So during a conversation on an Atheism message board I made a shocking statement which I thought would stir a hornet’s nest of activity, and yet surprisingly almost none of the participants gave it any attention. One atheist had said that science relies on the assumption of ‘materialism’, which he described as the view that only material things exist. I corrected him by pointing out that science, in as much as it is occupied with the study of natural causes and events, obviously relies on the assumption that material things exist, but not on the assumption that only material things exist. Even if it turns out that metaphysical naturalism is false, we would still have science because material things do exist. What I said next should have created a flurry of activity, and yet for some reason it didn’t: that metaphysical naturalism is already considered bollocks and for extremely good reasons, but science continues unabated (thus proving my point).

Yet of the atheists involved in that discussion, there was only one who took issue with my comment, an outcome which defied the predictions of my experiences. But at any rate, what I wish to share with you here is the conversation that occurred between me and that one atheist, the outcome of which was even more unexpected.

“What are these extremely good reasons for considering metaphysical naturalism as bollocks?” he asked me in a private email. “I could probably find out on my own but, since you’re very articulate, I trust that I’d be able to follow the answer you give me and accept the reasoning, which Google can’t guarantee.”

The reasons, I replied, are two-fold. Primarily, the view self-destructs, and furthermore its predictions at best don’t explain the world as it really is, and at worse they deny the world as it really is. It accomplishes both by rendering as unintelligible or impossible such things as reason, knowledge, science, morality, etc., when evaluated under its own terms and pressed to its own conclusions.

“Could you illustrate how it self-destructs under scrutiny?” he asked. “If I see the angle you take on that, I can probably unravel the rest for myself.”

On the definitional point, I replied, it’s because everything needed to defeat the view is built into the view itself. A world view is essentially meaningless if we have no reason to think it’s true, and especially if we are incapable of determining its truth. So if we assume metaphysical naturalism—and we must if we’re to evaluate whether or not it self-destructs—do we find this to be the case under that world view?

Yes. According to that world view, the whole of reality is constituted by only natural things, causes, and forces; i.e., nothing exists but that which either can be described in purely natural terms or is reducible to such terms. But if we assume this view, then we suddenly find ourselves with no reason to think it’s true, because all of our thinking is nothing more than cells and atoms in various patterns of activity. Ergo, such things as truth, reason, knowledge, morality, etc., are suddenly rendered meaningless; since there is no frame of reference transcending the brain’s activity, we’re rendered unable to state that X is true or that Y is false—including reasoning between them—because it turns out that such categories and processes are all just various patterns of synaptic activity in the brain. When that view is held consistently under its own terms, we are denied any basis for evaluating one synaptic pattern of activity against another. We cannot say anything is true or better or incorrect. Just different.

Again, this includes not only ‘thinking’ but also ‘what’ we think about, so all mental furniture—including the one known as “metaphysical naturalism”—is nothing more than signals firing along synaptic pathways in our frontal lobe. The mental furniture “true” is not differentiated significantly from the mental furniture “bacon.” And the synaptic activity involved in “Naturalism is true” is not differentiated significantly from the synaptic activity involved in “Christianity is true.” And so on.

Reason, knowledge, morality, it’s all gone. Including science because, under that view, scientific enterprise is nothing more than this collection of atoms interacting with that collection of atoms and producing a meaningless pattern of activity, just matter and energy interacting with itself. And it’s meaningless because the concept of ‘meaning’ is just some pattern of activity occurring within a mammalian brain, which is nothing but a collection of organic matter. The logical conclusion of metaphysical naturalism when consistently held under its own terms results in the total abdication of all reason, values, meaning, etc.

So by assuming metaphysical naturalism, we’re not only denied any reason to think it’s true but we are also incapable of determining its truth—because under that view such terms as we and reason and true and so forth are stripped of all intelligibility and meaning, because all of it (including the whole of reality) is just natural things, causes, and forces, the unintelligible interactions of matter and energy. In other words, the view self-destructs; what it takes to defeat the view is built into the view itself.

A few days went by without hearing from him. I supposed he was chewing on what I’d said to him and trying to wrestle his way out from underneath it. Then he wrote back and confirmed my suspicion—and said the one thing I did not expect.

“I had a few points of contention with your argument,” he said, “but I realised, in light of what you had said, that I couldn’t argue back without presupposing abstract things such as ‘truth’ and so forth. Indeed your point was well made. I suppose I’d better get myself on Wikipedia to look for a new label to identify myself by.”

Instead of clinging to metaphysical naturalism against all reason, he chose to abandon it on the priority of reason, and open his mind to the idea that there is more to reality than natural things, causes, and forces.

I wrote back and said to him, “You don’t need a new label, because the label wasn’t the problem. You need a view of reality that, when examined self-consistently under its own terms, corresponds with the world as it really is. I would suggest Christianity.”

Most Commented Posts