. We are here, because God desires us to be here. We act according to our (sub)conscious desires, and so does everything else. Assuming karmic rebirth, you could also say that our life is the result of the desire of our soul (and its surroundings) to manifest in our body. An individual can be identified by his desires, and his surroundings will be a reflection of these desires, integrated with those of others.
Yes, the questions to which we seek answers can be seen as a subset of the desires that cause our life. In turn, the entire existence of humankind can be seen as a quest of the Sun (in cooperation with the rest of the universe), searching for an answer to a (rather complicated) question.
Perhaps we are finding answers in everything that we do…
When I was in the board of my study association, I found out that parties are often the best way to create a good social network. This is of course one of the most important things in life (especially in a students life), but it also makes parties more serious and obligatory, which obviously reduces the fun of it.
Within the question is the assumption that we are here for a reason. Scientific naturalism must answer that there is no “why” only “how” we got here. But the question persists. Why do we still look for a reason for our existence?
Psychologist Margaret Evans did some interesting research on this persistent cognitive tendency which researches have dubbed “teleo-functional thinking”. Evans found that, when asked where the first member of a particular animal species came from, 5- to 7-year-old children give either spontaneous generationist (e.g., “it got born there”) or creationist (e.g., “God made it”) responses regardless of their parents’ beliefs or whether they attend religious or secular school. By 8-10 years of age, however, children from both secular and religious backgrounds give exclusively creationist answers. Typically the children answers “God made it,” but often “Nature” is personified, seen as a deliberate agent that intentionally made the animal. It’s only among the oldest children she’s studied, the 10-12-year-olds, that Evans found an effect of developmental experience, with children of evolutionary-minded parents giving evolutionary responses and those of evangelical parents giving creationist answers to the question. sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cre … make-it-so
The teleo-functional tendency persists even among ardent atheists like Dawkins and Wilson who frequently lapse into personifications of “Nature” for which they offer disclaimers of metaphor from time to time. Faith, on the other hand, “explains” teleo-functional cognition, not as a cognitive artifact, but as innate sense of intentionality that can be satisfied ultimately.
Why are we here?
You and I?
It is because our parents conceived us.
Why are we here?
As in what is the purpose of human existence?
Ultimately, I believe, it comes down to seeking comfort either immediately through eating when you’re hungry or through some sort of process such raising a child so you can rest assured that you left your mark on existence.
Hopefully you’re just kidding. Your first answer misses the question which is about why we are here not how we got here.
Your second answer is locked in a vicious circle. Eating to live is higher than living to eat which is what you claim may be the “purpose of life”. If someone eats to live, the question remains, why are they living?
If your sole purpose in life is to raise a child, then that child’s sole purpose is to raise a child etc. etc. ad in finitum. So neither you nor the child has a purpose in and of themselves. If you’re serious what you have is a recipe for nihilism.
