Science & Materialism: Final Thoughts
So, by necessity, I have to wind up my review of science and the predominantly
materialist philosophy of today's scientists. What is clear to me is that - even
in a materialist context - science still has a long way to go. Some scientists,
like their predecessors at the end of the 19th century, are once again
confidently predicting that only the intricate detail is left to complete. But
if you have read the previous pages, or have attempted even a cursory study of
the subject yourself, you can be left in no doubt that the astounding
developments since late 19th century have thrown up more questions than answers.
This is just like life itself: when I was 20 I thought I had it all down pat. I
did not think there was much more to learn about the general "big picture"
although I knew that I could (if I wished to) dedicate the rest of my life to
the study of just one minute aspect of that big picture. In other words, I could
fill in some of the details. How wrong I was. I have continued to learn and
modify my philosophy - my concept of the big picture - in the 30-odd years
since. And now, even with the benefit of hindsight, I find that I too have more
questions than answers.
Therefore, to conclude this section, I would like to take a look at some of the
questions still facing science today. I certainly don't have the answers but can
the materialist paradigm eventually provide them? Needless to say, I doubt it.
Indeed, it seems to me that the deeper we probe nature, whether on the
microscopic or the cosmic scale, the more we see hard, billiard-ball physicalism
being challenged.
This discussion started with rationalism and science is nothing if not rational,
isn't it? Rationalism is just plain old common sense, right?
Einstein himself is
quoted as saying: "
Common sense is the collection of
prejudices acquired by age eighteen." And plain old common sense was to
take a pounding when Einstein published his Special and General Relativity
theories. Relativity trashed the notion of absolutes (except for the speed of
light). Without absolutes, how can anything be measured, weighed or quantified
in any accurate way? For day-to-day purposes our measurements all seem accurate
and consistent but this is only because we live in a stable environment
(relatively speaking). On the surface of the planet, at a more or less constant
gravity and experiencing velocities that are a very small percentage of light
speed, we do not experience relativistic effects. Good old Newtonian common
sense is perfectly adequate for our mundane frame of reference.
What if there are (absolutely) no absolutes? What if everything is relative? How
far can we trust our senses - or our science - if a measurement made here has no
relevance somewhere else? If today is only today for me and you but not for some
other being elsewhere in the universe? Space and time (spacetime) have been
shown to be elastic to the point (literally) where space becomes so curved its
dimensions are meaningless. At that point time becomes an eternal moment.
A dimensionless place in an eternal now. It makes the brain hurt to think of it
but could this be the natural state of being? It might sound like a state of
non-being but it perhaps it is the only existence that makes sense: boundless
and timeless; absolute freedom; the singularity. The One. And within the One,
all is possible: endless dimensions and different perceptions of time.
Relativity means that the solid, common sense rules of physics, geometry and
time are local to a given frame of reference. Our entire universe is a large
scale frame of reference and who is to say that there are no other universes,
with their own physical laws, consistent within but strange when viewed from our
point of reference? But how could such an incompatible system be viewed from
here? Probably not by physical means because our physics might be so radically
different. So do we have a common point of contact? Perhaps. Perhaps via the
One. Especially if, as I believe, the One is pure consciousness.
If Relativity has thrown the spanner of uncertainty into the works on the cosmic
scale, then it might be said that uncertainty
defines the microscopic scale.
Heisenberg said it and people - even Einstein - didn't like what they were
hearing. God doesn't play dice. But what do we mean by uncertainty? Is it really
pure, random chance or - as with modern Chaos Theory - does it just appear so?
It is the old determinism vs. free will debate again: was everything that ever
happened, or will happen, determined at the outset (the outset presumably being
the Big Bang) or do we have the freedom to influence the outcome of events? For
some, Quantum Mechanics holds ajar the door to free will. Some believe that
consciousness collapses the waveform thus moving an event from potential to
actual. For others, such as physicist Victor Stenger, the idea is utter
nonsense. After all, the doubters would insist, how could consciousness collapse
the waveform before consciousness itself evolved? A fair point if you happen to
believe that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of the purely physical
workings of the human brain.
That very point frames the big question: is consciousness physical? The whole
materialist edifice is built upon the conviction that consciousness is a
by-product of evolution: Darwinian natural selection. Many would restrict the
definition of consciousness to human thought alone. Thought that is produced in
a peculiarly adapted organ of the central nervous system and found only in human
beings and, perhaps, to a limited extent in some of the higher primates.
Materialist scientists find themselves sharing with some otherwise unwelcome
bedfellows here: many religious people also believe that only humans are capable
of thought. To others however - myself included - human thought is only one
manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness singular. The One. For me there is
only consciousness and if human thought is one manifestation, then the human
body, its environment and the physical universe in which it dwells are other
manifestations of that same consciousness. There is nothing outside of
consciousness. Consciousness creates everything and everything is within - there
is no without.
Is this a crank view? The kind of new-age mystical mumbo-jumbo that no
self-respecting scientist would ever deign to consider? I think not. There are
scientists who hold similar views. I've included on this web site an
article by
Donald Hoffman - a scientist - saying much the same thing. There are others
holding similar (though not identical) views :
Amit Goswami,
Fred Alan Wolf and
F. David Peat among the more well known and widely published. I am
not speaking
here of scientists who happen to have a religious faith - there are many of
those too - but of scientists who, often as a result of their work, have come to
very similar conclusions to those I'm attempting to express in these pages.
Having said all that I would be the first to admit that, sadly, the numerical
advantage lies with the materialists, and hugely so.
Why is this so? I believe it could be a cultural thing. I would imagine that
many of today's scientific and academic establishment are about my age, born
in the decade following World War Two. When I was growing up it was a time of rebellion: we wanted to throw
out the old order, characterised by the religious, aristocratic and military
hierarchies. The old guard had taken us to war over and over again in the name
of God, King or empire. A left-wing zeitgeist prevailed in the universities:
this was the time of Philby, Burgess and Maclean. Part of this left-wing
worldview was an almost obligatory commitment to atheism and rejection of the
supernatural. Indeed, for out-and-out Marxist-Leninists, this was obligatory.
Materialism was the new dogma. The students of the sixties became the professors
of the 80's and beyond. Today, I believe, there is a materialist orthodoxy which
pervades not only academia but also many areas of public and private life
including - importantly - the media. Richard Dawkins is a regular contributor to
the more intellectual newspapers in Britain such as the Guardian and the
Independent. He, Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman (all allied with CSICOP, it
should be noted) are often wheeled in by the BBC to add "expert" comment - as if
they were part of some scientific priesthood who somehow have access to the
"truth". The media - encouraged by this academic orthodoxy - has gone beyond
scepticism, through cynicism and into scorn, sneering and character
assassination. Anyone who might remotely be seen as a challenge to the
materialist dogma is branded heretic and attacked without mercy. A prime
(prime-time, even) example of this was the BBC's disgraceful use of selective
editing in an episode of Horizon (a show that boasts meticulous adherence to the
truth) dealing with Graham Hancock's theories about ancient civilizations.
Hancock was not even invoking the supernatural in his books, he was merely
positing an alternative to the orthodox academic line on ancient history. For
this he was subjected to documentary half-truths, disrespect and academic
ridicule more characteristic of the schoolyard than of the great halls of
learning.
There can be little doubt, therefore, that there is a concerted campaign to
belittle and stifle dissenters by an academic orthodoxy pervaded by dogmatic
materialism. Some of their targets, to be frank, deserve much of the criticism
they receive. But this is a recognised tactic: lump together the obvious cranks
with the serious - but alternative - thinkers and they all get tarred by the
same brush. In the right-hand column of this page, I have included some links which serve as
examples of what I'm talking about here. I guess it has become something of pet
conspiracy theory for me, but if you browse through those links or keep a
watchful eye on the media, you will notice the same names keep cropping up
time-after-time. Look out for the usual suspects:
And, for the sake of balance, a few of the people in science who have dared to
risk ridicule from the materialist majority:
This section is about done but that doesn't mean that I've said all I have to
say about either science or materialism: I will return to these subjects
throughout the website. I've tried to present an overview of how and why the
scientific establishment has become so dominated by materialism and, while I've
tried to be fair in this presentation, it was always inevitable that my own
opinions would come through in the commentary. Although I am not a materialist,
I can understand why so many are. My admiration for the great scientists -
materialist or not - remains immense and I happen to believe that science has
made some great advances over the past few centuries. Indeed, I would not be
alive today were it not for some of those advances in the fields of medicine and
surgery. But there are scientists who have glimpsed an alternative to a purely
reductionist worldview and I am sad to see these pioneers subjected to such
scorn and ridicule from their colleagues and the media.
Meanwhile, if I have held the attention of any religious readers to this point
then pray read on. And if I might have given the impression that I favour
religious dogmatism over materialism, the next section might come as something
of a surprise.