Note: My initial attempt at posting was unsuccessful, with feedback suggesting I should ‘try writing something of value for humans.’ This time, I’m taking a different approach, fully embracing the human side of things—perhaps too much so. It’s up to you to decide.
__________________________________________________________________________
For as long as I can remember, the questions of life’s meaning and the nature of passing away have preoccupied my thoughts This existential anxiety has shaped much of my intellectual and emotional life, driving me toward a relentless search for understanding. From early childhood, I sought to comprehend the fundamental nature of existence, the purpose behind our being, and what transpires upon death. In my pursuit, I turned to science as the primary means of inquiry, not with any formal academic training, but with an insatiable curiosity that led me to consume any material I could find on the subject. My approach, though not scholarly in the conventional sense, was driven by a deep conviction that these questions warranted urgent exploration.
The more I studied, the more I became convinced that the search for meaning within the natural world was not just an intellectual pursuit, but a fundamental part of my very being. As my exploration deepened, my inquiry grew more focused, narrowing into three key areas: the origin of life, the process of evolution, and the nature of consciousness
However, during this period, the scientific explanations I encountered offered little comfort. The prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology and neurophysiology suggested that life arose by mere chance, that evolution was a blind and purposeless process, and that consciousness, if it existed at all, was merely an emergent property of the brain’s physical structure. Such conclusions, while rooted in empirical evidence, struck me as deeply disconcerting. They implied that life was a series of meaningless events, unfolding arbitrarily, destined to culminate into nothingness. This perspective left me feeling adrift, a being with no clear purpose, merely waiting for the final encounter.
Aligned with this mindset, I embraced a form of militant atheism, convinced that science had delivered the definitive verdict. But as my intellectual journey continued, I began to encounter viewpoints that challenged my previously held assumptions. I discovered that for each of the subjects I had delved into—the origin of life, evolutionary theory, and consciousness—there were alternative perspectives, often overlooked or dismissed by mainstream science. In the case of life’s origin, for instance, the dominant hypothesis that life arose from random molecular collisions appeared increasingly improbable. This is not to suggest that the hypothesis is definitively wrong, but rather to highlight that it remains incomplete, leaving significant gaps in our understanding. There may be mechanisms at work that counteract randomness. The truth is, we do not yet know how life originated. We can only speculate. And while it does not necessarily follow that some divine or intelligent force played a role in the emergence of life, we must acknowledge the limits of our current explanatory models.
In the realm of evolutionary biology, I found a growing minority of reputable scientists advocating for a “third way”—a teleonomic view of evolution. These theorists posit that evolution might not be entirely blind and purposeless, as traditionally conceived, but could involve some form of goal-directedness. This idea, while controversial and not widely accepted, raises important questions about the philosophical assumptions embedded within mainstream evolutionary theory. Why, I wondered, has this line of inquiry been dismissed by many as unworthy of serious consideration? Is it possible that science’s commitment to a mechanistic, materialist worldview—one that interprets nature as a mindless, purposeless machine—has led to the systematic exclusion of alternative explanations? Has science’s methodological naturalism, which restricts inquiry to observable and measurable phenomena, inadvertently imposed blinders that limit its ability to explore all potential avenues of investigation?
The issue becomes even more pronounced when we turn to the problem of consciousness. Despite the impressive advancements in neuroscience, we remain profoundly ignorant of how subjective experience arises from the neural processes of the brain. How does a 1.4-kilogram mass of matter give rise to self-awareness, thoughts, emotions, and intentionality? We do not even know where consciousness resides in the brain, or why it appears to emerge most prominently when we encounter the natural world in certain ways. While some scientists argue that consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural networks, this hypothesis remains speculative at best, with no clear consensus on how or why it occurs.
These reflections led me to a troubling conclusion: perhaps science, despite its many successes, is not as objective as it claims to be. It is guided by certain philosophical assumptions—assumptions that shape the types of questions we ask and, more crucially, the kinds of answers we accept. The scientific community often operates within a paradigm that prioritizes empirical evidence and observable phenomena, yet this approach overlooks or disregards the subjective nature of reality, which may be just as crucial to understanding existence. Moreover, by focusing exclusively on certain types of evidence that fit within its materialistic worldview, science may inadvertently close itself off to alternative explanations or perspectives that do not conform to its established paradigms.
I do not wish to dismiss the achievements of science, nor am I suggesting that it lacks value in answering profound questions. Rather, my intention is to highlight the inherent limitations of the scientific method when it comes to addressing the deepest existential concerns. Science excels at uncovering the mechanics of the natural world, yet, as indicated, it is less equipped to engage with the subjective experience of being. If one argues that science is not meant to explore the subjective dimensions of nature, then it should similarly refrain from attempting to answer questions about the meaninglessness of life. For all its power, science still lacks a coherent explanation for the nature of consciousness, the origin of life, or the true meaning of existence. In fact, the very framework of science—its commitment to objectivity and empirical verification—may prevent it from engaging with these questions in a more holistic or integrative manner
In the end, my journey through science has led me to a place of intellectual humility. We do not yet know the answers to life’s most profound questions, and the scientific worldview, for all its contributions, remains incomplete. The mystery of existence is not something that can be neatly tied up within the confines of a materialist worldview. As long as science continues to overlook or dismiss the subjective dimensions of reality, it will never fully grasp the nature of being. It is only through a more open, interdisciplinary approach—one that integrates science with philosophy, theology, and the arts—that we may begin to inch closer to a deeper understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what it all means.