... what's good for the goose ...

... humans are really good at one thing: comparing things ... in fact, if you line up a bunch of comparisons in a sequence you can end up with some pretty interesting things - like number theory! and geometry! ... and heck - if you can compare this and that and can also compare that and the other thing, then you can line those up in a sequence, remove "that", and automatically know what the result of comparing this and the other thing would be - logic! ... keep on constructing things this way and you eventually get to general relativity, quantum mechanics, the scientific method.

With these magical things in hand, we can start picking apart the world ... iteratively breaking it down into solids, liquids, chemistry, atoms ... atoms! wow! who'd a'thunk?!

But wait! ... something's missing! ... I can't find a miniature version of purpose in an atom! ... I can't find a miniature version of meaning in an atom! ... these can't simply emerge out of nowhere! - they must not exist! ... purpose is poppycock! meaning is balderdash! - it's all superstition!

But then again, someone once said that what's good for the goose is good for the gander ... let's see how science stands up to this kind of analysis ... what's the "atom" of science? ... gads! - this could take some time! ... doh! - there it is staring me in the face at the top of this rant! ... the "atom" of science is the human ability to compare two things!

But wait! ... something's missing! ... I can't find a miniature version of general relativity in a comparison of two things! ... I can't find a miniature version of quantum mechanics in a comparison of two things! ... these simply can't emerge out of nowhere! - they must not exist! ... general relativity is poppycock! quantum mechanics is balderdash! - science is superstition!

There are (at least) two stances to take here:

1. This reductive perspective is correct - if you can't find a miniature version of something in the "atom" then it cannot possibly exist ... in which case science is mere superstition, the things that science tells us are also mere superstition, and thus the assertion that there's no such thing as purpose and meaning dissolves away ... there is nothing to dispute our direct experience of purpose and meaning.

2. This reductive perspective is wrong and you must allow a synthetic perspective - even if you can't find a miniature version of something in the "atom", that does not dismiss it from being real because the "atom" may contain properties that are the (often non-obvious) building blocks of the something in question ... mathematics and science are human-created monuments to the synthetic perspective ... life, purpose, and meaning are nature's monuments to the synthetic perspective.

Either way, purpose and meaning live to see another day