Can science provide us with meaning or is it limited by its methodology to the descriptive task? Must we look through science to find answers to our question: why is humanity significant?

This question cannot be answered sensibly unless we have an agreed meaning for "science". I take it to mean natural science, and I argue that natural science restricts its scope to describing the world in so far as it is describable through the presumption of reproducibility and a technical form of clarity. It seems to me, and to many other scientists, that the scientific approach rules out descriptions in terms of agency and purpose. Instead science is looking for impersonal descriptions that have the form of reproducible laws. If this is right, then it seems that science cannot provide a meaning for persons or agents. That does not imply there is no meaning; only that we need to find it outside science. What's more, science can inspire us to seek meaning. I would even go so far as to say that the wonders of the natural world we discover in science can lead us to a point where we appreciate better the meaning that is to be found outside of it. But that is not the same thing as providing meaning or significance. At the very least, true significance for persons requires an appreciation of the value of individuals that science does not itself provide. Christians affirm even more: a *transcendent* significance that comes from God's love.

Science does not provide meaning. It is simply an exploratory and explanatory system of thought. Meaning is up to the individual, which puts a lot of pressure on us. Some people do not like this and search for meaning to be given to them.

Ian Hutchinson says that natural science does not provide us with meaning, but that it can inspire us to seek meaning outside of science, particularly in the transcendent love of God. nas agrees but believes that "meaning is up to the individual."

What non-scientific tools do we have to search for meaning? On nas's view, what can help us lift the pressure of discovering meaning outside of the system of science? And on Ian's view, how can we end up finding God's transcendent love?

You ask good questions.

There is the age old argument that pursuing meaning assumes that we actually have meaning. The counter to that might be something to the effect of: since we have the concept of meaning it is natural to assume that there is meaning, otherwise what is the point of the concept? The counterpoint to that would be that just because we have a concept of something, does not make it so (example: unicorns).

As far as lifting the pressure is concerned, who says that we have to? Who says that we should? It may simple be a fact that our meaning is as much a part of our identity as anything else that we should have a choice over. We ultimately make many choices in our lives that help us define who we are, albeit with the influence of many outside forces. We choose our careers, spouses/lovers, define our own ethnicity, etc. Why must meaning be any different?

It could also be an inborn biological imperative such as mating, eating, breathing, etc. This is all highly speculative, but my point is that perhaps it is just by the fact of who we are with our genetic endowment, that we strive for meaning.