Assuming I have this intended quotation correct, it is the kind of remark St Augustine may have made. As I heard Roger Scruton remark on the Radio-4 programme "Analysis" in July 1993, he is reputed to have advocated getting on with one’s life without asking too many fundamental questions. I understand too that the Pope criticised Stephen Hawkins for investigating the "Big Bang" creation of the Universe. Even as I was proof-reading this text, the presenter of Good Morning Sunday was suggesting that people live happier lives with blind faith, rather than with enquiring minds.

Not all religious thinkers support such a negativity, nor support St Augustine, nor the Pope. I have heard some of them say that it is important to reason why, because, they claim, the answer to the question "Why?", the ultimate "Why?", is God. Even certain prominent scientists, who profess to be Christians, say such things as "Science is the how, God is the why!"

They are thinking along the right lines. If there is a reason why existence exists, then some reasoning entity, the Creator, must have known what that reason was. Cynics may think that whatever the reason once was, even God has forgotten!

Let us examine this question more seriously. Can the question "Why?" be asked, about existence? Naively, one might think that the question "Why?" can be asked of anything. Small children soon learn the why game, successively asking parents "Why?" to every answer given, until parents become exasperated and finish the game with "Because. That’s why!".

Some modern therapists adopt a similar technique: the what game. The client expresses a want, then the therapist enquires, "What is important to you about that?". When the client responds, the therapist repeats the question, but now the query refers to the response. Eventually the responses converge to something equivalent to, "Because it would give me a feeling of well being." In other words, it would make the client feel OK.

It is noteworthy that the therapists’ repeated question begins "What?", not "Why?". In everyday speech the question might just as well have been: "Why is that important to you?". The wise therapist, however, has learnt to avoid that phraseology. The distinction is important, not only in the therapeutic situation but also when discussing the fundamentals of philosophy.

"Why?" is a prejudicial question. It invites preconceived value judgements. One can ask "How?", or "What?", and receive factual, or logical answers, reasoned reasonable answers. To the question "Why?", however, you are expected to give a reason or reasons. "Why?" means "For what reason?". Even more vividly the query "Why not?", or "Why ever not?" demands reasons, but not necessarily reason.

It is perhaps unfortunate that in the English language the word "reason" can have several shades of meaning. It can mean "the motive for an act", just as well as "the deduction of implications from hypotheses". I would differentiate by calling the former the reason, a reason, or even just reasons (plural). The latter I would call reason (singular), the word itself with no article. Reason, or logic, which I regard as essentially synonymous in this context, is an abstract concept the existence of which Mankind has become aware. It is independent of race, colour, gender, or creed. It is independent of Mankind. As Penrose remarks in his book "The Emperor’s New Mind": "Real mathematical proof goes beyond mere man-made constructions." As a fascinating consequence of Gödel’s theorem, he concludes that propositions can be seen to be true, or false, even if unproveable, whether we are here to see them or not.

Reasoning is a related process that our brains enable us to do, either creatively or logically or both. When we come to consider actual reasons, however, we are seeking the motives of the mind behind the reasoning process. The question "Why?" presupposes the existence of a mind.

I have heard some theologians say that because we are made in the image of God and our minds can pose the what-seems-to-be-a-valid question "Why?", about existence, then this proves there must, a fortiori, be a mind of God, and hence there must be a God. To me, this argument is not only circular but it puts the cart before the horse. Only if there is a mind of God can the ultimate question "Why?" be asked validly.

In a previous chapter, however, we have seen how the theologians have demonstrated that their God does not exist, because they collectively refuse to be ecumenical(sic) with the truth. It follows, therefore, that no mind of God can exist. Hence there are no reasons "Why?" for existence, nor for evolution, which also shows no preconceived plan. One sometimes hears the expression "If Nature had intend us to have ........ then she would have given us........". The truth is that Nature never intends anything. It may judge, through some impersonal evolutionary selection process, but it has no motives at all. Nature has no purpose, nor intelligent design, it just has consequences: including the fact that 99.9% of all species that have ever been are now extinct. It is, because it is. If it were not, it would not be!

Nevertheless, questions such as "How?" and "What?" can still be explored by means of reason and reasoning. Although, as Steven Wineburg in "The First Three Minutes" concludes: "The more comprehensible the Universe becomes, the more pointless it appears." This may be disconcerting for some people, but recent discoveries about the fundamentals of the human mind may be even more distressing. Brain scientists are learning that there may not even be a mind in mankind at all, at least not as most people think of a mind. The concept of an independent self, inside the body somewhere, governing the motives for our actions may soon have be radically reassessed.

The brain is a bio-machine, the Mind Machine as Colin Blakemore calls it. In his book of the BBC television series, he decides:
"The sense of will is an invention of the brain...the feeling of choice is a mental model...the "I" in "me" is the operation of a mind, which itself is the operation of a brain, constructed solely by genes and environment...That notion is just as wonderful, and in many ways more satisfying than the empty illusion of a spiritual self."

The strategy of mutual respect, which is essential to the survival of Mankind, implies, I claim, that we should each take responsibility for our own actions. When we consider our broader social responsibilities, I suggest we seek the answers only to the questions: "How?", "Who?", "Where?", "When?", and "What?", the Five Honest Serving Men. The ultimate question "Why" is fraught with difficulties . If it is not even valid to ask the question, there is little hope of our finding a valid answer.

View my guestbook