In an earlier discussion with Ahab, we got into the question whether morality is determined by how the brain evolved. Ahab essentially was making the materialist argument that what we as human beings are is reducible to our physical structure and the operation of our physiology according to established physical laws. In the materialist’s view, we are simply “wet computers” that operate according to very complicated, but theoretically discernible, programming. There is no room, then, for free will, and notions such as “morality” are antiquated ways of describing what are really in essence physical processes. Stephen Barr’s excellent book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith provides an strong critique of this view from a scientific perspective.
Barr first notes that “[r]eligious people do not deny that the brain is necessary for much and perhaps for all mental functioning….” However, Barr says, religious people do “deny that [the brain] is sufficient for some mental functioning.” In other words, the body provides necessary structures for human reason, but it is not in itself sufficient to explain our capacity to reason. He quotes the Catechism of the Cathoic Church for a theological formulation of this concept: “Spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”
Barr highlights how scientific materialism destroys any notion of free will. He says,
i]f free will, as it is traditionally understood, is real, then scientific materialism is certainly wrong. The reason is simple. Scientific materialism is the view that (a) only matter exists, and (b) matter is governed by the laws of physics and nothing else.
The scientific materialist views free will as a naive myth, or redefines free will to mean choices that are not coerced by external forces (and that are made only in accordance with our internal “programming”). Proponents of these views typically view themselves as promoting rationality as against religious or mythical views of the human spirit.
In this effort to promote rationalism, however, the materialist destroys the foundations of reason. As Barr notes
The very theory which says that theories are neurons firing is itself naught but neurons firing…. Why should anyone believe the materialist, then? If ideas are just patterns of nerve impulses, then how can one say that any idea (including the idea of materialism itself) is superior to any other? One pattern of nerve impulses cannot be truer or less true than another pattern, any more than a toothache can be truer or less true than another toothache.
Moreover, by taking this reductionist position, the materialist cedes any ability to criticize those who hold other views. Here, Barr quotes the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who wrote “He who says all things happen of necessity cannot criticize another who says that not all things happen of necessity. For he has to admit that the assertion also happens of necessity.”
Later in the book, Barr offers some additional fascinating critiques of materialism based on mathmetics and quantum theory. Hopefully I’ll get to review those in another post. And, I hope at some point to wrestle a bit with the theological implications of these arguments as they relate to the Reformed tradition. Barr writes as a Roman Catholic, so his understanding of free will likely differs from a Reformed view. Nevertheless, I think a moderately Reformed position should be consistent with Barr’s critique of materialism.