In Defense of Materialism

I’m trying to get a handle on why so many people insist that it is ignorant and short-sighted to declare for materialism. In his review of Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Magic of Reality, The Independent’s Colin Tudge opens with a line that includes the phrase, “...old-fashioned, Thomas Gradgrind-style materialism...” It is as if materialism has fallen in with the wrong crowd of curmudgeony empiricists, and this alone is enough to invalid it in the eyes of critics. Comments on this blog also follow suit by insinuating that materialism denotes a lack of open-mindedness, as if wild, unchecked speculation is a virtue within serious debate about reality.

Materialism cuts out from the equation a very huge chunk of philosophical pondering. By someone stating that there is only matter and that all phenomenon arise from the interactions of matter, spiritualists and theists are left with only one thing to say: “There is no way to be to sure!” In other words, please leave a little crack in your worldview for the possibility that you are wrong. Fair enough, but what does science have to say? Ah ha! Therein lies the problem with considering spirituality: scientific inquiry, the best method we have for determining if something is true, only works from a materialistic premise.

The best arguments for dualism rely on three pillars: ignoring the perfectly plausible materialistic explanation for the same phenomenon, unfalsifiable statements that make Occam’s mouth water, and using the premise to prove the point (circular reasoning). Somehow, this form of speculation is being glorified as “enlightened,” despite the fact that there are absolutely no standards for it beyond what “makes sense” to the individual doing the pondering.

The embrace of dualism represents an avant-garde approach to a subject better left to the staunch nerds who know it best. To criticize someone as closed-minded for refusing to consider gibberish in place of discipline is a jester’s prank. Imagination is a valuable tool, but only for inspiration to test new ideas. If a conclusion still requires imagination, the matter is far from concluded.

The stance of materialism is a cautious one. There is no overzealous claim to knowledge undiscovered. The argument that materialism denies many potential explanations is true, but that is only because those explanations don’t hold under scrutiny. The worth of a philosophy is not in its potential for amazement, but in its adherence to rigorous observation. As our observational abilities continue to expand, old axioms are destroyed and the trend is always toward the establishment of a purely physical universe. Even when new discoveries are made that unhinge previous scientific explanations, it only serves us to go deeper into materialistic explanation.