A person might say to you, “The physical universe is all there is, was, or ever will be.” Or they may say, “There is nothing supernatural or spiritual or immaterial.” These statements may express the views known as atheistic materialism, or physicalism, or naturalism (all related beliefs). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines physicalism as, “the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.” [1] All these views adhere to a belief that material, or physical, matter is all that exists. In responding to this view, I see an inconsistency of thought (pun intended): the inconsistency of atheistic physicalism and free will, aka “free thought.” [2]
In an atheistic physicalist view of the world, there cannot exist anything that is not made of physical
matter. Therefore, “thoughts” are a huge problem, because they are not made of “stuff.” Further,
reducing our consciousness, and thoughts (the immaterial), to simply a program run by the brain (the material matter) has the unintended consequence of destroying the basis for human free will. Neuroscientist Raymond Tallis, in his book refuting the idea that consciousness is reducible to neural activity in the brain, Aping Mankind, states, “The distinctive features of human beings–self-hood, freewill, that collective space called the human world, the sense that we lead our lives rather than simply live them as organisms do–are being discarded as illusions by many, even by philosophers, who should think a little bit harder and question the glamour of science rather than succumbing to it.” [3] If thoughts can essentially have no existence in your own worldview, you cannot then be a “freethinker.” For some, this may seem a trivial matter, but for me, it tells of a greater disturbance.
You see, the more our society believes that all that exists is material matter, the more our society loses its mind…literally. While people become more assured that atheistic physicalism is for freethinkers, they also become less sure that the mind exists at all (or at least they should). What a paradox. If I point out the basic issue at hand, I will usually receive some overt comments about how I am not a good thinker. So the person who believes they are a better thinker because they hold to a view which lacks a basis for such things as thoughts is trying to convince me through my thinking that I’m not as good at an imaginary skill. And then that person may imagine himself as quite the thinker. We are losing our minds.
There are some things that we believe that cause us incoherence of life, but are more like a prick to the finger. If that wound did not heal, over time it would cause our death, but it would do so more slowly. [4] There are some things that we believe that cause us incoherence of life, but are like a hit to an artery. If this wound does not heal, we will rapidly die. Atheistic physicalism is a gash to an artery. It attacks our main ability to consider ideas, namely our free thought and reason. Worse, I’ve seen those who adhere to this belief touting their own intellectualism while attacking those who try to establish grounding for the reality of thought. Ultimately, I believe we’ve given up more than we could stand to lose, but we don’t even realize it yet.
Recommended reading:
J.P. Moreland. Body and Soul
Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland. Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult
J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (advanced reading)
“Physicalism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
“Naturalism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
[1] “Physicalism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
[2] “Atheistic physicalism” is a phrase I’m utilizing to represent a belief that is atheist, physicalist, and naturalist. Since the Stanford Encyclopedia determined not to pin down a definition for “naturalist,” I chose to use the term physicalist instead. I’m using the terms together to express this view, since there exist Christians who proclaim a physicalist view, as well.
[3] Raymond Tallis. The Aping of Mankind: Nueromania, Darwinitis, and the Misrepresentation of Humanity (Bristol, CT: Acumen Publishing Limited, 2011), 8.
[4] To not offend the intellect of my medical readers, I’m using this example as a metaphor realizing that, in reality, there would be more considerations involved than just simply a small wound to the finger (the ability of coagulation, the possibility of bacterial infection, etc.).