Apologetics

---

One Giant Leap Backwards for Mankind:

How Materialism is Anti-knowledge

By: Justin Wishart

Is there a being or concept more pondered than that of god? Since recorded history, man has asked how and why we are alive. The French philosopher Descartes once stated, “Je pense donc je suis”. (“I think therefore I am”) One is left, after they become aware of themselves, to then contemplate the source of their existence. There are many conclusions that humankind has devised. Most generally, there are deistic, theistic, or atheistic explanations. This is perhaps the most fundamental question we have asked ourselves and with such divergent views, one can become overwhelmed. Yet, this question must be explored. Why? Because, the answer to this question will fundamentally change the way you live, think, and feel.

With this in mind I would like to present two arguments that point towards there being a transcendent God. I understand that these arguments do not provide absolute proof for God’s existence on their own. It may be pointed out by critics that these arguments constitute a “god of the gaps” class of argumentation. However, most Materialists often use what Dr. Phil Fernandes called the “chance of the gaps” argumentation. While atheists accuse theists as invoking God as an explanation to all unknown phenomenon, materialist likewise use chance as the ultimate cause of all phenomenon, including unknown ones. In most cases, this accusation by a Materialist ultimately commits the fallacy of “special pleading”. If we use knowledge that is common to us, and the most reasonable conclusion turns out to be God, I should not be accused of using a “god of the gaps” argument. The Materialist is free to have faith that one day a naturalistic explanation will explain the unknown information, yet the best we can do now is use the knowledge we posses in the here and now to come up with the most reasonable explanation. Any attempt from either side to use a “neutral common ground” demands no less!

I would also like to take a moment to point out that these arguments do not point to any specific god or religion. A Jew, Muslim, Christian and Deist can use these arguments without sacrificing their faith. The arguments are meant to challenge the naturalistic atheist claim that everything in existence is a result of matter/energy + chance + time.

The Argument from Abstract Concepts

I define, for this article, an abstract concept to be anything that exists in a mind that possesses no physical properties. Examples include logic, knowledge, memory, emotions and numbers. A further breakdown of what an abstract concept is could be done; however, it is not important to do so in this article. The foundation of the argument will not change based on a more refined definition.

1. If God does not exist, abstract concepts would not exist.
2. Abstract concepts do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I call this the strong form of this argument. I find this form unsatisfying as I cannot ultimately prove premise one. If my first premise is improvable, the rest of the argument becomes suspect. To put it frankly, I would stretch the argument beyond its capabilities as I would have to be omniscient before I could prove premise one. So, I refined this argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, abstract concepts would probably not exist.
2. Abstract concepts do exist.
3. Therefore, God probably exists.

Premise One

Did a Mind create abstract concepts or did matter produce it? Which came first? Since abstract concepts exist (as I will argue for in premise two) in minds alone, it is a fair question. Can the Materialist point to somewhere outside of a mind where abstract concepts exist? Since we have only observed that abstract concepts originate from a mind, the naturalist has to provide a process for the formation and sustaining of these abstract concepts. If a transcendent Mind does not exist, how did mindless matter develop the capability of a mind, with the capability of realizing abstract concepts? In the Bible, God is said to make people in His image. This is easily understood to mean that God gave us the ability to exercise the aspects of our minds we find most noble, including abstract concepts.

“But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God’s image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God.”

A transcendent mind, which is the source of abstract concepts, created minds capable of abstract concepts, aptly explains where abstract concepts came from. Without this transcendent mind, the process or complex chemical reaction that produces this effect needs to be brought forth, which is, as far as I know, now lacking.

In, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Ron Weasly drinks a love potion which then causes him to predictably fall in love. It’s an interesting idea; being able to create a complex chemical reaction that produces an abstract concept such as love. However, this is alchemy which was abandoned many years ago. Today, we have chemistry. A complex chemical reaction cannot be created to force the concept of love on an unsuspecting victim. If mindful human attempts cannot produce this compound, how did mindless chance produce it? In theism, we have an explanation, In Naturalism I have yet to see one.

We have free will, which is another abstract concept. How can matter, which is by its very nature subject to mindless natural laws, go against its very nature and produce free will? Indeed, if Materialism is true, free will becomes doubtful. If Materialism is true, mindless matter is in control of our illusionary “free will”. Since we are born with a specific genetic and material makeup, and since we know that these materials are mindless in themselves, then all our thoughts and actions are a result of these mindless chemical reactions. Our actions are predetermined. We may have an illusion of free will, but in reality we do not. There then becomes no reason to debate the issue, as debate assumes a free will, and a society envisioned by Aldous Huxley should be instituted for the betterment of mankind! Law and order must be abandoned and reprogramming must be put in its place. The serial killer has no more choice to act in the manner of a serial killer as Mother Teresa had in helping the poor. A serial killer cannot therefore be condemned, and Mother Teresa cannot be commended. They are both simply how their material make-up determined they would be. Additionally, anyone’s view that it is better to be a Mother Teresa instead of a serial killer is predetermined for them and is even less valid than mere opinion.

There is a standard response that many Materialists counter with. That abstract concepts, such as free will, are simply a result of evolutionary processes. That in order for us to survive, we had to evolve brains which gave us the ability to develop abstract concepts. This simply helped us survive and that is why we have the reality of abstract concepts. This explanation has a fatal flaw. It must rely on the first single cell organism to have the instinct to survive in the first place. A fundamental aspect to evolution is that an organism desires to survive. Put another way, “survival of the fittest” only makes sense if survival is something organisms strive for. When the first organism popped into existence, that single cell needed to eat in order to survive. Yet, even if that single cell possessed the physical ability to consume food, why would it do so? It had to posses some instinct, however basic, to do so. It needed to know to move and search out food to consume. Instinct is just another example of an abstract concept. Even the most basic of organisms will struggle to survive. So, this explanation doesn’t explain anything as it uses an abstract concept to explain abstract concepts. Abstract concepts had to come into existence before it caused abstract concepts to come into existence.

Richard Dawkins postulated that thoughts and ideas were the result of “memes”. In much the same way how genes are passed to people through genetics, memes are passed on through communications such as talking or writing. They are subject to the same forces of evolution as genes. He would say that I am attempting to pass a meme on to your mind right now. Of course, Dawkins book would also be passing a meme to everyone who was convinced of this idea. The end result for someone who believes in memes is that all knowledge becomes subjective, including knowledge of memes. It reduces thinking to Irrationalism as memes by their very nature do not need to reflect reality; just that they help societies (and/or individuals) survive. No wonder we live in a post-modern era when truth itself becomes relativized. Do Materialists truly believe that true knowledge is unknowable? I would think not, as saying that true knowledge is unknowable is saying that the Materialist has true knowledge about the subject. Yet, this is a contradiction.

I read this quote and I think it aptly underscores the idea that an abstract concept such as truth is transcendent.

“With considerations such as these Augustine was able to explain the learning and the teaching process. The teacher in the classroom does not give his students ideas. [unlike the memes of Dawkin’s mind] The ideas or truths are discovered by the student in his own mind; and as he contemplates the truth within, he judges whether the teacher has taught the truth. But though the truth is discovered in the mind, it is not the product of the student. Truth is not individual, but it is universal; truth did not begin when we were born, it has always existed.”

Since universal abstract concepts exist in a mind, and we have no known natural source for abstract concepts in nature, it then becomes most logical to conclude that abstract concepts were created by a Mind to begin with.

My second premise is that abstract concepts do exist. I would think that this is an obvious observation. However, sometimes the most obvious things escape the notice of very smart people. If someone disagrees with the reality of abstract concepts, that person is using abstract concepts to deny abstract concepts. In other words, to deny their reality is to affirm their reality. This goes against the “law of non-contradiction”. To use logic to deny logic is absurd. To disagree that disagreeing is real is absurd.

Thus, one is left with the conclusion that a transcendent Mind being the source of abstract concepts. At least, that is the best running theory based on the evidence we have. We do not have a known natural source, outside of our minds, of abstract concepts. We could not have evolved abstract concepts as you need an abstract concept, survival instinct, in order for evolution to begin.

Argument from the Existence of Biological Life

This earth displays an amazing variety of animal and plant life. Many animals mystify and delight us. From the small bombardier beetle of the Amazon to the great elephants of Africa, this planet is filled with an amazing number of species for us to discover. Two major theories in the Western World have been used to explain this vast network of species. That being creation and evolution, in their various forms. Some have also tried to combine these two explanations in a synthetic form. Regardless, this argument goes before evolution takes effect and uses the existence of life itself to point to a creator.

1. If God did not exist, there would probably not be life on this planet,
2. Life does exist on this planet,
3. Therefore, God probably exists


There are two events in history that I would like to bring up to start my defending of premise one. The first event being the publication of one of the most influential books ever written. In 1859, Charles Darwin brilliantly put forth the formulation of a coherent natural explanation for the variety of life on our planet. However, he assumed spontaneous generation to be true. That is, life can originate from non living matter. His work never contemplated much on how such a structure as a single cell organism could arise out of lifeless matter. This was an accepted, if not fully “proven”, theory in the science of Darwin’s day. Yet, this theory was under attack, started by the likes of Francesco Redi. However, even if this scientific battle was happening, you were still within the realm of accepted science if you believed in spontaneous generation.

“It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true [spontaneous generation] this would be most important to us.”
Charles Darwin

The reason that Darwin was very interested in demonstrating that spontaneous generation was true was because of the second event. That being the scientific experiments done by Louis Pasture which demonstrated that life only comes from life in 1862. This would later be known as the Law of Biogenesis. Darwin seemed to understand the ramifications that Biogenesis had to any naturalistic explanation for the formation of life.

Notice that Darwin’s book came before Pasture’s work. It is interesting to contemplate if Darwin would have written his book if he was born after Louis Pasture’s experiments. Putting speculation aside, I cannot see how a Materialist can maintain a disbelief in God and also acknowledge the Law of Biogenesis. Just as naturalistic belief requires one to revert to alchemy to explain abstract concepts, one also needs to revert back to spontaneous generation in order to maintain their materialism. It is not an enviable position to resort to failed scientific theories in order to maintain ones philosophy.

Thus, scientific exploration cannot support Naturalistic philosophy. However, scientific exploration cannot deny God as the cause of life. In fact, I cannot see any other explanation.

I do not feel that premise two needs to be defended. If you argue against this premise you need to be alive. If you are alive then there is life on this planet. Any more need be said?

The logical conclusion then is that there must be a God who created life on our planet. If the only two choices are a natural explanation or a supernatural explanation, the supernatural explanation wins. Since natural explanations are testable, our testing seems to point to there is something that started things in this universe, something transcendent. When our best tests show that life only comes from life, how could life have started at ground zero in a purely materialistic universe? It seems that a miracle is required for our existence.

Conclusion

As I stated earlier, arguments such as this do not prove God with 100% certainty. These are merely probability arguments. I also understand that these arguments do not prove the God of the Bible, just that there needs to be a being or force of sufficient power. However, there are many of these types of arguments. The Naturalist has been unable to answer all these questions by purely naturalistic means for a long time. I have merely chosen two that I feel are particularly hard to explain “naturally”. Abstract concepts are non material, yet experienced by everyone and science excludes the possibility that life originated from non-living matter. Every single traditional argument for the existence of God needs to have a naturalistic explanation to rationally end theistic belief. This puts the Naturalist in a very difficult situation. The more I study the more I realize that the empirical evidence point to a creator. From the discoveries found inside a single cell to the deeper understanding of our minds, each new discovery makes naturalistic explanations more unlikely. With discoveries happening daily I cannot see any reversal in the trend soon. To put it another way, the more we learn the more naturalists need to deny so as to hang on to their philosophy. In this way, Naturalism leads to Irrationalism as there is nothing objective to base your reason or knowledge (both abstract concepts) on.

Even if we were to allow that the “God of the gaps” arguments is as probable as the “chance of the gaps” arguments at a base level, surely one can see that as we discover more complexities the less likely the “chance of the gaps” arguments are true. This is because the more we discover the more chance occurrences need to be found to explain those discoveries. Put another way, the more we know, the more we need to know. This is an unsustainable theory of knowledge. Yet, the same progression of discoveries gets us closer to the conclusion of God. The more we learn, the more probable God is. I am left to conclude that thinking people who hold onto Philosophical Naturalism do so for other reasons then evidence.

It would seem to me that Materialism leads one to outdated scientific assumptions such as alchemy and spontaneous generation. Even more fundamental, Materialism leads one to the conclusion that knowledge itself is contradictory. For these reasons alone, Materialism should be abandoned.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE