The Case Against Materialism

According to his autobiography, Bertrand Russell's grandmother used to say, 'What is mind?  No matter.  What is matter?  Never mind.'

Martin in Does it Matter? constructs a convincing argument against the materialist view of the universe.  Materialism is a an immensely important and successful philosophy.  If to abandon a materialist worldview would be to embrace a supernatural worldview I would see that as a major step backwards for humanity.  Not least because there are some very moving materialist readings of scripture, including the only convincing account of Jesus walking on water that I know of.

The problem with materialism is how we move from the observed to the observer.  Martin argues, with the philosopher Berkeley, that there is the seen (matter) and the seeing (consciousness).  Martin writes (page 49):

Now let us emphasise this key point: the contemporary reductionist view is that, fundamentally, there is only matter.  Their definition of matter exactly corresponds to Berkeley's definition, namely that it is devoid of consciousness.  By their definition, consciousness is 'derived from it'.  ...  If according to reductionists, consciousness must be a product of the mechanical processes of unconscious matter, that is seeing can be causally and logically derived from being seen, then according to them, seeing is not primary.  Being seen is primary. ...  As Berkeley argues: "But something whose whole essence is to be perceived is simply an idea in a mind because it by definition cannot exist except by being perceived by some mind."  (Martin's emphases.)

Let me make the following points:

1. Materialism is one worldview and consciousness, as a discrete mode of being in addition to matter, is also a rational and sustainable point of view.  I doubt we can prove whether consciousness exists or does not exist independently of matter.
2. If consciousness does exist, it is not proof of the existence of God.
3. If consciousness does exist, it can be studied just as science studies matter. 

What interests me is that if matter is conscious (consciousness does not necessarily imply being self-aware) then it can enter into conversation.  The many interactions between species might inform and direct evolution as an unfolding of potential within matter, rather than merely the result of random interactions.

I can imagine neither the materialist nor the religious will be happy with this approach because for one it is too close to God and for the other leaves God without a role in evolution.  I think though this latter would be a premature conclusion.  Think of God not as a designer but as a an artist or craftsperson, aiming to get the maximum potential out of the universe.  The resulting conversation could, theologically, be understood as God's great act of creation.

Viewed from a materialist standpoint, evolution is as modern science understands it.  Viewed from a metaphysical perspective, God is a part of the whole, shaping it but not designing it.