The Problem of Scientific Materialism
Introduction
To be clear from the start, in this article I'm not trying to take sides in the science versus religion debate, and I'm definitely not attempting to promote any particular form of religion. Also, I very much love, appreciate and support real science, while at the same time having what I feel are strong, clear spiritual beliefs.
(AND....if you are put off by any mention of spirituality at all, I encourage you to ignore all such references, because there is not much about spirituality in here.)
So, this is not about problems with science or religion. This is about the problems with scientific materialism, which is a particular and particularly pervasive set of beliefs about “what is real” and what should be the proper scope of actual science.
Many of the ideas in this article are found in this book:
B. Alan Wallace's “Embracing Mind: The Common Ground of Science and Spirituality”
Overview
“Scientific materialism” is a philosophy of science that evolved in the West out of Christian and Platonic Greek beliefs. Scientific materialism emerged along with the explicit development of the “scientific method” starting in the 1500’s (though the scientific method is often traced back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the 300’s BC.)
(My description the the scientific method is provided at the end of this article.)
By the 1800’s proponents of scientific materialism attempted to completely eliminate any need for spirituality and non-material mind in describing the universe, essentially characterizing human beings as meat robots in a clockwork world (the “X Group: more on that below.)
While actual science moved has moved on from the 1800's on with quantum mechanics and general relativity, which have effectively invalidated all of the ideas of scientific materialism, the predominant cultural view of science is still that of scientific materialism from the 1800’s.
?Definition of Scientific Materialism
?Briefly, scientific materialism has five major ideas:
1. Objective Realism. The world exists objectively “out there” without any need for or even the mere existence of human mind or consciousness or spirituality.
2. Metaphysical realism. Reality is governed by a set of laws that can be described mathematically yet can never be directly perceived in human experience.
3. The closure principle. There is nothing in nature that cannot be explained by purely material causes.
4. Universalism. The laws of nature apply equally to everything everywhere.
5. Physical reductionism. Nature can be reduced to physical entities and their functions, each totally isolated from the rest, having no connection to each other except through the patterns proposed by the laws of nature.
A definition of science, in contrast to scientific materialism, is provided in the appendix of this article.
The" X-Club”
?The X-Club was a group of British and European scientists who met from 1864 to 1892.
?The X Club => 1864–92
These were among the most prestigious and influential scientists of that time. They very aggressively promoted the ideas of scientific materialism, as described in the writing here, and in B. Alan Wallace’s book listed above.
Jeffrey Koperski: How the ‘X-Club’ Played a Pivotal Role in Dividing Science and Religion
https://bit.ly/3UDqu9L (not an endorsement of Mr. Koperski's full article)
“It was not an accident, not a conceptual drift over time. In my view, the most important players in this story were a group of British thinkers… called the X-Club.”
“One prong of the strategy was clearly this flood of publication and lectures. But the other was getting members of the X-Club into positions of influence, like the Presidency of the World Society and lots of other organizations. The X-Club cultivated allies in publishing, in the church and in education, and they controlled a new school for the training of science teachers.”
Adding to the general belief in "Closure" and "Universalism", in 1897, the physicist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin looked at all the tremendous advancements in electricity, astronomy and biology that marked his age and concluded: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now.?All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
This was just before the advent of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
The Religious Origins in scientific materialism
This topic is covered in Wallace’s book above. However, I paraphrase those ideas here with some of my own interpretations.
- The founders of modern science, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, were Christian believers, so it is not surprising that they formulated a philosophy of science that resonated with Christian teachings.
- “Objective Realism” is related to the Book of Genesis, in which God created the universe without any mention of the “observer” needed in quantum mechanics.
- “Metaphysical Realism” is related to the idea that God “governs” the universe, although without being active in every detail. This is also related to Plato’s concept that “ideals” which are beyond direct perception determine the world.
- “Universalism” is related to the idea that God governs the entire universe.
- “The Principle of Closure” is related to the idea that God’s laws are complete, there are no further laws, those laws do not evolve or change.
- “Physical Reductionism” is related to the idea that God’s laws are really there, and so those laws can be figured out, and in so doing be used to explain everything that happens, in detail.
领英推荐
?Again, from Jeffrey Koperski:
“You can’t understand Descartes, Newton, or Leibniz if you take the theology out of it. I don’t mean you can’t understand their philosophical writings; you can’t understand their physics. Theism was not a useless appendage that gets tacked onto early modern science. It was an integral part of the big picture.”
“The early moderns thought there were laws of nature because there was a divine lawgiver…. You just don’t get laws for all of nature without theism.”
Social Ills Related to Scientific Materialism
The arguments and conflicts between scientific materialism (not science) and religion are too long and varied to be recounted here.?And again, as I stated up front, I’m not taking a stand either way in those conflicts (except to say that it would be of great benefit to humanity if they could be sorted out.)
?Unfortunately, in my opinion scientific materialism has had severe negative impacts on human life on earth, including:
– Amorality, based on the assertion that there is no mind or spirituality, meaning there is no essential connectedness between people, so there is no basis for moral human behavior, or any fundamental reason for social responsibility.
- Cult of self, that is, excessive focus on the individual and on one's own being, due to lack of any "real" connection to other people.
?– Reinforcement of religious fundamentalism, both as a reflexive response to scientific materialism’s denial of spirituality and also as an adaptation of the same type of absolutist thinking used by scientific materialism (although it could be said that such absolutist thinking started with religion, see "origins in religion" above.)
– Rejection of valid science. This is promoted by the proponents of scientific materialism ignoring or actively rejecting the findings of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). The problem for scientific materialism is that those findings throw into question a) the existence of a purely objective material reality (that is, a reality not dependent on an "observer" from QM) and that b) such a reality is fully explainable (i.e. because there is no accepted theory that unifies QM and GR).
- Encouragement of pseudoscience, because scientific materialism is widely promoted as "the truth" without itself being backed up by actual science.
?– Misinformation campaigns, again because acceptance of scientific materialism says that is ok to assert things without explanation or follow-up.
?– Disinterest in science careers, because, due to the promotion of scientific materialism, science is perceived to be narrow, fixed and rigid, and the fact that it is difficult to get funding for exploration outside of accepted scientific materialist dogma.
?– Ignoring or active suppression of understanding and explanation of core psychological phenomena like consciousness, feelings, and empathy, because scientific materialism asserts that they are merely “illusions”.
?- Taboos, denigration, shame and lack of compassion connected to "mental illness", and discrimination against neuro-diversity, because scientific materialist views limit exploration and understanding of mental phenomena.
?- Intellectual rigidity and argumentativeness, due to an insistence on “provability” of appearances without deep examination.
?In my opinion, scientific materialism is also a major philosophical justification for pure laissez-faire/growth-focused capitalism, which is a major systemic cause of destruction of life on earth.
?It is unlikely to be an accident that the X-Club’s promotion of scientific materialism from 1864 to 1892 coincided with the rise of the industrial age, along with child factory labor.
?Conclusion
Science is not the problem. Scientific materialism is the problem. While this may seem like an esoteric distinction it has massive real-world effects, as described above.
?The disturbing part is that I see no simple way to undo the deeply entrenched dogma of scientific materialism, which is so pervasive as to be invisible, like water to fish.
?A core challenge is that compared to the non-intuitive fuzziness of quantum mechanics and the mind boggling twists of general relativity, the principles of scientific materialism look pretty good.
There is also the greater problem that the human mind really does seem to be at least soft-wired at a deep level to perceive phenomena as "out there" and separate from the act of perception or conceptualization. This pervasive mental inclination reinforces the belief that phenomena are solid and reliable and analyzable in an absolute sense.
While that belief is functionally true and useful in navigating everyday life (and probably much easier for our "software minds" to handle, as kind of a mental shortcut), that belief is relatively easy to override intellectually if you think about it.
However it is difficult (and potentially unsettling and disturbing) to overcome that perception and belief in daily life experience. This may be in part why there is a "natural" wide-spread resistance to introspection and self-awareness.
All of which reinforces the inclination to accept the principles of scientific materialism.
Again, the problem is that while they may be comforting, the principles of scientific materialism have no scientific basis. They are assumptions only, unproven and full of holes when examined closely. Yet they are widely tacitly assumed without question, and so it is difficult to challenge those assumptions in order to undo the harmful effects that they cause.
?However, in any case, change starts with understanding what scientific materialism is and how it is different than science itself.
That's the "why" of this article.
?APPENDIX
Definition of Science
In my short explanation, science consists of
1) a method for constructing knowledge through repeatedly verifiable observations of phenomena (objects and events),
2) the body of data and knowledge that has been accumulated through that method and
3) a set of symbolic models (often mathematical or using flow charts) that describe the repeated patterns of behavior of phenomena.
4) a collective activity of "peer review" by which findings and proposed models that result from applying the scientific method are examined and subject to intense critique by other scientists before they are accepted as scientific knowledge. These reviews often result in findings being rejected, and the acceptance is often incomplete. However, in addition to being accepted by a very large majority of qualified scientists, what makes scientific knowledge valid is the ability to apply it to real world problems, and the ability to discover additional knowledge based on it.
The scientific method can be described as:
It is important to note that the data and knowledge are constantly being added to, and that the symbolic models are often adjusted or completely superseded by other models.
For more detail see:
Co-founder of The Planet Project, Author of Emerging World
11 个月You nailed it again, Jim!
The Richest Man in Babylon
1 年Fascinating read, Jim.
My teams make available people, services, and means that help manage relationships, resources, and data.
1 年1. I, too, support sciences, e.g. psychology. 2. I like it that you pointed out that we can pay less attention to certain topics. It seems useful to focus on our common topics. I like expressing myself, so that people know on what actions I'd rather spend my energy. I encourage people to share what matters most to them, e.g. about what they talk enthusiastically. After writing these words, I've seen that you refer to a book with a really important topic: the common ground of science and spirituality. 3. You wrote:? 3.1 "moved has moved" 3.2 "that is ok to" I can help you make at least small improvements. 4. Your definition of science seems accepted generally. We could also call it "guessing". Current science is a new instance of believing in guesses. Religion is another. 5. We talk a lot about science, i.e. knowledge. What does it mean to know? To what extent do we know something? Should we pay more attention to how we use our perceptions to relate to anything? I can see common ground in our thinking and in the fact that we are willing to push boundaries. How much do you like talking publicly (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/using-linkedin-part-5-julian-dumitrascu)?
Certified Trainer (TOT) from International Armored Group UAE on Armored Vehicle-Based Defensive Driving Techniques and Road Safety Awareness
1 年great