|
Science and Religion Isaac Newton postulated that atoms were tiny spherical indestructible objects. Matter, at a macroscopic level, is understood as consisting of large amalgams of atoms. From the perspective of Newton's Laws of Motion matter is understood as being objects with length, breadth, height and weight. Within the context of mainstream Philosophy of Mind the brain is understood as being composed of matter. Accordingly the emergence of experience and thought is considered to be a great mystery. The question is, does the material brain do the thinking and experiencing, or does the brain generate a non-material mind which then thinks and experiences? Either possibility has its problems for philosophers, but a concept called Ockham's razor tends to make most philosophers favour a materialist (i.e. that the brain thinks) rather than a dualistic (i.e. that the brain generates a mind which thinks) approach. The term "dualism" refers to the concept that there are two types of substance, "stuff", in the universe, mind and matter. Ockham's razor holds that, all things being equal, the simpler solution to a problem is to be favoured over a more complex one. That there exists only matter, rather than both mind and matter, is generally favoured by the philosophical community. Dualistic explanations of the mind-body problem are considered odd, quirky and unscientific. However, there is general consensus among the philosophical community that a satisfactory explanation of the mind-body problem, whether materialist dualistic, has not been found. A phenomenon that be-devils the Western world is the humanities/science divide. I have studied quantum physics at third level. Newton's second law is F=Ma, where "F" is force in newtons, "M" is mass, or weight, in kilograms and "a" is acceleration in meters/second/second. In Copenhagen, in the late 1920's and early 30's, the world's leading physicists interpreted the findings of physics experiments carried out in laboratories around the world, resulting in what is called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It seems that the quantum mechanical equivalents of F=Ma cannot make sense unless one factors in an observer (i.e. a mind) that is different in nature to the rest of reality. Physics, the study of physical or material reality, came up with a definitive solution to the mind-body problem, essentially a dualistic solution, around 1930. And the humanities side of the science-humanities divide didn't seem to notice. In the mid 1950's an alternative mathematical analysis of the same sort of experiments as those of pre-1930's was discovered. This made little or no difference to physics as practiced in laboratories but opened the possibility of materialistic explanations of the mind-body problem. There is for and against the 1930's and 1950's interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, either interpretation makes little difference to the practice of physics in such settings as laboratories. In the 1950's (or "many worlds") interpretation, materialist models of mind, preferred by academic philosophers, are possible but lack the Ockham's Razor weighting in their favour. Scientists who study material reality, that is, physicists, tend towards the belief that a non-material mind exists. This belief is derived from hard physical evidence. Philosophers who study the relationship between mind and matter overwhelmingly favour materialism. However their conception of "material" reality bears very little relationship to matter as scientists understand it. Extreme materialist philosophers regard the belief that the mind exists as being a "folk psychology", little better than a superstition. However, most philosophers of mind have only a "folk scientific" conception of what matter, material reality, actually is. Hard scientific knowledge points to the likelihood of the existence of the soul. While I claim no special expertise in the field, extrapolating from what knowledge I have the question as to the immortality of the soul must be an emphatic and definite "maybe". Within non-scientific academia there is an overwhelming bias in favour of atheism, far more than there is among the population in general. Religiosity is often considered absurd and the preserve of the simple-minded. And the basis for this anti-religious consensus is an appeal to a science that doesn't exist in reality. The conception of material reality that is commonplace among the humanities intelligentsia is often little better than a layman's understanding of that aspect of science that is useful for macroscopic technological applications; Newtonian science. There is much popular literature on the religious dimension of modern physics, some from reputable sources. It appears that our non-scientific intelligentsia holds to atheism with an extreme level of certainty. The basis for this certainty seems to be an appeal to a conception of what constitutes science that is little better than a superstition; an Art's student's fantasy. I am not suggesting here that science validates the dogmas of mainstream religions; but that the atheism of mainstream academia is a result of a failure to comprehend how very complex material reality actually is. If belief is to be understood as informed conjecture then modern science seems to demonstrate, not that God exists, but that God's existence is likely. God or, at least, something akin to God, seems to be the best and wisest bet. Brendan Burke MA(Phil) Cork April 2006. |