Spotting The Inadequacy Of A Worldview

Kerry from Glenbervie

The following picture is taken from an article that appeared in The Northern Advocate some time ago.

The overriding consensus among mainstream media can, without fear of contradiction, be termed secular, so the following I put forward because, unless you have this particular interest, this is not something that you will see or hear otherwise.

In the early development of the scientific method, in the distillation of ideas which largely grew out of the battle between empiricists and the rationalists- a consensus emerged by unwritten decree, that nature, that is the material realm was best studied without reference to the metaphysical, or rather the immaterial realm. This became the epistemological basis for science. It is comprehensively known as methodological naturalism. It grew largely out of the realization that every effect was preceded by a cause, and that cause itself could be explained and was an effect of yet another preceding cause. While this model works admirably in all proximate causes, it breaks down at the origin of the Universe.

The instantiation of the Universe is now almost universally recognized- not just as theoretically possible- but now has empirical evidence to support it, as having a beginning. Therefore, an infinite regress of causes is- if not impossible- then at least less and less likely- as more evidence comes to light.

It is fascinating that the theoretical discovery of the Big Bang and it's consequent ratification through empirical data was already prefigured some 800 years ago, by a logical argument (known as the Cosmological Argument), for the existence of God, one of its earliest formulations notably submitted by 13th century theologian, Thomas Aquinas. His argument may be best described as an inference from two sources of knowledge. In philosophy, "Revealed knowledge" is that which is taken to be true from works such as the Bible, and the other "Empirical or experimental knowledge", being that which is taken to be true from experience and observation.

What is even more remarkable is that the first few lines of the Hebrew Bible, what we term The Old Testament, was written (depending on which authority you listen to) between three thousand and three and a half thousand years ago, which offers an account for the beginning which bears remarkable parallels to the Big Bang.

For Aquinas, the opening verses of Genesis, "In the beginning God created...." was authoritative. But knowing the human penchant for skepticism, he also believed that grounding this revelatory knowledge in observations drawn from nature would help people hold the idea of revelatory knowledge in higher regard, if he could but convince people that nature itself was not in conflict with revealed knowledge- but that it indeed supported it.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, 'God and the Astronomers'

'Thomas' Argument from Efficient Cause begins with the empirical observation of causal sequence in the world. Hence, this argument is an à posteriori argument, and the conclusion is not claimed to follow with certainty.

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).' (philosophy.lander.edu...)

Where does the buck stop?

A common retaliation to this argument is- that if the first line is true (There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.) then what caused God?

But that is a false dilemma. By simply altering the first line of Aquinas' argument. "There is an efficient cause for everything that begins to exist..." God, being eternal, all that begins to exist is grounded in his own nature. Gods own nature is the efficient ultimate cause for all that begins to exist. (The same holds for the Euthyphro dilemma, in regard to the Moral argument for the existence of God. God's nature is the ground of moral good, and therefore God is not "under" the moral law, but the very ground of its existence.)

For the theist it simply stops with the uncaused cause- aka God.

But for a physicalist- believing that nothing exists outside of matter- there must be, according to his faith in materialism- a cause from within the materialist view of reality, a material cause. Before there was nothing (no material thing) what caused everything (every material thing)? Hence Hawking's surmise- and that's all it is- 'because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing' This is a philosophical claim, it is made on the basis of faith in materialism.

For most of our advances in scientific knowledge materialism has worked superbly well. It has worked, in a manner of speaking too well.

By that I mean that what has emerged is a worldview known as philosophical naturalism, which I think had a very meagre following in the early days, given that for most of the worlds history, reality was almost without exception viewed from a religious perspective at the back of all natural events. For others, whose intention is to make the argument appear much more authoritative, by garnering support from the common view that only science can teach us about reality, it may be termed a scientific worldview.

Gradually, because of outstanding results, armed by the knowledge that everything thus explored, could apparently be explained in terms of nature without reference to a supernature, the supernatural worldview that was the dominant, extant feature behind all thought, was given over in favour of explaining everything in terms of nature alone. This was most famously recorded in Napoleons exchange with the French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace.

When Napoleon, who had a penchant for embarrassing questions, asked why there was no mention of God in his work, La Place replied: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. "I had no need of that hypothesis."

That it was probably intended as an embarrassing question just shows how far things have changed.

And thus the commitment to methodological naturalism became articulated by many as a commitment to philosophical naturalism- an allegiance, or faith in the idea that nature is all there is.

My post about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" was in reference to this shift from methodological naturalism to a faith in philosophical naturalism. (www.neighbourly.co.nz...)

And who cannot understand the predilection for this? After all- the natural world is so much more accessible to us as sentient beings than anything beyond nature. Nature's proclivity for lending itself to examination by everything from microscopes to telescopes is more than enough to occupy us and live in continuous thrall to it's mysteries.

But that in itself gave pause for thought- and still does- for thoughtful people.

I cannot find the quote, but I believe it was Blaise Pascal who described humanity as creatures suspended 'twixt heav'n and earth. Between the material and the immaterial. The following quotes express something of this.

"Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed."

"It is dangerous to explain too clearly to man how like he is to the animals without pointing out his greatness. It is also dangerous to make too much of his greatness without his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both, but it is most valuable to represent both to him. Man must not be allowed to believe that he is equal either to animals or to angels, nor to be unaware of either, but he must know both." Blaise Pascal

The materialist worldview has great difficulty in satisfactorily explaining morality, consciousness, meaning and purpose, love, the arts, the origin of life, the Universe from nothing- to name but a few.

Every worldview should be appraised on its ability to unify all knowledge. Just as the cosmologist Stephen Hawking was looking for the big T.O.E. (theory of everything) to unify all physics, it is incumbent on all worldviews to account for all knowledge from a unified perspective. The greater the consistency and overall coherence on a broad scale that a worldview offers- that is able to account for the study of how we know things (epistemology) and on the study of being or existence, (ontology), as in every other domain- the more cohesive it is, the greater warrant it should have for a thinking person.

I think this highlights the inadequacy of a strictly materialist worldview to account for realities that crop up when philosophical naturalism is taken to its ultimate logical conclusions and proves essentially to be unliveable without "borrowing" unconsciously from the Christian, (or at least the theistic), worldview.

I will use one example of this ambivalence from an outspoken atheist.

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, 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 that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Dawkins physicalist view is critiqued by Klaus Nurnberger in his book- Richard Dawkins' God Delusion: A Repentant Refutation:

"...At least in this passage his approach is one of stark physical and biological reductionism. Reductionism denies meaning and purpose not only for the impersonal infrastructure of human consciousness, but for reality as such and as a whole, including the personal level of reality.

The question is how Dawkins himself can live with this idea. Does he really see himself as the victim of the evolutionary process without will, purpose and agency? Does he dance to the tune of his genes? Did he not decide to do research, publish books, and passionately propagate his atheistic stance? Is there really no trace of meaning in his life?...To deny meaning and purpose at this level of emergence is to deny humankind its humanity This can hardly be denied.

For Dawkins this pitilessly functioning universe is all there is. There is no transcendence. If nature were indeed absolute, we would be imprisoned within its dark shell without any chance of escape whatsoever. We would have no choice but to dance to the tune of chance mutations and their survival or demise in an environmental niches. We would be the helpless toys and victims of a blind impersonal fate. As I have repeatedly argued, a sense of freedom and responsibility simply cannot emerge on this basis. It is hard to imagine how Dawkins, if he took this stance seriously, could have escaped dismissive cynicism and disempowering fatalism of the worst kind.

In fact he doesn't...On the contrary, he displays a defiant and dismissive self-certainty in his attitude to nature, life and other people. The question is on which kind of spiritual resource he draws to keep alive, active and purposeful- certainly not those of his Darwinian and naturalist convictions! The answer came when I read a passage that displays a "passionate defence of human dignity and freedom in the face of genetic determinism":

Dawkins:
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

Nurnberger:
'So this is where his existential sustenance is rooted- in the mastery of the human subject over its own impersonal infrastructure. Nature is not the ultimate authority; the human being is. Human sovereignty depends on the human determination to master and transform reality into a tool for achieving humanity's purposes. The same is true for the meaningfulness of human life. Dawkins scornfully rejects the idea that atheists are nihilists. "The truly adult view...is that our life is as meaningful and as wonderful as we choose to make it" '

Numberger admirably demonstrates the incoherence of Dawkins- who goes at great length to reduce humanity to genetic determinism on the one hand and with the other- like the flourish of the magicians hand- produces the rabbit out of the hat, proclaiming loudly and confidently the ultimacy in human autonomy and a life brimful of meaning if we so choose.

Having the cake and eating it as well.

But what is the point of all this philosophy? Is there a practical value?

The influence of thinkers, like Dawkins, on culture is profound, that's why it's so important to think carefully about what he and others, like Stephen Hawking promote.

Victor Frankl, a holocaust survivor and himself a psychoanalyst- came to recognize the inherent danger in irresponsible evaluations of what it means to be human. Even our perceptions of human nature can themselves act as channels of influence in our behaviour.

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes … as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in … Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment-or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

When a society continues to give more and more weight to philosophical systems that inexorably and inextricably undermine all that we have in the past held sacred about humanity- it should be no surprise that we will, in turn, reap a horrible harvest.

I think we are seeing this reality daily.