Chapter 18
If I Believed the Western Creed
* * *
MATERIALISM (English, eighteenth century [origin: from “material” plus “-ism”]): (1) Philosophy. The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Also, the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies. (2) A tendency to prefer material possessions and physical comfort to spiritual values; a way of life based on material interests.—Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed., s.v. “materialism”
* * *
In chapter 1 we looked at (and hopefully did aloud, to get a deeper experiential feel) my Western Creed exercise, a way of seeing more deeply some of the possible implications of scientistic materialism for our own and others’ lives. I shared some of my students’ reactions to this deeper look into our common beliefs in that chapter but held my own in reserve, even though you can deduce some of them implicitly in the way I constructed the creed. I think it would be useful to share more of my personal reactions to scientistic materialism at this point to help illustrate some of the possible take-home lessons of this book.
Here’s the Western Creed again, for convenience:
I BELIEVE—in the material universe—as the only and ultimate reality—a universe controlled by fixed physical laws—and blind chance.
I AFFIRM—that the universe has no creator—no objective purpose—and no objective meaning or destiny.
I MAINTAIN—that all ideas about God or gods—enlightened beings—prophets and saviors—or other nonphysical beings or forces—are superstitions and delusions—. Life and consciousness are totally identical to physical processes—and arose from chance interactions of blind physical forces—. Like the rest of life—my life—and my consciousness—have no objective purpose—meaning—or destiny.
I BELIEVE—that all judgments, values, and moralities—whether my own or others’—are subjective—arising solely from biological determinants—personal history—and chance—. Free will is an illusion—. Therefore, the most rational values I can personally live by—must be based on the knowledge that for me—what pleases me is good—what pains me is bad—. Those who please me or help me avoid pain—are my friends—those who pain me or keep me from my pleasure—are my enemies—. Rationality requires that friends and enemies—be used in ways that maximize my pleasure—and minimize my pain.
I AFFIRM—that churches have no real use other than social support—that there are no objective sins to commit or be forgiven for—that there is no divine retribution for sin—or reward for virtue—. Virtue for me is getting what I want—without being caught and punished by others.
I MAINTAIN—that the death of the body—is the death of the mind—. There is no afterlife—and all hope of such is nonsense.
So if I fully believed the Western Creed: I would rationally—as far as rationality is possible for us complex humans—understand that I live in a universe composed entirely of physical objects and forces, physical matter and physical energy. Although many spiritually inclined people cite modern quantum mechanics as making room for spirituality, I’m not convinced of that, nor are many quantum physicists. Quantum approaches turn apparently solid objects into fuzzier and fuzzier manifestations of energy, but nevertheless the scientistic picture of the world remains one of insentient, object-like “things” being acted upon by insentient forces with no reason, purpose, or destiny inherent in this universe. Some quantum physicists (Stapp 2007) see consciousness as an inherent property of the universe, as fundamental as matter and energy, but the majority doesn’t see the need for such an idea.
The best treatment of possible relationships between quantum physics and parapsychology that I know of is Dean Radin’s Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality (2006). The treatment is thoughtful and creative, and comprehensible by nonphysicists. At the very least, Radin makes a convincing case that the Newtonian, classical-physics universe that seems to rule out psi phenomena in principle is really only a special case of a larger physical reality, where psi phenomena might have a place. But a lot of details need to be filled in on that “might.”
Given this inherently meaningless world, it’s still my biological nature—again with no inherent reason for it; it just happened or evolved that way—to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Since my ability to do this well depends on my biological integrity, health, and intelligence, which are applied to make the best of whatever situations I find myself in, it’s essential that I ensure my physical health and safety, and use my intelligence as effectively as possible.
If I fully believed the Western Creed, obviously my first priority must be my physical or biological safety. This physical body is all I’ve got, and while reason compels me to accept the fact that eventually all physical bodies—including mine, damn it!—sicken and die, I want to maintain my good health and put off my death as long as possible. (Although if my health gets really bad, I’m constantly suffering, and there’s no medical hope of any improvement, suicide is the logical course: why continue when there’s nothing but suffering?)
I would engage in no risky actions then, nothing that significantly raises my risk of serious injury or death. I see a child drowning, for example, and I could jump in and probably rescue her. Well, is it a sure thing, given my swimming ability and the situation? If there’s any real risk to me, forget it! If I’m criticized, I can always use the excuse (true or not) that I can’t swim well. If I feel guilty about letting the kid drown, there’s always rationalization, cynicism, tranquilizing drugs, or any combination of these.
If others see me rescue her (assuming it’s safe for me), it will raise my social capital, so that argues for it, but if there’s no one around to see me or realize I had the opportunity to rescue her, why bother?
As to maintaining my health, I would certainly get a reasonable amount of exercise, especially of forms that I enjoy, eat a good diet, as revealed by contemporary science, and avoid vices, like smoking, that are very costly to the body. Not that it makes any difference in scientistic materialism whether I die young or old, since it’s a purposeless universe, but I do seem to be stuck with this biological drive to keep living, so as the popular phrase put it, I’ll look out for “number one.”
While only I matter from this perspective, the fact remains that my survival and pleasure is heavily dependent on my society, so while at a rational level I don’t give a damn what society likes or dislikes, at a practical, Machiavellian level, I want to be seen as a good citizen, deserving of aid and all social benefits. Particularly I want my society to invest in the medical research that will maintain and improve my health and longevity—others’ health and longevity are quite secondary—and invest in things that will increase my safety from injury or death. That’s where my and everyone else’s taxes should go! Yes, the practicalities are complex: we have to support medical schools to train the future doctors (who’ll help me), for example, rather than spend it all directly on my health and safety.
As to using my intelligence most effectively in the service of my biologically given needs, I would want to solve any problems in habits of thinking and feeling that interfered with optimal use of my reasoning ability, especially with the “obviously illogical” vestiges of superstitions and spiritual beliefs that I have. To be logical, all my beliefs should fit together and not contradict each other. So thoughts and actions like prayers, for example, would have to go. Not only would explicit prayers to the God of my childhood—clearly a neurotic leftover from childhood conditioning from the perspective of scientistic materialism—have to go but even vague, half-articulated thoughts that I hope “someone up there” or “to whom it may concern” would do something to make things turn out for the best (for me). My capacities and habits of thought and feeling should maximize my survival, health, and pleasure, and minimize suffering and danger.
There’s the neurochemical-approach aspect to my life, of course, ranging from legal drugs my doctors could prescribe, which would dull down any remaining worries I have, to currently illegal but relatively safe drugs that would produce nice fantasies, conducive to pleasure. Rationality would require avoiding dangerous and addictive drugs, like heroin or crack, since the physical debilitation and earlier death is too high a price to pay for enhanced pleasure.
Long-term, I really needn’t worry about the degradation of the planet, global warming, overpopulation, and so on. I’ll probably, even with reasonable advances in medical science, only live another twenty or thirty years, so I’ll likely be dead when civilization collapses. So I’ll use resources to make myself happy now and not worry about the distant future. If I feel any guilt about this or worry about my descendants, that’s meaningless social conditioning and biological built-ins manifesting; I should ignore them and get on with looking out for number one.
My personal reaction to these lines of thinking is one of revulsion, but then I’d just be thinking like lots of other “rational” people, wouldn’t I?