From Michael Whalley
In a previous letter (9 August, p 20) I remarked on the obscurity of religious apologists’ search for “meaning”. Now Merle Arrowsmith offers more of the same in response to Lawrence Krauss’s “big ideas” (27 September, p 49) by suggesting that “Even those with a sound scientific background are more likely to ask: ‘What is the meaning of life? Is there more to life than what we see? Why so much suffering? Is there hope in this life?'” (25 October, p 19). For centuries people have asked “What is the meaning of life?” without apparently having the foggiest idea that they are asking a non-question.
What could be meant by life having a “meaning”? Why not ask for the meaning of a neutron star? That would be an equally obscure non-question. Contrast this with one of the questions Krauss referred to in his commentary: “How did life arise on Earth?” It is at once absolutely clear what this precise question means, and there is some hope that an answer may eventually be found, with evidence to support it. If I were to classify questions according to their importance, any referring to the “meaning of life” would be thrown aside as vague religious waffle.
Howick, Quebec, Canada
