Doug Thiel

The Ethics of Belief

the following essay was written by Doug Thiel in 2005 and is currently being revised for possible publication...unfortunately the footnotes which are a part of this essay do not appear at the appropriate locations (they failed to survive the transition from home computer to this website)...however, they do appear at the end of the essay.

THE ETHICS OF BELIEF: SCIENCE SANS MATERIALISM

For some, science is a panacea. This often leads to the claim that there is an integrity schism between science and a Judeo-Christian world view. Science admits to no special commitments. Therefore, science is progressive and maintains the intellectual integrity to shift paradigms when new “evidence” is discovered. In contrast, Christianity must protect its central dogma (God) and is, therefore, intellectually tethered. One might point to the Copernican Revolution in the 16th Century or the quantum mechanics of the 20th Century as examples in which "old" science was abandoned and new science embraced.   Philosophically, it is unsound to suggest that science is bereft of its own version of a central dogma. This dogma is a world view best referred to as materialism. And the history of scientific explanations is a history of scientific materialism. For philosophers and theologians, this observation is old news. In this essay, I would like to take a critical look at the question of intellectual integrity, specifically, as to how it relates to a fundamental paradigm shift. Here, I suggest that integrity translates as a kind of brute honesty which is both sound and unimpaired. It is in this respect that some prosper the view that science has this kind of intellectual integrity that differs significantly from a Judeo-Christian world view. Therefore it would be useful to pursue this question of soundness…and ask, what would, science sans materialism, look like?

W. K Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief insists that a lack of integrity attends a belief system based on non-empirical “facts”. The fact that one is sincere or the fact that one has faith should not provide the necessary foundation for accepting a world view. Clifford’s argument implies that empiricism is the valid epistemology for what should count as a “sincere” belief . When applied to our concerns in this essay it would cash out as follows: empiricism is sound whereas an epistemology that embraced rationalism is unsound. I see no consensus in the history of philosophy that suggest this verdict has been rendered.  In terms of the history of science, Clifford's empirical criterion cannot explain such things as the five papers written by Albert Einstein in 1905 (theories which would not be verified, empirically, for many years to come).  Rationalism is not blind faith or empty speculation.  It is the process of using reason to undercover empirical truths and it has not always worked as a simplistic gathering of data.  Scientists who accepted the "truth" and elegance of Einstein's reasoning employed a certain amount of "faith" that it would, eventually, become verified.  What rationalism brings to the table cannot be ignored and attempts to fit it into empirical frameworks remains the stuff of philosophical debates. 

In terms of religion, I will focus on Judeo-Christian theology because it supports a “central dogma” that God exists. I am aware that claims regarding the existence of God has not characterized all of the world’s religious movements. What I find compelling about the Judeo-Christian tradition is that within the ranks of this religion’s great thinkers, epistemological arguments (independent of scriptural authority) have been advanced for God‘s existence. At times this has involved the same appeals to rationalism as that which forced Plato to conclude there was a soul. Tangentially, I do not believe as Stafford-Clark suggests that we should dismiss the science-religion schism as a “how“ versus “why“ confusion. In this view, religion is asking "why" questions, whereas, science is asking "how" questions. These separate and distinct human endeavors are “running their own races” so to speak, and therefore, they are not in conflict. This solution is question begging. If God does exist, there is intentionality and purpose and therefore why questions posses clear and separate meanings. However, it is not a premise that a scientist is obliged to accept as being logically necessary to explain observable phenomenon.

On another level I will submit that, without question, there have been many men and women of science who hold strong religious views and who were not, themselves, materialists. To many the religion science schism is non-existent and in this paradigm the study of the natural sciences "is like looking into the mind of God." 

My concern in this essay is with those that see an “integrity” distinction between a scientific world view and a God centered world view which leads them to conclude that science is “sound” and religion is “unsound”. I am not concerned with comparing the scientific method with the practices of a particular religion within the Judeo-Christian fellowship. The scientific method is an philosophical attitude. One could argue that Saint Thomas Aquinas used a scientific method when he constructed his sparse arguments for the existence of God. Rather than a method, I am concerned with those who would claim that the actual explanations of science (the actual descriptions of phenomenon) is the “superior” world view by virtue of its intellectual integrity. I support the claim that science employs its own central dogma with regards to materialism, therefore, any claims to superiority must involve how science is “unimpaired” to handle the elimination of this dogma. Hence, the question remains…what would science sans materialism look like?

When Aristotle advanced nominalism over the obscure “forms” of Plato, he became a father-figure in the advancement of an “overriding principle“ for science. Nominalism was a precursor to materialism. William of Occum embraces it and so does Thomas Hobbes. I want to say that “scientific materialism” is a view held by those that claim the only reality is the reality of discrete objects in the world. As such, it falls into line with the concerns of nominalism. There are only separated objects in the world (objects that correspond to a “naming” principle). Materialism advances this by claiming that such separated objects have mass and occupy space. And while these objects may be similar they remain discrete. The technological advancements in science are a direct result of the understanding and manipulation of elementary particles. And while there are trillions of carbon atoms, there are no “two” carbon atoms which are one and the same thing. Some would argue that science does not presuppose a world view. Science is pure inquiry with no philosophical commitments. Such a "science" may exist but it is not the science of human history.

I support the view that human science has been conducted under the over-arching dogma/paradigm of nominalism/materialism irrespective of the personal belief systems of individual scientists. I will consistently interchange the terms “dogma” with paradigm. I find it unfortunate that our use of language wants to cast dogma in a more pejorative light than it wants to cast the term paradigm. A dogma is “an overriding principle” whereas a paradigm is described as “a group or pattern of principles” This is pedagogically sound, however, I submit that a central dogma is quite capable of producing a paradigm. And what concerns us here is that the central dogma of science precludes the rather schizophrenic notion that science is philosophically “neutral”.

I have suggested that nominalism falls into line with materialism. I am aware that there are variant strains of nominalism and materialism. And, it may not be clear why either nominalism or materialism are, in fact, irreconcilable with Judeo-Christian theology. I do not believe that the various nuisances regarding a particular kind of materialism will affect the basic argument that I am presenting. The suggestion that a more sophisticated “post-Aristotelian” metaphysical orientation is, in fact, not in conflict with Judeo-Christian theology is far beyond our present scope. It is an intriguing philosophical question as to whether God and spirit creatures could be understood within a more sophisticated formulation of materialism. God as a creator or as a God that is in “control” of the material universe may not necessitate an “immaterial” substance that is beyond such a description...it would, however, require that God had a discrete, physical existence and that the “substance” of God was “real” in the same way that all substances are real. It may not be a carbon based “real” but material nonetheless. Of course nominalism seems to preclude the notion of the Trinity. And the idea that God is “everywhere” and, therefore “immaterial” might also seem difficult to articulate. Furthermore, the difficulties in understanding the ontological status of universals like “justice…beauty…righteousness” would still haunt the landscape. But, my point is that whether or not God (within Judeo-Christian theology) can be coherently described (or not be coherently described) in nominalistic or materialistic terms is irrelevant to claims regarding the superior “intellectual integrity” of the scientific world view.

The reason for this is that the explanations of science have relied on the working truth of materialism. Such pragmatic justification does not relieve this “working truth" from the claim that it is, by default, a dogma/paradigm. If all past scientific examinations of the world reveal “discrete” objects and nothing more (no independent existence for “universals” or for “things” that defy a “separated” state of affairs) then we have a working, philosophically rock-bottom foundation for human science. How does one abandon this? One is, of course, inclined to see the common sense appeal of materialism One sees individuated physical objects...and the trivial observation that while I have five chairs, I still do not have a physical entity over and above them called “chariness” has been played out many times in the philosophy of language. One is also inclined to see the vast “technological” advances that results from the understanding and subsequent manipulation of discrete objects within the world. This has caused many philosophers to clearly outline how historical scientific explanations are, in fact, reducible to materialistic explanations (as Steven Barr and others have shown).

Many present-day “science prodigies” wholeheartedly endorse the belief that materialism and science are one in the same thing. To say that human science is squarely based on the philosophical foundation of materialism, yet to say that it is also intellectually untethered is in need of clarification. Return to the Copernican revolution. Indeed a world model of how planetary objects moved was forever altered. Science as it was then understood was “corrected”. A movement theory was replaced, but there was no advancement whatsoever in terms of the central dogma. The makeup of the world was still explainable in terms of separated material objects. It was just that these separated object's spatial locations were “better understood.” When 20th quantum mechanics called into question the mathematical clarity of Newtonian physics, there was no shift in the underlying premise that the world is a combination of elementary particles. There were (and still are) problems.The problem of whether an electron is “wave” or a particle (or both?) became part of the dialogue. But this kind of “progress” (meaning progress from Newtonian Physics to quantum mechanics) did not require the abandonment of materialism. If one started with a philosophical foundation of materialism and pursued science into all its past and present discoveries there would be no compelling reason to override this dogma.

But, this would not mean that in principle the dogma is fixed. In other words, if science turned up evidence to support that three separate objects were not separate but existed in a state of sameness...not sameness in the sense of “descriptors“...but sameness in a profoundly metaphysical sense...a sense over and above their physical properties, then, it would be “unscientific not to believe” to use a Bertrand Russell phrase. So, the difference between believing there is a God and the difference in believing that materialism is the appropriate scientific model seems to involve an important distinction. But I believe this intellectual “distinction” quickly turns into a kind of fool’s gold. The intellectual “gold” seems to be that a religious paradigm cannot accept the possibility that God does not exist. Whereas, the scientific paradigm can accept the possibility that materialism could be disproved (by some future experimental discoveries…perhaps in the realm of a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics).

But what does this mean in terms of intellectual integrity? From the religious side we must consider…is it self-contradictory for one to believe in the central dogma of Judea-Christian theology (God) and accept the “intellectual” possibility that God may not exist? For many religious persons this is exactly the kind of existentialism that typifies their exercise of faith. In other words, for many persons the religious experience is based on a rational belief concerning God's existence and the personal faith that this rational belief is true. It is not based on the intellectual possibility that God does not exist. While God’s existence remains a fixed paradigm or starting point for the exercise of religious belief, it does not mean that all religious persons reject the possibility that God might not exist. And this seems very similar to the way science has attached itself to materialism. Here, the basic idea is that the world is comprised of separate objects which are observable even if “not observable” to human sensory perception. When interpreted by extra sensory machines, they still remain separate from one another. This is the present day nominalism-inspired “god” paradigm of materialistic science. The progress of science has been an on-going grasp of how these real objects interact.

Admittedly, within this paradigm there is no fixed theory about how such interactions must occur. There are scientific laws which survive only so long as they explain, effectively, these interactions. Materialism, as the over-arching dogma/paradigm has remained the working default model. The fact that one is willingly to imagine a science in which materialism can be shown to be false is no more compelling than the anguish of a religious person who admits that when all is said and done...there may not be a personal God. To both individuals it may seem inconceivable that that their foundational paradigms could be proved to be wrong...but it is not the same as saying that only the “scientific materialist” maintains a position in which such a possibility is allowed. And this admission precludes claims for greater intellectual integrity.

Here, one is tempted to say that there are religious persons who would clearly deny any possibility regarding God‘s non-existence. Persons who would maintain that the basis of Christianity demands that such intellectual doubts remain heretical and unacceptable within a basic Judea-Christian belief system. Many would counter argue that such absolutism dismisses the poignancy of faith. My rational faith that God exists is something that I sustain in spite of the fact that my intellect can grasp the possibility of God's non-existence (here, I am reminded of Pascal’s wager). This does not equate to an irrational or "blind faith" concept of God. Nor does it question one’s intellectual integrity. One can certainly articulate philosophical reasons for believing in the existence of God. One may also combine such reasons with personal experiences that helps sustain a religious commitment. But this does not entail the denial of the counter-possibility. I would suggest that many within the Judeo-Christian faith would acknowledge what it means to have faith in God...to accept the "dogma" of God's existence…with the understanding that an ultimate “proof” regarding this dogma is not beyond question.

In the history of science, the underlying philosophy of materialism is the foundational basis for scientific laws and for an understanding of the so-called natural sciences. I also believe that a scientific materialist would hold that this foundation is not beyond question.

However, a scientific materialist might suggest that a clear intellectual distinction still remains. After all, the entire basis of the Judeo-Christian system centers on the God dogma. Take that away and there is no Judeo-Christian religion. However, take the "god-figure" of materialism away from science and "science" still continues. Hence, the qualitative difference centers on an appreciation for what it would mean to lose the central dogma. And in this case, science appears to be the lone survivor.

I think it would be wise to suggest that “survivability” and intellectual integrity are not the same thing. But to pursue this aspect, let us say that “soundness” entails the ability to survive a paradigm loss. In order to explore science sans materialism, let’s re-explore the current nature of the relationship of science and materialism. I previously mentioned that certain problems emerged in the 20th Century between classical physics and quantum mechanics. What is clear is that the comments made by Bertrand Russell in 1925 do not apply:

"Physical science is thus approaching the stage were it will be complete, and therefore uninteresting. Given the laws governing the motions of electrons and protons, the rest is merely geography--a collection of particular facts telling their distribution throughout some portion of the world's history."

The antidotal comments of modern day physicists are both interesting and notorious. And while many quotes could be offered, perhaps the famous comment attributed to Neils Bohr sums up the problems in understanding quantum theory, "Anyone who is not dizzy after his first acquaintance with the quantum of action has not understood a word". The "dizziness" is not confined to one's first introduction into this world. The increasing number of elementary particles which have been identified, the complexity of the mathematical models, the abnormalities of observer and that which is observed, all contribute to an "Alice in the looking-glass" kind of empirical knowledge. The point is that theoretical physics appears to be moving into an area that some consider as “unintelligible” from a human perspective.

The science of human physiology, or the science of nanotechnology or any of the other natural sciences is subordinate, ultimately, to a deeper grasp of what it is that these ultimate “building blocks” consists of. In other words the foundation of science is elemental particle physics. A thesis that the “ultimate” understanding regarding these elementary particles is beyond human understanding provides an eerie similarity to what it would mean to be a Christian who struggles to understand the rationality of “God’s existence” (perhaps in the context of human suffering and the problem of evil). Does the physicist's anguish over the intelligibility of quantum mechanics necessitate the abandonment of materialism? In other words, let us say that the physicist is claiming that the understanding of the empirical results of fast particle accelerators leaves a model that is so mathematically complex it is beyond human comprehension. Is this the same thing as saying that materialism is, thereby, false? No, it is not. On one hand, one is acknowledging that the ultimate “make-up” of the sub-atomic world is not yet “revealed” in such a way that can be fully understood. On the other hand, a stronger case is being forwarded that such an explanation is ultimately beyond the comprehension of the human mind. A follow-up to this latter claim would suggest that reality is therefore unknowable, leaving us to substitute various mathematical models from quantum mechanics as an pragmatic “menu” to satisfy what counts for human understanding.

Present-day physics leaves the empirical proof for materialism a promissory note…at least as respects quantum mechanics. However, one does not ridicule the integrity of the scientist who seeks to pay this debt. Every step in the human science “project” has worked with the underlying theory of materialism at the forefront. I think it would be reasonable for a scientific person to believe that some form of materialism will eventually be vindicated in the sub-atomic world and yet still entertain the admission that a counter-explanation may be forthcoming.

This appears very similar to the situation of a Christian who accepts God as the underlying dogma for their religious belief…who also sees the historical “project” of their religion as a process that will vindicate this dogma, but who can still acknowledge the existential despair of this promissory note. Both religious and scientific persons make similar claims as they go about the business of understanding their paradigms. In both cases, the limits of human comprehension are addressed with respect to a complete understanding of God and with respect to a complete understanding of elementary particles.

I have two closing points. At first glance, one might think of science sans materialism as akin to “science fiction” becoming science. And human history has already accepted this phenomenon. It would not be the same. Consider the “Jules Verne“ examples of science fiction. . Machines that could fly or machines that could submerge under the water did not have a “scientific feasibility” when imagined. But they where eventually invented and produced. Nothing changed with regards to materialism. Only the sophistication by which elementary particles could be manipulated occurred. Time travel is still science fiction…but even in the suggested models…it is still imagined as a material process…a product of the “fourth dimension” or a “bending of the space/time continuum”. The central paradigms of most science fiction are still a class of “science” that holds onto an underlying materialist orientation. I do not propose to know the entire body of science-fiction paradigms. I will assume that some embrace an alternative “philosophical” orientation. I prefer to call such non-materialist paradigms Science X. Science X meaning science sans materialism. And, here, I rely on the consistency of scientific definitions. Science supports an hypothesis that has a correspondence to empirical facts. This is why materialism is supported in the history of science. There are testable and observable separated objects that can be measured and quantified. Hence, materialism remains an hypothesis that corresponds to certain facts. While science may investigate…and put in suspense.. an hypothesis which has not yet been proven… science does not support an hypothesis which is clearly contrary to the facts. Empirical data that supports “non-material” objects has been notoriously contrary to scientifically accepted observations. Therefore the true “nature” of a non-materialist science is an X. It is simply "not known". This would be different from science fiction which expands on an existent paradigm. Instead it would be akin to science fiction which “invents” a new model that would include phantasms, immaterial beings, and a non-nominalistic sharing of space and time. A non-materialist hypothesis created by best of science-fiction writers and the ramblings of a mentally ill individual rest on the same scientific footing with regards to current empirical verifiability.

I submit that Judeo-Christian theology sans the central dogma that God exists is also Judeo-Christianity X. It entails the same basic problem contained in the above paragraph. No one knows what it would look like. A fictional theology might be described…but in the absence of a definitive proof that God does not exist …we cannot know which fictional “godless” theology would prove to be the emergent model. It does not follow that no model would emerge. Therefore, a superior survivability claim related to intellectual integrity or “soundness” (based on how these separate world views would re-emerge sans their central dogmas) cannot be sustained. This follows from the fact that both post paradigm models are an unknown X.

My last point is a return to what counts as the “scientific method.” I have argued that I believe it is a mistake to become intoxicated with science. The idea of a “scientific method” that is neutral with regards to any philosophical orientation is, however, appealing. It suggests an “open attitude” towards what counts as knowledge. Nonetheless, it seems clear that a pervasive central dogma underwrites what has counted as our historical scientific explanations. This dogma is self-served by an empirical epistemology. Judeo-Christian dogma is likewise served by an epistemology geared towards rationalism. The significant difference between religion and science seems to involve the amount of supplemental dogma that is tolerated. Here, I believe science is different. I think there is more agreement as to what counts as “good science” than there is agreement as to what counts as “good religion”. This observation has been around since the Enlightenment. I believe part of this is due to the willingness of science to embrace a policy of cooperative, methodological agreements that is not as prevalent within the Judeo-Christian fellowship. The bottom line is that there are literally thousands of “religious sects” in the Judeo-Christian tradition in the United States alone. Besides the central dogma regarding the existence of God, these various sects support and advance a host of additional dogmas regarding interpretations of scriptural texts. There is startling lack of uniformity regarding these interpretations, ecumenical councils notwithstanding. This does not seem to be the case in science. There are many scientific societies but they differ mainly in their fields of study. While working under the umbrella of materialism, they seem to operate in more uniform fashion as to what counts as the appropriate research models of science, what counts as the appropriate documentation vehicles of science and their seems to be a further limitation as to what counts as “additional dogma”. Philosophically, I would suspect this relates to the tenacity by which empiricism singularly underwrites scientific materialism. On the other side of the table, rationalism has been unable to validate one sect (or conversely unite the many) within the Judeo-Christian community. I leave elaboration and the philosophical implications of this unexplored.