MEANING, MORALITY, MORTALITY, AND BLACK PANTHER

I've been a Marvel fan since I was a kid. I didn't know anyone in my neighborhood that wasn't into comic books. These comic books aroused in each of us the desire to become more. The creation of these fictional characters is not an accumulation of random ideas. These characters were intentionally shaped by the same values that shaped the West: the Judeo-Christian worldview. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman appealing to the 'humanities,' Bob Kane, with Batman, appealed to 'justice,' and Stan Lee with Spiderman appealed to ‘responsibility.' In 2018, Marvel Studios released the Black Panther with Chadwick Boseman playing the leading role. The movie was a massive success because it displayed vibrancy, communalism, and empowerment, which inspired black communities, including the Pacific Island communities. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), Racial and Ethnic Socialization (RES) stated the movie provided a strong voice to racism and discrimination and inspired hope worldwide. However, tragically on the 28th of August, Chadwick Boseman lost his life in a silent battle with cancer. The world took to Twitter to express their agony. On one thread, people began to express outrage over a comment that mentioned 'God.' "Where is God in all this?" said one comment. "If he is omnipotent, why was he unable to heal Boseman?" said another. But I want to suggest that a far more critical question is, "why do we care to know?" and "why are we so obsessed with meaning, morality, and mortality if all we are is matter?"

One of the biggest reasons our culture is abandoning the Judeo-Christian worldview for naturalism is the problem of death, pain, and suffering. However, it is not just a problem for the Christian theist, but the naturalist also. For the Christian, the question is: how does one justify a loving God with suffering in the world? For the naturalist, why do we desire meaning if there exists no meaning in life? Let us begin by first addressing the definition of a problem. The French Philosopher Gabriel Marcel says that a problem can only be so if the questioner is himself outside the question. But if the questioner is himself within the question, then the problem becomes a mystery. For "a mystery is a problem that encroaches upon itself because the questioner becomes the object of the question." These epistemic questions on the evil and suffering all point to meaning, morality, and mortality. Why are we not content with suffering as an inherent human condition? We have no quarrels accepting it theoretically, but we struggle to get it on a practical level. Deep inside of us, there is this strange hope for more; we refuse death as the end—the desire to prolong life if there is no such thing as eternal life seems absurd. C.S Lewis, in Mere Christianity, said, "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. For Lewis, the desire exists; therefore, the thing itself must exist. However, "The neurophysiologist, Donald Mackay, would argue that this is nothing more than an ontological reductionism (the desire for meaning in a religious sense which is nothing more than a particular pattern of the brain activity). Now I do not challenge this explanation based on being incorrect but on being incomplete. For it deals with the 'how' and not the 'why.' Scientism has its limits. Science deals primarily with objective empirical data through observation, experience, and experimentation, but it does not deal with moral and aesthetic judgments. John Polkinghorne, the physicist from Cambridge, said if you were to ask a scientist why the kettle is boiling, he would say that the burners' heat is agitating the molecules and causing the kettle to boil; that is the quantifiable, measurable features that answer that question. But the answer can also be that someone wants a cup of tea.

Thomas Aquinas argued that if we desire to do good, then there must exist a maximum standard by which we measure morality and graduate. If we ask the question, "why is there evil in the world?" We are making a truth claim that evil exists. Furthermore, if evil exists, then it follows that good exists; if good exists, there must exist the Ultimate Good as a fixed standard by which we measure morality and discover meaning. That Ultimate Good is God Himself. However, the theistic problem is not just if HE exists, but WHO it is that exists. How can a loving God allow suffering? The answer is that God is love (1 John 4:8b). Meaning God cannot (not, will not) force, dictate, or control. Thus, love requires freedom, and freedom allows man to decide to do good or evil. If God were a control-freak, there would be no room for freedom of choice, which would be a direct violation of God's character. However, God's answer to evil and suffering in the world is Jesus. His incarnation revealed the Father, and because He exists, our lives have MEANING. His life shaped MORALITY and ethics, like no one else in history. His death brought forgiveness, and resurrection gave hope beyond our MORTALITY.

We are responsible for the evil and suffering in the world today, but it does not have to end this way. Our natural distaste for death, injustice, and suffering is not a reason to disregard God but rather to believe in Him. The death of Chadwick Boseman to cancer is not a defeat. Boseman's willingness to fight all the way through to the end is a testimony to his character. We mourn his death because we know we were made for more. As Lewis said, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

Rome Ulia