Zenith's Philosophical Attack on Atheism
Introduction
It is often remarked that theism is irrational, or that atheists are more rational than theists, or indeed that the religious are uneducated and/or emotionally weak. This is an extremely poor line of thought, and while it would no doubt find favour with the likes of Richard Dawkins, it amounts to no more than propaganda. In this post then I would like to set out the logical case not just against atheism but also for theism; since this post is already
pretty long, I'll leave the specifically pro-Christianity part of the argument to a later date.
At any rate, I'm not the sort of person who commits himself intellectually and practically to something without being able to justify it. If you find long posts tiresome, then I suggest you skip ahead to the section entitled 'Conclusion' at the bottom.
Terms of Reference
I know that not everybody has studied Greek and Latin, so to make things a little easier and more accessible, here's a list of some of the more vital concepts:
Physis - literally 'nature'. Refers to the physical realm, to objects that are materially present.
Metaphysis - 'beyond the physical'; concepts of existence that do not have material presence, e.g. consciousness and the mind.
Theism - the belief that there is a personal God or gods.
Atheism - the belief that there is not a God or gods of any sort. Generally associated with materialism.
Agnosticism - the belief that one cannot be certain as to the existence of a God or gods.
Deism - the belief that there is a non-personal God or gods. There are various other terms of beliefs about gods, but these are not immediately relevant.
Materialism - the belief that "what you see is what you get." Nothing exists beyond the physical, material world. This is a key concept, and usually very closely associated with atheism (at any rate it is totally incompatible with theism).
Emergence - the development or creation of larger and more novel structures through the combination of lesser structures (often associated with concepts such as evolution).
Rationalism - the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
Some Opening Observations
It is common, especially when reading authors such as Richard Dawkins (Oxford University's 'Professor of Atheism', as he has been dubbed by his colleagues), to associate materialism with rationalism and science. Broadly speaking, the line of thinking goes thus - if we have no evidence for something, then we have no need to believe it exists.
Actually, that is usually quite a good approach to take. But what is 'evidence'? If you are able to pick something up in your hand then that is sufficient evidence that it exists. Alternatively however, there are things that we know to exist without actually having seen or experienced in any way. For example, take 'Dark Matter'. Here's Wikipedia:
In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe.
Now I don't want to get into lengthy discussions of maths and complex astrophysics (I'm a Classicist, after all), but this sums up another concept of evidence quite well. If it is necessary that something exists, then it exists.
In the case of Dark Matter, there is no positive evidence for it at all. It is quite simply undetectable. Yet observations of other matter would make no sense if it were not the case. The same can be seen in the field of mathematical proofs (which obviously are relevant to Dark Matter as well).
In essence then it is important to remember that if it is definitely not true that something is not true, then that something must be true. In logical language, ¬¬x |- x.
Now, at this particular moment we're not sure of enough concepts to start launching into atheism vs theism. Instead, I'd like to start off with questions of basic physis and [/i]metaphysis[/i]. Is it really true that materialism is a necessary component of a scientific outlook?
Materialism and Cosmology - or "Science explains how, but it does not explain why (Part 1)"
Materialism, in short, has a great nemesis - the concept of infinity. Matter is finite. Effects need causes, and causes need effects. Time it is true is limited by space, but space is also - according to most prevalent theories of cosmology - limited (stop me if I'm wrong). For instance, the big bang theory has the universe starting from a singularity and then exploding outwards. What came before this? Well, the big crunch theory suggests that the universe will eventually collapse on itself, perhaps creating another singularity that can then explode again. So what if our current universe was preceded by a different universe that then exploded on itself? Well, maybe so, but then you have an infinite regress of cause and effect that is difficult to reconcile with the finite qualities of matter, or indeed with the concept of cause and effect. Science cannot jettison the idea of cause and effect, because otherwise that leads to a vision of randomness in which objective observation is rendered null and void. If everything needs a cause, then this whole seemingly infinite cycle must have some reason for being in existence; if matter is really the only thing that exists, then there is no explanation for it existing, and cause and effect go out the window.
But these days we have much sexier theories than the bog standard big bang/big crunch theory. For instance, there's string theory, M-theory and even D-theory, among others. Although none are falsifiable and all are disputed, they do nonetheless go a long way to explaining the existence of the big bang cycle - in M-theory, when to supra-dimensional membranes of, er (I don't know what they're supposed to consist of, if anything), collide, then a new universe is formed. Maybe that's true, but unfortunately the ex nihilo problem doesn't go away. Why are these membranes present at all? Well, all that materialists have ever been able to say amounts to: "It looks like the concept of infinity is just one that we're going to have to get used to." The only alternative that I have ever heard is: "I don't know how it works out; I just assume that there is some reason that we haven't found." If a theist is ever accused of taking logical paradoxes on pure faith and dogma, then that should raise a smile to his/her lips.
Alas, a materialist cannot get used to infinity, because s/he upholds the finite nature of matter as paramount.
Materialism and the Human Self - or "Science explains how, but it does not explain why (Part 2)"
So, materialism has a problem with infinity when it comes to the nature of the cosmos. But wait - that's not all.
Let's think about the human self, or, to put it more pertinently, you. What exactly are 'you'? You're there, inside your head, (hopefully) reading all of this, forming an opinion, be it good or bad. But just what are you made of?
Materialism says that you are composed of nothing more than physical matter. Our bodies are the product of evolution, of survival of the fittest, and of natural selection (I should point out here that theists ought to believe this much as well). At some point, millions of years ago, proteins combined to form DNA, DNA that was capable of facilitating biological processes. That DNA was mixed up with other DNA, it randomly mutated, new and better biological structures were formed, and we, the human race, turned out to be the pick of the bunch (though some would argue that bacteria are the most successful life form, but there you go).
But then we come to the human mind, our consciousness. Well, materialism says that that is material as well. But there's one curiosity - our mind is an experience. We can feel things, we can form opinions on things, and we can make rational decisions of our own free will. Free will cannot emerge from matter however. There are some who will try to argue that evolution has created a combination of biological matter that is sentient. Now the most basic form of matter, at the sub-atomic level, has no physical properties that make it sentient. It can perform very basic processes of moving energy about from place to place, and as evolution develops a species of creature, the biological matter within it will carry out those processes in better and more sophisticated ways. This is the theory of emergence - certain combinations of matter create changes in processes, and those who hold to strong emergence would say that it can even create new ones. But emergence cannot on any reading result in new objects.
Something cannot, in the materialist view, be got from nothing.
So, one common materialist's retort is that there is no such thing as free will. Can we form opinions? No! That's just an illusion. Really the choice has already been made for us by our physical instincts, and we are deceived into believing it to be free.
But hang on - that's not very satisfactory! In fact, it raises more questions than it answers. First of all, why? If the human is not actually capable of forming opinions, but is in fact just a biological robot, then why the need for any deception? Can't it just 'get on' with things? Secondly, doesn't the notion of deception require free will?
After all, it implicitly requires the object's ability to form a free opinion, since otherwise there would be no point in attempting to influence its interpretation. Thirdly, it implies a separation between mind and brain - the brain receives and processes all the sensory information, and a materialist believes that the brain acts on it automatically, so if a trick is being played by the brain it could hardly be played on... the brain!
So, it would seem that our ability to perceive and to form opinions on perception implies a distinction between the physical brain (that processes the information) and the metaphysical mind (that actually 'observes' the information). What of the other materialist's explanation, that perception and free will are products of biological evolution? This is an untenable viewpoint. The most extreme form of emergence theory states that biological evolution could produce new processes (so for example the ability to turn the energy of light hitting the retina into electrical pulses in the nervous system etc.), but it cannot produce new objects. Materially speaking, it is impossible to get something out of nothing. Matter has no physical property that makes it sentient, and sentience is evidently not just a process (free will is after all inconsistent with mechanical process, and the ability to be aware of observation and to form opinions shows that there is another 'object' besides the physical brain that is taking up that part of the equation).
Put quite simply, if materialism holds true, then the human brain is at best a mechanical robot, unable to be aware of itself and simply performing tasks. But we do have awareness; moreover, we have free will and the ability to form opinions. This is impossible for the physical, and so must clearly point to a metaphysical mind. Any notion that consciousness is an illusion only reinforces the idea that the metaphysical mind is a separate entity from the physical brain.
Observations on Physis and Metaphysis
It should be becoming clear then that the materialist statement "All that exists is physical matter" is not consistent with itself. If that statement is not true then (and logical inconsistencies generally suggest that), there must be a plane of existence beyond the physical that can account by its existence for the various issues of logic that physical matter on its own cannot account for. For ease of reference (and to avoid confusion with later issues) we shall refer to this as the metaphysis.
Straight away we're faced with a bit of a problem. Scientific methods don't - and can't - be used, at least in our current conception of science, to tell us about the metaphysical realm. Science relies on physical observation and produces physical descriptions. For all that the metaphysical mind is able to see, make up opinions etc., it uses physical equipment (brain, eyes etc.) to see physical objects. We do not, as far as we are currently aware, possess the necessaries to allow us to directly observe the metaphysical. There are obvious problems in attempting to describe the metaphysical in terms that only apply to the physical, yet that is pretty much all we can do at this point, since the physical is all that we have observed. We have not observed what it would be like to live outside the boundaries of time and space, for example, so we would find it difficult to describe.
As a result, arguments must become more speculative (but I'm used to that, since I'm an ancient historian!). What we can say however is this: we have a number of problems such as infinity and intelligence that the physical realm cannot account for. These must be accounted for by objects within our conjectured metaphysical realm. If you feel uncomfortable with such a conjecture, then it should be remembered that if it is necessary that something exists, then it exists.
Conclusion - Implications For Theism and Atheism
These observations have quite specific implications for theism and atheism. Now ruling out materialism does not, it has to be said, totally undermine atheism. Just because there is a metaphysical plane of existence that presumably encapsulates the concepts of infinity (through lack of space/time boundaries) and intelligence (as evidenced by our own consciousness) does not necessarily mean that there is a God or gods. Buddhism, for instance, envisages such a situation without necessarily involving gods.
However, questions must still be raised. The metaphysical context outlined above would certainly fit extremely well with certain religions, particularly Christianity. The Christian God, almost as if anticipating these exact philosophical questions, states that, "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (i.e. the beginning and the end, the fulness of everything, presumably encapsulating infinity) and gives His name as "I Am." I don't have the time, nor do I suspect that you, dear reader, have the patience, to develop this line of reasoning much further here. However, what I think that we can at least say is that atheism is blown wide open to all sorts of metaphysical, or even religious speculation, as more and more points of contact between the physical and the metaphysical world (such as miracles, relics, icons, historical accounts thereof and so on) are considered in greater depth.
In essence however, when it is clear that materialism is false and space has been developed for metaphysical speculation outside the practical bounds of physical science, the atheist's philosophical position doesn't necessarily seem so secure anymore.
In the future I do intend to take this argument further, revise it, shore up holes, tighten bolts etc. But alas, I'm a busy man!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Irishman
