A Tale of Two Worldviews
Following on from my previous post which attempted to describe my own worldview alongside others, I'd like to look at two opposing factions in a little more detail. These two are roughly divided into the atheist/materialist and the spiritual/idealist camps. I say roughly because there are no strict boundaries here. These are general terms and there might even be some overlap. I'm not concerned, in this post, with discussing any religious point of view. Religion might crop up but it is peripheral to my main thrust here.
Atheism, materialism, scepticism, etc.
Firstly, then, I want to discuss the atheist/materialist position and please forgive me if I tend to conflate atheism with materialism. I know there are differences but, for the most part, these two points of view seem to go together. So if I use either term, please be aware that I'm generally thinking of both. But further than those two terms, there is a bewildering terminology to comprehend. Read any blog or forum popular with these guys and you will find they have terms they like to be associated with. It would seem that these words apply to themselves but not to those who disagree with them:
Sceptical, debunking, rational, critical thinking, free-thinking, scientific, reason, occam's razor, bright, secular, peer-reviewed and, of course, real scientists.
They also have their pet pejoratives:
Magical thinking, creationist, IDiots (pertaining to Intelligent Design proponents), supernatural, superstitions, God-of-the-gaps, logical fallacies, fairies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, young-earthers, flat-earthers, pseudoscience, woo, mumbo-jumbo, hippy, New Age, wooly-minded, and so on.
So the first question I would have for anyone who associates with the above terminology is, why are you so nasty? This is not a trivial issue - especially for those of us on the receiving end of such vitriol. I am assured by my atheist friends and family members that the majority don't behave in an insulting or aggressive manner. I'd like to believe that but either they steer clear of the internet, popular atheist literature and newspapers or I'm looking in all the wrong places. Because I see it everywhere.
The second question would be this: why do atheists assume that anyone who does not share their view must be religious? In many cases, not only religious but fundamentalist. There is also an apparent assumption that anyone who has some concept of God must believe in an abrahamic God: the God of the old testament. Atheists include all gods in their sweeping rejection but will generally argue as though they are attacking the idea of single, biblical divinity. So we, who do not necessarily subscribe to religious ideology, find ourselves fending off arguments against something in which we have no intellectual or spiritual investment.
I'm probably off base here and my friends are correct in saying that most don't fit the angry stereotype. Yet here's an article from the Daily Telegraph, written by an atheist and lamenting the nastiness of his fellow atheists.
Poor guy, look at the responses in the comments section beneath his article. He will be even less inclined to show his face at an atheist gathering now. Here's another article by another atheist none too happy with his fellows, as this quote demonstrates:
"If you want to find out why I call these guys Reddit Atheists, take a brief dip into the atheism subreddit. It is a place entirely defined by bitter, faux-enlightened young people sharing “thought-provoking” images about the horrific evils of religion (in practice, pretty much just Christianity) and congratulating each other for being “enlightened”. The site was originally intended to be a place where people talk about atheistic ideas, but as is Reddit’s depressing trend, it soon devolved into a swampy mess of endless, banal clichés, memes and general anti-intellectualism. It actually rivals Creationism in terms of having a narrow worldview. They’ve actually had a campaign where they would write “once upon a time” on the first page of every Bible they found in hotels, which is probably the lamest form of vandalism ever." (my bold)
Now, I can understand anger. I have seen the way US christian conservatives operate and I would be angry too. I wouldn't want to be associated with George Bush (Senior or Junior), Sarah Palin or the Tea Party either. Unfortunately, evangelical christians have a lot of sway in right-wing politics - especially in the US. Nevertheless, I don't have to be an atheist to be angry about those things. Nor do I need to be an atheist to be horrified by brutal beheadings carried out in the name of Allah.
So why are these internet atheists so determined to bully me out of my "religious" superstitions? And what does any of that have to do with my belief that my mind is not equal to a blob of meat in my head? Or my doubts that evolution by natural selection and random mutation is the whole truth (see my post here)? Or that NDE patients are experiencing something that cannot be explained by brain chemistry? Is the idealism of Plato, Hagel and Berkeley also responsible for numerous wars and atrocities?
I suspect it comes down to this: science offers an alternative to religion for the atheist. Therefore scientific materialism must be the truth. Anything else is religion or superstition. After all, doesn't all of the evidence point that way? Well, let's see, shall we?
Parapsychology and non-materialist evidence.
In the first part of this trilogy of blog posts I looked in some detail at the evolution debate and the materialist assumption behind neo-darwinism. I don't want to revisit that here except to say that if you want an example of the sheer arrogance and condescension of those who insist on calling themselves "real scientists" then listen to Peter Atkins talking down to Stephen Meyer in the video I posted on that page. Sadly, Atkins isn't even the worst example.
What I do want to do here is to present a few pieces of evidence that some scientists take seriously along with some quotes from other well respected scientists and commentators. My aim is to show that, despite the hyperbole, scientific materialism is not a done deal. Here are some views questioning the base assumption.
Thomas Nagel is an atheist philosopher who upset a lot of his fellow atheists when his book, “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” was published by Oxford University Press. Here is a quote from an article he wrote following publication.
"Even though the theistic outlook, in some versions, is consistent with the available scientific evidence, I don’t believe it, and am drawn instead to a naturalistic, though non-materialist, alternative. Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy. I would add that even some theists might find this acceptable; since they could maintain that God is ultimately responsible for such an expanded natural order, as they believe he is for the laws of physics." (my bold)
Nagel was vilified for daring to question both materialism and neo-darwinism but he stuck to his guns and even recommended Stephen C. Meyer’s book "Signature in the Cell" in a Times Literary Supplement review. This, of course, provoked a predictable response (“It is hard to imagine a worse book”) from mainstream scientists and TLS printed some of the letters from both sides (though giving the last word to the complaining scientist).
How about some quotes from famous scientists?
“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible… atoms are not things.” Werner Heisenberg
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." Erwin Schrödinger
"On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. " Albert Einstein
"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world. " Sir John Eccles (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine)
And the views of a materialist?
"Nearly every present-day scientist would agree with Carl Sagan that our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural demons, witches, and spirits of every kind, including any of the various gods from Adonai to Zeus…. We also exclude from our explanations little green men from Mars riding in spaceships, although they are supposed to be quite as corporeal as you and I, because the evidence is overwhelming that Mars hasn’t got any…
We take the side of science … because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. … To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist and geneticist)
I'll leave it to you to look up other quotes if you need more balance, although that is hardly necessary as we are bombarded with material in support of the materialist status quo every day on TV and in the press. Lewontin's assertion about "nearly every present-day scientist" is not disproved by the quotes I have used from past generations of the great minds of science but note what he says next: "our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural ...". Again, he makes the assumption that material is fundamental and he later confirms "that materialism is absolute". He ignores the fact that there are phenomena that are not explained by materialism.
Finally, for this post at least, I want to share a few examples of how serious, intelligent people, including scientists, are approaching consciousness and parapsychology with an open mind. Perhaps we should bear in mind these people and many like them have put their careers at risk by identifying with these ideas. There are organisations, particularly the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and the Centre for Scientific Investigation (CSI/CSICOP), which have been formed specifically to attack (not investigate as they would have you believe) any evidence for the paranormal. Indeed, an offshoot of JREF calling themselves Guerrilla Skeptics has practically hijacked Wikipedia in order to discredit paranormal researchers their work. Also if you scan down the names of those fellows of CSI, you will recognise all of the prominent atheist crusaders. For more information, take a look at these links:
James Randi: debunking the king of the debunkers
The Guerrilla Skeptics: Taking Creepy to 11
CSICOP: True skeptics, or blinkered debunkers
Skeptical about Skeptics
Anyhow, there follows some material of a more positive nature. There's some really interesting stuff here but it will take a whack of your spare time to watch all the videos (though some are very short). I hope you do though, especially if you are in any way committed to scientific materialism.