Why are we communicating? I am typing these words for you to read and you are reading them. But why are we doing this?

We might say we are communicating to better understand each other, to pass the time, to learn different viewpoints, and so on. While the answer may not be entirely clear to us, we will likely have a general idea of why we engage in this sort of behavior. We are social creatures, we enjoy each other, we have an interest in these subjects... whatever the case, most of us would agree that these are all quite valid explanations for why two people would communicate.

Now imagine that someone else approaches to inform us that our answers are no good. "You can't be the source of your own purpose," he says. "Unless that purpose comes from some external, objective standard, your answers are meaningless and there really is no reason for why you are communicating with each other." Perhaps he would even enlighten us to the true purpose of communication, founded on the will of Aphrodite, who wants everyone to talk more so they will fall in love. "I don't want to think of how hopeless interacting would seem without Great Aphrodite's purpose for communication," he'd lament.

How many of us would do anything other than laugh at this gentleman? It seems intuitive that we who are communicating are in the best position to know why we are communicating. There is no need to appeal to an outside party or to a divine being. True, external sources may hit on some correct answers, because we humans are complex animals that aren't always aware of our thought processes. However, the idea that communication is without meaning or purpose, or that it's somehow less fulfilling without recognizing Aphrodite's will, is not just devoid of evidence but overly complicates something easily explicable on our own terms.

Many people in the world today believe that life lived apart from the will of their god must be a purposeless and meaningless existence. Fortunately, though, there is no more of a reason for seeing things in this way then there is to see communication in the same way as the imaginary Aphrodite worshipper.

I. Where Did We Come From?

You are reading these words right now because many years ago your parents exchanged genetic material that created you. Their parents did the same to create them, as did your great grandparents, and so on with everyone else back through your family tree. The species you and your relatives belong to, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from ancestral humans about 200,000 years ago, according to recent estimates. [1] We human beings are primates descended from other extinct primates such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Australopithecus afarensis. The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming, [2] and genetic research has shown that other primates, like chimpanzees [3] and bonobos, [4] have a remarkably high percentage of DNA similarity to human beings.

Scientists estimate that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago with the event known as the Big Bang. After 9 billion years, the earth was formed by accretion of dust particles, gases, and heavy elements forged inside of stars. Life arose around 3.5-4 billion years ago, with the appearance of simple celled organisms called prokaryotes. 1-2 billion years later, complex cells known as eukaryotes began to form, followed by multicellular organisms, which gradually gave birth to the Animalia biological kingdom of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects. In the mid-1800s, Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution by natural selection, explaining that organisms change over time because of genetic mutations (which he called "variations") that are favored based on how they aid an organism's survival or adaptation to its environment.

Naturalists believe that the universe operates by unguided natural processes. Most naturalists are also physicalists, meaning they believe that physical reality - matter and energy - is all there is. We have not come from any gods, spirits, or supernatural beings, but from ancestors who were fortunate enough to survive and pass on their genes. We are not a separate creation living in the universe, we are the universe, formed from the very stars. There is both humility and beauty in this view.

II. Who Are We?

Despite having evolved from other organisms, we are not "just monkeys", or "biological accidents", as a number of theistic apologists portray the naturalist position. In fact, such an argument constitutes a logical fallacy, as explained by philosopher and historian Richard Carrier:

The modo hoc fallacy is a type of the fallacy of composition, where one assumes that what is true for part of something must also be true of the whole. A wall made up of short stones will not necessarily be a short wall, and even if we are made up of atoms and nothing else, it does not follow that we only possess the same value and meaning as a cluster of atoms. As Dr. Carrier points out, we are a specific and distinct arrangement of atoms, and it would be unfair and irrational to reduce us to as 'low' a status as rocks, slime, bacteria, and other, different arrangements of atoms. We are still human beings, regardless of what strawman arguments are thrown at naturalism.

What does it mean, though, to be human? We are self-aware and conscious creatures, high in intelligence, yet rife with emotion. We are capable of both great feats of creation and harrowing acts of destruction. We have the ability to reflect on the past, ponder the present, and plan for the future. We harness the world's resources to serve our needs and desires, while some of us strive to conserve the environment for the sake of other species as much as our own. In these ways, but also in others, we stand apart from the rest of the organisms on this planet. Similarly, you stand apart from the rest of your fellow human beings, having your own unique assortment of traits, thoughts, and feelings.

If evolution is a reminder of our lowly origins, then what we have become is a testament to our potential. We are not made in the image of a god, but neither are we the hopelessly sinful wretches of a fallen creation. No magic words, sacrifices, or beliefs, will save us from ourselves or condemn those we disdain. We are what we are - moral and immoral, responsible and irresponsible, kind and unkind, wise and unwise, loving and unloving.

III. Why Are We Here?

The questions of who we are and where we come from are empirical questions. They have answers in the fossil record, in genetics, in biology, in psychology and social sciences, and in recorded history. However, the question of why we are here is different. It speaks to purpose and meaning, concepts that are not as readily discernible from empirical evidence. We can discuss the functional purpose of something like the eye, for example, which aids our survival by giving us sight, but there seems to be no clear and true connection between facts and meaning. Somewhere along the way, there must be an interpreter, an observer, able to conceive of value.

Could this interpreter be a god, as many believe? One problem with this view is that it's extremely imprecise. What exactly are we talking about when we speak of the meaning of life? If we mean life as in existence, or life as in experience, we face a further challenge: if god is alive in some sense and able to experience anything, then what is the purpose to his life? A second problem would be that if god is omnipotent and self-sufficient, as many theists believe, then he would have no need or desire to create the universe, since his mere existence would be enough. Even an "act of love" would require a reason for action to not be arbitrary. Positing a god does not invest life with purpose, nor would the actual existence of a god necessarily mean we have purpose to our lives.

It's interesting what we will entertain as answers to why we are here. Most of us want fulfilling lives, but why should some grand cosmic purpose be at all about our fulfillment? On a related note, if we are capable of setting aside "god's purpose" for our lives to pursue our own purpose, does that not mean we can and do give purpose to ourselves? Some theists will consider such a thing to be negative and will typically retort that our personal ambitions will not be as fulfilling to us, whether we know it or not, but once again, why should we think purpose needs to be about us feeling fulfilled? Imagine finding out that the reason you were born was because your parents wanted the tax credit, or picture a peaceful artificial intelligence discovering the real initial reason for its creation was to be a weapon of war. There is no guarantee that learning our purpose should be, or will be, personally fulfilling.

In at least one way, the atheist and naturalist perspective is not so different from the theist's. As human beings, we decide what we want to stand for, live for, and die for. We are responsible for our behavior because we are the sources of our purposes and intentions. Where it differs from the theist view is in the absence of that grand cosmic sense of fulfilling meaning. There is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer to why we are here and what we are meant to do in this life, and it should be no cause for alarm. A static, unchanging cosmic purpose is like a static, unchanging purpose to communication. The evidence of such a thing is nil, the fulfillment it promises seems empty enough that people walk away from it all the time - even according to those who embrace it - and so lofty a vision of purpose removes responsibility from the human agents who indulge in it, placing it on a being that allegedly is not accountable to anyone else for anything it might will. Even if this kind of meaning is real, it seems a highly dangerous thing for finite beings like ourselves to speculate upon and engage with. We are the interpreters, the observers, who conceive of value and attach it to our own lives.

We are here only because we choose to be here, and because others who love us and care for us want us to join them in this journey of life. If we don't like what we live for, we can change. If we don't like how others see us, we can change. If we harm others, we face the consequences. If we love others, we reap the rewards. The beauty of this view is manifold because there is nothing confining us to arbitrary ideas of what we should be, nor is there anything stopping us from continually seeking to better ourselves. It is pragmatic, perhaps even more moral, to view purpose as contextual rather than universal, and to deliberate rationally rather than dogmatize.

To the person honestly and earnestly searching for answers, I will say: you have already taken the hardest step. Life is a process of self-discovery, one that we can't undergo alone. But we need no gods or angels to help us along the way; what we need are our fellow human beings, those we can influence and be influenced by, who can turn to us for support and who we may turn to in our time of need. It's difficult to imagine what greater reason we could have for being here than to touch the hearts and minds of those around us.

 

Next in the Big Questions: What Happens After We Die?

For more on a non-theistic perspective on meaning, purpose, and living life, see the Secular Web's entries on Secular Humanism and Naturalism.