Читать книгу Meaningful Living Across the Lifespan - Moses N. Ikiugu - Страница 26

In Diane’s account at the beginning of the book, she placed a great deal of importance on religious interpretations of life meaning. As mentioned earlier, most human cultures maintain a significant concern with spiritual activities carried out by individuals. Many people perceive meaning to be connected to a relationship with a higher power such as God [also referred to as ‘God-centered meaning’] or to one’s soul [also referred to as ‘soul-centered meaning’] (Metz, 2007). The God-centered view is based on the notion that meaning results from fulfilling God’s purpose or working within God’s plan for the universe. Gordon (1983) argued that God endows us with meaning in the same way that artists breathe meaning into their creations. Indeed adherents of most religions suggest that their gods were directly involved in the creation of the world. It follows that for people holding such beliefs, God is necessary for meaning because in their perception, individual human lives are finite and therefore cannot be meaningful by themselves (Nozick, 1989, 1981).

In most Western traditions, finiteness (or mortality) denotes imperfection, a state which lacks meaning, and therefore, in many religious systems doing good deeds is considered a public responsibility, a way of striving for the perfection of immortality in heaven. God’s perfection and the extended notion of this perfection to heaven are infinite sources of meaning to humans’ finite lives. Christians often presume that by living well they can attain perfection in an afterlife through admission into heaven, although they cannot assume perfection in their finite lives. Thus there is a distinction between what is cosmically meaningful because it is infinite and what is fleetingly meaningful because it is finite.

In some Judeo Christian and Islamic perspectives, perfection is a state that is beyond human comprehension; there can be no attribution of human values to God, since God is beyond human understanding (Jones, 1984). In Buddhism, nirvana is a state of perfection through enlightenment, i.e. a state of understanding that should eventually lead to loss of separate individuality and spiritual merging with a primordial consciousness. In this system of thought, perfection occurs by relinquishing aspects of the self in order to attain enlightenment by merging with the ultimate cosmic consciousness (Suzuki, 1969; Trungpa, 1973)

In many religions, human lives are understood to be equally meaningful because they derive their meaning from God or a primordial consciousness. Never the less, as Dorling (2011, p. 2) illustrates, the reality is that religious teaching has little impact on people’s sensibilities about ‘elitism, exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair’, the ‘five beliefs’, which produce victims who can be categorized as ‘the delinquents, the debarred, the discarded, the debtors and the depressed’. Religions have often taught that these conditions are the results of sin, or constitute a temporary period of suffering. While this teaching may have the function of encouraging resiliency through hope, it may also serve to sustain the status quo and preserve order in society by encouraging people to accept and bear suffering without complaining, as a necessary condition of their lot. Consequently the beliefs of the powerful have often been endorsed by religion while social criticism and negotiation by the disenfranchised for better conditions have been constrained by religious teachings (King, 2000; Rowland, 1988). Though at times a strong sense of spirituality has been a force in support of challenge to the status quo, religious ideas have instead for the most part acted as a brake to progressive social change and instead become a force for conservatism (Jones, 1984; King, 2000; Luthuli, 1963; Mandela, 1994; Rowland 1988; Torres, 1973). In some societies, as McFarland and Matthews (2005) found in their study, the characteristic of holding religious values appeared to be associated with less regard for human rights. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, the ordination of women, and the recognition of past abuses in religious institutions are significant issues with which elements of the established churches have had to reconcile themselves during the early part of the 21st century.

It is also noteworthy that various religious systems hold different beliefs and values which affect the life meanings which may be associated with them. For example, Buddhism is a practice or belief system that might outwardly be described as a religion, but most Buddhists may be unconcerned with such definitions which would stand in the way of seeking truth by generating divisions between people. Because of this principle of tolerance, it follows that Buddhists may be able to live meaningful lives side by side with people holding a diversity of beliefs. It might be desirable for religions to be similarly flexible in their outlook towards others with the realization that there is a plurality of possibilities by which life meaning and purpose can be experienced, and one view, including a religious one, does not monopolize the notion of meaning in life. However, many of the Buddhist scriptures identify episodes of violence arising from disputes between different followers, and war and violence persists where Buddhism dominates amongst other religious identities in societies such as Sri Lanka. The cause of these conflicts, according to Buddhist belief, is usually human sensual desires and material greed, but the reality may involve many factors including nationalism and cultural conflict (Degalle, 2006). In other words, whatever spiritual aspirations people may have, their everyday lives are grounded in material issues which may weigh down on their ideals. If we strive to do, be, become, and belong through meaningful occupational engagement (Wilcock, 2006), then some of the conditions that make human occupations meaningful and purposeful may include negative as well as positive possibilities of what we can become; unwelcome experiences may give rise to good outcomes, and vice versa. In the end, for humanity to have a chance of living meaningful lives, there must be a conceptualization of meaning that does not deny the finite nature and imperfection of human life (Metz, 2007; Quinn, 2000).

Finally, critics of the necessity of God or a higher power for establishment of a meaningful life contest the idea that imperfect beings can have a relationship with an infinite presence. They claim that such an idea is simply absurd, since finite humans cannot understand an infinite being. As understanding is a prerequisite for a relationship, and as human beings cannot really understand an infinite god, there is no way for humans to derive meaningfulness from a relationship with such a god. If on the other hand we can relate to that presence, then god cannot be perfect because it is a product of human conceptualization. If a god is beyond human understanding then it cannot be perceived as such. This argument, which Berger (1973, p. 106) terms ‘methodological atheism’, stems from the idea that all concepts of god are human projections. Viewed this way, it is impossible to say that God existed before humans, since humans have only become aware of God by learning religious practices from each other.

Of course, humans can understand something as complex as an infinite universe even if it is unlikely that they will understand everything about it. In Adams’ (1979) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (p. 135), he describes a futuristic computer (‘Deep Thought’), whose purpose is to find the answer to the ultimate question of Life; the secret of the Universe and Everything in it. The answer to the question turns out to be ‘forty two’. According to Adams, the answer could not be understood by humans because they ‘didn’t know what the question is […] and once you do know what the question is, you’ll know what it means’ (p. 136). Never the less, humans could apprehend the meaning of ‘forty two’ even though they did not understand how the computer obtained the answer. Thus, it is not necessary to understand everything in order to develop a conception of meaning. Humans recognize each other and various capacities and attributes shared with others even though they still do not understand everything about their fellow beings and are unlikely to fully understand themselves. Occupational therapists necessarily have to confront this issue if they are to develop a holistic perspective of the human being, which is a cornerstone of the new professional paradigm (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2014; Kielhofner, 2009). Holistic thinking suggests taking into account the immense complexity of the human being, of almost infinite proportions.

The problem of the finite contemplating the infinite is not one of attempting to understand something without boundaries, but of understanding that something has the capacity to exist without limits. For example, according to scientists, the universe is in an expanding state (Hawking, 1994, 1988). Since it is expanding, it makes logical sense that at one time it was extremely small, and therefore we can assume that it had a beginning, which scientists have postulated to be the big bang. This gives rise to the question, what happened before the big bang? If there had been a previous expansion and contraction prior to this event, does the universe have a cyclical nature, in that it must at some point contract leading to another big bang, then expand, then contract again, and infinitum? This is an example of a conceptualization of co-existence of the infinite and finite realities. In the cosmic sense, infinity as expressed in the cyclical expansion and contraction of the universe over vast time periods can be seen as necessary for a finite life. If this theory is correct, there is a balance between finiteness and infinity, since each episode between big bangs is finite, while the process of expansion and contraction as a whole is infinite. The existence of everything depends on this infinite pulsation.

This leads us to the assertion that whether or not they accept the existence of a God, human beings have to come to terms with their mortality and the continuation of the world and the wider universe around them for eternity. Many people deal with their mortality by taking a specific series of actions that make their lives sensible. Some establish legacies for future generations by sharing memories and life narratives. In this way people are able to see the meaning of their own finite existence in relation to the continuous life of the universe. In this sense, the ritual of mourning, arranging funerals and dealing with the personal effects and affairs of someone who has died can be seen as an affirmation of the continuation of existence for those who are still living (Pollard, 2006).

The soul-centered view of meaningfulness on the other hand is based on the idea that a soul is an eternal substance within us (not limited like our material bodies), and therefore it is immortal and perfect (Metz, 2007). Therefore, individual lives can only have meaning by people having the ability to do things that express the soul, since only the soul has immortality and permanence. The objection to this perspective again arises from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of a soul, let alone the question of whether having a soul necessarily denotes immortality or lack thereof.

Often the soul is thought to be an expression of the human spirit, but such metaphysical concepts, like gods, derive from human mythologies. These mythologies are used not only to explain the universe but also to control social behaviors and activities which religious authorities perceive as threats to social stability. Thus, by explaining the order of the physical universe they establish a basis for human conduct in the social realm. What is important to bear in mind is that the conceptualization of the nature of the cosmos determines (but since it is a mythological conceptualization it is also determined by) how people shall live.

However, mythologies are analogous to what has evolved into scientific explanation. The two systems aim at the same goal, which is to make the universe comprehensible to human beings. While mythology is a metaphorical way of visualizing the universe, science attempts to reveal the literal explanatory logic behind its mechanism. Of course adherents of religion sometimes assert that their views of the universe are literal rather than metaphorical, and scientists sometimes come to terms with their discoveries by understanding them in terms of religious metaphor. That is why many scientists believe in the existence of God (for example both Einstein and Newton were firm believers in the existence of God as the intelligent architect who established the laws governing the universe). Nevertheless, critics argue that neither an infinite soul nor any metaphysical thing exerting an infinite effect on the world is necessary for a meaningful life (Schmidtz, 2001).