The early Greek philosophers were preoccupied with the nature of reality. They reached two diametrically opposed solutions: the Many and the One. Leucippus and Democritus derived everything from atoms while Parmenides and Plato attributed everything to one Mind.
The same bipolarity was present in religion. Animism was widespread at the outset but then polytheism became dominant until it was realised monotheism is more rational. The Jews were inspired in their realisation that everything is contingent and there must be is one Necessary Being: “He Who Is”.
Western philosophy developed on parallel lines eventually leading to the phenomenalism of David Hume who reduced the mind to a “bundle of perceptions” and Bishop Berkeley’s “idealism” which regards the mind as the primary reality: “esse est percipi”, (to be is to be perceived). Today these two extremes are represented by materialism and theism. The first is summed up by the title of Jacques Monod’s book “Chance and Necessity” and Richard Dawkins’s “The Blind Watchmaker”. The second is encapsulated in one word: “God” - although - unlike Berkeley - theists recognise the reality of the material world.
Materialism faces formidable difficulties even from a scientific point of view. The first observable phenomenon in the history of the universe is the Big Bang, a
singularity. No one has ever explained why this event led to multiplicity and complexity: “one” became “many” for no apparent reason. Not only that. That one event has led to progressive development which has culminated in the existence of billions of autonomous, purposeful, rational beings.
The fatal flaw in atomism is its inability to explain the existence of **complex entities **and how they became integrated. Analysis has to be supplemented by synthesis. There must be reasons why unity and harmony exist in a universe of disparate particles. The whole is not simply the sum of the parts. Modern medicine is concerned not only with physical symptoms but also with the mind. The body cannot be fully understood in terms of biochemical processes because it is deeply influenced by thoughts and emotions.
The fatal flaw in materialism is its obsession with the past and neglect of the future. It is atomistic in its approach to time because it singles out one aspect of reality at the expense of the other. It totally ignores the future as if the future is insignificant. Yet any rational explanation of a process must consider it
in its entirety and not just how it began. In fact the outcome is more significant than the initial state. We don’t judge people merely by their intentions but by their actions and consequences. Similarly we don’t understand the machine unless we discover what it produces.
The one essential element that is lacking in the secular interpretation of reality is purpose. Everything is supposed to be heading nowhere in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Even in the life of one person or animal we can see maturation and fulfilment that cannot be predicted from biological facts. It is absolutely impossible to live as if there is no purpose in existence and that is the acid test of any credible philosophy. Is it consistent with the way
persons - not only things - behave?
Materialism is not only theoretically unsound, it is also totally unrealistic. A scientist in a laboratory may be satisfied he has found all the explanations of the human body but he is leaving himself out of the equation! And what is the point of finding explanations if they lead to the conclusion that there are no explanations only causes of explanations?
“Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”
Thanks.
