The other day I was talking
to a scientific enthusiast who flatly denied that science is materialistic. He said
that it simply saw things as they were and was always willing to revise its
position in the light of new evidence. There was no evidence for a spiritual
background to the observable world and life could be explained quite well
according to the current consensus so any attempt to bring in a collectively
unverifiable theory to explain what didn't need explaining was superfluous. All
spiritual beliefs were arrived at personally, he said, and there was no way to
transfer these to other people who could then confirm them for themselves.
Therefore this evidence was inadmissible. The very words spiritual and material
made no sense to him because there was empirically perceived reality and
nothing else. Material only exists in opposition to spiritual and if there was
no spiritual there just was what was. No need to call it material.
I said that the evidence he was demanding was evidence that
satisfied the scientific method but that since the scientific method was
restricted to the physical world this was clearly impossible. It was like
trying to explain the sensation of love to someone who understood life only in
terms of chemical reactions or trying to prove things had meaning that existed
independently of the words which described them to someone who thought the
words were the primary thing. His attitude, I said, was similar to saying that
meaning could not exist outside of the letters that made the word. But he was
adamant. No evidence meant no scientific evidence. That was what evidence was
and there was none other.
I asked him what his idea of root reality was, whether matter or
spirit, but the question made, so he claimed, no sense to him. It just was. So
I asked whether he thought mind or matter came first. Did consciousness arise
from material causes or was consciousness the ground reality and all else
derived from that. Again, he affected not to be concerned by that. So I tried
again. Was reality something or nothing? If just matter or energy then nothing would really matter (no pun intended), but if it was
something then getting it right really would be important. But none of
this meant anything to him either. He couldn't or wouldn't see that if matter rather
than mind was the basis of anything then nothing had any value or meaning or
even truth. His ideas certainly didn't, but he is actually a radical
environmentalist who thinks that meat eating should be outlawed as it is an
inefficient use of resources, and private transport should also be banned for similar reasons. He
has very clear ideas about how an ideal society should be run and is
uncompromising in his attitude, freely admitting that, if he had the power, he
would enforce his ideology on the rest of the world.
To me such a person has severed his links with any natural instinctual
understanding of life and replaced that with a purely intellectual attitude
which brooks no input from any other source. In effect, he has spiritually
castrated himself and made himself a spiritual eunuch. The analogy is apt
because there is a desiccated inhumanity about him (and people like him), and a sterility
because for him nothing is spontaneous and free. Everything is the outcome of
careful analysis and planning. He studies classical music but only a few
composers interest him and what fascinates him about them is mostly the way they construct
their music. He does not deny the emotional charge that music has but seems to
regard it as a mechanical thing that simply exploits patterns in the brain.
I don't know what to do with such a person! I gave up talking to
him and he to me as we were so far apart there could be no meeting of minds. In
a way I admire his uncompromising, almost ruthless, dedication to an idea but
since it is a false idea I feel he has done himself real spiritual harm. He has
simply denied and cut out what threatens his controllable worldview and I
wonder if that is the root of this type of atheism. God threatens. His reality
turns your safe world upside down. You lose control. For a person who wants to
control his world completely the idea of God is not acceptable. So this person
has control, or thinks he does, but at the cost of killing something vital
within himself.
4 comments:
He sounds a bit like Westin in Out of the Silent Planet and Perlandra. Or one of Dostoyevsky's hard-boiled atheists - Kirilov in The Possessed perhaps? I wonder if he'll read this post? Being described in words like 'dessicated inhumanity' might wake him up a bit! Unfortunately, this type so appear to be becoming more numerous. It is, as you say, well-nigh impossible to establish any common ground.
You're right, John, it is a type which is why I wrote the post. It's not meant as a personal attack, more a warning not to let the rational mind overwhelm one's entire being and block out all intuitions from the deeper self.
"I said that the evidence he was demanding was evidence that satisfied the scientific method but that since the scientific method was restricted to the physical world this was clearly impossible."
I would probably agree with your interlocutor here. The scientific method is not restricted to the "physical world", on pain of becoming a definitionally limited world view. Someone who thinks evidence just is scientific evidence isn't going to buy into that.
There are *lots* of empirical evidence for spiritual things. Empirical evidence is based on what people experience, and there are lots of experiences of spiritual things. I am a theist and now (unbelievably enough!) a Christian because of experience, testing, careful analysis, and reasoning. There is no dichotomy here, and people who claim there is aren't doing justice to the spiritual - there is probably a lacuna in their understanding of things. I think many try to drive an artificial wedge between the empirical and the spiritual, in an attempt to shield the spiritual, but this is a mistake.
However, all experience then has to be interpreted. Is the sun rising, or is the earth spinning?
So, on the other hand, to those who have ears, listen. Jesus was well aware that certain people aren't interested in certain things, and it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise unless they have a change of heart.
I see what you mean. I actually think that a lot of people who don't believe in spiritual things don't want to and come up with excuses not to. They claim objectivity but there is a fundamental dishonesty going on. The interesting question is why are they like this? My answer is the old one that they are rebels against truth because of pride.
Post a Comment