On An Opening Assumption

On An Opening Assumption April 29, 2017

photo-1461759132494-14219c4306f6_optIs matter or ideas the stuff of reality? Or are both equally basic? Since all our experiences are “in our heads,” some thinkers believe mind and ideas must come first. Let’s call this “idealism.”*

Still stuff, matter and energy, seem to be out there and capable of being studied by multiple minds. Maybe our experiences and the stuff in us (mostly our brains) produce mind. Let’s use the term “materialism” for the idea that matter and energy are the basic substance of the universe.

Of course, ideas and especially numbers do not seem reducible to matter and energy. They don’t seem likely to spring forth from matter like Athena from the head of Zeus, since ideas (unlike Athena) aren’t made of stuff like Zeus. If ideas exist, then reducing them to matter seems impossible. On the other hand, stuff happens and that stuff seems real! As a result, some people think both matter and ideas exist as basic substances: “dualism.”

All three views have problems. Materialism has a hard time accounting for mind and consciousness.  Idealism defies our immediate common sense intuition about the world outside our minds. Dualism struggles with how mind/ideas and matter interact if they are fundamentally different.

There are Christian thinkers who are idealists, dualists, and even materialists. Christianity, by itself, cannot settle the question, though most Christians have been dualists.

Some might think that science can settle the problem, but it cannot. If idealism is true, then science could proceed just as it does. The world need not be random or irregular if within Mind and, in fact, if both Western theism and idealism are true, there would be a reason to think regularity (“natural” laws) would be expected. God is wise and not crazy. He is just and good and not merely whimsical. Science obviously could also proceed on dualist or materialist assumptions.

All this makes a very simple point: prior philosophy and philosophical assumptions about reality cannot be settled by mere science. We cannot say: “Science works, so materialism is true.” since all these basic assumptions about reality would allow for science to be done. In the case of dualism, science (if limited to matter and energy) would deal with parts of reality. Within idealism, science would explain how things work up to a point, though not deal with the fundamental nature of reality.

This is not radical skepticism about reality or science, nor is it (by itself) an argument for theism. The philosophical arguments about all three ideas (or other concepts) are ongoing and views change and evolve. Science and Christian theology may make one option seem more plausible than the others. I think dualism is the best way to go, but most philosophers disagree.

Work keeps being done! So what has been settled? There is work to do!

Philosophy and science must work together. Science will not be able to dismiss philosophy. Philosophy should not (of course) ignore what science is saying at present. However, the nature of nature is not a question for science alone, because even the assumption that it is would be a philosophical assumption that is not part of science.

Naturally, this is a very simple overview of many complicated ideas and there is much more to be said, clarified, and decided before we could build a cathedral or suggest emptying one! However, this much must be said: those that do not understand the limits of science have fallen into a gross error.

———————–

*All the terms used here can have different (and more technical) meanings.


Browse Our Archives