More thought on Beliefs

We all arrive at our own conclusions by studying "the evidence". As far as the Universe is concerned, currently, we don't fully understand its workings and the laws that operate within it. If we have successfully cracked that puzzle, that would be evident and there will be only one accepted TRUTH. In our current state of knowledge, we have to study whatever is being put forward as arguments/evidence and make a  decision whether to accept, reject or be non-committal.

Speaking in general terms, beliefs are either rational, irrational or non-rational and the categorisation is ultimately very personal. Some would consider a belief which is not rational as irrational, i.e., apply binary thinking. I favour the idea that if it is not rational it is not necessarily irrational but could be considered as non-rational. For example, belief in an all-powerful, all-merciful God who created the Universe and man is irrational to me but I concede that for some it is rational and for yet others, it is non-rational and not irrational.

We seek answers and come to our own conclusions aware of our own limitations but in the process, we learn and gain a greater understanding of ourselves, of others and of our world.

I remain an atheistic humanist with an agnostic slant if you like, the latter because I am willing to admit that as a mere human being my views may prove to be incorrect, very personal, just as the beliefs that others find compelling to them (although I cannot accept them).

I believe in morality as a characteristic that is evolutionary in origin. It makes sense to me that attributes such as cooperation, love, empathy have survival value and is seen widely in the animal kingdom. In humans, it predates religion and I reject the notion of some that we are moral because of religion. The argument goes that religions make us moral either through concern about the rewards or the "punishments" that result from actions (the concept of "cumulative merit" or  "pleasing God") through a mixture of hope and fear. These arise from the inculcation of moral values based on religion in our cultural upbringing.  I am the first to admit that there are many instances where religion has contributed to good in societies, although I can also show many instances where religion has caused harm. 

I have no reason to believe in a life after death and even if there was, I haven't even the faintest of recollection of such a life myself nor do I know a single person who does. I know I have a "personality" (some may call it "self") which is changing every moment.  I fail to understand how "I" am advised to escape from this unsatisfactory existence where somehow "I " doesn't exist to some sort of existence where I am non-existent and which I must accept on the basis of faith.

I don't understand "time" completely but I do believe that the pyramids existed, that the fossil remains is evidence of an evolutionary process and that I had progeny. I don't think that all this is a figment of my imagination or "constructed " through the power of light (photons).  I do accept that we are limited in our ability to perceive the true nature of the outside world because we are reliant on our senses and we use the very organ (the brain) in trying to understand the brain. While I agree that what I perceive and "see" outside of me is an interpretation which is unique to me, it is also unique to all others, it doesn't make it an illusion. The desk I see may be different to each person but its geographical location is the same for all, as an example. In other words, the desk which is itself formed of elementary particles and waves assembles into something real which although real, will remain interpreted differently. The appreciation of reality is certainly subjective.

My way of thinking makes me a moral and social being who respects human nature as we are one family striving to lead lives which are as comforting as possible in the interval between birth and death. My beliefs promote human harmony without dangers arising from religious dogma. My belief promotes curiosity and examination of facts rather than blind acceptance. My belief removes the anxiety that arises from speculation on the quality of an afterlife. My belief also values the Planet we live in and our efforts to sustain it. But our cultural upbringing and exposure to belief systems continue to have a major influence on our "inner thinking". As  I was brought up as a Buddhist, I still entertain doubts about my reasoned rejection of an afterlife, just as some of my Christian born friends who now don't accept God, still have "inner voices" that God does exist. 

As you can see, all of us ultimately make judgments on what we accept or believe. From the point of view of a safe world to live in, blind faith is OK if it can be guaranteed that it would not harm the person or the community they live in, but sadly, this is far from the truth. None of us can rely entirely on Science as Science is evolving all the time. Science by its very nature is humble enough to state that its theories are the best explanation in the current state of knowledge and is open to revision in the light of new evidence. Religious believers who try to use currently accepted scientific theories to justify their beliefs are building sandcastles on a beach.

Life is ultimately a personal affair. What to accept, what to reject, what to remain open about. I know I will NEVER fathom the workings of the entire universe but I feel confident that the answers will emerge slowly through the scientific method, which remains the only credible method of pursuing inquiry. I can't see any reason for seeking spiritual answers as they just complicate matters where our understanding is still lacking. Mental illness is a classic example the cause of which was explained by - "possessed by the devil", "punished by God or gods". We now know better. There are many examples of harmful effects arising from the acceptance of blind faith;  exemplary humans made to feel guilty and take the blame on themselves for some action supposedly carried out in a previous existence of which he has no recollection, unfortunate sufferers from economic or medical conditions being told that it is all because of indiscretions in a past life. These attitudes stunt human understanding and compassion

Did Albert Einstein believe in God?

Whether he was Atheist or not is hotly debated. From all what I have read, and I can give you references, Einstein believed in God in a Mathematical sense. He always said that he has no belief in a "personal" God who listens to prayers and has qualities such as love, forgiveness and limitless power. To say he was an Atheist is wrong. Here is one quote-" I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”  Another - " There are still people", he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, "who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views”. “There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940.  

He believed in a Cosmic religion or some type of Cosmic order responsible for the precise mathematical laws that appear to exist in Nature but he was passionately against a belief in a Personal God. If you define Atheism as a rejection of a personal God, then Einstein was an atheist but most intellectual scientists and physicists who believe in God do not have the "Old man in a beard" type of personal god concept. I think it is fair to say that a true Atheist is one who rejects both components, i.e cosmic intelligence and a personal God who have an influence on us. I certainly know highly intelligent and well-read people who believe in God but it is almost always a belief in a Cosmic intelligence rather than a personal god. 

WHAT SHOULD WE BELIEVE

WHAT SHOULD WE BELIEVE?  7^TH April 2020.

At some point in our lives, we become more and more curious and seek explanations for what we observe around us. We also recognise periods of awareness when we experience pleasurable as well as unpleasurable sensations. Both seem to appear and then inevitably disappear after variable periods. What we would prefer, of course, is for the pleasurable periods to be more frequent and last longer and vice versa for the unpleasurable. We then seek factors which promote such a mental state. In early life, it was achieved by the fulfilment of non-material human desires such as a desire to be loved, desire to be wanted, desire to be valued and various others which produce a pleasant feeling. In the same manner, the non-occurrence of emotions such as feeling rejected, to be hated, to be undervalued, would stop unpleasant feelings arising. Underlying all this are the basic need for food, to be healthy (free of illness) and a safe environment. As Societies advance, the need for a basic income, and for resources such as adequate water and power supply arises. (This article assumes that such basic needs are satisfied and is confined to dealing with a higher level of experience). At a later stage in our lives, we pursue contentment by attempting to satisfy material desires such as buying consumer goods, travelling, eating tasty food etc. As we mature, we may on our own realise that this is not the answer or we may be influenced by philosophies or religions which appear to deal with these issues and promise the desired results. Some continue to pursue these futile pursuits with short-lived gain. Others are inclined to seek answers to deep questions that occur to them such as what is the meaning of human existence, what is morality, do we have free will, is there a soul, is there a God, is there a life after death and other metaphysical and philosophical questions. These lead them to study philosophy, religion and other belief systems and also to further their understanding through the study of Science.

The main sources for knowledge and explanation of phenomena are Science, Philosophy and Religion. Science has been amazingly successful in helping us to understand physical phenomena and philosophy and religion have been the main source for understanding non-physical or mental phenomena. Science is the primary force towards a greater understanding of the Universe and also has contributed immensely to making it a better place to live. We merely have to reflect on the diseases that we have overcome, preventive medicine successes such as vaccination, the improvement in the standards of water supply and sewage disposal, housing, transport, advances made possible through electricity, the reduction of starvation through improvements in food production and distribution, the dispelling of dangerous myths about natural phenomena (earthquakes and tsunamis caused by divine displeasure, diseases caused by the devil, better-governing systems such as Democracy and so many others. There has also been an overlap and increasingly, Science is moving towards championing itself as a force for explaining mental phenomena. The empirical way Science operates appeals to logic and reason. Phenomena are observed, hypotheses to explain them are put forward and experiments are done or data gathered to support or reject a hypothesis. Any hypothesis accepted always carries the condition that it is subject to revision or total rejection on the light of further evidence to the contrary. Science does not claim to know the TRUTH. Religion differs in that each one claims to explain all that happens in the World and IS the ultimate TRUTH. Science is based on Fact and religion is based on Fiction! I have dealt with some of the problems arising from religious beliefs in earlier articles but suffice to state that the analysis of TRUTH as claimed by a Religion is hampered by the absence of information as to exactly what the religious hypothesis is. The sources are mostly holy texts open to interpretation because of the language used or the reliability of the texts as the genuine expression of the religion. Some have been handed by word of mouth for long periods and transferred to written documents later. Unlike scientific hypotheses, religious ones cannot be tested and the acceptance of religion is mostly based on whether it appeals to the reasoning of the examiner. If it does, then it becomes a belief. If it is accepted without any examination at all, then it becomes faith. Religion also has the immense power of consoling people when they experience difficulties in life. It is the unseen helicopter in the sky ready to swoop down and help you when the vehicle you are journeying in fails. It does not matter if the helicopter is mythical provided you believe it IS there.

The big question is this. Has Man got the capacity or ability to realise the TRUTH by introspection as claimed by many religions? Has man got the intrinsic ability to understand and grasp the Universal laws that operate in our Universe by mere focussed thought and attention? Words such as an “awakening” or a “flash of realisation” or “revelation” or a “dawning of universal knowledge” have been used where this has apparently occurred. Philosophers ponder on how to make sense of what they observe and try to provide explanations. Most are conceptual thinkers.

In the end, what matters to me is a satisfactory answer to the question I posed at the beginning, i.e., How could we live a life where pleasurable periods are more frequent and last longer and unpleasurable periods are less frequent and last shorter. How can we help our fellow occupants of this planet to achieve the same? I shall label this aspiration as seeking contentment. We then look for factors which would promote such a mental state. This I realise is a rather simplistic view. Religion adds another dimension. All religions state that there is an after-life after death. If this is accepted, just being content in this life may not be sufficient. “Is there an afterlife?” is a big question and as yet it cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Individuals will need to examine the data and the evidence and come to their own conclusions. In the end, it is a matter of belief.

The TRUTH as stated by religion is not merely of academic interest. When options to travel by different means are considered, if the endpoint is defined and known, the options are merely alternatives to achieve the same goal. If all religions agree on the final destination, the options or paths chosen by different individuals of different religions do not matter that much.(In fact, there are many people who haven’t studied religions and philosophies in-depth but are just decent honourable human beings, who believe that all religions “say the same thing”, largely referring to moral aspects of behaviour). But when the destination has no consensus (by that I don’t mean a loose term such as be happy, but a more sophisticated lasting aim), the options assume greater importance especially when it is also stated that deviation from the path not only fails to get you to the desired destination but can positively lead you (or mislead you!) to disaster. This also has the negative and dangerous possibility that well-meaning people may take it upon themselves to impose on others, even by the use of force in the belief that “the end justifies the means”.

A further implication is the claim that the concept of morality can only operate within the climate of religious belief. I won’t go into details but I could write a whole paper supporting my view is that morality is virtually a part of human behaviour through the evolutionary pressure for survival. In the case of the majority of sudden heroic acts performed by people, they do it by instinct and those who do form a wide spectrum of believers and non-believers.

These are the powerful forces that Religion could set free:-

(1)    Morality is vital for human societies and as religion is the basis of morality, it is essential for religions to be supported or even imposed.

(2)    As the TRUTH is synonymous with acceptance of religion, it is the duty of “enlightened religious beings” to ensure that firstly those close and dear to them are converted and in a truly generous spirit, it should then be extended to all human beings.

(3)    The fate of “misguided” non-believers is open to the interpretation of the religion by those who claim to “know” the “real meaning” and the “real message” in the religion. Those who accept that the duty is to pass the message and leave it to the recipient to accept or reject pose no real danger to Society. Those who reject this form a spectrum of from being benignly incentivising conversion to being a positive danger to the whole of society. The minor irritants (benign) are, for example, those who coerce dependents to have enforced religious education and the major ones (dangerous) are Jihadists and insurrectionists. To witness misled people committing mass slaughter believing that they are performing a good act is one of the most nauseating spectacles. The evangelists target the young. It is not mere coincidence that the vast majority of observers of any religion have been born to it. Those who converted after critical study are a very small minority. Influencing families and impressionable children is a vital ploy used by evangelists.

How does Science help to address traditionally philosophical questions? Philosophers have throughout the ages dealt with questions such as purpose, intentionality, ethics, morality, consciousness, happiness and mortality. Reality is at the moment a much-discussed topic. Science has certainly helped in no small measure in our understanding of perception and our thinking. Science, unfortunately, has also contributed lately to the promotion of concepts of time and space which appears quite divorced from the experienced universe we know. In mathematical terms, the time line may not be an arrow and with quantum mechanics, the current universe may be one of many multiverses but does this help to understand human nature and human history? We have evidence that the universe is billions of years old and that man evolved over thousands of years and that over 90% of known species are extinct. We know how we interpret sensory signals in the brain in great detail from the reception of these signals to the detailed pathways within the brain and the neurochemical processes that go on within neurones and synapses in a network but we are still unsure how these complex processes result in conscious awareness with all the subtle nuances of feelings and emotions associated with it. We know that the information received via our senses form impressions which are modified and conditioned by our working memory of previous experiences and vary not just from person to person but within the same person from moment to moment. What we “see” is almost certainly just a conclusion reached by our brain through interpretation using the information presented and information associated with it recalled into our working memory ( I see a river but it evokes memories of a person who drowned and a poem I read in my childhood and I “know” the river is going to get narrower because that is what rivers do and so on. The experience I have is therefore very different from that of another and we “see” the river very differently), but to extend it and say that reality as such does not exist seems nonsensical to me. When I see an object in space and locate it, it is the same location as another observer although what it “looks like” may be different. Even if it appears that both see it as the same, there is no way of knowing whether it is the same as the end experience is unique to each person based on his previous experiences and memory. When both agree it is “red” it does not mean that what they experience is the same as each assign the word “red” to the experience that the red colour wavelength gives them. I cannot see how we can deny that we have buildings, trees, other forms of living and non-living beings and that they are all figments of our imagination. We do know, however, compared to a long time ago, that “solid” objects have the quality of solidity but it is relative and the apparently unchanging stone in your visual field is a mass of elementary particles and waves observed by us through photons reflected from it to our retinae. But I fail to understand how this extrapolates into such objects not actually existing. To me, there is “something” but we can only observe it with our sensory and mental limitations and we cannot ever know what that object really looks like because both the interrogator and the decision-maker are the same. But we also know from Neuroscience that we can be made to experience things which are not actually happening “out there” at the time, through electrical stimulation of relevant parts of the brain. This does not necessarily mean that everything we experience is imaginary, or that all imagery is imaginary.

If Consciousness is defined as the awareness of self and its relationship to the environment in which it exists, then it is possible to understand that our senses provide information as of “now” (in the present) to an area of the brain which is continually monitoring information that is being received and attempting to make sense of it to the owner by matching it with past memories and reacting first and foremost evolving strategies to avoid danger and promote survival. For example, the image caused by the visual presence of a Tiger would not make any sense to a person who has no memory of tigers (either previously seen or learnt from others). The knowledge on tigers thus gained would produce fear, and strategies to escape will rapidly form, making the response and reaction very different when he next sees a tiger. All actions that follow the reception of information is not consciously known. Swaying to avoid an object thrown at you is automatic. The fact that even a conscious decision may be preceded by mental processes which can be recorded by EEG which precede the time at which the subject is conscious of the decision he makes shows how much the brain is geared towards helping us to arrive at a decision (Libet experiment where the action potential to trigger the action occurred a few milliseconds before the subject indicated the preference). Some have interpreted this as proof that we have no free will as the action potential to trigger the action came before he was actually aware that he made the decision. What we need to realise is that we have to be very cautious about how we interpret our sensory information. Unknown to us, when we start thinking of choices, subconscious thought processes have already commenced and fed us and influence what we think is wholly independent thought and action performed by us. The practice of Mindfulness is said to promote a true understanding without being conditioned by previous memories which are kept at bay allowing only the present moment. The leap from neural processes being consolidated in a physical area or areas in the brain to experiencing the external world as a three-dimensional object within space is a challenge. It appears that this is not totally dependent on visual input. Congenitally blind people appear to have the capacity to experience space utilising other forms of sensory inputs available to them. This applies to animals too.  A white eyeless fish was found recently in a limestone cave in India. This fish swims effortlessly finding its way, much like a fish that lives where vision is available.

Awareness or consciousness appears to be very simply expressed in less evolved animals to possibly the highest form in Humans, (some p[people question whether lower forms can have agency). The reflex response to a stimulus is not evidence of awareness. For example, phototaxy which is always expressed in the same way every time, i.e. moving towards a light source without the ability to choose between possible actions. If a danger is introduced during the phototaxy, it won’t recognise the danger the next time the experiment is repeated as it has no working memory and only the present moment is available to it, much like an amnesic person for whom every instance is a new one. If variations in the response to a previously exposed situation can be shown in a primitive form, it would be evidence to support a working memory. As far as I know, this has not been shown in single-celled animals such as amoebae or even in small multicellular forms further up the evolutionary tree. It has been shown in the octopus and certainly in mammals.

Emotions are not restricted to humans. Emotions such as fear, love, empathy, care and love for offspring, joy, anxiety, and curiosity have all been shown in animals. But what they appear to lack is the ability to build and act on scenarios constructed in their minds from a wealth of past experience and memory. (Notice that I used the term “mind” without being actually making a distinction between mind and consciousness). Such information can be passed genetically and such information is also widely available to humans through experience and knowledge gained during multiple generations and retained and passed on to the following generations through the use of symbolic language so that we have a wealth of what Merlin Donald calls “external memory” working through our conscious memory and our consciousness. 

Whether this “consciousness” can migrate from one life to another assuming that there is a process such as rebirth is contentious. It is very tempting to regard the process of cognition and awareness as a three-stage process. The first is the gathering of available raw information surrounding us. The second is the accessing of this information and processing them within the brain to make a coherent story which is then presented to “consciousness” which transforms this to a conceptual “internal” the image which can be projected in our minds to make sense of the world. Without the cerebral activities presenting the information to “consciousness”, proper understanding is not possible. In the same way, even if consciousness exists, it needs the intervention of the brain for the information to be presented to consciousness. Buddhist philosophy will go a step further and state that the consciousness of the body in question also had prior information stored and is always active and this interacts with the “new” material being presented. In this scheme of things, a person may have had a terrible experience with a particular animal in a previous birth and when the animal is presented to the person in this birth, following interaction with the stored memory from a previous birth, the person will react with aversion in the same way as he would if he had a bad experience previously in this life. The difference is just from where the aversion memory comes from. The difficulty with this is how do we demonstrate that we have a “consciousness” which can be independent of the body? If so what is it? One can loosely call it a form of energy but this is just glorified semantics to cloth ignorance using a scientific term. Some will regard reincarnation as a proven fact through case records of recollection but if that passes rigid criteria, it will be accepted mainstream thinking which clearly it is not. I have an open mind about this. I don’t think I know enough to totally discount it.

Whether this awareness that we possess could exist in inanimate forms, albeit in a different form is also even more contentious. I somehow fail to understand how a piece of rock can have consciousness in any form, even to “knowing” one rock from another.

To me, it boils down to stating that we can ask all the right questions but we just don’t know the right answers. Some are happy to accept such an agnostic view while others are not. The Scientologists will press on looking for physical answers while the philosophers will proffer their own answers. My problem with philosophers is the assumption that we can understand the workings of this vastly complex universe while seated on a chair and contemplating. The Buddhist vision that all of us have that capacity if we get rid of the defilements that cloud the dormant “capable of being awakened” is acceptable to some. But for me, any theory of everything has to take into account the vastness of time and space, the relative obscurity of Man and the clear evidence we have that Man as we know came into being only very recently (almost minuscule compared to the totality of universal time). I have studied Evolution in great detail and it appears to be the only way we can explain the diversity of living beings and the fossil record. No religion or philosophy to my knowledge has referred to evolution. If I understand Buddhist philosophy correctly, animals can be born as humans and vice versa. This is totally against scientific fact. Other planes of existence have been referred to and it is all too easy to equate these with life in other planets. The importance of light is hijacked by Christians when they say that one of the first things God did was to create light. They conveniently forget that he then separated light to night and day (presumably the Earth was given a spin!). In Biblical times nothing was known about planets and the solar system. These statements cannot be taken seriously by anybody who is a critical thinker.  I would also assert that it is only through faith that even Buddhism can be accepted. Rebirth, the pursuance of an existential state by a person who is not a “person” with a blind acceptance that somehow when the sequence of births and deaths is interrupted, some form of bliss is released to someone who is, as a matter of fact, no one as there is nothing substantial that transmits from one birth to the other, is a matter of belief or faith. The Abidhamma refers to a gandhabba which if true makes better sense in that although the gandhabba is subject to change from moment to moment, at least there is some continuity.  I can visualise the Earth being filled by streams of gandabhayas each apparently being burnt out at various stages but continuing its trail as a “new” fire but not entirely new as it has its own path compared to the next one by its side. In Buddhism, we are constantly reminded that self is an illusion. I find this very hard to accept. I know that “Mahendra” has a body and “Mahendra” can think, perceive, imagine, empathise, question, enjoy sensual pleasures, be angry, be irritated, be awed and be seen and experienced by others, and all this is experienced by Mahendra as a person. The same person who is asked to develop insight and be liberated from suffering is not a person – is this not a contradiction? How can liberation liberate without a subject to be liberated? It doesn’t make sense to me. How can “I” set upon a journey if there is no “I”? The “I” could be constantly changing but Mahendra and Sarath are two distinct entities. Whatever answers I seek, I seek as Mahendra, for Mahendra who is very real to me.

What I believe is that what we know matters to us. We know the world exists and has existed for a very long time. We have evolved from simple life forms to what we are today. Because we can experience the emotion we are subject to both positive and negative aspects of it. If we are incapable of emotion, we will neither be happy nor unhappy. We are conditioned by our genes and this genetic trail goes back several generations. At birth, these have an influence on us but do not determine our future. We are affected by our environment and we now know that these cultural changes or “nurture” can change the ways in which our genes are expressed- the science of epigenetics. We are therefore not prisoners of our genes. We are all affected by the laws of nature. If I put my hand in a burning flame it will be burnt unless before that happens, the sharp pain I experience causes me to withdraw my hand. This is my subconscious reflex defence mechanism. Similarly, if I happen to live in a country which has a violent earthquake, I am very likely to be affected. It has nothing to do with God’s will or my past actions in a previous birth although it may have everything to do with actions in my current birth, e.g., ignoring advice on the high likelihood of an earthquake. I live my life with a detached view with the realisation that material wealth and exalted position in life does not give me a sense of contentment. It doesn’t necessarily follow (as some Buddhists suggest) that material enjoyments are futile. I beg to differ. If I followed that line of thinking I would have been deprived of some of the most enjoyable experiences in my life. As I realise that these don’t last and as I am prepared to accept that they are finite, I don’t feel sad- just left with some good memories which I can recall when I contemplate and reflect. The fault is to cling to them without realising their temporary nature or to aspire for more and more material possessions in the false belief that that is the way towards contentment. Our life would be a misery if we didn’t have friends, healthy pursuits and some material joys. I know that all material things could cause us happiness or unhappiness through the state of our receptive mind. The elation a beggar experiences, when he picks up a £20 note, may not be very different from that which is experienced by the property tycoon when he makes his next million. In other words, both actions ultimately produce a reaction through sensations in the brain.  The £20 or £1 million are just vehicles; the joy is entirely in the mind.  It would much more preferable if one could produce that effect without the need for any money at all!

I believe in morality, not for personal gain or loss, reward or punishment but because humans and animals are integral parts of this planet and by cooperation, mutual understanding and respect we can all be better off. A Scandinavian was asked why he is happy to pay such high taxes and his answer was “If it helps to make people less fortunate than myself happier, that is all I need”. The reason to be moral is not to gather merit or please God and ensure a good afterlife. What matters is this life. Period.  We have no evidence at all of life after death. Why concern ourselves with it? In this life, I don’t want to suffer pain if I could avoid it. I would like to avoid illness where possible through the sensible living and I want to avoid things like accidents where possible – in other words, I have some degree of control over my future and where possible, I like to make use of it. Growing old is an essential part of living and so is death.  Without death, there wouldn’t be any life. I accept both as inevitable.  I never quite understand why people seek purpose in life. Why does life need a purpose? If you subdivide “purpose” into chunks, purpose can be assigned. The purpose behind why I don’t smoke is because I want to reduce my chances of suffering from smoking-related diseases. The purpose of saving money for my retirement is to be financially solvent. There is no purpose in my life. I am here because I was born and I was fortunate to have had loving parents and a happy childhood. Purpose is largely pursued by Theists who believe that God has something in mind for you. Purpose is not the same as causality.

So why dwell on the sort of discussion on consciousness? Was it and is it a waste of time? Absolutely not, as long as we pursue it to gain a better understanding of the world and of ourselves. It is counterproductive if we do it to justify our religious beliefs. Science today won’t be the science of tomorrow. To hitch your wagon entirely to science is like building a castle in the sand.