Never underestimate the power of our preconceived beliefs about what we think must be true. We may claim to be objective and diligently seeking to go wherever the evidence leads, but are we even aware of our presuppositional biases? From what foundation are we really building off of? What beliefs precede our examination of the evidence? What foundational convictions narrow our field of vision?
Too often, these questions are not adequately considered in both philosophy and science. It is easy to claim objectivity, but frequently we do not reflect on the way that our beliefs interconnect and influence one another. This does not mean that we are incapable of recognizing and setting aside bias, but we should at least recognize where our foundational beliefs need us to land.
Everyone Has Skin in the Game
For instance, an orthodox Christian needs to believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ was really a historical event. They may look at the evidence and make objective arguments that claim that the evidence truly is best read to support this conclusion.
That is a fair argument to make. But, it is also fair to put the cards on the table and honestly say that although one believes the evidence leads here, it is also critical for one’s worldview.
The above example seems obvious to most. The average person can immediately recognize that a Christian has skin in the game when dealing with the resurrection. However, so do most (if not all) people with any worldview-shaping belief. And, philosophical materialism is no exception.
Conclusions Required For Survival
The problem with materialism though, is that the deck of cards can seem less obvious to the less informed. A scientific argument can be made that presents the clear-cut case for how all our behavior and our entire conscious experience is really just a complex material process of the brain. No mind needed, just matter.
However, it is important to note that the true materialist needs to come to this conclusion. Just as with the resurrection, this doesn’t mean that any given argument is wrong, but it does reveal that the final conclusion is necessary to maintain one’s foundational beliefs.
It is impossible for a materialist to conclude otherwise, while still maintaining their materialism. This is obvious bias. It can be set aside. It can be properly recognized and factored in. It does not mean the person has no right to argue for the position. But it just can’t be ignored. Philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes this when he observes that:
Psychophysical reductionism is an essential component of a broader naturalistic program, which cannot survive without it. The naturalistic program is both metaphysical and scientific. It holds both that everything in the world is physical and that everything that happens in the world has its most basic explanation, whether we can come to know it or not, in physical law, as applied to physical things and events and their constituents.1
Basically, the metaphysics and the science are irreducibly interconnected. They must tell the same story. Any explanation of every aspect of consciousness must ultimately be reduced to the physical. If the science revealed otherwise, the metaphysic would no longer survive.
Owning our Presuppositions
Again, this observation does not mean that the view is necessarily false. Nor, that one cannot argue for a position that is influenced by their worldview. Nor even that arguments like this can’t strengthen one’s views.
Any robust worldview would expect to be able to use evidence to make arguments in line with it. The goal of this article is simply to demonstrate that we need to be careful about viewing all arguments as if they have no guiding presuppositions, especially when dealing with science and consciousness.
Harvard Geneticist Richard Lewontin famously recognized this when he wrote:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2
No Neutral Ground
Few materialists have put it more bluntly, or more honestly. Although we must always examine the evidence as fairly as we can, we need to understand that everyone has skin in the game. It is an inescapable aspect of rationality and reality. Secular scientific materialism is not some neutral alternative to religious belief options. It is its own construct, ideology, and belief system.
As we think through matters of science and consciousness, and as we hear bold claims that the only rational conclusion to the evidence is a complete materialism, it is important to remember that, for the materialist, this must be the case. They don’t have any other option. Maybe they’re right. Or, maybe they are still stubbornly slamming the door on that Divine Foot in spite of the evidence.
Notes
- Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 42-43
- Quoted in: Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2013), 386
Further Reading
- The Easy and Hard Problem of Consciousness
- Modern Science and Miracles: An Epistemological Chill Pill
- Protein Folds and the Failure of the Neo-Darwinian Mechanism
Photo by Sumaid pal Singh Bakshi on Unsplash
Interesting post, something I don’t run across very often!