Episode 2 - The Religion of Materialism
Hey guys, I am glad you are here, this is the way of the fool and today I will talk to you about materialism.
A vast amount of people gave up religion early on in life when they started with science lessons. This is due to the realisation that current scientific knowledge directly contradicts several religious dogmas. The story told in Genesis, for example, goes against some of the most important scientific findings of the past centuries. The Big Bang theory (11) and all the evidence supporting evolution as a fundamental biological process (12), strongly indicate that human beings were not literally created out of dust from the ground. Nor was the earth created in seven days. Many other religious claims that have also been shown to be literally false. The question is whether this is enough to discard religion as a whole.
Werner Heisenberg is often quoted as saying: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you” (13). Whether Heisenberg actually said this or not is still debated. However, let’s go on assuming he did. On one hand, he didn’t reach the bottom of the glass —no one has and I believe no-one can. But there is no question about his exceptional intellect and scientific skills, his contributions to science are proof. But even the smartest human being who has ever lived, whoever he or she may have been, was only a human being. Our limitations prevent us from being able to reach the bottom of something as vast as the totality of knowledge concerning the natural world. I would say is certainly closer to an ocean than to a glass, and in a lifetime, we are only able to take a few gulps of it—if any at all, because one must actively try to do so.
I truly think he is up to something. In my opinion, you don't need to reach the bottom of all existing knowledge to find God, —you just need to take a few sips in, especially if you know where to drink from. What I find important about this particular quote, assuming it was Heisenberg who actually said it, is that one of the most brilliant scientists in recent history, suggests that while our current scientific knowledge is not compatible with the literal interpretation of Genesis and many other religious texts, eventually, the pursuit of natural sciences could lead you to God. Moreover, again if Heisenberg was the one who actually said it, he placed himself in a position that is very rare in the modern times. A scientist who acknowledges the existence of God, in public discourse.
In modern Western societies, as in the scientific field, the current trend is to separate from religion. Regardless of one's opinion on the topic, it is obvious that dramatic changes in several aspects of human life have followed this breakup with religion. This tendency is certainly justified to a large degree. However, at this point in time, perhaps it would be wise to pause and consider whether the current course of action is actually the optimal one, or if it’s good at all. On one hand, rebelling against religious dogmas and religious authorities was to be expected; it was even necessary. The members of the clergy are hardly saints. Many of them are truly good and wise, but a considerable number of them are not even decent human beings. But, boy, oh boy, was it really necessary to go batshit crazy in the opposite direction? Please forgive my colourful  expression, but my English is not rich enough to convey the same feeling using better language. How much further from religion must society go before realising that what's been missing all along is balance, decency and overall, honesty? Balance to avoid extremism, decency and honesty to admit that no human being nor any institution is without fault and, certainly, no one possesses the absolute truth.
There are several arguments to be made regarding why a moral code that favours family life, charity, compassion, forgiveness, and ethical behaviour in general, is beneficial for the development of successful societies. Moreover, I would like to argue that the transcendence—the meaning of life aspect of the religious experience, is fundamental for optimal human development. Atheists explain all the time how human experience is nothing but a futile occurrence in the larger scheme of events, with humanity being nothing but the quirky product of an immeasurable chain of random events. They argue how that feeling some people experience deep inside, telling them there is more to life than what can be perceived by the senses, is nothing but a mild case of delusional disorder—one that just happens to afflict billions of people. Interestingly, this condition was never selected against during human evolution, and apparently was even beneficial for the prevalence of the species. Cognitive scientists have proposed that religious belief, far from being maladaptive, may have conferred evolutionary advantages by promoting social cohesion — even if they think that it’s only an evolved feature of the human mind (34, 35). It's only now that most people in Western civilisations have managed to get "cured" of this, that populations in the west have started to decline at a catastrophic rate—ironically, at a time when the conditions for survival are historically at the highest point in the western world. Basic biology, tells us this is negative for any species. And if someone thinks these two phenomena, the “curing of the disease” and the population decline are not to highly related, well think again. In many cases, just starting to think about it would be good.
According to materialism, our existence is the product of a random, undirected chain of natural events, without purpose or design. This inevitably raises the question: if we only exist briefly due to a random chain of events, why would anything we do matter at all? Why should anyone care about oneself or any other beings that also exist briefly due to chance? Wouldn't the goal be to make the best out of the few years we have without caring about the consequences of our actions? Isn't this the current behaviour of a lot of people? How beneficial has it been? If you keep saying existence is just a random accident, expect people to believe you, and either consciously or unconsciously, act accordingly. Anyone who is interested in this topic has seen, at some point, an atheist get severely offended when people dare to point out the fact that ethical values are actually meaningless in this situation. It is easier to get offended than to actually give a reasonable answer. Good and evil become nothing but two choices available to the individual, as relevant as the ice cream flavour of the day. They will proceed to explain how meaningful and beautiful their lives are and enumerate all the things they love and in which they find said meaning. What they never acknowledge is the fact that, if they are right, all of them are nothing but castles built in the sand. One may find poetic beauty in the futility of life, but that doesn't make it any more significant. Morality is certainly possible, but again, in the larger picture of things, trivial. If I dare be cynical myself, morality becomes beneficial mostly for the weak, who need to be liked and protected by others in order to thrive or even survive. Whether people actually stop to ponder these assertions or not, again, a vast number behave accordingly. Existential nihilism, the belief that life is devoid of inherent value, has been around long enough to prove itself harmful. However, it’s nothing but the logical result of taking materialism a bit further down the line. And it’s unavoidable as well. Sooner or later, whoever starts pondering life from the point of view of mechanistic materialism will end up in nihilism, whether they like it or not and whether they admit it or not.
The origin of modern materialism can be traced to Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century. He claimed that only material things and their motion could explain the whole of reality, thoughts and emotions included (14). This mechanistic materialism, together with empiricism, laid the foundation on which modern science is built to this day. Empiricists state that sensory experience is fundamental in the formation of knowledge (15). They also claim that every human mind starts as a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and that everything we get to know comes from experience, denying the possibility of any type of innate knowledge. These schools of thought led to the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics, including the idea of an unmoved mover as the ultimate cause of motion and existence (16) and teleological explanations, where everything has an intrinsic purpose. It's very clear that the fruits of modern science have been, for the most part, positive in the past centuries; the quality of life in most of the world is exponentially better than it was, thanks to the advance of science. Therefore, one could say that this philosophical turning point was a necessary step, allowing the mind to focus on immediate problems and their solutions. Nevertheless, while the scientific method is the most efficient and reliable tool at our disposal, it is not without limitations. Certainly, empirical evidence is a reliable source of knowledge, but is it fundamental for something to be true? Wouldn't that imply that only those things that we can perceive with our senses, either directly or with tools (e.g., a microscope or a telescope), actually exist? Our capacity to perceive them is not a prerequisite for things to exist.
Another philosophical perspective, somewhat antagonistic to empiricism, is rationalism (17). It regards reason as the main source of knowledge and the best way to test knowledge, independent of sensory experience. It asserts that some truths can be known a priori, through logical deduction or intellectual intuition, rather than observation. Think of Descartes and his famous idea: I think, therefore I am. Rationalism also considers the existence of innate knowledge, concepts embedded in the human mind since birth. A good example is the concept of atoms. Leucippus and his student Democritus proposed that all matter is made of tiny, indivisible units, atoms. They had no tools, no data, no experiments—just reasoning. And yet, they were right. The idea came centuries before it could be tested.
Immanuel Kant realised that the philosophical perspectives of rationalism and empiricism were, in a way, complementary rather than opposed to each other (18). While knowledge begins with experience, rational insight can take it further. At the same time, a certain rational framework is necessary to process experience into knowledge. However, Kant argues that neither of them, rationalism nor empiricism, is sufficient to explain reality in its entirety. He explained that metaphysics (a rather problematic term), including the existence of God, can never be understood by reason or experience, alone or in conjunction. And he has a great point: human reason is not without limits, and neither are our senses or tools. Implying that the limits of reality are the limits of our capabilities, that is our reason and our senses, is nonsense. Regarding reason, a clever person with enough time and motivation can rationally conclude anything to be right or wrong or come up with a plausible answer for anything. That does not necessarily mean these claims are right. Regarding the lack of empirical evidence, hundreds of years ago, there was no evidence proving matter was formed by atoms. Nevertheless, claiming the opposite back then, as we know now, would have been a mistake. At the same time, our technology, despite how fast it improves, is not without its limits. It is important to always remember that despite humanity's almost infinite potential, human beings are inherently limited.
With our current knowledge and tools, the existence of God cannot be proven from a scientific point of view. However, the opposite is also true. And many atheists recognise this. They simply dismiss it since it is an unfalsifiable notion, which means it cannot be proven to be false—a requirement for anything to be considered scientifically valid. This does not imply it's false; it simply means we cannot know. And it's very important to keep this in mind. The real skeptical statement from an honest point of view should be "I don't know if there is a God," rather than "There is no God." The latter statement is based purely on personal belief with little to zero empirical evidence backing up the claim itself - just like the opposite claim to be fair. It is just another form of dogmatic thinking, and as such, it should be avoided. Chances are, things beyond our current understanding exist.
Many modern atheists, those who appeal to science to disregard anything that has to do with metaphysics, could be considered modern mechanical materialists. They claim that everything that is true can be proven scientifically — a view known as scientism. Again, this is just another example of a dogma. Interestingly, when we look at the etymology of the word "dogma," its original meaning was something like "what one thinks to be true." It was often a political decree or a statement given by an authority. Gradually, over time, it became "a settled opinion," a well-established principle (19). The implication was then, as it is now, that it should not be questioned.
However, this materialistic perspective is a rather normal reaction to centuries of religious authoritarian behaviour. There is a strong argument to be made regarding the positive influence of Christianity in the development of Western civilisation, despite many who would like to pretend otherwise. Unfortunately, there are as many instances in which atrocities were committed in the name of God by members of the Catholic Church, many of them painfully recent, if not current. Several philosophers and scientists were excommunicated, arrested, and/or killed when their opinions or their work challenged the dogma, and therefore the authority and power of the religion in charge. Thus, backlash from these communities is not only expected but justified. Similarly, the number of people turning their backs on the Catholic Church due to the protection of pedophile priests is certainly expected. The moral superiority claimed by the members of the Church as one of the sources of their authority was simply not there in far too many cases. However, one must ask if the complete disregard of religion in general is justified.
If the logical conclusion of materialism is to believe that life is just a random accident — something with no purpose, no direction, no meaning — then what are we really building our lives on? Aren’t they just castles in the sand? In the next episode, we’ll look into religion — not to defend it blindly, but to ask an honest question: Has it brought us any closer to the truth, or has it buried it beneath centuries of dogma and control?

Remember, I’m just a fool trying to walk a path toward the truth. If that’s your goal as well, welcome, let’s walk together.

References
11 CERN (2020) Recreating Big Bang Matter on Earth. Available at: https://home.cern/science/physics/recreating-big-bang-matter-earth (Accessed July 28, 2024).
12 Laland KN, Uller T, Feldman MW, Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek AP, Jablonka E, Odling-Smee J (2015) The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Nature Reviews Genetics 16:271-283. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
13 [Removed – attribution to Heisenberg disputed]
14 Hobbes T (2017) Human Nature & De Corpore Politico. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, North Charleston, SC.
15 Locke J (1690) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Thomas Bassett.
16 Aristotle (2001) Metaphysics. In The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed McKeon R (Modern Library, New York), trans. Ross WD.
17 Descartes R (1641) Meditations on First Philosophy. Paris: Michael Soly.
18 Kant I (1781) Critique of Pure Reason. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
19 Harper D (2024) Dogma. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/dogma (Accessed August 22, 2024).
34 Boyer P (2001) Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Basic Books, New York.
35 Atran S (2002) In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford University Press, Oxford.