More structured update of “The human condition of searching for meaning”.
Many of us (we, human) feel that there is “something”. Life must have meaning, because otherwise we would not have that meaning-seeking attitude.
On the one hand: coincidence in humans
But other life forms do not have this experience / feeling (probably; because they don’t have a consciousness or another existential instrument of thought). Now, you can argue that these are “lower” forms of life. Yet, this doesn’t seem to me to be a good argument because it could very well be that if there were ‘higher’ forms of life (which may have a consciousness, or not because they have ‘outgrown’ this / have something else in place), these would not share this feeling with humans. In addition, it is not necessary true that we have a more accurate view / a more correct “way of thinking” about existence than “lower” forms of life because we are “more intelligent”. If we are honest, we have to admit that it also goes far beyond us and we have to remember that intelligence remains a human construct.
The fact that almost everyone has a sense that there must be a meaning, is therefore incorrect. Unless “everyone” is understood as only humans, but considering ourselves as the only point of reference would be, as I have already shown, very narcissistic and haughty. The world doesn’t exist for us. Thus it is not because we human (with our subjective vision, with our specific sensory perception of reality) think that there is meaning, that it is a proof that it must be / is. Although of course it is possible that animals, without our knowledge, have that feeling in some way and that “higher” life forms would have it, but it is far from certain. In addition, “life has a meaning” remains a possibility anyway (also if other living creatures don’t have the feeling), as there are so many other options. We do not have proof to the contrary either.
On the other hand: interpretation of meaning of life
When we look for the meaning of life and feel “something”, many people call it “God”. We then make a specific representation of this, one person more detailed than the other. It is important to know that God has grown historically. Many years ago He entered our culture and today God is still a widely supported cause and meaning for our existence. It is therefore at least in part a cultural construct, although that does not exclude the possibility that it can be based on truth. But we don’t know for sure that this is the pure truth. The existence may just as well be an illusion of a brain in a barrel full of water, and the fact that we think this is madness has to do (certainly in part) with the fact that this vision is not in our culture, so we aren’t grew up / brought up with this idea. However, I would like to emphasize again that the possibility of a “God” implies that we cannot exclude His existence.
In the end, I think we end up in a situation where doubt and uncertainty are paramount. Both the question about the presence or absence of meaning, and the question about the existence or absence of God, I (and I think many others) cannot answer unambiguously and with certainty.
I especially wanted to show that we, as humans, are biased from our specific culture and our specific reality perspective. I therefore think that being critical is very important, at the same time I am convinced that believing is something that we should never, ever give up.
The Idealist 