Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles Janx
Just gonna drop the full quote off here...
"Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless, and like Laplace, ‘I have no need of that hypothesis.'”
Now for some context...
Who was Laplace? He was a physicist who, when asked by Napoleon Bonaparte...
--
Now, this post isn't to made to refute your belief system, dissuade you from it, or even get into a theological discussion in the Lounge. I have thoughts about other parts of your post but this isn't the forum for them thus they were not quoted. The only reason this post is being made is to highlight the importance of a full quote and context.
Russell wasn't advocating the idea of intelligent creation by God in that statement nor was he acknowledging a deity at all. It wasn't an admission that life is meaningless without God. He was replying to a letter in a sharp and sarcastic manner in the same way that Laplace did to Napoleon. The fact he quoted Laplace makes that evident.
|
Thanks for an intelligent and respectful response. I always understood Russell's response of 'I have no need of that hypothesis' to refer to the argument that God exists. Certainly Russell did not believe that he did. He was an avowed atheist and his arguments about the meaning of life without belief of God are consistent with some of his other writings. It's been a few decades since I read it, but his book 'Why I Am Not A Christian' was the publication of a series of lectures he made to either Cambridge or Oxford in the early 1920s. One of my takeaways from that book was his argument, contra mine, that there did not need to be a meaning to life and if we are merely high functioning animals, if we are merely the product of time plus matter plus chance, there is no real meaning to life. Maybe I'm conflating the statement that you've made with arguments he made in those lectures and my memories over the decades have just melded them together.
Sartre had a similar opinion, arguing that there is no inherent meaning to life but that we can give meaning when we make moral choices. For Sartre, there was no objective morality or moral standards but rather that we make our own independent choices. Of course, Sartre was not consistent, denouncing French colonialism and actions of the French government later in his life when those were moral choices, albeit choices he apparently disagree with.
Anyway, as I said, I appreciate the intelligent and respectful response. I expect we will not see eye to eye but being able to elucidate differing opinions well and politely is rapidly becoming a lost art. Thank you.