"Meaning of life" changed in a fundamental way when Homo sapiens evolved the language ability. Prior to that time they achieved their "meaning of life" just as do all the other species, by following the reflexes, instincts, and other automatic behaviors that move them through their lives. Some 100,000 years ago Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens and then some 60,000 to 30,000 years ago evolved into Modern Humans. Historically, the arrival of Modern Humans has been more identified by their tools and the rapid changes associated with these tools than by physiological structures. However, I propose that this change took place when the evolution of the language ability reached a critical level.

The "meaning of human life" involves the most fundamental questions that a human being can ask. However, because the quality of an answer tends to depend on the quality of the question, the poorly formulated question -- "What is the meaning of human life?" -- has not been satisfactorily answered up to this time.

Folk religions answer the question, "What is the meaning of human life," with magic and wishing, drawing on a primitive human genetic propensity. Other approaches are equally deficient:

Existentialists misunderstand the point of the question and say, "Life has no meaning."

Some atheists talk as though they believe that the meaning of life is that there is no God.

Humanists frequently get stuck in Freud's approach: "Human behavior is motivated by pain and pleasure." This is usually interpreted to mean that the goal of life is to achieve happiness.

Tribal members enmeshed in social support can only ask in puzzlement, What do you mean by "meaning of life"?

There are many ways to produce the feeling that life has meaning. How can we find guidance in selecting which way to pursue? For me the goal is to find paths that provide a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning.

If meaning of life is the most fundamental question, then I believe this issue must lie at the core of every deep question. Every concern whether recognized or not leads to this issue. As previously stated "meaning of human life," properly tackled, will turn ethics into an empirical science. Traditionally morals (which I use interchangeably with ethics) have come from one’s folk religion. And these rules are based on God’s revelations, cultural traditions, and other sources not subject to change through the processes of science. They are presented as “oughts” that must be done under threat of varying degrees of punishment depending on the specifics. But basically they are seen as rules imposed on the person -- things they would not necessarily do, or avoid doing if they didn’t “have” to. Therefore, some persons are tempted to break the rules and act otherwise. There was no place for honest questioning and thoughtful answering. Usually religion has had great power. If not the power to kill and banish, at least moral power to shame and silence the critic. Therefore, religion appeared to be an evil structure or at least a parasitic one to skeptics who looked at it carefully and critically. Folk religions are based on non-falsifiable assumptions; i.e., their claims cannot be disproved, even in principle. In addition they cannot be questioned because this violates tradition and authority.

In the West philosophy made a stab at examining ethics. However, philosophy also is based on non-falsifiable assumptions. However, because these assumptions can be examined, questioned, recombined in new ways, etc.; therefore, this is a fertile area of exploration. When assumptions are generated that are capable of being refuted or verified they move out of philosophy into the realm of science. And basically this is the way that philosophy gave birth to sciences, one by one, as it provided the testable assumptions upon which each field of science rests. This process has moved us further and further toward the age of science. However, philosophy's dependence on non-falsifiable assumptions explains why there can be no Science of Philosophy.

But philosophy has never produced a falsifiable assumption for ethics, in fact philosopher G. E. Moore labeled as the “naturalistic fallacy,” the idea that ethics could be based on scientific principles. This came out of his belief that science is about what is, and ethics is about what ought to be. So science, he claimed, can’t get an “ought” out of an “is.”

Of course he totally missed the boat. Because science is empirical it can study any area, or phenomena, and if there are internal consistencies provide guidance in predicting consequences for what is happening. Physicists assume that quantum behavior is statistical and yet they can predict with great accuracy the results of quantum interactions. Such is the case with chemistry, biology, psychology, engineering, and medicine.

So there is no “naturalistic fallacy” that prevents science from studying human behavior and determining the likely consequences in a given situation. And based on that prediction the individual can decide what they “ought” to do to get the result they are striving for. And, although the complexity of this situation goes beyond our current abilities to predict faultlessly, they would certainly be no less accurate than the predictions for ingesting drugs, foods, and having vaccinations all of which are regularly prescribed by those who use knowledge to predict the outcomes of things we do.

science of ethics claims that if one properly defines “meaning of human life” it will provide a way to falsify assumptions about human behavior to thereby provide guidance in making ethical choices (which turn out to be essentially all choices).

My approach involves attempting to reconstruct what the events were that appear most likely to have produced Modern Humans. This reconstruction can help clarify what is fundamental about humanity and use that as a guide to develop a new paradigm based on meaning of human life. This would move ethics into the realm of science and provide a unifying principle congruent with all the knowledge and experience accumulated over the past 40,000 years. This step would move us fully into the scientific age. In this new era the power and knowledge of science would no longer be controlled by our "small group, or tribal" propensities.

The foregoing advance would alter entirely the circumstances that concerned Einstein in 1946 when he wrote, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our mode of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." What he was actually referring to was the mode of thinking of contemporary society. A science of ethics would totally alter the mode of thinking of society. We would be provided with a way to tackle meaning of human life scientifically, using the tools of empirical study. When ethics is incorporated into science by utilizing meaning of human life as a fundamental organizing principle, or concept every question will be able to be approached within the realm of cause and effect.

The foregoing approach has the potential to provide a framework to: 1) permit many currently serious problems (the criminal justice system, the field of education, economic conditions, world government, war, folk religions, child raising, use of natural resources, exploration of space, medicine, abortion, the way societies are organized, etc.) to be solved automatically, or, 2) at least provide guidance in solving them. Also, the foregoing approach would incorporate wisdom as well as science.

This new science of ethics will define what it means to have an enlightened community made up of enlightened persons and provide a blue print so both can be achieved.

How do folk religions deal with the "meaning of human life"?

.