and imperfection of human life (Metz, 2007; Quinn, 2000).
Finally, critics of the necessity of God or a higher power for establishment of a meaningful life contest the idea that imperfect beings can have a relationship with an infinite presence. They claim that such an idea is simply absurd, since finite humans cannot understand an infinite being. As understanding is a prerequisite for a relationship, and as human beings cannot really understand an infinite god, there is no way for humans to derive meaningfulness from a relationship with such a god. If on the other hand we can relate to that presence, then god cannot be perfect because it is a product of human conceptualization. If a god is beyond human understanding then it cannot be perceived as such. This argument, which Berger (1973, p. 106) terms ‘methodological atheism’, stems from the idea that all concepts of god are human projections. Viewed this way, it is impossible to say that God existed before humans, since humans have only become aware of God by learning religious practices from each other.
Of course, humans can understand something as complex as an infinite universe even if it is unlikely that they will understand everything about it. In Adams’ (1979) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (p. 135), he describes a futuristic computer (‘Deep Thought’), whose purpose is to find the answer to the ultimate question of Life; the secret of the Universe and Everything in it. The answer to the question turns out to be ‘forty two’. According to Adams, the answer could not be understood by humans because they ‘didn’t know what the question is […] and once you do know what the question is, you’ll know what it means’ (p. 136). Never the less, humans could apprehend the meaning of ‘forty two’ even though they did not understand how the computer obtained the answer. Thus, it is not necessary to understand everything in order to develop a conception of meaning. Humans recognize each other and various capacities and attributes shared with others even though they still do not understand everything about their fellow beings and are unlikely to fully understand themselves. Occupational therapists necessarily have to confront this issue if they are to develop a holistic perspective of the human being, which is a cornerstone of the new professional paradigm (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2014; Kielhofner, 2009). Holistic thinking suggests taking into account the immense complexity of the human being, of almost infinite proportions.
The problem of the finite contemplating the infinite is not one of attempting to understand something without boundaries, but of understanding that something has the capacity to exist without limits. For example, according to scientists, the universe is in an expanding state (Hawking, 1994, 1988). Since it is expanding, it makes logical sense that at one time it was extremely small, and therefore we can assume that it had a beginning, which scientists have postulated to be the big bang. This gives rise to the question, what happened before the big bang? If there had been a previous expansion and contraction prior to this event, does the universe have a cyclical nature, in that it must at some point contract leading to another big bang, then expand, then contract again, and infinitum? This is an example of a conceptualization of co-existence of the infinite and finite realities. In the cosmic sense, infinity as expressed in the cyclical expansion and contraction of the universe over vast time periods can be seen as necessary for a finite life. If this theory is correct, there is a balance between finiteness and infinity, since each episode between big bangs is finite, while the process of expansion and contraction as a whole is infinite. The existence of everything depends on this infinite pulsation.
This leads us to the assertion that whether or not they accept the existence of a God, human beings have to come to terms with their mortality and the continuation of the world and the wider universe around them for eternity. Many people deal with their mortality by taking a specific series of actions that make their lives sensible. Some establish legacies for future generations by sharing memories and life narratives. In this way people are able to see the meaning of their own finite existence in relation to the continuous life of the universe. In this sense, the ritual of mourning, arranging funerals and dealing with the personal effects and affairs of someone who has died can be seen as an affirmation of the continuation of existence for those who are still living (Pollard, 2006).
The soul-centered view of meaningfulness on the other hand is based on the idea that a soul is an eternal substance within us (not limited like our material bodies), and therefore it is immortal and perfect (Metz, 2007). Therefore, individual lives can only have meaning by people having the ability to do things that express the soul, since only the soul has immortality and permanence. The objection to this perspective again arises from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of a soul, let alone the question of whether having a soul necessarily denotes immortality or lack thereof.
Often the soul is thought to be an expression of the human spirit, but such metaphysical concepts, like gods, derive from human mythologies. These mythologies are used not only to explain the universe but also to control social behaviors and activities which religious authorities perceive as threats to social stability. Thus, by explaining the order of the physical universe they establish a basis for human conduct in the social realm. What is important to bear in mind is that the conceptualization of the nature of the cosmos determines (but since it is a mythological conceptualization it is also determined by) how people shall live.
However, mythologies are analogous to what has evolved into scientific explanation. The two systems aim at the same goal, which is to make the universe comprehensible to human beings. While mythology is a metaphorical way of visualizing the universe, science attempts to reveal the literal explanatory logic behind its mechanism. Of course adherents of religion sometimes assert that their views of the universe are literal rather than metaphorical, and scientists sometimes come to terms with their discoveries by understanding them in terms of religious metaphor. That is why many scientists believe in the existence of God (for example both Einstein and Newton were firm believers in the existence of God as the intelligent architect who established the laws governing the universe). Nevertheless, critics argue that neither an infinite soul nor any metaphysical thing exerting an infinite effect on the world is necessary for a meaningful life (Schmidtz, 2001).
Objective versus subjective views
With such a diverse range of arguments, it is not surprising that some scholars claim that meaning is idiosyncratic (Metz, 2007). In other words, meaning derives from subjective experiences which are unique to every individual, and thus, if anyone believes that something is meaningful, then it is. Therefore, meaning is primarily a result of the achievement of goals that people individually set for themselves. However, meaning is also related to the interpretation of objective phenomena, things which remain relatively constant, such as the landscape or the seasons, and the relative permanence of some social institutions. Metz (2007, p. 11 of 21) suggested that ‘subjectivism about meaning has lost dominance over the past thirty years’. This is probably because of increased secularization of western populations and the growing power of science combined with the development of technology and of the financial structures in a global society. For example, people expect product reliability. They expect certainty, and many of the products they use are supported by an increasingly complex technology. An expectation of perfection does not so much reside in the almighty, but has become humanized in the mobile phone, the bank service, better evidence, the digitalization of information, and the reduction of anticipated risk in life.
On the other hand, the objective view is based on the proposition that ‘there are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, not merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God’ (Metz, 2007, p. 12 of 21). In other words, objectivists submit that there are external criteria for meaning on which everyone can agree. Once those criteria are met in a person’s life, it can be assumed that the individual’s life is meaningful. Those who define meaning in this way tend to equate it with moral and creative actions that can be judged objectively as worthwhile: ‘the activities that give meaning to one’s life will give one reasons for acting that are, to some extent, independent of self-interest – reasons derived from the worth of the activities
