Introduction
We like boxes don't we? We love to put things in them and stick a label on the
outside. The news media, in particular, seem to be obsessed with boxes.
Especially boxes labelled "eccentric", "fanatic", "asylum seeker", "liberal",
"tree hugger" and oh-so-many more. It seems that if we can put something or
someone into a box, we can identify them as "other", as in: other than "normal";
or other than "us". Of course, we are always normal, we define the norm. We
belong in the box marked "normal".
Philosophy, as an academic discipline, has taken box labelling to a high art.
Every conceivable doctrine has a label, usually to be recognised by the word
ending: "ism", while the practitioners of each ism has the tag: "ist". Someone
of a political leaning might be a socialist, a communist or, at the other
extreme, a fascist. Scientists might be Darwinists, materialists or relativists.
Academic philosophers have a host of isms to themselves, including humanists,
existentialists, dualists or idealists.
Society at large seems to have gravitated into two distinct groups with a
nebulous area in the middle. On the one side are those who like to refer to
themselves as rationalists while towards the other end of the scale we find the
religious and, at the extreme, the religious fundamentalists. The middle ground
is occupied by the rest: those who do not subscribe to the idea that life, the
universe and everything is one colossal fluke; nor do they take the view that we
are the creation of some personalised deity. Among this group we would find
those who might describe themselves as New Age (while the other two groups
usually describe them as loonies or cranks). Generally, these are people who
sense a spiritual reality but are not necessarily religious. Here too we will
find a full spectrum of ideas, many of which are, admittedly, downright barking
mad. Nevertheless, this middle ground is where my own tent is pitched: it is my
spiritual home.
But before I launch into a justification of my own views, I will take a look at
today's mainstream thinking from the perspectives of both rationalism and
religion.
When you think about it, the rationalists have picked themselves a pearl of a
label for their box. If I am rational, then anyone who disagrees with me must be
irrational. End of debate; I win.
Not so fast. I suspect that many of those who call themselves rationalists, do
so for that very reason: it endows them with a seemingly unassailable position
as a person holding to truth and reason. It sets them apart from the gullible,
the uninformed and the charlatans. But are they all really rationalists? The
link to the article on
Rationalism provides a definition with which many might
not feel so comfortable. As it mentions, the question of God is left open but,
for many who proudly proclaim their rationality, God is anathema. Thus, with
apologies to the pure rationalist (if such a being exists), I include the close
philosophical family: empiricists, atheists, materialists, reductionists ... and
the list goes on.
Now, I have neither the qualifications nor the inclination to attempt even a
short history of Western philosophy but, if I may be so bold, I would like to
sketch in some historical developments that have had a direct and important
impact upon the way we view the world today. I must emphasise, in particular,
the importance of scientific advances on the materialist worldview. In other
sections, I will attempt similar overviews for religion and metaphysics
(including New Age thinking).
For a considerable portion of Western history the church and its Catholic dogma
dominated the philosophical landscape. The Inquisition kept a wary eye on
free-thinking individuals, ever ready to choke off any emerging radical thought
before it could take hold. During this time intellectual dissent was forced
underground into secret societies. Usually such societies followed ancient
hermetic teaching and practiced alchemy (more on this later). This is not to say
that many of these practitioners of the arcane arts were not, at the same time,
deeply religious believers. Their methods were merely an alternative and
personal route to truth, enlightenment and God, without the need for an earthly
intermediary such as a priest. Obviously, the church didn't look too kindly upon
the "cut-out-the-middle-man" approach as it threatened to remove its very raison
d'être.
All this began to change in the 17th century when philosopher Rene Descartes and
scientist (and alchemist) Isaac Newton ushered in the Age of Enlightenment.
Gradually, during this period, the old authorities such as the Bible and
Plato were challenged and found wanting. No longer was it enough to accept,
as an act of faith, the teachings of the Church. Newton and his contemporaries
produced theories based purely upon physical observation and empirical evidence.
The universe was shown to be orderly and clockwork, running to a set of natural
laws that remained absolute wherever they were observed. This was the physics
still being taught at my school in the 1960's and, I assume, still being taught
today.
The ramifications of this kind of thinking were great and far reaching. The
influence of the Church in Europe began a long, slow decline with Christian
ideology being challenged on all fronts. In science by Newtonian physics and,
eventually, Darwinian evolution. In society and politics, first by the
revolutionary movements of France and America and then by the largely
materialist philosophies of capitalism and Marxism. By the end of the 19th
century, scientists were feeling rather smug about having an almost complete
physical explanation of nature and the universe. Apart from a few slight niggles
such as the nature of light, electricity and magnetism, science had it all
wrapped up leaving no room for uncertainty nor for supernatural causes. This, of
course, coincided with a huge explosion of interest in the paranormal, perhaps
precisely because the collective psyche sensed - though could not prove - that
this new scientism was ignoring something deep and vital. Materialist scientists
thus began a crusade against what they perceived as irrationality, credulity,
romanticism and sheer ignorance. The principal target was organised religion but
some special and particularly nasty artillery was reserved for believers in the
paranormal. These unfortunates were to be subjected to a barrage of personal
insults, scorn and sneering as well as accusations of chicanery and/or delusion.
Even more unfortunate for those interested in such psychic phenomena was the
fact that there were (and still are) so many charlatans and cranks about. Today,
that crusade continues and is well organised. Bodies such as
CSICOP (now called CSI)
and individuals such as
Richard Dawkins have taken up the cudgels and have
pretty much won over a cynical news media to their cause.
