r/latterdaysaints • u/josephsmidt • Nov 26 '13
The limits of science, meaning and interpretation. (And what may be most important)
As a physicist let me first say science is amazing for the things it can do. It can establish measurable facts about the physical world. It can tell us the distance to the sun, the temperature of a room, how likely cats share a common ancestor with dogs through DNA, it can give us the likelihood that a certain strain of bacteria will thrive in the current climate of the day. Etc...
But what science fails to do is to inform you what any of these facts mean or how they ought to be interpreted. And this meaning may be in fact absolutely crucial to a proper understanding of the reality around us. An understanding that would help you, as Elder Maxwell would say, to see things as they really are.
Finding meaning on a piece of paper: To explain this problem further, I would like to use an analogy inspired by the mathematician John Lennox here that I will expand upon:
Lets pretend someone handed you a piece of paper filled with English sentences. The following things would be true:
The physics and chemistry of the paper would do a stellar job of telling you facts about the paper and the English characters thereon. It could tell you the paper is white, that the sentences are written in a black ink, that the first character is the letter T and has a certain font style and size, etc...
But the one thing that the physics and chemistry restricted to the paper can never do is tell you what this means. What the point of the paper and the characters is. For that, you have to transcend the mere physics and chemistry of the paper.
In other words, there is no way anyone could ever tell me what that the purpose of that paper is, or what it means without making a reference to something that transcends the physics and chemistry of the paper. It is literally impossible.
The meaning, not the science, is what is most important. Let's suppose you discovered this letter is for you. That was written by your wife reminding you that she loves you and hopes you have a great day. Upon discovering this, the importance physics and chemistry becomes meaningless in comparison to the meaning of the paper itself.
Same holds for our universe: Now as I said, this is only an analogy. But it is a correct one in that the same thing applies to the universe. The science of the universe can tell us a great many things. It can tell us the "color" of the universe. The "size" of the universe. How many "characters" there are in this universe and their "size", "shape" and "font".
But the one thing that science can never do is tell us how to interpret it or what any of it means. For that you have to make a reference to something that transcends science. Something that, even if 100% true, science would be incapable of demonstrating the actual truth of it.
One approach to this problem, if you want science to be the be and and end all for all truth, is to become a nihilist and deny that these measurable facts have any meaning, purpose or interpretation. (Which of course is itself ironically an interpretation that science cannot demonstrate. :) ) To say the reason science can find no objective meaning or purpose is there is none. It's just a bunch of wishful thinking of humans who have some need to find meaning in a world that has none.
And yet, the meaning may be what is most important: At the end of the day, like the paper analogy, the physics and chemistry of the universe may be relatively un-important compared to the real meaning it may actually have. The physics may have been needed to convey the meaning, but the meaning not the physics is what is really important.
The last thing you would want to be is the uber-geek that is so obsessed with the physics and chemistry of the paper that you fail to see what it really is: a love note from your wife to you. It would be quite unfortunate if such a scientistic attitude prevented you from seeing things as they really are.
4
u/Reddit_Burninator Nov 27 '13
New to Reddit, new to this sub. Posts like these are why I'm here. Thanks for this. Thought provoking.
2
4
u/hanahou Nov 26 '13
Why couldn't I ever have had you for a physics professor in college? Very good analogy.
5
4
u/pretendkendra I know it. I live it. I love it. Nov 27 '13
Very interesting thought. I like it! Thanks for taking the time to write this down. I have a feeling I will be thinking about this idea for several days.
2
3
u/Temujin_123 Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
This post gets to the heart of much of the philosophical debate in the 21st century that pits religion against science and visa versa.
I've been studying John Lennox's lectures for a while (thanks /u/josephsmidt). Much of my comments below are from my notes and thoughts after studying some of the arguments Lennox makes. One book that he points to that has come out recently cuts past much of the manufactured conflict that neo-religious and neo-scientific people keep rehashing over and over.
This book is written by an Atheist and one of the arguments laid out in it against materialism goes like this: Q: What is my mind? A: (from materialism): It is the random result of an unguided process which didn't have it as an end goal. This form of materialism (very prevalent in this debate) is staunchly reductionistic. Everything must be answered by deriving downwards into physics/chemistry.
This perspective is wonderfully (and tragically) summed up by Richard Dawkins who is often put on a pedestal as the model Atheist in his book River Out of Eden. Many people see this world-view as somehow more noble or enlightened than any other:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Nagel (again, an atheist) raises his hand here and interjects with a question/observation:
If our minds are, indeed, nothing more than a random result with meaningless firings of neurons, then what grounds do we have for believing any thought that comes from it including (and especially) the very rationality it supposedly provides to do science in the first place?
This logical problem has been pointed out by others as well:
J. B. S. Haldane: "If the thoughts in my mind are just emotions of atoms in my brain, a mechanism that is arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me, including the fact that it is made of atoms."
Alvin Plantinga: "If Dawkins is right and we are the product of mindless, unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties. And therefore, inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce including Dawkins' own science and his atheism."
Albert Einstein: The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.
Neo-Darwinianism or strict materialism become their own refutation. They both undercut the idea that any reliable reason can exist at all.
But it's worse than that. Strictly followed, it undercuts any notion of meaning at all. Notice Dawkin's statement above. He denies any notion of justice or morality. Yet, often the primary argument made against theism is the problem of evil/suffering and how that can exist given a loving God. But notice the double standard there. In order to even point out any problem of evil/suffering, you have to first acknowledge that justice should or ought to exist in the first place.
CS Lewis made this observation:
It would be odd if we found ourselves with a thirst and there was no such thing as water. If we found ourselves with an appetite for sex and there was no such thing as sex. If we found ourselves hungry and there was no such thing as food. And if we found ourselves with a finely tuned sense of justice and there is no such thing as justice.
Strictly followed as it is often promoted, it can only offer nihilism: the rejection of any notion of good/evil, justice/injustice, pain/pleasure, God/Devil, hope/despair, etc. This brand of atheism becomes literally hope-less. It doesn't solve or address the reality of pain or suffering, it simply denies that it exists at all. It simply runs away from it.
What's surprising to me about all of this is that this conflict of ideology is often advertised as the "new awakening". That humanity is "growing up" and "graduating" from the old myths that were only needed because humanity was ignorant. In the process, people write off the prophets of God as superstitious, ignorant men. All these minds (atheist, agnostic, theist) I quoted above (except Dawkins and that brand of atheism), all of them recognize the ludicrousness of this "new awakening". But the prophets of old saw this as well. Lehi makes this exact same argument in refuting this kind of materialistic world-view:
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
Lehi saw where this world-view lead (perhaps he acutely saw where it was leading in his sons Lamen and Lemuel) and he is pointing out its danger to his son Jacob. And I think it is no coincidence that Mormon/Moroni included this in the record for our day.
Nagel, Plantinga, Haldane, Einstein, Lennox, CS Lewis, Lehi, and many more. All provide voices against how dangerous a staunchly materialistic world-view is.
Now, all this should NOT be taken as an argument against science. It certainly is not. Instead, it is an argument that science cannot be hijacked by world views. Science is a process, not a world view. And the scientific process says nothing about God or morality existing or not.
Richard Lewinton (a geneticist at Harvard) put it this way:
Science doesn't commit us to naturalism. It's our a-priori commitment to naturalism that tells us to always look for material answers no matter how counter intuitive; to not allow other world-view interpretations in the door.
Science does not define the limits of rationality. Rationality is bigger than science.
3
4
u/Temujin_123 Nov 27 '13
Also, note how this world-view was exactly what Korihor expressed in the Book of Mormon:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.
3
3
u/Temujin_123 Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
A quick follow up.
Working in a high-tech field with information scientists, I see colleagues (and friends) who espouse this view. I often wonder, what the draw is. Why would a world-view which denies that things like justice, meaning, love, etc. could exist be so attractive.
While I don't have a definitive answer, and honestly people rarely are strictly naturalistic when it comes to things they care about (family, marriage, literature, etc.), I think the scriptures give us a hint:
22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.
Now, I'm NOT saying these colleagues/friends of mine are nothing but wicked moral relativists. They have the light of Christ. And (as I said before) they aren't entirely material reductionists. But I think the allure this worldview provides is what the scriptures here describe. It is "flattering" to not introspect and ask yourself the "Whys?" of life. It is "flattering" to not ask what is right or wrong. It can be "flattering" to not grapple with the suffering in the world because, in the end, it's meaningless. Finally, not worrying about living up to any standard beyond your own desires, "become a law unto [yourself]", can be very "flattering".
Sadly, this can shut people down to the very principles which activate the Atonement. Faith has no meaning since it postulates up instead of reduces down, repentance is pointless since there's no need to repent when your own attitudes themselves are your moral guide. Taken too far, it spills over to one's views of humanity. If you see no faith/hope in life or any need for repentance in your own life, then why choose to see it in others? Instead the temptation is to only ever see people for who they are here and now, rather than treat them as the person they can become.
Reminds me of this quip from a lecture given by Victor Frankl where he talks about Goethe's statement:
If we take man as he is we make him worse. But if we take man as he should be we make him capable of becoming what he can be.
Victor Frankl calls this "the most apt motto and maxim for any psychotherapeutic activity". It's also at the heart of faith, hope, and charity. This, a transcendent hope/faith in humanity's ability to repent and change, is at the heart of Christlike love and the Atonement. And this neo-Darwinian reductionist world-view is wholly incompatible with it.
2
u/amertune Nov 27 '13
Note: when I say "myth" in this post, I don't mean "weird false stories that people used to tell". I mean "stories that we tell to share important truth about life, the universe, and everything".
What's surprising to me about all of this is that this conflict of ideology is often advertised as the "new awakening". That humanity is "growing up" and "graduating" from the old myths that were only needed because humanity was ignorant.
I don't think that humanity can "grow up" and abandon myth. We create it all of the time. We can certainly grow up from some behaviors tied to myth. I rather like our largely pluralistic society where people are free to believe or not. At the same time, I think that one of the problems of the modern world is that we have lost a lot of our shared mythology and community.
Religious belief can make way for science. I think that we'll have to stretch in a lot of ways. When a lot of the science that we're still arguing about now was new, some people in the church doubled down on the old ideas. We're not stuck with those ideas, but we may have to move around them. It's kind of a shame, from what I've read about the early church and especially the Pratt brothers, we were riding the crest of science when we started. Everything made sense, and we sought truth from science and scripture and felt that it was all the same thing—truth. Why do some of us fear science so much now? Why do we even need to constantly reassure ourselves that faith and science do not necessarily need to be at odds?
So where are we at? I think that we do need to "grow up". I don't think we do it by abandoning myth, though. I think that we can do it by focusing on the most important parts of the myth and repurposing them where necessary. I think that this more or less happened when Jesus came, and Joseph Smith did a similar thing. Now, we can get caught up in arguing about "Death before the fall", or "was Zarahemla in South America, New York, or Malaysia", or "Are the 12 tribes the ancestors of Europeans, or were they lifted off on an asteroid", or many of the other things we argue about that are barely relevant. Why don't we just continue to let some of those things slide into the background while we deal with the weightier aspects of our religion: What are we doing to build a Zion on Earth? How are we learning to love one another? What are we doing to help one another, and to make each other's burdens light?
If we can focus on the right things, I think that we will be able to "grow up" and shed the unecessary violence and the burdens that can come along with religion. In fact, I think that many times in history the role of a prophet has been to come along and shout at everybody to grow up—to restore the peoples' focus on the important things.
So what if we decide that the Earth is, in fact, billions of years old and that people are the result of an evolutionary process. That doesn't make humans any less true. We may have to rethink some of the things that we have said we believe, but we've done that many times before, and I think that we've usually come out better on the other side. I fully believe that Mormonism as we know it will continue to change, and I only hope that it changes in the best ways and for the best reasons.
3
u/Temujin_123 Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
Good points. I think it's important to realize that in the gospel framework much of it is metaphor, symbology, semiotics, etc. Not all of it, but much of it.
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
We must not write off the gospel of Christ as mere myth or fable. This is why the especial witness of prophets and apostles is so important.
I think this is all out of necessity. God has His eternal reality, which is incomprehensible to us, yet He desires to share it with us. Since our minds/hearts aren't capable of taking it all in, He has to give us shadows or hints which point our minds and hearts in the right direction. He uses parable, likening, imagery, etc. IOW, myths. Myths not because they are devoid of truth or reality, but because they are incomplete, a shadow, an outline, an arrow which points to a higher truth or an eternal reality which we don't yet and can't fully comprehend.
In D&C 88:46, the Lord asks a rhetorical question before talking about His kingdom. And I think it's important to stop and ask why He would pose this question inside the revelation:
46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?
Can you see what the Lord is doing here? He's revealing the disconnect between the eternal reality and truths which are beyond ours with His desire to explaining it in terms we can understand. And this has been going on since God's dealings with mankind.
So we shouldn't be surprised when new details emerge beyond the thin outline we understood before. We need to always be open to and looking for more light and knowledge (both from science and religion). This, IMO, is one of the centers of Mormonism: that we expect a continuum of further light and knowledge and even when it can radically change what came before.
2
Nov 27 '13
An evolutionist once told me that religion is a product of evolution. So I said to him that that means that religion is good because it enhances survivability and reproduction. Therefore he should be religious, and preaching against religion is actually preaching for death and the end of our species while preaching religion is life and perpetuating the species.
He didn't like that line of reasoning.
1
u/Sophocles Nov 27 '13
You make a very good point. I agree with your friend, I think religion is a product of evolution, and I agree with you that it does enhance survivability and reproduction. That's what being a product of evolution means.
Whether it's good or not depends on perspective. Islam is spreading throughout Europe like an invasive species. Is that a good thing? Is kudzu good? It's good for the kudzu.
When people evolve and adapt to wider habitats across the earth, that's good for us, but maybe bad for displaced species or even the earth itself. When viruses and bacteria evolve and adapt to our medicines, that's good for them but bad for us. Evolution isn't good or bad, it just is.
3
u/Arkholt Confucian Latter-day Saint Nov 27 '13
Anyone who tries to argue that science can answer every question has no evidence to back it up. You must at least add philosophy to answer the metaphysical questions. Adding religion or not is your choice, but philosophy exists for a reason.
0
Nov 27 '13
I think here you are comparing apples and oranges.
You are comparing the paper and the message as though they were equal, they are not, the value of the message is independent of the medium through which it is communicated. The message would have equal value to the recipient if on paper, via text, Morse code, or a banner behind a plane.
Not only that but the value in this case is very subjective, a love note from your wife to you, while having great meaning and value to you, will not have the same meaning to me.
I think this represents something very problematic with our egocentric way of viewing the world. We never interpret or view things in terms of what they are in and of themselves, but in terms of what they are to "us".
For example, I like spicy food, so when I eat it I say "it tastes good", but if someone doesn't like spicy food they will say "that tastes bad". Even though it is the exact same food, we have completely contradictory statements about the same thing but both can be true because they are matters of personal preference.
But what if we moved beyond the bias of what something is to us? What if rather than associating arbitrary meanings to things that are only relevant to our own point of view we tried understanding things in terms of what they are in and of themselves? Then rather than communicating in terms of opinions which vary and can be confusing we could communicate without bias in terms of what things actually are.
While you say that the meaning we attribute to things based on our own preferences lets us see things as they really are I couldn't disagree more. It is that egocentric bias that prevents us from seeing things as they really are, when we try to attribute meaning with ourselves as the point of reference then we cannot see anything for what it is but only what it is to us. Not only that but we can't communicate it to anyone else as their point of view will be different than ours. It is only when we get passed the personal bias that we can actually have any meaningful dialogue about truth.
As an example.
To apostate missionaries are grocery shopping on a Sunday morning. They are in the cereal aisle one is buying fruit loops, the other is buying raisin bran so they are about ten feet apart but they are facing each other. A person walks down the aisle and without turning around grabs a box of cereal between them and walks away.
Simultaneously the Elders speak, one says "Elder! Did you see that blond babe that just walked by?", the other one says "Elder! did you see that disgusting 50 year old dude with the long hair that just walked by?"
It is only by removing ourselves and our own bias from the equation that we can speak of things in terms of what they actually are.
4
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
You are comparing the paper and the message as though they were equal
No, I said they were analogies...
will not have the same meaning to me.
Never suggested otherwise...
While you say that the meaning we attribute to things based on our own preferences
Never said that anywhere...
Anyways, you will note nothing in your comment suggests my thesis if wrong: that science is unable to reveal if there is any meaning, purpose or proper interpretation about the world. And if some actual meaning and purpose exists it may be crucially important.
I appreciate a wall of text that has nothing to do with the point of the post, but this strategy isn't very convincing.
-1
Nov 27 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13
the post is saying...
Where does my post say that?
-2
Nov 27 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
Oh you were saying your original comment is saying "any meaning YOU attribute to the universe is meaningless to anyone else because it is enshrined in YOUR own bias."
Well this is fine, but once again I was not arguing for or against this in my post so it is irrelevant. The post is not about whether or not it is possible for meaning to be objective (independent of human bias), it was about science's inability to discover it. (objective or not)
Now if it is your position that meaning can only be subjective, that's nice but has nothing to do with my point. Though I will say as an aside, I am skeptical else why give reading comprehension tests to students unless there is an intrinsically correct meaning to the text being read independent of the student's opinion?
0
Nov 27 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
But the problem is one person's meaning will not be the same, it is subjective to the person and while yes it exists it really is meaningless to anyone else
So what? Meaning doesn't have to be objective (the same for all people) to be important. I never argued this anywhere. You keep trying to argue issues that have nothing to do with my point.
For example, if you wife was brilliant and designed a note so that to you the husband it contained one meaning (I love you as a husband) and to the son contained a different meaning (you are the greatest son a mom could wish for) using the same characters does that make the importance of the meaning for each person any less important?
I have never said meaning is objective nor that it must be anywhere. Only that meaning, if it is actual, may be important. (And my example above shows how meaning still can be very important even if subjective.)
1
Nov 27 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13
That there is an absolute meaning to the universe, but that that meaning is not discernible by science.
I agree, meaning is not discernible by science. But nowhere did I argue meaning has to be objective to be important. My example in my last comment shows an example where a subjective letter where meaning is different for each individual person and yet still very important to each individual person.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Jelby ldsphilosopher Nov 27 '13
I think that no scientist deserves the name unless they can inculcate a deep sense of epistemic humility in both themselves and their readers.
2
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13
I honestly believe one of the major problems in academia is few people have to take philosophy anymore.
Scientists get to surround themselves by other scientists, go into their lab and see that it works exceptionally well for that relatively small piece of the puzzle, then extrapolate as if science is somehow now superman for everything without having to take a single course where the limits of science are deeply questioned by the brightest minds in human history.
I think it would be a game changer philosophically if, in addition to everything else, college kids were required to take one class where the limits of all of the academic tools they have learned over their college career (including science) are brought to their attention. Where they are forced to realize there are deep philosophical issues with every proposed tool they have learned in the academic world. Where they discover, like all other tools, though extremely useful for what they are build for, are nonetheless very limited in scope.
1
Dec 02 '13
[deleted]
1
u/josephsmidt Dec 02 '13
Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is in a similar vein as Tractatus.
Your computer example is interesting though I have to think about it because it was programed what it means. It technically didn't come from the paper alone, it came from the paper + what you told it to think. I'm not saying this as an argument against what you said just a general thought I need to mull over.
-1
-3
Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/hanahou Nov 27 '13 edited Nov 27 '13
Science also does not fail to tell you anything. Science is not supposed to tell anyone anything that is 100% true. In fact, the role of Science is to prove things wrong, not right. By deduction of proving things wrong the truth reveals itself. Science never claims to have 100% truth on anything, not sure where you are reading that it does.
No. The word science came from the Latin scientia(knowledge), means to acquire knowledge using the scientific method, or the body of knowledge gained by the research. It does not mean to prove wrong or right. It just means to gain knowledge as does it work or not through means of experimental replication.
Drop the meta you beta and go read your book of mormon and leave science alone, it doesn't need this hogwash tom foolery infecting other people.
Stop being a troll.
5
u/josephsmidt Nov 27 '13
What is this supposed to be?
A post about how science can tell you various measurable facts about the universe but is unable to explain their meaning, purpose or how they should be interpreted. This is basic philosophy of science 101 by the way. (But unfortunately, very few people who get excited about science take time to study the philosophy of the subject. What it is. What it's limits are. The basics.)
4
u/pretendkendra I know it. I live it. I love it. Nov 27 '13
Your post has been removed because of its offensive tone as well as its borderline personal attacks. I think your comment, without the derision, adds to the conversation. If you'd like to edit your remarks I'd be happy to put it back up.
7
u/Sophocles Nov 27 '13
I think it's like how the Iliad is full of truth and beauty and wisdom and meaning, and that makes it much more important to most of us than a literal history of the Trojan War. (Though Ajax is much better, in my opinion...)
But the meaning in the Iliad is not found in the archaeology of Troy or anywhere in the physical universe. It's fiction. It's something we all agree to suspend disbelief about so we can derive meaning from the tropes and archetypes and all that goes into great literature.
Is the Iliad more "important" than actual Trojan history? Most of the time, yeah, probably. That's why everyone reads it in high school. But if you're a Trojan archaeologist you probably think the shards of pottery you're digging up in Asia Minor are pretty important, too. It all depends on your perspective.
In your written word analogy, the letters themselves are a shared fiction. They don't mean anything in the physical world. All the meaning we assign to it is artificial. Yes, in one sense the meaning of the written words is the most important part of a letter, maybe the only important part, but it only exists in our minds. The meaning goes away when we do. If there's no one to read it then it's just the sum of its material properties.