the inconsistency of philosophical materialism
Philosophical Materialism is based on the concept that the Universe is solely a material dimension and that all phenomena (i.e. reality) in the Universe are strictly the result of the material interactions of the separate physical ‘bits’ comprising it - all operating in accordance with ‘natural’, immutable laws of the universe and not exhibiting, or being the subject of, ‘consciousness’. In other words, the universe was considered to be strictly deterministic and causal in operation - a gigantic ’super machine’ so to speak
Philosophical materialism specifically rejects the concept of an essential wholeness or interconnectedness between all the ‘parts’ comprising the Universe, let alone of an overlighting ‘consciousness’ pervading that universe. Religion and spirituality are considered to be just “superstitious nonsense” of a bygone era. Non-physical phenomena which cannot be ‘objectively’ verified are considered to be “unreal” or “non-existent” and “all in the mind”.
Philosophical materialism postulates that all consciousness (including human consciousness) is a direct result of the workings of a physical ‘brain’ and as such physical ‘death’ results in the destruction of the consciousness associated with that physical body. In other words there is nothing beyond death and as such “death is final”.
Because Philosophical Materialism totally rejects out of hand the concept of a ‘Creative Principle’ overlighting the existence of the Universe, it relies almost entirely on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to explain how life began on Earth and subsequently evolved. In essence, the respective theories rely on each other as their ‘raison d’etre’. (i.e. reason to be)
Philosophical Materialism is at the core of western scientific methodology and with the apparent success of that methodology in explaining much of the known universe (as defined by Philosophical Materialism) and the resulting ‘invention’ of modern technology, the philosophy has come to define Western civilisation - imbuing that culture with a materialistic view of reality which few question and which now pervades most cultures.-Alex Paterson
Given that nothing beyond the material universe can be understood to be “real” the question arises as to how so many, indeed all, subscribers to philosophical materialism can use language to explain themselves and their “reality” that is so obviously outside of their “reality”. Words like truth, beauty, love, fellowship, social values, empathy cannot have any objective meaning within such a mindset. An interesting article in today’s First Things by Dr. John D. Martin entitled An Alien Grace:
The existence of a transcendent moral law, however, is exactly the notion that such intellectually consistent materialists as William Provine and Francis Crick categorically reject, in a demonstration of philosophical coherence rare for materialists. If materialism is true, Provine admits, there is no good and evil—or, in this context, no reason to prefer the Doctor to the Daleks. Even the preference for one’s own species has no rightful place in a philosophically consistent materialist’s mind. As Richard Dawkins has noted, “Universal love and the welfare of the species . . . are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” Dr. Who knows that evolution is a “fact, fact, fact!” but still—unnaturally and inexplicably—he cares for another species. Ours, as it happens.
If the materialist account of man’s origins, nature, and fate is correct, then James D. Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, is right to characterize “Love your enemies” as one of the “two stupidest sentences” in the English language. (“The meek shall inherit the Earth” claims the other spot.) In a materialist cosmos, there is simply no justification for showing mercy to an enemy, except possibly out of fear of retaliation if you don’t.
That the protagonist of BBC’s flagship science fiction series so dramatically rejects these truths is remarkable. Throughout most of its long history, the Dr. Who series has operated as a sort of stealth propaganda mechanism for philosophical materialism. Yet it seems unable to accept the full implications of that philosophy.
> http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=877
