This is a post which is admittedly of a more personal nature than is typical for this blog, but since blogs are out of style and this one in particular is hardly read, I figure this can really function as much as a public diary as any sort of media actually intended to reach an audience other than myself. Its public nature is simply an acknowledgment that a few might find it interesting, or that I may wish to share these thoughts with a few others down the road. The topic is simple, and derives from a few recent conversations I've had, which seem to form a nexus worth writing on: how I think concepts typically considered the specialty of science fiction buffs and relatively few respectable scientists can shed light on a relationship between two unlikely philosophies: Catholic theology and (popular?) Nihilism.
Nihilism in its basic form is simple and rational, the way I've been talking about it with friends and acquaintances. Nihilism posits a rational, deterministic reality, to a greater or lesser degree - one best understood via science, but one devoid of meaning, teleology, purpose. Whatever we are, and whatever this is, we can study it, understand the mechanisms, but not why it is here: there is no ultimate "why" - follow an infinite chain of cause and effect down the eternal arrow of time, or circle its loop as dizzily as you may, nothing in it teaches purpose. A nihilist may value things subjectively, but not objectively. Any goals or reasons to exist come from personal predilection, which is itself not considered a valid basis for considering any one path more or less "important." Nothing is important, and nothing is unimportant; life and death have equal value, etc. Whether this shares anything with the last book you've read about nihilism and/or nihilists is ultimately immaterial to me; the interesting thing is that it matches what more than a few people around me claim to believe is true.
Catholic theology appears to oppose this diametrically. For the theologically literate Catholic, there is most certainly an intrinsic purpose to all creation; it is the will of God, which is God's love. While rationality and determinism may have their place in His creation, ultimately God himself is the point from which all this reality spills forth; the Creator. Other spiritual positions and religions posit very similar attitudes, it should be noted - but I am most familiar with the Catholic perspective. Hidden in the Catholic view, though, is something which many are not familiar with: the mysticism of God's person: while there is a True God, and it is He, our human ability to know Him, to understand Him - to therefore understand the source of our reality - is denied in the theology. God (and his love; his purpose in creation) is a Mystery to our rational minds, if not our spiritual hearts, to be made fully known to us only in our reunion with Him after our mortal death.
I think that if you stopped there with both philosophies, you might be able to basically argue the two are equivalent. Hear me out: a nihilist rejects the notion that we could know the purpose of reality because he denies there is one; it is unknowable. Very similarly, the Catholic rejects the notion that we could really know the purpose of reality - at least with our rational, mortal minds. God and his will is unknowable. There are subtle but important differences, however, as I'm sure any adherent from either corner would be quick to point out: it is not the same thing to say there is no meaning at all, as it is to say the meaning is there, but unknowable to us. I would want to press on those people, though: while those are certainly different claims, aren't they made from strikingly similar positions and rationales? Arguments which might even be similar enough that a Nihilist and a Catholic might even agree are rational, good arguments which they might make themselves?
Let's consider. Why does the Nihilist think that there is no meaning in life? Because he cannot find it. The Nihilist understands science and philosophy, and plainly sees that there is nothing in any of it which could give you an ontological purpose; a teleology for the cosmos which derives not from subjective measurements, but from the fabric of the thing itself; a proverbial user's manual giving you instructions on what it's all for. Present lack of understanding in this or that region of philosophy or science does not perturb him; he can see that structurally, these enterprises do not give him any hope that meaning will be found anywhere.
The Catholic also cannot find meaning in life. In God and his will, certainly, but in knowable reality? No. God's a mystery and all the rest of creation's immaterial. He cannot find it; even knows he cannot find it because none of it is really God; it is a passing shade; a separation from the Creator which will pass away, finally allowing unity and understanding.
Admirable of the both of them, that they could be brave enough to say "I don't really know; it is a mystery." But do either have reason to think their result from this position is the better? I think so!
The science fiction writer knows what this sort of conjecture looks like - it's a little bit like the idea that humanity would be the first intelligent life form to evolve - knowing the billions of years which have already transpired and the massive size of the universe, unless the chances are very slim indeed, it is extremely unlikely. Much more likely, we are neither the first nor the last such species to arise, and instead exist somewhere in the middle. By the same logic, while the Nihilist may suppose that because he cannot understand a meaning for reality, that should not imply his intelligence is sufficient to understand any possible meaning. Indeed, it seems much more likely that our intelligence is somewhere below what might be required to understand, since the parameters of our mental limitations are well understood.
This is, of course, of little consequence to the Nihilist. Without an afterlife in which to expect a radical transformation of ones' appreciation of the meaning of reality or a hyper intelligent alien species to guide him like a master its dog, meanings which escape his mortal comprehension might as well not exist. Indeed, I'm not sure anything actionable comes out of this line of thinking, per se. I find it interesting purely as a matter of thinking that you could apply the sort of science fictional, cosmological argumentation we see in Hard SF sometimes to matters much more philosophical in nature.
