Materialism watch: The challenges that materialist atheism cannot face effectively
Columnist Frank Pastore weighs in on four challenges to (materialist*) atheism, as follows:
1. Origin of the universe
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of the mind
4. Origin of morality
What I found while researching By Design or by Chance? and The Spiritual Brain is not that materialists have no answers but that their answers are based mainly on promissory materialism (hey folks, we're still working on it. Give us another few centuries ...), when they are not based on merely suppressing dissent or promoting foolish ideas to the popular science media.
Anyway, Pastore advises,
Since the pre-Socratics, atheists have been intellectual parasites living off the host of Western Civilization. Able to con-struct so very little of their own that is either true, good, or beautiful, they live on the borrowed capital of their believing intellectual parents. Atheists have been asserting the same basic mechanistic worldview, and with roughly the same suc-cess, for centuries. They sell books and win converts from time to time, sure, especially among those gullible enough to buy the “just popped” thesis. Don’t be gullible.
The thing to keep in mind, it seems to me, is that the materialist/Darwinist will always come up with an explanation within his system in the same way and for the same reasons as the Marxist could always come up with an explanation within his system for any event.
For example, according to evolutionary psychologists, religion is and is not adaptive - both points of view can be maintained within evolutionary psychology quite comfortably, even though they cancel each other out and imply that the discipline, if discipline it is, is not capable of discovering basic, definite information about the origin of religion.
The only point of view that cannot be maintained within standard evolutionary psychology is that religion is evidence of transcendence - that is, it arose because, at one time or another, people really did contact a reality behind the universe. I am hardly surprised to learn that dying de-spiritualized religious denominations have been flirting with evolutionary psychology; it's only useful function, so far as I can see, is as a sort of humane lethal injection that puts such institutions out of their collective misery before they mislead anyone else about the nature of spiritual experience. The would-be remaining congregants would invariably be better off somewhere else anyway.
*Materialist atheists must derive everything in the universe from chance and necessity. A non-materialist atheist does not believe in a God as such, but need not derive everything in the universe from chance and necessity.
Here are some of my recent posts on related subjects at the Post-Darwinist and here at the Mindful Hack :
Pope Benedict vs. a chance origin of the universe - lines from an early lecture.
Why there is no compatibility between traditional communities of any kind and accounts of spiritual beliefs derived from Darwinism.
A most interesting survey of views in evolutionary psychology on religious belief makes quite clear that there is NO room in the evo psycho paradigm for the view that spirituality relates to any fact about the universe. Hence the folly of trying to get traditional communities to support Darwinian evolution. .
On language and
mystical experience: can language tell us what is real?
Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy, and of Faith@Science. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).