Reeks 1 — GrondslagSeries 1 — Foundation

Sessie 6 — Verlange, Skoonheid en die NuminoseSession 6 — Longing, Beauty and the Numinous

— deurby Attie Retief

Die Menslike Soeke na Waarde – Gerigtheid, Moraliteit en Doel

Inleiding

Ons het tot dusver die fondasie gelê: wat ons met “God” bedoel (Sessie 1), moderne wanopvattings oor God (Sessie 2), die vraag hoekom daar iets is eerder as niks (Sessie 3), en God se transendensie, immanensie en hoe bewussyn dit weerspieël (Sessie 4 en 5). Nou beweeg ons na die menslike soeke na betekenis. Alle mense het deur alle tye ’n diep drang gehad om betekenis te vind. Hierdie drang manifesteer veral op drie maniere:

1. Die gerigtheid van die menslike verstand – ons bewussyn se strewe na waarheid en ons vermoë om oor dinge te dink (filosowe noem hierdie “intensionaliteit”, d.i. dat gedagtes altyd oor of gerig op iets is buite hulself). Hoekom soek ons verstand na ware insig en verstaan, en hoe is dit moontlik dat ons rasioneel kan dink?
2. Ons morele intuïsie – daardie innerlike kompas wat ons vertel sommige dinge is reg en ander verkeerd, ongeag ons eie voorkeure. Hoekom ervaar ons ’n universele pligsbesef en ’n gevoel van objektiewe moraliteit wat bo kultuur en tyd uitstyg?
3. Ons ervaring van doelgerigtheid – die aanvoeling dat ons lewens en die geskiedenis ’n doel het en moet hê. Hoekom hunker mense na ’n betekenisvolle doel met hul bestaan, en hoekom ervaar ons leegheid of nihilisme as daardie doel ontbreek?

Die Christelike wêreldbeskouing maak die aanspraak dat hierdie drie aspekte – ons strewe na waarheid, ons morele gewete, en ons soeke na doel – nie toevallige neweprodukte van evolusie is nie, maar wegwysers na ons Skepper. Soos Augustinus beroemd gebid het: “U het ons vir Uself gemaak, o Here, en ons hart is rusteloos totdat dit in U rus”. Met ander woorde, die mens se diepste soeke na betekenis vind rus by God. Ons kontrasteer dit telkens met ’n naturalistiese of sekulêre perspektief: ’n wêreldbeskouing soos dié van bv. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, David Hume of Friedrich Nietzsche wat geen bonatuurlike werklikheid erken nie. Laasgenoemde perspektief skiet uiteindelik tekort om dié diepliggende menslike ervarings te verklaar.

Gerigtheid van die verstand: Intensionaliteit en Waarheidsoeke

Elke menslike persoon het ‘n unieke binnewêreld van denke – ons bewussyn met sy idees, oortuigings en redenerings. Ons gedagtes is gerig op dinge: ’n mens kan oor vandag se weer dink, kan jou verlede onthou of kan jou toekoms beplan. Hierdie kenmerk, dat ons denke oor iets handel of na iets wys, noem filosowe intensionaliteit. Dit is ’n verstommende eienskap: my brein is ’n fisiese orgaan, ’n samestelling van selle en chemiese impulse, maar my gees (of “mind”) kan abstrakte waarhede raaksien, logiese reëls formuleer, en oor onsigbare konsepte soos geregtigheid of oneindigheid besin. Ons neem dit as vanselfsprekend op skool dat die verstand byvoorbeeld wiskundige waarhede kan ontdek wat ewig en onsigbaar is (niemand kan “2+2=4” met ’n mikroskoop sien nie, tog wéét ons dis waar). Ons soek na waarheid. Van kleins af vra kinders hoekom-vrae, en as volwassenes bly ons op soek na die rede agter dinge. Daar skuil ‘n diepliggende waarheidshonger in die menslike gees wat nie deur blote nuttigheid verklaar kan word nie. Selfs wanneer ’n leuen dalk voordeliger sou wees, is daar iets in ons wat steeds wil wéét wat waar is.

Die wonder van rasionele denke

Volgens die Christelike siening is hierdie rasionele gerigtheid geen toeval nie: dit is ’n weerspieëling daarvan dat ons na God se beeld geskep is (Gen. 1:27). God is ’n rasionele, intelligente Wese – Logos, die Woord of Rede (Joh. 1:1) – en daarom het Hy mense geskep met die vermoë om te dink, te begryp en waarheid van valsheid te onderskei. Ons vermoë tot logika en abstrakte denke onderskei ons van diere. Die Bybel roep ons ook om ons verstand aktief in te span: Jesus sê ons moet God liefhê met ons hele denke (Matt. 22:37), en Jesaja 1:18 laat God sê: “Kom laat ons die saak uitmaak met mekaar”, ’n uitnodiging tot redelike nadenke. ’n Kernidee van die Christelike filosofie is dat waarheid uiteindelik in God gegrond is (Jes. 65:16 noem Hom “God van die waarheid”). Ons kan dus vertrou dat die skepping begrypbaar is omdat dit deur ’n rasionele Skepper gemaak is. Daar bestaan ’n treffende harmonie tussen die subjektiewe rationaliteit van ons gees en die objektiewe ordening van die natuur, so asof iemand wou hê ons moes dit verstaan. C.S. Lewis merk op dat wetenskaplike ontdekking juis begin het toe mense (gedring deur ’n Christelike wêreldbeskouing) aanvaar het dat ’n rasionele God ’n rasioneel verstaanbare wêreld gemaak het. Ons rede werk, en bring ons by werklike insigte, omdat die heelal nie ’n chaos is nie, maar deur die Logos gevorm is.

Hierteenoor het ’n streng naturalistiese of materialistiese beskouing groot moeite om die menslike verstand se gerigtheid op waarheid betekenisvol te verklaar. In ’n heelal wat uiteindelik net onpersoonlike materie en blinde chemiese prosesse is, wat is ’n gedagtes dan? Materialiste probeer om bewussyn volledig te reduseer na breinprosesse, maar loop vas in wat filosowe die “verklaringsgaping” noem: hoe verklaar blote atome en elektriese impulse die eerstepersoons-ervaring en betekenisvolle inhoud van bewussyn? ’n Rekenaarprogram mag komplekse berekeninge uitvoer, maar ons besef intuïtief dat dit niks betekenisvol verstaan daarmee saam nie. Soos David Bentley Hart dit gestel het: “software no more ‘thinks’ than a clock’s minute hand knows the time”. ’n Klok se wyser wys wel die tyd aan ons, maar die klok wéét nie wat hy aandui nie – net so kan ’n rekenaar miljoene datapunte vergelyk, maar dit beteken nie die rekenaar begryp die betekenis of waarheid daarvan nie.

Maar ons begryp wél betekenis en waarheid. Jou gedagtes is nie net ’n flitsende reeks kodes nie; jy ervaar verstand. Hieruit het baie denkers (Christen én nie-Christen) afgelei dat bewussyn nie bloot ’n materiele produk is nie. Die ateïstiese filosoof Thomas Nagel erken byvoorbeeld dat materialistiese evolusie sukkel om te verklaar hoekom ons enige vertroue in ons rasionele denkvermoëns moet hê. Hy noem die naturalistiese siening van die gees “byna seker vals” juis omdat dit nie ons bewussyn en rede kan verklaar nie. Selfs Charles Darwin, die vader van die evolusieteorie, het ’n berugte twyfel uitgespreek: “met my kom die aaklige twyfel altyd op of die oortuigings van die menslike brein, wat van die mindere diere ontwikkel het, enige betekenisvolle waarde het of betroubaar is. Sou iemand die oortuigings van ’n aap se brein vertrou?”. Hierdie sogenaamde “Darwin-dilemma” spook vandag nog by filosowe: as die menslike verstand net die produk is van doellose, oorlewingsgerigte prosesse, hoekom sal dit juis op waarheid gerig wees? Natuurlike seleksie bevoordeel gedrag wat oorlewing maksimeer, nie noodwendig ware geloofsoortuigings nie. Die beroemde Christen-filosoof Alvin Plantinga het hierop gewys: volgens natuurlike evolusie alleen is dit hoogs waarskynlik dat baie van ons oortuigings bloot oorlewing-dienende illusies is, nie ware weerspieëlings van ’n geestelike of wiskundige realiteit nie. Anders gestel: as jou brein net daarop gemik is om jou gene te laat oorleef en reproduseer, maak dit nie saak of jou idees waar is nie – net of dit nuttig is. Maar as dit so is, ondermyn ’n materialis sy eie vertroue in rasionele wetenskap en logika, want dié veronderstel dat ons denke wél op waarheid gemik is en geldige gevolgtrekkings kan maak. Dit is nie verbasend dat selfs streng materialiste in die praktyk optree asof die menslike verstand tot ware insig kan kom nie, ’n instinktiewe erkenning dat ons verstand iets meer is as net ’n toevallige oorlewingsmeganisme.

Die Christelike wêreldbeskouing verklaar hierdie verskynsel deur te sê: ons het ’n rede, omdat ’n opper-Rede (’n rasionele Skepper) ons gemaak het. Johannes 1:3-4 bely Christus as die Persoonlike Logos deur wie “alles ontstaan het”, en verder dat hierdie Logos “die lig was vir die mense.” Hy gee lig aan ons denke. Ons denke “deel in” die groter lig van God se waarheid. Daarom kan die gelowige sê: “In U lig sien ons die lig” (Ps. 36:10). Klassieke denkers soos Augustinus het openlik erken dat alle ware insig uiteindelik genade is – ons “deel in God se lig” wanneer ons iets verstaan. Ons rasionele gerigtheid (intensionaliteit) is dus ’n skadubeeld van die goddelike Intelligensie. Anders as ’n blinde natuurproses, wíl God hê dat ons Hom en sy skepping moet verstaan. Hy openbaar Homself in die skepping en in sy Woord, sodat ons waarheid kan ken. Jesus Christus self word “die Waarheid” genoem (Joh. 14:6) en Hy bid tot die Vader: “Heilig hulle in U waarheid; U woord is waarheid” (Joh. 17:17). ’n Lewe van navolging van Christus is dus ’n lewe van voortdurende waarheidsoeke. Ons verstand vind sy ware rigting en rus in Hom wat die bron van alle waarheid is.

Naturalistiese reduksie: ’n self-weerleggende beskouing

Teenoor hierdie beeld bied die naturalistiese wêreldbeskouing ’n baie reduktiewe prentjie van die verstand. Richard Dawkins byvoorbeeld beklemtoon dat die mens bloot die produk is van “blinde fisiese kragte en genetiese replisering,” met geen ingeboude doel of betekenis agter ons gedagtes nie. Hy meen ons brein se inhoud (ons idees van goed, kwaad, waarheid, skoonheid) is uiteindelik net ’n biologiese toeval. Selfs ons bewussyn as sodanig word deur sekere neurowetenskaplikes afgemaak as ’n “illusie” wat handig is om evolusionêr te oorleef. Sam Harris, ’n prominente materialis, voer aan dat menslike vrye wil ’n volledige illusie is. Volgens hom is elke “keuse” wat jy dink jy maak net die outomatiese effek van chemiese reaksies in jou brein. Harris skryf: “free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it”. Hierdie siening is ’n logiese gevolg van ’n deterministiese breinbeskouing: as net dooie materie bestaan, dan moes elke gedagte en besluit wat in jou opkom eintlik gebeur het; jy het dit nie werklik gekies nie. Maar let op die implikasie: as geen vrye wil bestaan nie, bestaan daar geen ware intensionele keuse of doelgerigte soeke na waarheid nie; alles is bloot gebeur. Dit beteken ook dat konsekwente materialisme die konsep van rasionele oortuiging verydel: As ek “oortuig” is van materialisme, het ek nie vrylik daartoe gekom op grond van logiese oorwegings nie; dit was net ’n brein-gebeurtenis wat ek onwillekeurig moes hê. Hierdie self-weerleggende sirkel het die ateïstiese filosoof J.B.S. Haldane al raakgesien: “As my denke geheel en al deur fisiese prosesse bepaal word, hoekom sou ek glo dat dit waar is? … Tensy ek glo dat my gedagtes nie net deur materie voortgebring word nie, kan ek nie glo dat die materie self bestaan nie”. Met ander woorde, as ons denke net maar atoombewegings is, het ons geen rede om die uitslag daarvan as “waar” te beskou nie. Tog glo die materialis sy eie denke lewer waarheid op – ’n teenstrydigheid.

Die Christelike denker Alvin Plantinga stel dit soos volg: natuurlike evolusie in ’n materialistiese wêreld sou beteken ons kognitiewe apparaat is gerig op oorlewing, nie op waarheid nie, en dit gee ons ’n sterk rede om die materialistiese evolusie-verhaal self te betwyfel. C.S. Lewis se weergawe is ewe skerp: “As daar geen intelligente bron agter die universum is nie, dan het niemand die menslike verstand ontwerp met die doel om te dink nie. Dit beteken dat ons breinprodukte slegs toevallige byprodukte van atome is, en niemand kan enige betroubaarheid heg aan toevallige byprodukte nie. Dus, as ek nie in God glo nie, kan ek nie ook in die denke glo nie: so kom ek deur logika tot die gevolgtrekking dat daar geen logika is – ’n absurde posisie” (parafrase uit Miracles, Hoofstuk 3).

Hierteenoor is die Christelike posisie dat die rasionele orde in die skepping en die gerigtheid van ons verstand daarop, beide geskenke van ’n rasionele Skepper is. Waarheid is werklik en kenbaar omdat God werklik en kenbaar is, en Hy het ons na sy beeld gemaak, met denke en ’n wil wat op Hom kan reageer. Ons wil en rede is wel gebroke deur sonde, maar nie uitgewis nie; inteendeel, selfs gevalle mense bly in staat om baie waarhede oor die skepping te ontdek danksy algemene genade. Wanneer iemand dus volhardend na waarheid soek, voer hy onbewustelik uit waarvoor God hom ontwerp het. Soos Hart opmerk: self ’n ongelowige wat eerlik en opreg die waarheid nastreef, getuig onwetend van sy ingeboude “hunkering na God,” want alle waarheid is God se waarheid. ’n Materialis wat die wetenskaplike metode gebruik om waarhede oor die kosmos te leer, maak dus ironies gebruik van ’n denkstelsel wat slegs konsekwent is as daar wel ’n rasionele God is. Anders gestel: die soeke na waarheid is ’n geestelike daad. Paulus sê in 1 Kor. 2:15 dat die geestelike mens alle dinge kan “ondersoek”. Jesus belowe ook dat wie hom toespits op die waarheid, uiteindelik by Hom sal uitkom: “Elkeen wat uit die waarheid is, luister na My stem” (Joh. 18:37). God beloon opregte waarheidsoekers met die grootste Waarheid: Homself.

Ons sien dus: in die Christelike verstaan is ons verstand doelgerig op ware insig omdat ’n ware God ons daarvoor gemaak het. Naturalistiese verklarings vir die menslike verstand loop uiteindelik vas in ’n ontoereikende sirkel: hulle moet die rasionele geldigheid van hul eie denke aanvaar terwyl hul wêreldbeskouing geen vaste grondslag daarvoor het nie. Soos Lewis humoristies opgemerk het: “As die hele heelal géén betekenis het nie, hoe sou ons dit ooit agterkom? ’n Mens noem nie ’n lyn skeef as jy nie ’n idee het van ’n reguit lyn nie”. Die feit dat ons bewus is van enigiemand se dwaling of skeefheid, bewys dat ons ’n standaard van waarheid buite onsself aanvoel. Hierdie gerigtheid van die menslike gees op kennis en waarheid getuig dus van iets (of Iemand) meer as bloot materie.

Morele intuïsie en objektiewe moraliteit

Min dinge is so fundamenteel tot die menslike ervaring as die wete dat sommige dade reg is en ander verkeerd. Ons beoordeel voortdurend ons eie en ander se optrede aan ’n morele maatstaf: wanneer ons sê ’n sekere daad is “onregverdig” of “lofwaardig”, maak ons ’n appèl op iets bo en behalwe ons persoonlike smaak. Selfs mense wat beweer “moraliteit is relatief” verklap in hul daaglikse lewe dat hulle nié werklik so dink nie – hulle verontwaardig hulle oor regte ongeregtighede (bv. uitbuiting van kinders, mishandeling van onskuldiges) asof dit méér as net persoonlike opinies is. Hierdie verskynsel, dat die hele mensdom oor basiese moraliteit kan saamstem, het klassieke filosowe laat besef dat daar ’n algemene morele wet bestaan wat nie bloot sosiale ooreenkoms is nie. C.S. Lewis begin sy boek Mere Christianity deur te wys op hierdie “Morele Wet” of “Natuurlike Wet”: mense oral twis oor wat reg en verkeerd is, maar daardie getwis impliseer dat daar ’n standaard buite beide partye is waarteen hulle optrede gemeet word. “’n Mens noem nie ’n lyn skeef tensy jy ’n idee het van ’n reguit lyn nie,” skryf Lewis. Ons oordeel dade as “krom” juis omdat ons (selfs al is dit net intuïtief) weet hoe ’n reguit (goeie) daad lyk. Anders as diere wat net instink volg, dink mense in morele terme: ons sê “behoort te/moet nie” vir onsself en ander. Hierdie misterieuse pligsbesef het Immanuel Kant so diep beïndruk dat hy gesê het twee dinge vul hom altyd met nuwe ontsag: “die sterrehemel daarbuite en die morele wet binne-in my.” Kant het aangevoer dat die beste verklaring vir hierdie universele morele wet ’n morele Wetgewer is. In sy Critique of Practical Reason (1788) redeneer hy dat ons besef van plig en geregtigheid impliseer dat daar ’n God moet wees wat alle ongeregtigheid uiteindelik regstel. Die Bybel leer ons inderdaad van ’n Goddelike Wet wat in elke mens se gewete weerklank vind: “hulle wys dat die werk van die wet in hulle harte geskrywe is, terwyl hulle gewete saam getuig” (Rom. 2:15). Paulus noem elders ook die “wet… wat in die harte van die heidene geskrywe is” (Rom. 2:14-15). Dit is ’n ingebore morele kennis wat nie van menslike ooreenkoms afkomstig is nie maar van God se algemene openbaring.

Die Christelike teologie verduidelik dit as volg: God het ons na sy beeld gemaak, en daarom het ons ’n innerlike aanvoeling van reg en verkeerd, want God is volmaakte Goedheid en Geregtigheid. Ons gewete is soos ’n skadu van God se karakter, ’n “stem” binne ons wat roep na die heilige, liefdevolle karakter van die Skepper. Al is hierdie gewete deur sonde besmet (dit kan stomp of verwronge raak deur ons sondige natuur en kultuurinvloede), verloor mense nooit heeltemal daardie basiese besef dat goed en kwaad realiteite is nie. Ons mag verskil oor baie etiese detail, maar dat daar reg en verkeerd bestaan, word amper nêrens ontken in praktyk nie. Trouens, wanneer iemand dit probeer ontken, weerspreek hy homself baie vinnig – soos Lewis humoristies uitwys: “Sê vir iemand daar is geen iets soos reg of verkeerd nie, en hy sal dieselfde aand jou korrigeer oor hoe onregverdig jy is” (parafrase). *Bybelse openbaring bevestig ook dat sekere dinge altyd reg of verkeerd is, ongeag mense se gevoel: God se morele wet in bv. die Tien Gebooie openbaar objektiewe standaarde. Reg en verkeerd verander nie soos modes nie, want dit is gegrond in die onveranderlike karakter van God wat lig en liefde is. “Wees heilig, want Ek is heilig,” sê die Here (1 Petr. 1:16). Dit is die anker van moraliteit.

Hierdie prentjie staan lynreg teenoor die naturalistiese of moreel-relativistiese perspektief wat in ons tyd gewild geword het. Volgens ’n streng evolusionistiese humanisme het moraliteit geen hoër bron nie; dit is net ’n byproduk van biologiese en sosiale prosesse. Die bekende ateïs Richard Dawkins het byvoorbeeld verklaar: “In ’n heelal van blinde fisiese kragte… is daar uiteindelik geen ontwerp, geen doel, geen goed of kwaad nie – net blinde, meedoënlose onverskilligheid”.

David Hume, ’n verligtingsdenker, het al in die 18de eeu geredeneer dat mens nie ’n “* behoort te*” kan aflei uit blote “is”-feite nie. Met ander woorde, as jy net na die natuur kyk, kry jy geen morele riglyn daaruit nie. Volgens Hume is ons morele uitsprake bloot die projeksie van ons gevoelens: ons noem dinge goed as ons dit goed ag, en sleg as ons daarteen ‘n afkeer het. Morele waardes is dus subjektief in dié opsig: wat reg is vir jou, is reg vir jóú, maar niks is reg of verkeerd in sigself nie. Vandag word hierdie siening gewild verwoord deur ateïste soos Sam Harris, wat probeer aantoon dat mens moraliteit kan baseer op “die bevordering van welstand.” Welstand word dan arbitrêr as die hoogste goed geneem sonder om te verklaar waarom juis daardie doel meer bindend is as enige ander voorkeur. Harris en ander poog dus om ’n vorm van “objektiewe” moraliteit te kry sonder ’n Morele Wetgewer: hulle sê sekere dinge is universeel bevorderlik of afbrekend vir die menslike spesie, en daarom kan ons dit objektief goed of sleg noem. Maar let op: hier het “goed” net die betekenis van “dit wat oorgrote meerderheid mense verkies omdat dit hulle laat floreer”. Die waarde oordeel (dat floreer self ’n goeie ding is wat ons behoort na te streef) kom slegs in deur ’n stilswygende aanname: ’n geloof dat menslike lewe op sigself waarde het. In ’n ateïstiese wêreldbeskouing is daar egter géén grond vir so ’n geloof nie: as mense toevallige produk is van koue natuurwette, waarom sou menslike welstand ’n kosmiese belang of universele norm hê? Hieroor het die evolusionêre denker Michael Ruse eerlik geskryf: “Moraliteit is net ’n biologiese aanpassing, nes kloue of tande… Dit is *illusie in die sin dat daar geen objektiewe fondament daarvoor is nie. Wanneer ons sê ‘Jy moet jou naaste soos jouself liefhê,’ dink ons daar is iets meer as onsself wat dit reguleer. Maar dit is nie so nie: moraliteit is net ’n gunstige oortuigingspatroon wat in ons gene geprogrammeer is om ons te laat saamwerk”. Ruse erken dus dat ’n oortuigde naturalis moet sê ons *gevoel dat daar ’n verhewe reg of verkeerd is, is net ’n handige illusie wat in ons ontwikkel het. Friedrich Nietzsche, die 19de-eeuse vader van nihilisme, het dit nog skerper gestel: nadat hy die beroemde woorde “God is dood” geskryf het, voeg hy by: “en daarmee sterf ook die idee van ’n ware wêreld* en ’n morele orde”. Nietzsche het geglo tradisionele moraliteit is niks meer as die *“kudde-instink” van die mens nie; evolusionêre sentimente wat ons toevallig oorgeneem het en waarin daar geen noodsaaklike waarheid steek nie. Hy was van die opinie dat die sterkes eenvoudig hul eie waardes moet skep volgens hul “wil tot mag”.

Die probleem met al hierdie naturalistiese sienings (hetsy Hume se blote gevoel, Ruse se illusie of Nietzsche se willekeur) is dat niemand konsekwent daarin slaag om so te leef nie. As iemand my sou probeer oortuig dat morele goed en kwaad slegs illusies is, sal hy dadelik bots met my diepste menswees: my gewete. Soos die ateïstiese professor in die staaltjie vertel: “Ek glo nie in ’n hoër mag nie; dus glo ek ons moraliteit is biologies en daar is geen objektiewe reg en verkeerd nie. Nietemin bly leef ek asof sommige dinge reg en verkeerd is. Ek kan eenvoudig nie my gevoel van werklike goed/kwaad versoen met my oortuiging dat daar geen is nie.” Hierdie onvermoë om volgens relativisme te leef, dui op iets: dat niemand se hart werklik glo dat betekenislose materie die laaste woord is oor reg en verkeerd nie. Niemand (behalwe dalk ’n sosiopaat) kan kyk na bv. kindermishandeling of volksmoord en nié aanvoel dat dit objektief verkeerd is nie – verkeerd al dink die dader dit is reg. Selfs Richard Dawkins, wat teoreties sê goed/kwaad is illusie, kan hom nie keer om ernstige morele oordele te fel in sy boeke nie (hy noem bv. godsdiens “uiters boos” en ’n vorm van “kindermishandeling”). Hiermee verraai hy, nes ons almal, dat hy ten diepste glo aan ’n regte reg en verkeerd. Hierdie innerlike geloof kom by gelowige en ongelowige voor. Hart noem dit ’n “natuurlike verlange na God” wat mense selfs openbaar wanneer hulle vurig streef na goedheid en geregtigheid. Waarom na “God”? Omdat elke opregte strewe na die Goéie in werklikheid ’n strewe na die Bron van alle goedheid is, en dié Bron is God self. Soos Jakobus 1:17 sê: “Elke goeie gawe en elke volmaakte geskenk kom van bo, van die Vader van die ligte af”. Wanneer ’n ateïs hom hard inspan vir ’n morele saak (byvoorbeeld om onreg te bestry), getuig hy onwetend dat hy glo in ’n hoogste Reg wat gehoorsaam moet word. Sonder God is dit onlogies om so te voel, maar tog voel hy so. Romeine 2:15 beskryf presies hierdie scenario: die heidene “bewys dat die werk van die wet in hulle harte geskrywe is, terwyl ook hul gewete mede-getuienis lewer”. M.a.w., mens kan God ontken met die mond, maar jou God-gegewe gewete bly intussen teenstrydig getuig van ’n ware morele orde.

Ons moet ook uitwys dat, sonder ’n objektiewe morele Standaard, konsepte soos geregtigheid uiteindelik geen triomf kan behaal nie. Dink byvoorbeeld aan die stryd teen apartheid of teen mensehandel. As daar geen hoër Reg is nie, sou ’n mens kon redeneer apartheid is nié werklik verkeerd nie, dis maar ons opinie (en die opponente se opinie verskil toevallig). Slegs as daar ’n oppergesag bo mense se wette is – die imago Dei in elke mens en die morele wet van God, kan ’n ongerymdheid soos apartheid objektief verkeerd wees en veroordeel word. As dit nie so was nie, was morele hervormers soos William Wilberforce of Martin Luther King Jr. se beroep op ’n “hogere wet” bloot niksseggende retoriek. Ons regsisteme vandag impliseer ook ’n klem op werklike skuld en onskuld, bo en behalwe net mense se gevoel; dit sou geen sin maak om misdadigers te straf as goed en kwaad net illusies was nie. Morele woede (soos wanneer ons van ’n verkragting of ’n volksmoord hoor) vertel ons dat iets werklik skeef is in die wêreld wat reggemaak moet word. Dit is presies hoe die Bybel die wêreld beskou: as ’n skepping waarin reg en verkeerd werklik is, waar God uiteindelik die reg sal laat seëvier en onreg straf. Sonder daardie aanname moet ’n mens saam met die prediker van Prediker vra: “As daar geen God is nie – hoe maak mens sin van die onreg in die wêreld?” (vgl. Pred. 3:16-17). Prediker wys dat as jy net “onder die son” kyk (m.a.w. net ’n aardse, sekulêre perspektief het), reg en verkeerd jou mal sal maak: “Ek het die trane gesien van die verdruktes, en hulle het geen trooster nie… Aan die kant van hulle verdrukkers was daar mag” (Pred. 4:1). Sonder God lyk dit of onreg uiteindelik wen; die sterk regeer oor die swak. Maar in ’n wêreld met God is ons morele stryd betekenisvol: daar ís ’n Regter, daar ís vergelding vir kwaad en beloning vir geregtigheid, al sien ons dit nie onmiddellik nie. “Moet jou nie ontstel oor die goddelose…” sê Ps. 37, “want die Here handhaaf die reg en Hy verlaat sy getroues nie”. Ons geheelonthoofse morele gewete (wat oral roep om geregtigheid) maak dus sin as die lewe nie eindig by die graf nie, maar by ’n oordeel waar elke kwaad reggestel word.

Die ontoereikendheid van sekulêre moraliteit blyk veral wanneer ons kyk na die eindpunt daarvan. As daar geen God en geen hiernamaals is nie, saai ons uiteindelik ons morele stryd in die wind. So het die beroemde ateïs Bertrand Russell tot sy skok besef: al die mens se morele pogings en “heldedade” sal tog uitgewis word in die ewige dood van die heelal. In sy opstel A Free Man’s Worship skryf hy dat die mens (sonder geloof) sy lewe moet bou op die “vaste fondament van onverbiddelike wanhoop”, omdat niks wat ons ook al doen enige uiteindelike betekenis kan hê nie. Alles is uiteindelik tevergeefs. Hierdie ontstellende gevolg het menige ongelowige denker (Camus, Sartre, ens.) tot nihilisme gedryf – die idee dat daar op die ou end geen betekenis of reg of verkeerd is nie, ten spyte van ons pogings om anders te leef. Nietzsche het in sy Derde Nagmerrie die koms van hierdie nihilisme voorspel en gesê dit sal soos ’n groot getyegolf oor die Westerse wêreld spoel nadat die geloof in God eers behoorlik beswyk het. Hy vergelyk dit met die horison wat “uitgevee” word: alle vaste punte van rigting verdwyn, en die mens verloor simbolies sy kompas. Inderdaad sien ons in ons huidige sekulêre samelewing ’n geweldige waarderelativisme posvat – menige mense (veral jonger geslagte) verkeer in ’n bestaanskrisis: hulle weet nie meer waartoe of waarvoor om te lewe nie. Baie sal saamstem met die leë refrein van die rock-liedjie: “We are nothing and nothing will help us; maybe we’re lies.” Vanuit ’n naturalistiese wêreldbeeld is dit moeilik om hierdie wanhoop te vermy of te troos met iets eg. Uiteindelik kan ’n eerlike naturalis vir ’n depressiewe vriend géén objektiewe rede gee om aan te hou lewe nie, behalwe dalk, “Geniet vandag, want môre sterf ons.” Selfmoord was nie verniet vir Albert Camus “die enigste fundamentele filosofiese probleem” nie; hy het gesê elke denkende mens moet by ’n punt besluit of die lewe die moeite werd is om te leef te midde van ’n absurde bestaan. Só ’n punt sou nooit eers ontstaan as ons nie diep binne ons gewéét het die lewe behoort betekenis te hê nie. Die feit dat mense hulleself doodmaak uit nihilisme is een van die tragiese getuienisse dat ons nie tevrede kan wees met ’n betekenislose lewe nie.

Die Christelike geloof erken die erns van hierdie menslike soeke na ’n betekenisvolle bestaan. Anders as sekulêre stemme wat die soeke na objektiewe betekenis afmaak as wensdenkery, sê die Christendom: daardie soeke is ég, en daar ís ’n vervulling daarvoor. Die evangelie volgens Christus bied ’n antwoord op ons morele en eksistensiële verlange: dit sê ons skuldgevoelens is nie net illusies nie; ons is werklik skuldig (Rom. 3:23), maar daar is vergifnis en herstel te vinde by die Regter self. Dit sê verder ons doodsangs en gevoel van nietigheid is geldig, maar God het ingegryp: “[Jesus] het die dood vernietig en die onverganklike lewe aan die lig gebring” (2 Tim. 1:10). Christus staan dus in die kern van die betekenis wat ons verlang: Hy versoen ons met die absolute morele Goed (God), en Hy openbaar dat ons bestaan ’n doel het, naamlik gemeenskap met God en deelhê in sy heerlikheid tot in ewigheid. Paulus skryf in 1 Kor. 15:19-20 dat as ons net vir hierdie lewe op Christus hoop, ons bejammerenswaardig is – maar “Christus is opgewek”, daarom is ons geloof nie tevergeefs nie, en in die Here is ons arbeid nie tevergeefs nie (15:58). Hier kry die menslike soek na betekenis sy klimaks: in Christus ontdek ons dat Morele Waarheid nie ’n koue idee is nie, maar ’n liefdevolle Persoon (die Heilige); en dat lewensdoel nie iets is wat ons self moet uitwoel nie, maar iets wat God uit genade skenk aan elke mens wat Hom ken.

Hierdie waarhede voer ons direk tot die derde dimensie van die menslike soeke: teleologie – die aanvoeling dat ons lewe en die geskiedenis op ’n doel gerig is, en dat vervulling lê daarin om daardie doel te bereik.

Teleologie en betekenisvolle doel in die menslike lewe

Die woord teleologie kom van die Grieks telos, wat “doel” of “eindpunt” beteken. Om teleologies te dink, is om te vra: Waarvoor is dit? Wat is die einddoel of bedoeling agter iets? Mense is by uitstek doel-gerigte wesens. Ons het nie net bewussyn en ’n morele natuur nie, maar ook die dryf om ons lewe in te rig rondom groter doele. Filosowe en sielkundiges het lankal opgemerk dat blote oorlewing of selfbehoud nie genoeg is vir mense nie; ons wil vir iets groter as onsself leef. Wanneer ’n persoon oortuig is van ’n hoër roeping of betekenis, kan hy groot ontberings verduur; maar as daardie betekenis wegval, sak hy maklik in wanhoop weg. Viktor Frankl, ’n Joodse psigiater wat self die hel van Auschwitz en Dachau beleef het, beskryf hoe gevangenes wat ’n rede gevind het om voort te leef innerlik sterker gebly het as diegene wat oortuig was dat daar geen betekenis is nie. Frankl haal graag Nietzsche se woorde aan: “Hy wat ’n *waarom het om voor te lewe, kan byna enige hoe verdra”. ’n Mens wat weet waarom hy bestaan – wat sy lewe se doel raaksien, kan dwarsdeur pyn, verlies en teëspoed *volhard, want hy sien ’n betekenis daarin. Maar iemand wat tot die oortuiging kom dat daar géén hoër doel of hoegenaamd geen betekenis agter sy lyding en stryd is nie, verloor die innerlike wil om aan te gaan. Frankl getuig uit ondervinding: wanhoop = lyding sonder betekenis. Hierdie skaalkleed van wanhoop versprei oor die moderne Weste na mate geloof in God afneem. Die probleem is nie dat ongelowige mense nie iets kan uitdink om voor te lewe nie. Baie stort hul energie in byvoorbeeld aktivisme, kunsskepping, wetenskap of selfs net familie en drome. Die probleem is dat, as hulle konsekwent nadink, geen van daardie dinge ’n waardevolle uiteindelike betekenis het in ’n koel, onpersoonlike kosmos nie. Die Nobelpryswenner Jacques Monod (’n ateïs) skryf byvoorbeeld dat die mens op “die draaiboek van die natuur” verskyn het deur toevallige evolusie en dat “die heelal uiteindelik botweg ongeerg is teenoor vrae van goed en kwaad, en van betekenis”. Die beste wat ons kan doen, sê hy, is om self ons waardes te skep en of dit nou betekenisvol is of nie, eenvoudig te kies om daarvoor te leef. Monod erken dus dat die keuse vir betekenis in ’n ateïstiese wêreld heeltemal arbitrêr en uiters broos is. Hierdie broosheid blyk gereeld prakties: mense wat hul lewensdoel beperk tot iets tydelik (bv. ’n loopbaanpiek, of om beroemd te word, of net “lekker te lewe”) word dikwels later oorval deur ’n vakuum in die siel, want sodra daardie mikpunt verby is, is daar niks blywends bereik nie. Selfs goeie dinge soos om jou gesin lief te hê of ’n bydrae tot jou gemeenskap te maak, is uiteindelik onderhewig aan tyd en vergangklikheid. “Ons het alles om van te lewe, maar niks om voor te lééf nie,” merk ’n hedendaagse filosoof op oor sekulêre mense. Menslike ideale, of dit nou liefde, geregtigheid, kuns of wetenskap is, smeek om ’n groter konteks waarin dit sin maak dat ons hulle nastreef, selfs al kos dit ons lewens. Sonder so ’n konteks bly dit bloot persoonlike smake. Die vraag wat elke eerlike soeker spook, is dus: Leef ek net totdat ek sterf, of is daar ’n groter doel met my lewe (en die geskiedenis) wat my bestaan betekenisvol maak?

Die Christelike geloof antwoord hierop met ’n duidelike en jubelende “Ja!” – Daar ís ’n groot doel, en dit is gewortel in die Skepper. Teleologie is ingebou in die heelal omdat ’n doelgerigte God daaragter staan. In teenstelling met Monod se siening van ’n “ongeergde heelal”, bely die Bybel dat God van die begin af ’n doel en plan met sy skepping het. Efesiërs 1:11 sê God werk “alles volgens die raad van sy wil uit”; Jesaja 46:10-11 beeld God uit wat verklaar: “My besluit staan vas en Alles wat my wil behaag, sal Ek doen… wat Ek beplan het, sal Ek tot stand bring.” Hierdie plan van God behels in kort dat Hy ’n volk vir Homself versamel, die kwaad heeltemal oorwin, en ’n nuwe, volmaakte skepping tot stand bring waarin geregtigheid woon (Jes. 65:17-18; Op. 21:3-4). Dit is die makro-doel van die geskiedenis. God se heilsplan wat sentreer in Jesus Christus as Verlosser en Koning. Wanneer ons vra na die mens se doel spesifiek, moet ons dit binne dié groter raamwerk sien: volgens die Bybel is die mensdom gemaak om God te verheerlik en Hom te geniet (soos die Westminster Kategismus dit mooi opsom). “Alle dinge is uit Hom en deur Hom en tot Hom: Aan Hom die heerlikheid tot in ewigheid!” skryf Paulus in Rom. 11:36. Kolossense 1:16 sê oor Christus: “Alle dinge is deur Hom en vir Hom geskape.” Die beeld is duidelik: ons bestaan het ’n Godgerigte doel. Hy is ons oorsprong én ons einddoel. Ons is ontwerp om in ’n liefdesverhouding met God te leef, sy karakter te weerspieël in hoe ons lewe, en uiteindelik saam met Hom te heers in ’n herstelde skepping (Op. 22:5, 2 Tim. 2:12). Hierin vind die mens sy ware vervulling. Soos Augustinus gesê het, ons harte is rusteloos tot dit in God rus: nie ’n passiewe rus nie, maar die rus van iemand wat sy regte doel gevind het en daarin kan vreugde vind. Psalm 16:11 bely: “U laat my die pad van die lewe ken; oorvloedige blydskap is by U aangesig, lieflikhede in u regterhand vir altyd.” Hierdie oorvloedige blydskap verwys na niks minder nie as die uiteindelike saligheid waarvoor ons gemaak is, die “Bliss” waaroor Hart skryf. Dit is ’n toestand van volmaakte vervulling van al ons strewe na waarheid, goedheid en skoonheid in die teenwoordigheid van God self.

Gegewe hierdie hemelse visie, is dit duidelik waarom Christene glo dat enige ander wêreldbeskouing uiteindelik die mens beroof van volgehoue betekenis. Naturalistiese humanisme kan byvoorbeeld wel vir ’n tyd lank ’n sentiment van “opgeruimde lewensdoel” by mense kweek – byvoorbeeld: “Kom ons maak die wêreld ’n beter plek vir ons nageslag.” Dit klink edel, maar as dié mense deurdruk met hul eie logika, sal die gedagte hulle inhaal dat alle “beter plekke” tog weer verlore sal gaan wanneer die son uitbrand en die heelal koud word. Selfs groot ideale soos menseregte, vryheid, waarheid en liefde word uiteindelik gemarginialiseer deur ’n ateïstiese siening: as materie al is wat bestaan, kan daar geen vaste, ewige geldigheid aan sulke abstrakte ideale wees nie; hulle is maar menslike konstruksies wat óf sal verander met die tyd, óf sal uitsterf saam met ons. Nietzsche het ons gewaarsku dat wanneer die idee van God eers “gesterf het” in ’n samelewing, uiteindelik al daardie hoë ideale (wat eintlik geleen was uit die Christelike tydperk) ook hul krag op mense verloor. Post-moderne relativisme illustreer dit goed: eers was dit gewild om te sê “elkeen moet sy eie waarheid hê” (m.a.w. waarheid verloor betekenis), dan “elkeen moet sy eie moraliteit hê” (goed en kwaad verloor betekenis), en nou selfs “elkeen moet sy eie self definieer,” tot by die absurde punt waar party mense ontken dat biologiese geslag of enige gegewe kategorieë bestaan. Wanneer ’n kultuur die Skepper se werklikheid ontken, begin hulle ook skepsel-werklikheid ontken. Doelgerigtheid maak plek vir willekeur. In plaas daarvan om te vra “Wat is die doel waarvoor ek gemaak is en hoe kan ek daaraan voldoen?”, sê die postmoderne mens nou: “Ek het geen gegewe doel nie; ek sal self kies wie ek is en wat my lewe beteken.” Hierdie mentaliteit is op die oog af aantreklik (dit lyk na vryheid), maar dit ontaard gou in ’n soort eksistensiële angs: want as ek als self moet uitdink, is daar geen vaste grond onder my voete nie. Alles word ’n reusagtige eksperiment met my eie heil. Baie jong mense beleef dit vandag: ’n totale verlamming midde al die moontlikhede, en ’n knaënde depressie omdat niks wat hulle kies werklik vir hulle ’n gevoel van betekenis gee nie.

Kontrasteer dit met die Christelike lewensbeskouing. In plaas van doelloosheid, gee dit ons die troos en motivering dat elke oomblik en elke daad ewigheidsbetekenis kan hê. Jesus verseker ons dat selfs ’n beker koue water wat ons in sy Naam vir iemand gee, nie onopgemerk bly nie – dit het ewige waarde (Matt. 10:42). Die Christen hoef nie te tob of sy lewe betekenis het nie: hy wéét dit het, want sy Skepper het dit bevestig. Efesiërs 2:10 sê: “Ons is immers sy maaksel, geskep in Christus Jesus tot goeie werke wat God vooruit berei het, sodat ons daarin kan wandel.” Wat ’n pragtige bevestiging: God het vir elke mens wat Hom ken ’n pad vol betekenisvolle doen voorberei. Daar is dinge wat jy alleen kan doen tot God se eer en vir die welsyn van ander. Daar is mense wie jy alleen kan liefhê op ’n unieke manier. God het elkeen se persoonlikheid, talente en omstandighede so geweef dat hul lewe ’n unieke verhaal word in sy grootse skeppingsdoel. Niks daarvan is nutteloos nie; selfs jou mislukkings en lyding kan deur God ingewerk word ten goede (Rom. 8:28). Jesus se lewe self demonstreer dit: die wêreld het aan die kruis gedink sy lewe is “vernietig” en sy doel verydel; maar daardie grootste skynbare mislukking het juis die middelpunt van God se plan geword, die opperste betekenisvolle verlossing van die wêreld. Net so gebruik God ons klein lewens en selfs ons seerkry of mislukkings om iets ewig goed en moois daaruit te bou (2 Kor. 4:17). Geen wonder Paulus roep uit: “Vir my is die lewe Christus en die sterwe wins” (Fil. 1:21). Om Christus te ken, is om betekenis te vind: in lewe én sterwe is jy veilig binne God se doel.

Hierdie hoop vul die menslike soeke na betekenis tot oorlopens toe. Dit beteken nie ’n Christen het nooit meer vrae of worstelinge oor betekenis nie – maar dit beteken hy het ’n vaste anker om aan vas te hou. Anders as Russell se donker nagemaal van “onverbiddelike wanhoop”, leef ’n Christen op ’n vaste fondament van hoop. Hierdie hoop is nie goedkoop óf self-ingebeeld nie, maar gewortel in God se objektiewe beloftes. “Ek weet wat Ek vir julle beplan,” sê God vir sy volk, “’n toekoms vol hoop!” (Jer. 29:11). Ja, daardie woorde was oorspronklik gerig aan Israel in ballingskap, maar in Christus is almal in die verbond, en dus geld die gedagte ook vir elke verloste: God beplan vir jou ’n toekoms. Die mens se soeke na betekenis word op die duidelikste manier beantwoord deur Jesus Christus. Hy is die Een wat van Homself sê: “Ek is die weg en die waarheid en die lewe” (Joh. 14:6). Let op daardie drie: weg (’n doelgerigte pad vorentoe), waarheid (die werklikheid waarna ons verstand dors), en lewe (die vervulling wat ons harte soek). Christus beliggaam waarheid, goedheid en die doel van die lewe. Hy nooi ons om in Hom in te kom (Joh. 15:4), en so werklik ons skeppingsdoel te vind. Deur Hom word ons verstand weer gerig op die hoogste waarheid, ons gewete gesuiwer en gevorm na sy liefde, en ons doel duidelik: “Kom, volg My!” (Mark. 8:34). Dit is geen wonder dat soveel filosowe, teoloë en ook gewone mense deur die eeue tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat die Christelike wêreldbeskouing die menslike toestand die beste verklaar nie. Al ons diepste verlange kry bekragtiging en beantwoording daarin. Die mens se soeke na betekenis, : die intellektuele soeke na waarheid, die morele soeke na geregtigheid, en die eksistensiële soeke na ’n doel. Hulle vind hul eindbestemming by die God wat ons na sy beeld gemaak het.

Laat ons hierdie sessie afsluit met ’n herinnering: om God te ken is nie maar nóg ’n manier om betekenis te vind nie; dit ís betekenis. Die hoogste doel met jou en my bestaan is dat ons God sal ken, Hom sal geniet, en vir ewig in sy liefde sal lewe. In Hom is ons soeke voltooi. Of soos Paulus dit stel: “uit Hom en deur Hom en tot Hom is alle dinge” (Rom. 11:36). Aan God kom toe die heerlikheid – en in daardie heerlikheid mag ons deel, tot in ewigheid.

---

Sleutel-Skrifgedeeltes

• Genesis 1:27 – Die mens is uniek geskep na God se beeld; daarom besit ons rasionele verstand, ’n morele natuur en ’n doel om God te verheerlik.
• Prediker 3:11 – “God het alles gepas gemaak op sy tyd; ook het Hy die ewigheid in die hart van die mens geplaas”. (Hierdie vers suggereer dat mense ’n ingebore bewussyn het van en longing na iets ewigs en betekenisvols wat uitmundig bo die tydelike uitstyg.)
• Handelinge 17:27-28 – “[God] het die nasies laat ontstaan … sodat hulle God kan soek… Want in Hom leef ons, beweeg ons en bestaan ons.” (Paulus erken dat die mens se diepste doel en bestaan in verhouding met God is; God is nie ver weg vir die soeker na waarheid nie.)
• Romeine 2:14-15 – “Die werk van die wet is in hulle harte geskrywe, terwyl ook hulle gewete saamgetuig.” (Ons morele aanvoeling bevestig dat God se standaard op ons harte geskryf is, selfs al ken iemand nie die geskrewe wet nie.)
• Miga 6:8 – “Mens, dit is aan jou bekend gemaak wat goed is… om reg te doen, liefde te betrag en nederig te wandel met jou God.” (Morele goedheid en geregtigheid is nie menslike uitvindings nie maar God se wil vir ons lewens – en dit bind ons aan Hom.)
• Efesiërs 2:10 – “Want ons is sy maaksel, geskep in Christus Jesus tot goeie werke wat God vooruit berei het, sodat ons daarin kan wandel.” (Ons lewe het ’n doel: God het werke en ’n lewenspad vir elkeen van ons vooruit beplan – wat betekenis en rigting aan ons bestaan gee.)
• 1 Korintiërs 15:58 – “Wees standvastig, onverroerd… met die wete dat julle arbeid nie tevergeefs is in die Here nie.” (Omdat Christus opgestaan het en die ewige lewe waarborg, is ons moeite vir God nooit betekenisneloos of verniet nie – dit dra ewige vrug.)
• Openbaring 4:11 – “U, ons Here en God, is waardig… want U het alle dinge geskape, en deur u wil bestaan hulle en is hulle geskape.” (God se wil en bedoeling lê agter alle dinge – Hy is die teleologiese Bron; daarom is die doel van alles, insluitend ons, om Hom te eer.)

Besprekingsvrae

• Die betroubaarheid van die denke: Het jy al ooit gewonder hoekom ons ons verstand kan vertrou om by waarheid uit te kom? Watter verklaring maak vir jou meer betekenis: (a) dat ons denke ’n gawe van God is wat ontwerp is om waarheid te ken, of (b) dat dit bloot ’n produk van evolusie is gefokus op oorlewing? Hoe beïnvloed jou antwoord jou houding teenoor rasionele debat en soeke na kennis?

• Praktiese relativisme uitdaag: In watter situasies in die samelewing kom jy teë dat mense sê “morale is relatief” of “elkeen besluit vir homself wat reg is”? Hoe sou jy, met tak en wysheid, reageer om te wys dat ons almal in ons harte wéét daar is ’n objektiewe reg/verkeerd? Dink aan ’n konkrete voorbeeld en hoe ’n beroep op die gewete gemaak kan word.

• Persoonlike morele kompas: Kan jy ’n ervaring deel waar jou gewete jou sterk aangespreek het oor iets? Hoe het daardie innerlike stem jou besluitneming beïnvloed? Dink jy jou gewete is bloot die produk van jou opvoeding, of het dit jou al ooit teen die druk van jou kultuur ingespreek (soos ’n stem bo jou opvoeding)? Wat sê dit vir ons oor die moontlike bron van die gewete?

• Doel en lyding: Hoe hou ’n geloof in ’n Godgegewe doel verband met hoe ons lyding hanteer? As jy terugkyk op moeilike tye in jou lewe – op watter maniere het die wete of hoop dat jou lyding nie betekenisneloos is nie jou gedra? Anders gestel, hoe troos dit jou om te glo dat selfs pyn ingebed kan wees in ’n groter plan wat jy nou nog nie ten volle sien nie? Deel gerus ’n voorbeeld.

• betekenisvolle lewe vs. suksesvolle lewe: Die wêreld sê vir ons betekenis lê daarin om self sukses te behaal (rykdom, status, bereiking). Die Christelike wêreldbeskouing sê betekenis lê daarin om God se wil te vervul – selfs al lyk dit nederig of dwaas in mense-oë. Is daar areas in jou lewe waar hierdie twee “doelwitte” bots? Hoe kan ons prakties leer om God se definisie van ’n betekenisvolle lewe te omhels bo die wêreld s’n?

• Antwoord aan ’n skeptikus: Gestel ’n vriend sê vir jou: “Ek dink nie die lewe het enige objektiewe betekenis nie. Ons moet maar self betekenis skep terwyl ons hier is; daarna is dit verby.” Hoe sou jy vanuit ’n Christelike perspektief antwoord? Watter verlangens in daardie vriend se eie hart kan jy dalk uitwys wat strook met die idee dat hy wél na méér smag as net self-geskepte betekenis? Probeer ’n meevoelende, nadenklike antwoord formuleer.

Aanbevole Leeswerk

• C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity ’n Tydlose klassieke werk wat op ’n eenvoudige maar diep manier die kernwaarhede van die Christelike geloof uiteensit. Die openingshoofstukke handel spesifiek oor die Morele Wet en hoe ons besef van reg en verkeerd na God wys. Lewis se beroemde analogie van die “reguit lyn” en “skewe lyn” kom hieruit. Sy helder logika en beelde help die leser verstaan hoekom ons morele gewete en soeke na betekenis nie deur toeval verklaar kan word nie, maar ooreenkom met die Christelike verhaal van ’n goeie Skepper en ’n gevalle mensdom wat verlosbetekenisg nodig het.

• Timothy Keller – Making Sense of God In hierdie boek (’n voorloper tot Keller se bekende The Reason for God) spreek Keller moderne skeptici op hul eie turf aan. Hy verken diep menslike behoeftes – soos vir betekenis, moraliteit, vryheid en hoop – en wys hoe die sekulêre siening tekortskiet om dié te bevredig. Keller, ’n pastor en apoloog, gebruik insigte uit filosofie, literatuur en popkultuur om te illustreer dat ons drang na betekenis en waardes beter betekenis maak as ons na die Christelike God draai. Hoofstukke soos “The Problem of Meaning” en “The Problem of Morality” is besonder relevant: dit toon hoedat ’n lewe sonder God lei tot ’n “fragile self” wat sy eie betekenis moet dra, iets wat ons nie kan volhou nie. Keller se skryfstyl is deernisvol en intellektueel stimulerend.

• Viktor Frankl – Man’s Search for Meaning (Engels vertaal uit Duits) Alhoewel nie ’n teologiese boek nie, is Frankl se klassieke memoire en sielkundige besinning oor lewensdoel van groot waarde. Hy beskryf sy ervaring as konsentrasiekampgevangene en ontleed waarom sommige mense innerlik oorleef het: dié wat ’n hoër doel of liefdesbinding gehad het, het geestelik staande gebly. Frankl se ontwikkelde konsep van logoterapie stel dat die strewe na betekenis ’n primêre dryfveer in mense is. Hy skryf: “Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose.” Hierdie werk daag ’n sekulêre leser uit: as ons so betekenis-gehonger is, kan ons dit regtig ignoreer as net ’n evolusionêre kuriosa? Frankl self verwys na Nietzsche se “Hy wat ’n waarom het, kan enige hoe verdra”, wat ons in hierdie sessie bespreek het. Sy boek berei die grond voor vir ’n gesprek oor die evangelie, deurdat dit wys selfs die donkerste lyding kan draaglik word as ’n mens betekenisneloosheid verruil vir hoop.

• Alvin Plantinga – Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism ’n Meer gevorderde, maar uitstekende filosofiese werk deur een van die voorste Christelike filosowe vandag. Plantinga ondersoek die oënskynlike konflik tussen wetenskap en geloof en kom tot ’n verrassende slotsom: die werklike konflik is nie tussen wetenskap en teïsme nie, maar tussen wetenskap en naturalistiese ateïsme. In een van die kernhoofstukke lê hy sy Evolusionêre Argument teen Naturalisme uit – presies die punt wat ons in hierdie sessie gemaak het: as mens aanneem dat beide evolusie en filosologiese naturalisme waar is, ondergrawe jy die betroubaarheid van jou eie rasionele verstand. Plantinga se argumente is tegnies, maar hy skryf met spitsvondige voorbeelde wat dit verstaanbaar maak. Hy verdedig ook die redelikheid van geloof in ware morele waarde en doel in ’n heelal deur God geskep. Hierdie boek is ’n kragtige teenvoeter vir die aanname dat “alle intelligensie is by die ongelowige kant” – dit wys inteendeel dat ’n God-loos wêreldbeskouing in sy denke vasval. Filosofie- en wetenskap-entoesiaste sal dié werk baie insiggewend vind.

(Hierdie vier werke bied saam ’n stewige basis om die temas van hierdie sessie verder te verken. Lewis gee ’n grondliggende verstaan in eenvoudige taal, Keller pas dit toe op ons moderne konteks en hartsvrae, Frankl lewer kragtige getuienis van die noodsaak van betekenis selfs vir die ongelowige, en Plantinga bewys filosofies dat geloof in verstand, moraliteit en betekenisvolle doel rasioneel ons naturalistiese alternatiewe oortref. Saam sal hulle jou help om met nuutgevonde waardering te sien *hoekom die Christelike wêreldbeskouing die menslike soeke na betekenis so goed bevredig.)*

Bibliografie

Primêre Bron

• Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (Hart se meesterlike werk bied ’n filosofiese én teologiese uiteensetting van die klassieke verstaan van God in terme van drie “ervarings” van die werklikheid: bestaan, bewussyn en saligheid (bliss). Hierdie sessie se temas is sterk beïnvloed deur Hart se afdelings oor Bewussyn en Saligheid. Hart wys hoe die feit dat ons *kan dink, waarheid ken, na goedheid strewe en skoonheid waardeer, kragtige tekens is dat die ultieme werklikheid persoonlik en goed is – m.a.w. dat God bestaan. Hy lewer ook skerp kritiek op die beperkinge van materialisme in hierdie verband.)*

Klassieke en Historiese Bronne

• Augustinus van Hippo. Confessiones (Bekentenisse). Ca. 400 n.C. (Augustinus se outobiografie bevat die beroemde aanhaling aan die begin: *“U het ons vir U gemaak, en ons hart is rusteloos totdat dit in U rus”. Hierdie werk illustreer Augustinus se eie soeke na waarheid, moraliteit en doel, wat eers tot rus gekom het in sy bekering tot Christus. Augustinus se filosofie het ook benadruk dat God die hoogste Waarheid en Goedheid is, en dat alle ware skoonheid en betekenis in Hom gevind word.)*

• Thomas van Aquino. Summa Theologiae, veral Deel I, Vraag 2, Artikel 3; Deel I-II, Vraag 1 & 94. (Aquinas se “Vyfde Weg” in Summa I Q2 A3 is ’n klassieke formulering van die teleologiese argument: hy redeneer dat die orde en doelmatigheid wat ons in die natuur sien daarop dui dat ’n intelligente Doelgerigtheid (God) alles rig. In Summa I-II Q1 bespreek hy die opperste doel van die mens (visio Dei, om God te geniet) en in Q94 praat hy oor die natuurlike morele wet wat God in ons rede geplant het. Aquinas stel dat alle mense se finale *telos is om God self as die hoogste Goed te ken – ’n stelling wat help verduidelik hoekom geen aardse doel ons ooit geheel kan bevredig nie.)*

• Immanuel Kant. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason), 1788. (In hierdie tweede Kritiek voer Kant aan dat ons morele bewussyn ons noop om te postuleer dat daar ’n God en ’n hiernamaals moet wees. Sy beroemde stelling aan die einde is dat die *“hoogste goed” – ’n toestand waar geluk en deugd volkome saamval – slegs bereikbaar is as daar ’n Goddelike Regter is wat morele orde in die heelal waarborg. Kant se gedagtes illustreer vanuit ’n sekulêre hoek hoe diep die menslike behoefte aan geregtigheid en doel is, en hoe moeilik dit is om dit te regverdig sonder ’n hoër werklikheid.)*

• Blaise Pascal. Pensées. Ca. 1660. (Pascal, ’n briljante wiskundige en gelowige, het in sy *Pensées die menslike toestand op skerpsinnige wyse ontleed. Hy praat van die “God-vakuum” in die menslike hart – ’n leemte wat niks anders as God kan vul nie. Een pensée lui: “Wat kan hierdie ontevredenheid anders beteken as dat daar eens ’n ware geluk was waarvan net ’n soet herinnering en vae verlange in ons bly… en dat ons tevergeefs probeer om die afgrond te vul met alles rondom ons?” Pascal se werk beklemtoon veral die wankelmoedigheid van ’n lewe sonder God en hoe mense hulself met vermaak en bedriegings besig hou om die ongemak van betekenisloosheid te ontvlug. Sy insigte is ’n vroeë voorloper van wat ons hier bespreek het oor nihilisme en die behoefte aan God vir ware vervulling.)*

• Westminster Shorter Catechism (Wesminster Korter Kategismus), 1647. (Vraag 1 van hierdie Reformatoriese kategismus vra: *“Wat is die hoofdoel van die mens?” en antwoord: “Om God te verheerlik en Hom altyd te geniet.” Hoewel dit nie ’n Bybelse boek is nie, is dit ’n briljante samevatting van die Bybelse leer aangaande menslike doel. Die idee dat God se verheerliking én ons vervulling saamval, is ryk aan implikasies: dit beteken die mens is geskape om in verhouding met God gelukkig te wees – iets wat geen blote aardse sukses kan bied nie. Die kategismus steun op tekste soos 1 Kor. 10:31, Ps. 16:11, Jes. 43:7, ens., en bied ’n troosvolle en uitdagende riglyn vir ’n betekenisvolle lewe.)*

Kontemporêre Christelike Denkers

• Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. London: Oxford University Press, 1943. (In hierdie kort maar kragtige boek verdedig Lewis die idee van ’n objektiewe morele orde (wat hy die *“Tao” noem) teen modernistiese morele relativisme. Hy wys dat as ons die objektiewe waarde van dinge ontken, ons uiteindelik ons menslikheid self vernietig – vandaar die titel “Die Afskaffing van die Mens”. Hierdie werk vul Mere Christianity aan deur die implikasies te teken van ’n samelewing wat die hart (setel van waardes) uithol. Lewis se voorspelling dat ’n waardelose opvoeding generasies van “mense sonder bors (hart)” sal oplewer, was profeties. Dit is ’n nódige leesstuk vir diegene wat die huidige kultuurdebat oor waarheid en waardes wil verstaan, en bied ’n ernstige waarskuwing oor wat gebeur as teleologie en moraliteit verwerp word.)*

• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. (Keller se bekende apologetiese werk bevat twee dele: in die eerste helfte beantwoord hy skeptiese besware, en in die tweede bied hy touwysers (“clues”) vir God se bestaan. Veral hoofstuk 9 (“The Knowledge of God”) en hoofstuk 10 (“The Problem of Sin”) raak aan van ons temas: Keller bespreek die morele gevoel as ’n leidraad na God en die leegheid wat mense ervaar as hulle iets bo God stel. Hy vertel byvoorbeeld hoe moderne mense in NYC smag na betekenis en identiteit, maar dat hul gekose afgod (hetsy werk, verhoudings of vryheid) hulle teleurstel. Slegs deur terug te keer na ons Skepper vind ons rus vir daardie soeke. Keller se werk is toeganklik, vol stories en literêre verwysings, en toon pastoraal hoe die evangelie inderdaad betekenis gee waar die wêreld faal.)

• Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with All Your Mind. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997. (Hoewel hierdie boek primêr ’n oproep is tot intellektuele dissipelskap, lewer Moreland daarin ’n paar waardevolle hoofstukke oor die siel, bewussyn en die tekortkominge van ’n suiwer fisiese beskouing van die mens. Hy verduidelik waarom die menslike bewussyn en vrye wil beter pas by ’n *dualistiese verstaan (siel + liggaam) as by materialisme. Moreland bied ook praktiese raad oor hoe Christene hulle denke kan oefen en ontwikkeling – iets wat aansluit by die idee dat ons verstand op waarheid gemik is as ’n gawe van God. Vir lesers wat self in ’n wetenskaplike of skeptiese omgewing werk, bied hierdie boek bemoediging dat geloof en denke hand-aan-hand gaan, en rus dit jou toe om die rasionele gronde van jou geloof te verstaan en te verdedig.)*

• Guinness, Os. Long Journey Home: A Guide to Your Search for the Meaning of Life. Doubleday, 2001. (Os Guinness, ’n Christen-denker, neem die leser in hierdie boek op ’n reis deur verskillende benaderings wat mense volg in hul soeke na lewensbetekenis – van oosterse mistiek tot nihilisme – en wys hoe elkeen uiteindelik onbevredigend is. Hy argumenteer dan dat die Christelike evangelie die “eindbestemming” is waar al die legstukke inmekaarpas. Guinness se styl is literêr en sielkundig insiggewend. Hy gebruik treffende aanhalings (van o.a. Russell, Sartre en Tolstoy) om die wanhoop van ’n lewe sonder God uit te beeld, en kontrasteer dit met die hoop en doelgerigtheid wat Christus bied. Hierdie boek is ’n uitstekende *brug vir soekers wat nog nie glo nie, sowel as ’n verdieping vir gelowiges wat beter wil verstaan hoe om met ’n soekende vriend oor betekenis te gesels.)*

Ander Filosofiese en Sekulêre Bronne

• Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil (Voorby Goed en Kwaad), 1886; en The Gay Science (Die Vrolike Wetenskap), 1882. (In *Beyond Good and Evil maak Nietzsche die skokkende stelling: “Daar is heeltemal geen morele feite nie.” Hy ontmasker tradisionele moraliteit as ’n “kudde-instink” en voorspel dat, sonder geloof in God, konsepte van goed en kwaad radikaal sal verander. In The Gay Science (seksie 125) kondig hy die dood van God aan met die beroemde verhaal van die waansinnige man wat ’n lantern op die markplein rondskarrel op soek na God. Hierdie werk skets die gevolge van ’n post-God samelewing: “Wie vee nou die horison uit? … Is dit nie kouer nie? Is die nag nie al hoe nader nie?” Dit is dramatiese beelde van die nihilisme wat hy sien kom. Hoewel Nietzsche se styl poëties en fragmentaries is, is sy invloed enorm. Deur hom te lees, kry ’n mens insig in die gedagtegange wat baie moderne mense (soms ongemerk) beïnvloed: dat elkeen sy eie waarde skep, maar dat dit uiteindelik kan lei tot ’n mag-spel en wanhoop. Nietzsche se diagnose is skerp, al bied hy self geen lewenskragtige oplossing nie.)*

• Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, Boek 3 (1740). (Hume se *Traktaat is ’n sleutelwerk in die Westerse filosofie. In Boek 3 argumenteer hy dat moraliteit uit gevoelens spruit en nie uit die rede nie: “Rede is, en behoort slegs te wees, die slaaf van die hartstogte”. Hy ontleed hoe woorde soos “ondeug” eintlik net ons afkeer vir iets uitdruk. Hume se berugte “is/ought”-skeiding daag enige natuurlike grondslag vir moraliteit uit: jy kan duisend feite oor die wêreld hê (wat is), maar geen een gee vir jou ’n behoort te nie – vir laasgenoemde het jy ’n ekstra bron nodig (hy stel menslike sentiment voor). Hume se nalatenskap leef voort in alle morele relativisme en emotivisme (die idee dat morele uitsprake net gevoelens is). Om Hume te lees help ’n mens verstaan waar sekulêre denke oor moraliteit vandaan kom en hoe dit verskil van ’n Christelike begrip van die gewete as synde meer as net gevoel.)*

• Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995. (Hierdie boek van Dawkins, ’n leidende evolusionêre bioloog en ateïs, gee ’n ongeveinsde kyk na wat ’n deur-en-deur Darwinistiese wêreldbeeld behels. Hy skryf: *“Die universum wat ons waarneem het presies die eienskappe wat ons sou verwag as daar uiteindelik geen ontwerp, geen doel, geen kwaad en geen goed is nie – niks behalwe blinde, meedoënlose onverskilligheid.” Hierdie aanhaling (sien bo) word gereeld genoem as ’n samevatting van die nihilistiese konsekwensies van naturalisme. Dawkins probeer elders om positiewe menslike waardes te handhaaf, maar River Out of Eden illustreer hoe hy dit in stryd met sy eie logika doen. Vir ’n Christenleser bied hierdie werk ’n eerlike kontras: dit wys hoe ’n betekenis-ontkende heelal klink. Dit spoor ons ook aan om te besef watter voorreg dit is om hoop en betekenis te hê – iets wat volgens Dawkins se eie erkenning nie “daar buite” gevind kan word as sy uitgangspunte korrek is nie.)*

• Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning (Die Mens se Soeke na Betekenis). Boston: Beacon Press, 1959. (Reeds aanbeveel hierbo, verskyn Frankl ook in ons bibliografie as ’n belangrike primêre bron oor menslike betekenis. Die eerste helfte is ’n aangrypende vertelling van sy kampervarings; die tweede helfte ontleed sy filosofie van logoterapie. Frankl se waarneming dat mense ’n “wil tot betekenis” het wat net so basies is soos Freud se wil tot plesier of Adler se wil tot mag, is ’n sterk getuienis uit die sielkunde. Hy beroep hom ook op waarneming: gevangene na gevangene het sy lewe prysgegee wanneer hy nie meer ’n waarom kon sien nie. Frankl se werk is by uitstek bruikbaar in gesprek met moderne skeptici, want hy praat vanuit ’n humanistiese maar deernisvolle hoek. Sy erkenning dat godsdiens vir baie mense onontbeerlik was om betekenis te vind, asook sy stelling *“daar is twee rasse mense: die ordentlikes en die onordentlikes” – ongeag geloof of nasie – gee baie stof tot dink oor ’n objektiewe morele orde en ’n Hoër betekenis.)*

• Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (Nagel is ’n respekvolle ateïs-filosoof wat met hierdie boek behoorlike opskudding veroorsaak het. Hy argumenteer dat die standaard materialistiese evolusie-story nie kan verklaar waar bewussyn, denke, waardes en doelmatigheid vandaan kom nie. Nagel glo nie in God nie, maar hy stel ’n soort *“natuur-teleologie” voor – die idee dat die heelal miskien inherent daarop gemik is om lewe en verstand voort te bring. Sy eerlike erkenning dat ’n heelal wat bewussyn voortbring ons tot ander vrae dwing, is baie merkwaardig. Hy stem selfs saam met Darwin se twyfel of ons kognitiewe vermoë betroubaar is as dit net deur blind evolusie gevorm is. Hoewel Nagel se eie alternatief vaag bly, is sy kritiek op naturalisme se “mind from mud”-verhaal ’n waardevolle sekulêre bevestiging van wat ons glo: dat ’n dooie, doellose heelal eenvoudig nie oortuig as verklaring vir ons lewende, doelsoekende gees nie. Hierdie boek lees moeilik, maar die feit dat dit deur ’n gesiene ateïs geskryf is, maak dit ’n kragtige gespreksbron met skeptici.)*

Bybelse Verwysings en Kommentaar

• Die Bybel: 1953-vertaling, 1983-vertaling (Afrikaans); English Standard Version (ESV). (Skrifaanhalings in hierdie sessie is meestal uit die 1953-vertaling aangehaal, met soms eie beklemtonings. Die Bybel is uiteraard die primêre bron vir die Christelike verstaan van die mens: Genesis 1-3 vir skepping en val (wat ons rasionele beeldskap, maar ook ons morele verval en sinneloosheid buite God verduidelik); Prediker vir ’n fynpsigologiese kyk na sinneloosheid “onder die son”; Johannes en Romeine vir die *Logos-teologie en die wet op die hart; Handelinge 17 vir Paulus se toespraak oor mens se soeke na God; en talle ander. ’n Begrip van hierdie teksgedeeltes lê aan die hart van ’n Christen se antwoord op die mens se soeke na betekenis.)*

• Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706). (Matthew Henry se ou maar kosbare kommentaar bied geestelike insigte teks vir teks. By Prediker 3:11 skryf hy byvoorbeeld dat God ’n *“verlange na onsterflikheid” in mense geplaas het; by Handelinge 17:27 benadruk hy dat die mens se diepste soeke slegs in God beantwoord word, en dat God homself vindbaar maak. Henry skryf in ’n era (18de eeu) wat reeds die opkoms van sekulêre denke sien, maar hy bring ’n tydlose, pastorale warmte: dat God ons nie mislei nie, maar ons uitnooi om ons rus en doel in Hom te vind. Sy werk is ’n hulpmiddel vir diegene wat Bybelse waarhede prakties op die hart wil toepas.)*

• Lewis, C.S. Problem of Pain. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1940. (In hierdie werk hanteer Lewis die kwessie van lyding. Relevant tot ons tema is sy bespreking dat *die mens net waarlik by God uitkom wanneer alle selfgemaakte sinnetjies ineenstort. Hy noem pyn God se “megafoon” om ’n doof mensdom wakker te skud. Interessant genoeg erken hy dat selfs plesier en geluk wat mens op aarde ervaar, ’n beduidenis gee van ’n groter vreugde wat ons nie hier kan vind nie – wat aansluit by sy “verlange na ’n ander wêreld”-argument. Hoewel die fokus lyding is, bied hierdie boek veel insig oor hoekom ’n lewe vol gerief maar sonder doel in God uiteindelik leeg sal wees. Dit help ook om te antwoord op die argument: ‘As God ons bedoel is vir geluk by Hom, hoekom is daar so baie pyn?’ Lewis toon hoe selfs pyn in God se plan ons uiteindelik terugdryf na die enigste bron van blywende betekenis.)*

• Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Hearers and Doers: A Pastor’s Guide to Making Disciples Through Scripture and Doctrine. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2019. (Hierdie hedendaagse bron is ingesluit vir sy uitstekende hoofstuk oor teleologie in die Christelike lewe. Vanhoozer voer aan dat dissipelskap neerkom op *”die herinvoering van God se storie as die hoofraamwerk vir ons lewens”. Hy wys hoe postmoderne mense verward is oor hul doel, en hoe doktrine dien as ‘n rigtingwyser na ware menswees. Veral sy konsep van participating in God’s drama – om jou lewe te sien as ‘n rol in God se toneelstuk – is ‘n vrugbare manier om teleologie te verwoord. Vir leraars en leiers wat wil hê hul mense moet nie net glo nie maar leef asof hul lewe betekenis het in Christus, bied Vanhoozer nuttige raad en teologiese denke.)*

• Edwards, Jonathan. The End for Which God Created the World. 1765. (‘n Diep Puriteinse verhandeling waarin Edwards vra: Hoekom het God die wêreld geskep – wat is sy *doel daarmee? Hy kom op Bybelse gronde tot die slotsom dat God alles gemaak het tot sy eie heerlikheid. Maar Edwards werk uit dat God se eer en ons geluk saamval: ”God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him” (‘n gedagte wat John Piper later beroemd sou verwoord). Hierdie klassieke stuk help om ons denke te verskerp rondom God se einddoel en hoe ons lewensdoel daarby inpas. Dit is ‘n uitdagende leesstuk – taai 18de-eeuse prosa – maar vir diegene wat die ultieme vrae oor teleologie op ‘n Godgesentreerde wyse wil deurdink, is Edwards ‘n gids sonder gelyke.)*

The Human Search for Value – Intentionality, Morality and Purpose

Introduction

We have thus far laid the foundation: what we mean by “God” (Session 1), modern misconceptions about God (Session 2), the question of why there is something rather than nothing (Session 3), and God’s transcendence, immanence and how consciousness reflects this (Sessions 4 and 5). Now we move to the human search for meaning. All human beings throughout all ages have had a deep drive to find meaning. This drive manifests in three particular ways:

1. The intentionality of the human mind – our consciousness’s striving towards truth and our ability to think about things (philosophers call this “intentionality”, i.e. that thoughts are always about or directed at something beyond themselves). Why does our mind seek true insight and understanding, and how is it possible that we can think rationally?
2. Our moral intuition – that inner compass telling us some things are right and others wrong, regardless of our own preferences. Why do we experience a universal sense of duty and a feeling of objective morality that transcends culture and time?
3. Our experience of purposefulness – the sense that our lives and history have and must have a purpose. Why do we yearn for a meaningful goal for our existence, and why do we experience emptiness or nihilism when that purpose is absent?

The Christian worldview makes the claim that these three aspects – our striving after truth, our moral conscience, and our search for purpose – are not accidental by-products of evolution but signposts to our Creator. As Augustine famously prayed: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” In other words, humanity’s deepest search for meaning finds rest in God. We consistently contrast this with a naturalistic or secular perspective: a worldview such as that of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, David Hume or Friedrich Nietzsche that recognises no supernatural reality. The latter perspective ultimately falls short in explaining these deep-seated human experiences.

Intentionality of the mind: Intentionality and the search for truth

Every human person has a unique inner world of thought – our consciousness with its ideas, convictions and reasoning. Our thoughts are directed at things: a person can think about today’s weather, recall the past or plan for the future. This characteristic, that our thinking deals with something or points to something, is what philosophers call intentionality. It is an astonishing property: my brain is a physical organ, a composition of cells and chemical impulses, but my mind (or “spirit”) can perceive abstract truths, formulate logical rules, and reflect on invisible concepts such as justice or infinity. We take it for granted at school that the mind can discover mathematical truths that are eternal and invisible (no one can see “2+2=4” with a microscope, yet we know it is true). We search for truth. From a young age children ask why-questions, and as adults we keep looking for the reason behind things. There is a deep-seated hunger for truth in the human spirit that cannot be explained by mere utility. Even when a lie might be more advantageous, there is something in us that still wants to know what is true.

The wonder of rational thought

According to the Christian view, this rational directedness is no accident: it is a reflection of the fact that we are created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). God is a rational, intelligent Being – Logos, the Word or Reason (John 1:1) – and therefore he created human beings with the capacity to think, to understand, and to distinguish truth from falsehood. Our capacity for logic and abstract thought distinguishes us from animals. The Bible also calls us to engage our minds actively: Jesus says we must love God with our entire mind (Matt. 22:37), and Isaiah 1:18 has God say: “Come now, let us reason together” (ESV), an invitation to reasonable reflection. A core idea of Christian philosophy is that truth is ultimately grounded in God (Isa. 65:16 calls him the “God of truth”). We can therefore trust that creation is comprehensible because it was made by a rational Creator. There is a striking harmony between the subjective rationality of our spirit and the objective ordering of nature, as if someone wanted us to understand it. C.S. Lewis observes that scientific discovery began precisely when people (driven by a Christian worldview) accepted that a rational God made a rationally comprehensible world. Our reason works, and brings us to genuine insights, because the universe is not chaos but was formed by the Logos.

By contrast, a strict naturalistic or materialistic view has great difficulty meaningfully explaining the human mind’s directedness towards truth. In a universe that is ultimately just impersonal matter and blind chemical processes, what is a thought then? Materialists try to reduce consciousness entirely to brain processes, but run into what philosophers call the “explanatory gap”: how do mere atoms and electrical impulses explain the first-person experience and meaningful content of consciousness? A computer program may perform complex calculations, but we intuitively realise that it does not meaningfully understand anything alongside it. As David Bentley Hart has put it: ”software no more ‘thinks’ than a clock’s minute hand knows the time”. A clock’s hand does indicate the time to us, but the clock does not know what it indicates – just so, a computer can compare millions of data points, but this does not mean the computer comprehends the meaning or truth of those points.

But we do comprehend meaning and truth. Your thoughts are not merely a flashing sequence of codes; you experience understanding. From this, many thinkers (Christian and non-Christian) have inferred that consciousness is not merely a material product. The atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel acknowledges, for instance, that materialistic evolution struggles to explain why we should have any confidence in our rational cognitive faculties. He calls the naturalistic view of the mind “almost certainly false” precisely because it cannot explain our consciousness and reason. Even Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, expressed a notorious doubt: “with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind?” This so-called “Darwin’s dilemma” still haunts philosophers today: if the human mind is merely the product of purposeless, survival-oriented processes, why should it be directed at truth? Natural selection favours behaviour that maximises survival, not necessarily true beliefs. The renowned Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has pointed this out: according to natural evolution alone, it is highly probable that many of our beliefs are merely survival-serving illusions, not true reflections of a spiritual or mathematical reality. Put differently: if your brain is only designed to keep your genes surviving and reproducing, it does not matter whether your ideas are true – only whether they are useful. But if that is the case, a materialist undermines his own confidence in rational science and logic, for these presuppose that our thinking is directed at truth and can make valid inferences. It is not surprising that even strict materialists in practice act as if the human mind can reach true insight – an instinctive acknowledgement that our mind is something more than just an accidental survival mechanism.

The Christian worldview explains this phenomenon by saying: we have a reason, because a supreme Reason (a rational Creator) made us. John 1:3–4 confesses Christ as the personal Logos through whom “all things were made”, and further that this Logos “was the light of men.” He gives light to our thinking. Our thought “participates in” the greater light of God’s truth. Therefore the believer can say: “In your light do we see light” (Ps. 36:9, ESV). Classical thinkers such as Augustine openly acknowledged that all true insight is ultimately grace – we ”share in God’s light” when we understand something. Our rational directedness (intentionality) is thus a shadow-image of the divine Intelligence. Unlike a blind natural process, God wants us to understand him and his creation. He reveals himself in creation and in his Word, so that we can know truth. Jesus Christ himself is called “the Truth” (John 14:6), and he prays to the Father: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17, ESV). A life of following Christ is therefore a life of continual truth-seeking. Our mind finds its true direction and rest in him who is the source of all truth.

Naturalistic reduction: a self-refuting view

Over against this picture, the naturalistic worldview offers a very reductive portrayal of the mind. Richard Dawkins, for instance, emphasises that the human being is merely the product of “blind physical forces and genetic replication,” with no built-in purpose or meaning behind our thoughts. He holds that the contents of our brain (our ideas of good, evil, truth, beauty) are ultimately just a biological accident. Even our consciousness as such is dismissed by certain neuroscientists as an “illusion” that happens to be useful for evolutionary survival. Sam Harris, a prominent materialist, argues that human free will is a complete illusion. According to him, every “choice” you think you make is merely the automatic effect of chemical reactions in your brain. Harris writes: “free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.” This view is a logical consequence of a deterministic brain-view: if only dead matter exists, then every thought and decision that arises in you actually had to happen; you did not really choose it. But note the implication: if no free will exists, there is no true intentional choice or purposeful search for truth; everything simply happened. This means that consistent materialism defeats the concept of rational persuasion: if I am “convinced” of materialism, I did not freely arrive at it on the basis of logical considerations; it was merely a brain event I involuntarily had to have. This self-refuting circle was already spotted by the atheistic philosopher J.B.S. Haldane: ”If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”. In other words, if our thinking is nothing but atomic movements, we have no reason to regard the outcome as “true”. Yet the materialist believes his own thinking delivers truth – a contradiction.

The Christian thinker Alvin Plantinga puts it as follows: natural evolution in a materialistic world would mean our cognitive apparatus is aimed at survival, not truth, and this gives us a strong reason to doubt the materialistic evolutionary story itself. C.S. Lewis’s version is equally sharp: “If there were no creative intelligence behind the universe, then nobody designed the human mind for the purpose of thinking. That means our brain-products are merely accidental by-products of atoms, and nobody can attach any reliability to accidental by-products. So if I do not believe in God, I cannot believe in thought either: thus through logic I arrive at the conclusion that there is no logic – an absurd position” (paraphrase from Miracles, Chapter 3).

By contrast, the Christian position is that the rational order in creation and the directedness of our mind upon it are both gifts of a rational Creator. Truth is real and knowable because God is real and knowable, and he has made us in his image, with thought and a will that can respond to him. Our will and reason are indeed broken by sin, but not eradicated; on the contrary, even fallen human beings remain able to discover many truths about creation thanks to common grace. When someone therefore persistently seeks truth, he unconsciously carries out the purpose for which God designed him. As Hart observes: even an unbeliever who honestly and sincerely pursues truth unwittingly testifies to his built-in “longing for God,” for all truth is God’s truth. A materialist who uses the scientific method to learn truths about the cosmos thus ironically makes use of a system of thought that is only consistent if there is indeed a rational God. Put differently: the search for truth is a spiritual act. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:15 that the spiritual person “judges all things” (ESV). Jesus also promises that whoever devotes himself to truth will ultimately come to him: ”Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (John 18:37, ESV). God rewards sincere truth-seekers with the greatest Truth: himself.

We see, therefore: in the Christian understanding our mind is purposefully directed at true insight because a true God made us for that purpose. Naturalistic explanations for the human mind ultimately run aground in an inadequate circle: they must accept the rational validity of their own thinking while their worldview has no firm foundation for it. As Lewis humorously observed: ”If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark”. The fact that we are aware of anyone’s error or crookedness proves that we sense a standard of truth outside ourselves. This directedness of the human spirit towards knowledge and truth thus testifies to something (or Someone) more than mere matter.

Moral intuition and objective morality

Few things are as fundamental to the human experience as the awareness that some deeds are right and others wrong. We constantly judge our own and others’ conduct by a moral standard: when we say a certain act is “unjust” or “praiseworthy”, we are making an appeal to something above and beyond our personal taste. Even people who claim “morality is relative” betray in their daily lives that they do not really think so – they become indignant over real injustices (e.g. the exploitation of children, the abuse of the innocent) as though these are more than merely personal opinions. This phenomenon – that the whole of humanity can agree on basic morality – led classical philosophers to realise that there exists a universal moral law that is not merely a social convention. C.S. Lewis begins his book Mere Christianity by pointing to this “Moral Law” or “Natural Law”: people everywhere quarrel about what is right and wrong, but that very quarrelling implies that there is a standard outside both parties against which their conduct is measured. ”Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong,” writes Lewis. We judge deeds as “crooked” precisely because we (even if only intuitively) know what a straight (good) deed looks like. Unlike animals that merely follow instinct, humans think in moral terms: we say “ought to/must not” to ourselves and others. This mysterious sense of duty impressed Immanuel Kant so deeply that he said two things always fill him with renewed awe: ”the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Kant argued that the best explanation for this universal moral law is a moral Lawgiver. In his Critique of Practical Reason (1788), he reasons that our awareness of duty and justice implies that there must be a God who ultimately rectifies all injustice. The Bible teaches us indeed of a Divine Law that resonates in every person’s conscience: ”They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom. 2:15, ESV). Paul also mentions the ”law… written on the hearts of the Gentiles” (Rom. 2:14–15). This is an inborn moral knowledge that does not originate from human agreement but from God’s general revelation.

Christian theology explains it as follows: God made us in his image, and therefore we have an inner sense of right and wrong, because God is perfect Goodness and Justice. Our conscience is like a shadow of God’s character, a “voice” within us that calls out to the holy, loving character of the Creator. Though this conscience is contaminated by sin (it can grow dull or become distorted by our sinful nature and cultural influences), people never completely lose that basic awareness that good and evil are realities. We may disagree about many ethical details, but that right and wrong exist is almost nowhere denied in practice. Indeed, when someone tries to deny it, he contradicts himself very quickly – as Lewis humorously points out: “Tell someone there is no such thing as right or wrong, and that very evening he will correct you about how unfair you are” (paraphrase). Biblical revelation also confirms that certain things are always right or wrong, regardless of people’s feelings: God’s moral law in, for example, the Ten Commandments reveals objective standards. Right and wrong do not change like fashions, because they are grounded in the unchangeable character of God who is light and love. ”Be holy, for I am holy,” says the Lord (1 Pet. 1:16, ESV). This is the anchor of morality.

This picture stands diametrically opposed to the naturalistic or morally relativistic perspective that has become popular in our time. According to strict evolutionary humanism, morality has no higher source; it is merely a by-product of biological and social processes. The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has, for instance, declared: ”In a universe of blind physical forces… there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good – nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

David Hume, an Enlightenment thinker, already argued in the 18th century that one cannot derive an “ought” from mere “is” facts. In other words, if you merely look at nature, you get no moral guidance from it. According to Hume, our moral statements are simply the projection of our feelings: we call things good when we approve of them, and bad when we feel aversion. Moral values are thus subjective in that sense: what is right for you is right for you, but nothing is right or wrong in itself. Today this view is popularly articulated by atheists such as Sam Harris, who tries to demonstrate that one can base morality on “the promotion of well-being.” Well-being is then arbitrarily taken as the highest good without explaining why precisely that goal is more binding than any other preference. Harris and others thus attempt to achieve a form of “objective” morality without a Moral Lawgiver: they say certain things are universally beneficial or harmful to the human species, and therefore we can call them objectively good or bad. But note: here “good” merely means “that which the vast majority of people prefer because it makes them flourish.” The value judgement (that flourishing itself is a good thing that we ought to pursue) enters only through a tacit assumption: a belief that human life has value in itself. In an atheistic worldview, however, there is no ground for such a belief: if humans are an accidental product of cold natural laws, why should human well-being have cosmic significance or a universal norm? On this point the evolutionary thinker Michael Ruse has honestly written: ”Morality is just a biological adaptation, no less than hands and feet and teeth… It is an *illusion in the sense that there is no objective foundation for it. When we say ‘You must love your neighbour as yourself,’ we think something beyond ourselves regulates it. But that is not so: morality is just a favourable belief pattern programmed in our genes to make us cooperate.”* Ruse thus acknowledges that a convinced naturalist must say our feeling that there is a lofty right or wrong is merely a handy illusion that evolved in us. Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century father of nihilism, put it even more sharply: after writing the famous words “God is dead,” he adds: ”and with that dies also the idea of a ‘true world’ and a ‘moral order’.” Nietzsche believed that traditional morality is nothing more than the ”herd instinct” of humanity; evolutionary sentiments that we inherited by chance and in which there is no necessary truth. He held the opinion that the strong should simply create their own values according to their “will to power.”

The problem with all these naturalistic views (whether Hume’s mere feeling, Ruse’s illusion or Nietzsche’s arbitrariness) is that nobody consistently succeeds in living that way. If someone were to try to convince me that moral good and evil are only illusions, he would immediately clash with my deepest humanity: my conscience. As the atheistic professor in the anecdote recounts: “I don’t believe in a higher power; therefore I believe our morality is biological and there is no objective right and wrong. Nevertheless I continue to live as though some things are right and wrong. I simply cannot reconcile my feeling of real good/evil with my conviction that there is none.” This inability to live according to relativism points to something: that nobody’s heart truly believes that meaningless matter has the last word on right and wrong. Nobody (except perhaps a sociopath) can look at, say, child abuse or genocide and not feel that it is objectively wrong – wrong even if the perpetrator thinks it is right. Even Richard Dawkins, who theoretically says good/evil is illusion, cannot keep himself from making serious moral judgements in his books (he calls religion, for example, ”extremely wicked” and a form of ”child abuse”). In doing so he betrays, just like all of us, that he at bottom believes in a real right and wrong. This inner conviction is found in believer and unbeliever alike. Hart calls it a ”natural longing for God” that people reveal even when they ardently strive for goodness and justice. Why “for God”? Because every sincere striving after the Good is in reality a striving after the Source of all goodness, and that Source is God himself. As James 1:17 says: ”Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (ESV). When an atheist exerts himself hard for a moral cause (for instance, to combat injustice), he unwittingly testifies that he believes in a supreme Right that must be obeyed. Without God it is illogical to feel this way, but yet he does feel so. Romans 2:15 describes precisely this scenario: the Gentiles “show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (ESV). In other words, one can deny God with the mouth, but one’s God-given conscience meanwhile testifies in contradiction to a true moral order.

We must also point out that, without an objective moral Standard, concepts such as justice can ultimately achieve no triumph. Consider, for instance, the struggle against apartheid or against human trafficking. If there is no higher Right, one could argue that apartheid is not really wrong, it is merely our opinion (and our opponents’ opinion happens to differ). Only if there is a supreme authority above human laws – the imago Dei in every person and the moral law of God – can an injustice such as apartheid be objectively wrong and be condemned. If this were not the case, the moral reformers like William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King Jr., with their appeal to a “higher law,” would have been engaging in nothing but meaningless rhetoric. Our legal systems today also imply an emphasis on real guilt and innocence, above and beyond mere human feelings; it would make no sense to punish criminals if good and evil were mere illusions. Moral outrage (such as when we hear of a rape or a genocide) tells us that something is really wrong in the world that must be put right. This is precisely how the Bible views the world: as a creation in which right and wrong are real, where God will ultimately cause justice to triumph and punish wrongdoing. Without that assumption one must, along with the Preacher of Ecclesiastes, ask: ”If there is no God – how does one make sense of the injustice in the world?” (cf. Eccles. 3:16–17). Ecclesiastes shows that if you look only “under the sun” (i.e. have only an earthly, secular perspective), right and wrong will drive you mad: ”I saw the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter… On the side of their oppressors there was power” (Eccles. 4:1). Without God it appears as if injustice ultimately wins; the strong rule over the weak. But in a world with God, our moral struggle is meaningful: there is a Judge, there is retribution for evil and reward for righteousness, even if we do not see it immediately. ”Fret not yourself because of evildoers…” says Psalm 37, ”for the LORD upholds the righteous and does not forsake his faithful ones” (cf. Ps. 37:1, 28). Our deep-seated moral conscience (which everywhere cries out for justice) thus makes sense if life does not end at the grave but at a judgement where every wrong is set right.

The inadequacy of secular morality becomes especially apparent when we look at its endpoint. If there is no God and no afterlife, we ultimately sow our moral struggle to the wind. Thus the famous atheist Bertrand Russell realised to his shock: all of humanity’s moral efforts and “heroic deeds” will be wiped out in the eternal death of the universe. In his essay A Free Man’s Worship he writes that the human being (without faith) must build his life on the ”firm foundation of unyielding despair,” because nothing we do can have any ultimate significance. Everything is ultimately in vain. This distressing consequence has driven many an unbelieving thinker (Camus, Sartre, etc.) to nihilism – the idea that in the end there is no meaning or right or wrong, despite our attempts to live otherwise. Nietzsche predicted in his third Nightmare the coming of this nihilism and said it would sweep over the Western world like a great tidal wave once belief in God had properly succumbed. He compares it to the horizon being “wiped away”: all fixed points of direction vanish, and humanity symbolically loses its compass. Indeed, in our current secular society we see an enormous value-relativism taking hold – many people (especially younger generations) find themselves in an existential crisis: they no longer know what for or why to live. Many will agree with the empty refrain of a rock song: “We are nothing and nothing will help us; maybe we’re lies.” From a naturalistic worldview, it is difficult to avoid this despair or to comfort someone with something real. Ultimately an honest naturalist can give a depressed friend no objective reason to keep on living, except perhaps, “Enjoy today, for tomorrow we die.” Suicide was not without reason for Albert Camus “the only truly serious philosophical problem”; he said every thinking person must at some point decide whether life is worth living in the midst of an absurd existence. Such a point would never even arise if we did not deep down know that life ought to have meaning. The fact that people kill themselves out of nihilism is one of the tragic testimonies that we cannot be satisfied with a meaningless life.

The Christian faith acknowledges the seriousness of this human search for a meaningful existence. Unlike secular voices that dismiss the search for objective meaning as wishful thinking, Christianity says: that search is real, and there is a fulfilment for it. The gospel according to Christ offers an answer to our moral and existential longing: it says our guilt feelings are not merely illusions; we are truly guilty (Rom. 3:23), but there is forgiveness and restoration to be found with the Judge himself. It says further that our fear of death and sense of insignificance are valid, but God has intervened: ”[Jesus] abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10, ESV). Christ thus stands at the heart of the meaning we long for: he reconciles us with the absolute moral Good (God), and he reveals that our existence has a purpose, namely fellowship with God and sharing in his glory for all eternity. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:19–20 that if our hope in Christ is for this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied – but ”Christ has been raised”, therefore our faith is not in vain, and in the Lord our labour is not in vain (15:58). Here the human search for meaning reaches its climax: in Christ we discover that Moral Truth is not a cold idea but a loving Person (the Holy One); and that life’s purpose is not something we must dig out for ourselves but something God graciously grants to every person who knows him.

These truths lead us directly to the third dimension of the human search: teleology – the sense that our lives and history are directed towards a goal, and that fulfilment lies in reaching that goal.

Teleology and meaningful purpose in human life

The word teleology comes from the Greek telos, meaning “goal” or “endpoint”. To think teleologically is to ask: What is it for? What is the ultimate goal or intention behind something? Human beings are pre-eminently goal-directed beings. We do not only have consciousness and a moral nature but also the drive to organise our lives around greater purposes. Philosophers and psychologists have long noted that mere survival or self-preservation is not enough for humans; we want to live for something greater than ourselves. When a person is convinced of a higher calling or meaning, he can endure great hardship; but if that meaning falls away, he easily sinks into despair. Viktor Frankl, a Jewish psychiatrist who himself experienced the hell of Auschwitz and Dachau, describes how prisoners who found a reason to go on living remained internally stronger than those who were convinced there was no meaning. Frankl liked to quote Nietzsche’s words: ”He who has a *why to live for can bear almost any how.”* A person who knows why he exists – who can see the purpose of his life – can persevere through pain, loss and adversity, because he sees meaning in it. But someone who comes to the conviction that there is no higher purpose or absolutely no meaning behind his suffering and struggle loses the inner will to go on. Frankl testifies from experience: despair = suffering without meaning. This spectre of despair is spreading across the modern West as belief in God declines. The problem is not that unbelieving people cannot think of something to live for. Many pour their energy into activism, artistic creation, science, or even just family and dreams. The problem is that, if they think consistently, none of those things has a worthwhile ultimate meaning in a cold, impersonal cosmos. The Nobel laureate Jacques Monod (an atheist) writes, for instance, that humanity appeared on the ”script of nature” through accidental evolution and that ”the universe is ultimately bluntly indifferent to questions of good and evil, and of meaning.” The best we can do, he says, is to create our own values and, whether it is meaningful or not, simply choose to live for them. Monod thus acknowledges that the choice for meaning in an atheistic world is entirely arbitrary and extremely fragile. This fragility is regularly exposed in practice: people who limit their life purpose to something temporary (e.g. a career peak, or becoming famous, or just “living well”) are often later overtaken by a vacuum in the soul, for once that target has passed, nothing lasting has been achieved. Even good things such as loving your family or making a contribution to your community are ultimately subject to time and transience. “We have everything to live on, but nothing to live for,” observes a contemporary philosopher about secular people. Human ideals, whether love, justice, art or science, plead for a larger context in which it makes sense that we pursue them, even at the cost of our lives. Without such a context they remain merely personal tastes. The question that haunts every honest seeker is therefore: Am I only living until I die, or is there a greater purpose to my life (and to history) that makes my existence meaningful?

The Christian faith answers this with a clear and jubilant “Yes!” – There is a great purpose, and it is rooted in the Creator. Teleology is built into the universe because a purposeful God stands behind it. In contrast to Monod’s view of an “indifferent universe,” the Bible confesses that God has had a purpose and plan with his creation from the beginning. Ephesians 1:11 says God works “all things according to the counsel of his will” (ESV); Isaiah 46:10–11 depicts God declaring: ”My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose… I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it” (ESV). This plan of God involves, in short, gathering a people for himself, completely conquering evil, and bringing about a new, perfect creation in which righteousness dwells (Isa. 65:17–18; Rev. 21:3–4). This is the macro-purpose of history: God’s plan of salvation centred in Jesus Christ as Redeemer and King. When we ask about the human being’s purpose specifically, we must see it within this larger framework: according to the Bible, humanity was made to glorify God and enjoy him (as the Westminster Catechism beautifully summarises it). ”For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever!” writes Paul in Romans 11:36 (ESV). Colossians 1:16 says of Christ: ”All things were created through him and for him.” (ESV). The picture is clear: our existence has a God-directed purpose. He is our origin and our ultimate goal. We are designed to live in a love-relationship with God, to reflect his character in how we live, and ultimately to reign with him in a restored creation (Rev. 22:5, 2 Tim. 2:12). In this the human being finds his true fulfilment. As Augustine said, our hearts are restless until they rest in God: not a passive rest, but the rest of someone who has found his true purpose and can rejoice in it. Psalm 16:11 confesses: ”You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (ESV). This fullness of joy refers to nothing less than the ultimate beatitude for which we were made – the “Bliss” about which Hart writes. It is a state of perfect fulfilment of all our striving for truth, goodness and beauty in the presence of God himself.

Given this heavenly vision, it is clear why Christians believe that any other worldview ultimately robs humanity of sustained meaning. Naturalistic humanism can, for instance, cultivate a sentiment of “cheerful life-purpose” in people for a time – for example: “Let us make the world a better place for our descendants.” That sounds noble, but if those people push through with their own logic, the thought will catch up with them that all “better places” will be lost again when the sun burns out and the universe grows cold. Even great ideals such as human rights, freedom, truth and love are ultimately marginalised by an atheistic view: if matter is all that exists, there can be no fixed, eternal validity to such abstract ideals; they are merely human constructions that will either change with time or die out along with us. Nietzsche warned us that once the idea of God has “died” in a society, eventually all those lofty ideals (which were actually borrowed from the Christian era) will also lose their hold on people. Post-modern relativism illustrates this well: first it was fashionable to say “everyone must have their own truth” (i.e. truth loses meaning), then “everyone must have their own morality” (good and evil lose meaning), and now even “everyone must define their own self,” to the absurd point where some people deny that biological sex or any given categories exist. When a culture denies the Creator’s reality, it begins to deny creature-reality as well. Purposefulness gives way to arbitrariness. Instead of asking “What is the purpose for which I was made and how can I fulfil it?”, the postmodern person now says: “I have no given purpose; I will choose myself who I am and what my life means.” This mentality is on the surface attractive (it looks like freedom), but it quickly degenerates into a kind of existential anxiety: for if I must figure everything out for myself, there is no solid ground beneath my feet. Everything becomes a massive experiment with my own salvation. Many young people experience this today: total paralysis amid all the possibilities, and a gnawing depression because nothing they choose actually gives them a sense of meaning.

Contrast this with the Christian view of life. Instead of purposelessness, it gives us the comfort and motivation that every moment and every deed can have eternal significance. Jesus assures us that even a cup of cold water given in his Name to someone does not go unnoticed – it has eternal value (Matt. 10:42). The Christian does not need to fret about whether his life has meaning: he knows it does, for his Creator has confirmed it. Ephesians 2:10 says: ”For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV). What a beautiful affirmation: God has prepared for every person who knows him a path full of meaningful action. There are things that only you can do to God’s glory and for the welfare of others. There are people whom only you can love in a unique way. God has so woven each person’s personality, talents and circumstances that their life becomes a unique story in his grand creative purpose. Nothing in it is useless; even your failures and suffering can be worked by God for good (Rom. 8:28). Jesus’ life itself demonstrates this: the world thought his life was “destroyed” on the cross and his purpose thwarted; but that greatest apparent failure became precisely the centre of God’s plan – the supreme meaningful salvation of the world. In the same way, God uses our small lives and even our pain or failures to build something eternally good and beautiful from them (2 Cor. 4:17). No wonder Paul exclaims: ”For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21, ESV). To know Christ is to find meaning: in life and in death you are safe within God’s purpose.

This hope fills the human search for meaning to overflowing. It does not mean a Christian never has further questions or struggles about meaning – but it means he has a firm anchor to hold on to. Unlike Russell’s dark aftermath of “unyielding despair,” a Christian lives on a firm foundation of hope. This hope is neither cheap nor self-imagined, but rooted in God’s objective promises. ”For I know the plans I have for you,” says God to his people, ”plans for… a hope and a future!” (Jer. 29:11, cf. ESV). Yes, those words were originally directed to Israel in exile, but in Christ all are in the covenant, and thus the thought applies to every redeemed person: God plans a future for you. The human search for meaning is most clearly answered by Jesus Christ. He is the One who says of himself: ”I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6, ESV). Note those three: way (a purposeful path forward), truth (the reality our mind thirsts for), and life (the fulfilment our hearts seek). Christ embodies truth, goodness and the purpose of life. He invites us to come into him (John 15:4), and so truly find our creational purpose. Through him our mind is directed again to the highest truth, our conscience purified and shaped after his love, and our purpose made clear: ”Come, follow me!” (cf. Mark 8:34). It is no wonder that so many philosophers, theologians and ordinary people through the centuries have come to the conclusion that the Christian worldview best explains the human condition. All our deepest longings receive confirmation and answer in it. The human search for meaning: the intellectual search for truth, the moral search for justice, and the existential search for purpose – they find their final destination in the God who made us in his image.

Let us close this session with a reminder: to know God is not merely another way to find meaning; it is meaning. The highest purpose of your and my existence is that we will know God, enjoy him, and live forever in his love. In him our search is complete. Or as Paul puts it: ”For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36, ESV). To God belongs the glory – and in that glory we may share, for all eternity.

---

Key Scripture Passages

• Genesis 1:27 – The human being is uniquely created in God’s image; therefore we possess a rational mind, a moral nature and a purpose to glorify God.
• Ecclesiastes 3:11 – ”He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart” (ESV). (This verse suggests that human beings have an innate awareness of and longing for something eternal and meaningful that transcends the temporal.)
• Acts 17:27–28 – ”[God] made the nations… that they should seek God… For in him we live and move and have our being” (ESV). (Paul acknowledges that humanity’s deepest purpose and existence is in relationship with God; God is not far from the one who seeks truth.)
• Romans 2:14–15 – ”The work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (ESV). (Our moral sense confirms that God’s standard is written on our hearts, even if someone does not know the written law.)
• Micah 6:8 – ”He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (ESV). (Moral goodness and justice are not human inventions but God’s will for our lives – and it binds us to him.)
• Ephesians 2:10 – ”For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV). (Our life has a purpose: God has planned works and a life-path for each of us in advance – giving meaning and direction to our existence.)
• 1 Corinthians 15:58 – ”Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable… knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (ESV). (Because Christ has risen and guarantees eternal life, our labour for God is never meaningless or futile – it bears eternal fruit.)
• Revelation 4:11 – ”Worthy are you, our Lord and God… for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (ESV). (God’s will and purpose lie behind all things – he is the teleological Source; therefore the purpose of everything, including us, is to honour him.)

Discussion Questions

• The reliability of thought: Have you ever wondered why we can trust our mind to arrive at truth? Which explanation makes more sense to you: (a) that our thinking is a gift from God designed to know truth, or (b) that it is merely a product of evolution focused on survival? How does your answer affect your attitude towards rational debate and the pursuit of knowledge?

• Challenging practical relativism: In which situations in society do you encounter people saying “morals are relative” or “everyone decides for themselves what is right”? How would you, with tact and wisdom, respond to show that we all deep down know there is an objective right and wrong? Think of a concrete example and how an appeal to conscience can be made.

• Personal moral compass: Can you share an experience where your conscience strongly spoke to you about something? How did that inner voice influence your decision-making? Do you think your conscience is merely the product of your upbringing, or has it ever spoken to you against the pressure of your culture (like a voice above your upbringing)? What does this tell us about the possible source of conscience?

• Purpose and suffering: How does belief in a God-given purpose relate to how we handle suffering? When you look back at difficult times in your life – in what ways did the knowledge or hope that your suffering is not meaningless sustain you? Put differently, how does it comfort you to believe that even pain can be embedded in a greater plan that you do not yet fully see? Feel free to share an example.

• Meaningful life vs. successful life: The world tells us meaning lies in achieving success ourselves (wealth, status, accomplishment). The Christian worldview says meaning lies in fulfilling God’s will – even if it appears humble or foolish in human eyes. Are there areas in your life where these two “goals” clash? How can we practically learn to embrace God’s definition of a meaningful life above the world’s?

• Answering a sceptic: Suppose a friend says to you: “I don’t think life has any objective meaning. We just have to create meaning for ourselves while we’re here; after that it’s over.” How would you respond from a Christian perspective? What longings in that friend’s own heart could you perhaps point to that are consistent with the idea that he actually yearns for more than just self-created meaning? Try to formulate a compassionate, reflective answer.

Recommended Reading

• C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity A timeless classic work that sets out the core truths of the Christian faith in a simple but deep manner. The opening chapters deal specifically with the Moral Law and how our awareness of right and wrong points to God. Lewis’s famous analogy of the ”straight line” and the ”crooked line” comes from here. His clear logic and images help the reader understand why our moral conscience and search for meaning cannot be explained by chance, but correspond to the Christian story of a good Creator and a fallen humanity in need of redemption.

• Timothy Keller – Making Sense of God In this book (a precursor to Keller’s well-known The Reason for God), Keller addresses modern sceptics on their own turf. He explores deep human needs – such as for meaning, morality, freedom and hope – and shows how the secular view falls short of satisfying them. Keller, a pastor and apologist, uses insights from philosophy, literature and pop culture to illustrate that our drive for meaning and values makes better sense when we turn to the Christian God. Chapters such as “The Problem of Meaning” and “The Problem of Morality” are particularly relevant: they show how a life without God leads to a “fragile self” that must carry its own meaning – something we cannot sustain. Keller’s writing style is compassionate and intellectually stimulating.

• Viktor Frankl – Man’s Search for Meaning (translated from German) Although not a theological book, Frankl’s classic memoir and psychological reflection on life purpose is of great value. He describes his experience as a concentration camp prisoner and analyses why some people survived internally: those who had a higher purpose or bond of love remained spiritually upright. Frankl’s developed concept of logotherapy holds that the striving for meaning is a primary drive in human beings. He writes: ”Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose.” This work challenges the secular reader: if we are so meaning-hungry, can we really dismiss it as merely an evolutionary curiosity? Frankl himself refers to Nietzsche’s ”He who has a why can bear almost any how,” which we discussed in this session. His book prepares the ground for a conversation about the gospel, in that it shows even the darkest suffering can become bearable when a person exchanges meaninglessness for hope.

• Alvin Plantinga – Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism A more advanced but excellent philosophical work by one of the foremost Christian philosophers today. Plantinga examines the apparent conflict between science and faith and arrives at a surprising conclusion: the real conflict is not between science and theism but between science and naturalistic atheism. In one of the key chapters he sets out his Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – precisely the point we made in this session: if one assumes that both evolution and philosophical naturalism are true, one undermines the reliability of one’s own rational mind. Plantinga’s arguments are technical, but he writes with witty examples that make them understandable. He also defends the reasonableness of belief in true moral value and purpose in a universe created by God. This book is a powerful antidote to the assumption that “all the intelligence is on the unbelieving side” – it shows on the contrary that a God-less worldview gets stuck in its own thinking. Philosophy and science enthusiasts will find this work highly insightful.

(These four works together offer a sturdy foundation for further exploration of this session’s themes. Lewis gives a foundational understanding in simple language, Keller applies it to our modern context and heart-questions, Frankl provides powerful testimony of the necessity of meaning even for the unbeliever, and Plantinga demonstrates philosophically that belief in reason, morality and meaningful purpose rationally surpasses our naturalistic alternatives. Together they will help you see with fresh appreciation *why the Christian worldview so well satisfies the human search for meaning.)*

Bibliography

Primary Source

• Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (Hart’s masterful work offers a philosophical and theological exposition of the classical understanding of God in terms of three “experiences” of reality: existence, consciousness and bliss. This session’s themes are strongly influenced by Hart’s sections on Consciousness and Bliss. Hart shows how the fact that we *can think, know truth, strive for goodness and appreciate beauty are powerful signs that ultimate reality is personal and good – i.e. that God exists. He also delivers sharp critique of the limitations of materialism in this regard.)*

Classical and Historical Sources

• Augustine of Hippo. Confessiones (Confessions). Ca. AD 400. (Augustine’s autobiography contains the famous quotation at the beginning: *”You have made us for Yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” This work illustrates Augustine’s own search for truth, morality and purpose, which only came to rest in his conversion to Christ. Augustine’s philosophy also emphasised that God is the highest Truth and Goodness, and that all true beauty and meaning are found in him.)*

• Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, especially Part I, Question 2, Article 3; Part I-II, Questions 1 & 94. (Aquinas’s “Fifth Way” in Summa I Q2 A3 is a classic formulation of the teleological argument: he reasons that the order and purposefulness we see in nature point to an intelligent Purposiveness (God) directing all things. In Summa I-II Q1 he discusses the supreme goal of the human being (visio Dei, to enjoy God) and in Q94 he speaks of the natural moral law that God has planted in our reason. Aquinas holds that all human beings’ final *telos is to know God himself as the highest Good – a claim that helps explain why no earthly goal can ever fully satisfy us.)*

• Immanuel Kant. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason), 1788. (In this second Critique, Kant argues that our moral consciousness compels us to postulate that there must be a God and an afterlife. His famous claim at the end is that the *”highest good” – a condition in which happiness and virtue perfectly coincide – is attainable only if there is a Divine Judge who guarantees moral order in the universe. Kant’s thoughts illustrate from a secular angle how deep the human need for justice and purpose is, and how difficult it is to justify it without a higher reality.)*

• Blaise Pascal. Pensees. Ca. 1660. (Pascal, a brilliant mathematician and believer, analysed the human condition with keen insight in his *Pensees. He speaks of the ”God-vacuum” in the human heart – a void that nothing other than God can fill. One pensee reads: ”What else can this craving mean… but that there was once a true happiness of which all that now remains is a sweet remembrance and vague longing… and that we try in vain to fill the abyss with everything around us?” Pascal’s work especially emphasises the instability of a life without God and how people keep themselves busy with entertainments and distractions to escape the discomfort of meaninglessness. His insights are an early precursor of what we have discussed here about nihilism and the need for God for true fulfilment.)*

• Westminster Shorter Catechism, 1647. (Question 1 of this Reformation catechism asks: *”What is the chief end of man?” and answers: ”Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” Though not a biblical book, it is a brilliant summary of the biblical teaching concerning human purpose. The idea that God’s glorification and our fulfilment coincide is rich with implications: it means the human being is created to be happy in relationship with God – something that no mere earthly success can offer. The catechism is based on texts such as 1 Cor. 10:31, Ps. 16:11, Isa. 43:7, etc., and offers a comforting and challenging guideline for a meaningful life.)*

Contemporary Christian Thinkers

• Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. London: Oxford University Press, 1943. (In this short but powerful book Lewis defends the idea of an objective moral order (which he calls the *”Tao”) against modernist moral relativism. He shows that if we deny the objective value of things, we ultimately destroy our humanity itself – hence the title “The Abolition of Man.” This work complements Mere Christianity by tracing the implications of a society that hollows out the heart (the seat of values). Lewis’s prediction that a value-free education would produce generations of ”men without chests (hearts)” was prophetic. It is an essential read for those who want to understand the current culture debate about truth and values, and offers a serious warning about what happens when teleology and morality are rejected.)*

• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. (Keller’s well-known apologetic work contains two parts: in the first half he answers sceptical objections, and in the second he offers signposts (”clues”) for God’s existence. Especially chapter 9 (”The Knowledge of God”) and chapter 10 (”The Problem of Sin”) touch on our themes: Keller discusses the moral sense as a clue to God and the emptiness people experience when they place something above God. He recounts, for example, how modern people in New York City yearn for meaning and identity, but their chosen idol (whether work, relationships or freedom) disappoints them. Only by returning to our Creator do we find rest for that search. Keller’s work is accessible, full of stories and literary references, and pastorally shows how the gospel indeed gives meaning where the world fails.)

• Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with All Your Mind. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997. (Though this book is primarily a call to intellectual discipleship, Moreland offers several valuable chapters on the soul, consciousness and the shortcomings of a purely physical view of the human being. He explains why human consciousness and free will fit better with a *dualistic understanding (soul + body) than with materialism. Moreland also provides practical advice on how Christians can train and develop their thinking – which connects to the idea that our mind is aimed at truth as a gift from God. For readers who work in a scientific or sceptical environment, this book offers encouragement that faith and thinking go hand in hand, and equips you to understand and defend the rational grounds of your faith.)*

• Guinness, Os. Long Journey Home: A Guide to Your Search for the Meaning of Life. Doubleday, 2001. (Os Guinness, a Christian thinker, takes the reader in this book on a journey through various approaches people follow in their search for life’s meaning – from Eastern mysticism to nihilism – and shows how each is ultimately unsatisfying. He then argues that the Christian gospel is the “final destination” where all the pieces fit together. Guinness’s style is literary and psychologically insightful. He uses striking quotations (from among others Russell, Sartre and Tolstoy) to depict the despair of a life without God, and contrasts it with the hope and purposefulness that Christ offers. This book is an excellent *bridge for seekers who do not yet believe, as well as a deepening for believers who want to better understand how to talk with a seeking friend about meaning.)*

Other Philosophical and Secular Sources

• Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil, 1886; and The Gay Science, 1882. (In *Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche makes the shocking claim: ”There are absolutely no moral facts whatsoever.” He unmasks traditional morality as a “herd instinct” and predicts that, without belief in God, concepts of good and evil will radically change. In The Gay Science (section 125) he announces the death of God with the famous story of the madman who carries a lantern around the marketplace searching for God. This work sketches the consequences of a post-God society: ”Who will wipe away this horizon for us? … Is it not colder now? Is night not coming all the time?” These are dramatic images of the nihilism he sees coming. Although Nietzsche’s style is poetic and fragmentary, his influence is enormous. By reading him, one gains insight into the thought patterns that influence many modern people (sometimes unknowingly): that each person creates his own value, but that this can ultimately lead to a power-game and despair. Nietzsche’s diagnosis is sharp, even if he himself offers no life-giving solution.)*

• Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 3 (1740). (Hume’s *Treatise is a key work in Western philosophy. In Book 3 he argues that morality springs from feelings and not from reason: ”Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” He analyses how words like “vice” really only express our disapproval of something. Hume’s infamous “is/ought” distinction challenges any natural foundation for morality: you can have a thousand facts about the world (what is), but not a single one gives you an ought – for that you need an extra source (he proposes human sentiment). Hume’s legacy lives on in all moral relativism and emotivism (the idea that moral statements are merely feelings). Reading Hume helps one understand where secular thinking about morality comes from and how it differs from a Christian understanding of conscience as being more than just feeling.)*

• Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books, 1995. (This book by Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist and atheist, gives an unvarnished look at what a through-and-through Darwinian worldview entails. He writes: *”The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good – nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” This quotation (see above) is regularly cited as a summary of the nihilistic consequences of naturalism. Dawkins tries elsewhere to maintain positive human values, but River Out of Eden illustrates how he does this in conflict with his own logic. For a Christian reader this work offers an honest contrast: it shows what a meaning-denying universe sounds like. It also prompts us to realise what a privilege it is to have hope and meaning – something that according to Dawkins’s own admission cannot be found “out there” if his premises are correct.)*

• Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959. (Already recommended above, Frankl also appears in our bibliography as an important primary source on human meaning. The first half is a gripping account of his camp experiences; the second half analyses his philosophy of logotherapy. Frankl’s observation that human beings have a “will to meaning” that is just as basic as Freud’s will to pleasure or Adler’s will to power is powerful testimony from psychology. He also appeals to observation: prisoner after prisoner gave up his life when he could no longer see a why. Frankl’s work is supremely useful in conversation with modern sceptics, for he speaks from a humanistic but compassionate angle. His acknowledgement that religion was for many people indispensable in finding meaning, as well as his claim *”there are two races of people: the decent and the indecent” – regardless of faith or nation – gives much food for thought about an objective moral order and a Higher meaning.)*

• Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (Nagel is a respected atheist-philosopher who caused considerable stir with this book. He argues that the standard materialistic evolution story cannot explain where consciousness, thought, values and purposefulness come from. Nagel does not believe in God, but he proposes a kind of *”natural teleology” – the idea that the universe is perhaps inherently aimed at producing life and mind. His honest acknowledgement that a universe which produces consciousness forces us to ask different questions is very noteworthy. He even agrees with Darwin’s doubt about whether our cognitive ability is reliable if formed solely by blind evolution. Although Nagel’s own alternative remains vague, his critique of naturalism’s “mind from mud” story is a valuable secular confirmation of what we believe: that a dead, purposeless universe simply does not convince as an explanation for our living, purpose-seeking spirit. This book is difficult reading, but the fact that it was written by a distinguished atheist makes it a powerful conversation resource with sceptics.)*

Biblical References and Commentary

• The Bible: English Standard Version (ESV). (Scripture quotations in this session are given in the ESV. The Bible is of course the primary source for the Christian understanding of the human being: Genesis 1–3 for creation and fall (which explains our rational image-bearing, but also our moral decline and meaninglessness outside God); Ecclesiastes for a psychologically keen look at meaninglessness “under the sun”; John and Romans for the *Logos-theology and the law on the heart; Acts 17 for Paul’s address about humanity’s search for God; and many others. An understanding of these text-passages lies at the heart of the Christian’s answer to humanity’s search for meaning.)*

• Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706). (Matthew Henry’s old but precious commentary offers spiritual insights text by text. At Ecclesiastes 3:11, for example, he writes that God has placed a *”longing for immortality” in human beings; at Acts 17:27 he emphasises that humanity’s deepest search is answered only in God, and that God makes himself findable. Henry writes in an era (18th century) that was already seeing the rise of secular thought, but he brings a timeless, pastoral warmth: that God does not mislead us but invites us to find our rest and purpose in him. His work is a resource for those who want to apply biblical truths practically to the heart.)*

• Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1940. (In this work Lewis addresses the question of suffering. Relevant to our theme is his discussion that *the human being only truly arrives at God when all self-made meanings collapse. He calls pain God’s “megaphone” to rouse a deaf humanity. Interestingly, he acknowledges that even the pleasure and happiness one experiences on earth give an indication of a greater joy that we cannot find here – connecting with his ”longing for another world” argument. Although the focus is suffering, this book offers much insight into why a life full of comfort but without purpose in God will ultimately be empty. It also helps to answer the argument: ‘If God intends us for happiness with him, why is there so much pain?’ Lewis shows how even pain within God’s plan ultimately drives us back to the only source of lasting meaning.)*

• Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Hearers and Doers: A Pastor’s Guide to Making Disciples Through Scripture and Doctrine. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2019. (This contemporary source is included for its excellent chapter on teleology in the Christian life. Vanhoozer argues that discipleship comes down to *”the reintroduction of God’s story as the master framework for our lives.” He shows how postmodern people are confused about their purpose, and how doctrine serves as a signpost to true humanity. His concept of participating in God’s drama – seeing your life as a role in God’s play – is a fruitful way to articulate teleology. For pastors and leaders who want their people not merely to believe but to live as if their lives have meaning in Christ, Vanhoozer offers useful advice and theological reflection.)*

• Edwards, Jonathan. The End for Which God Created the World. 1765. (A profound Puritan treatise in which Edwards asks: Why did God create the world – what is his *purpose with it? He arrives on biblical grounds at the conclusion that God made everything for his own glory. But Edwards works out that God’s glory and our happiness coincide: ”God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him” (a thought John Piper would later make famous). This classic piece helps sharpen our thinking about God’s ultimate goal and how our life’s purpose fits into it. It is a challenging read – dense 18th-century prose – but for those who want to think through the ultimate questions about teleology in a God-centred way, Edwards is a guide without equal.)*