Hi Mitchell. Thanks for your interesting response, and for taking the time. I apologise for the delay in replying, while I’ve been collecting my thoughts.

We have an ongoing debate about the scientific method, its validity and relevance. You think that anybody who embraces the scientific method is a materialist and empiricist, and ask me to clarify my “more nuanced understanding”. Here’s my best shot.

I’m not sure, however, that my understanding is more nuanced. We agree that the scientific method works, and has produced great results. My observation is that because it is so rigorous, necessarily so, its area of applicability is therefore extremely limited. (There has to be established data to work on, everything in an experiment has to be controlled, with double-blinds, repeatable with the same results, make verifiable predictions, and so on.) The method is therefore only relevant to certain aspects of reality, so my problem arises when scientists claim that only things established by the scientific method are true, and go on to claim that this somehow ‘proves’ the philosophy of materialism. (If, as you say, you think that anybody who embraces the scientific method is a materialist, this suggests that you might be going in that direction.) For me, however, that is precisely the problem, if scientists do not realise that the scientific method leads them inevitably to the philosophy of materialism, which I would argue is false. The appropriate response would be to recognise the limitations of the method, and say that it can only be applied to the material world.

Specifically, the scientific method has to rule out all subjective experience, and accounts of it — these are merely ‘anecdotes’. Therefore dreams, visions, ESP, so-called mystical experiences, the whole inner world of the psyche is on the whole not possible to explore scientifically. (Attempts in this direction tend to be called ‘pseudo-scientific’.) The next logical step for a materialist is to call all these things illusions created by the brain. I don’t think, however, that they have come up with a satisfactory explanation as to how the brain achieves this.

This would obviously include the experience of deities and the supernatural world by early peoples which, as you say, are not amenable to the scientific method. Unfortunately, despite your request, I can’t show you how to make this so. But I can ask ‘scientists’ to stop saying that science has somehow disproved religious experiences or ideas, simply because they do not have the means of subjecting them to the scientific method. I can also ask them not to call inner experiences illusions or hallucinations, simply because they do not fit in easily with their materialistic philosophy. An obvious example would be out-of-body experiences. Someone has the experience that their consciousness has left their body, and at some later point returned to it. Materialist scientists often appeal to the principle of Occam’s Razor, and the need for the most likely explanation. (Benjamin Cain has encouraged me in this direction.) Unfortunately, they only seem to make this appeal when it suits their argument and belief-system. The simplest explanation for an out-of-body experience is that consciousness has indeed left the body. However, materialists find themselves forced to conclude that it must be some kind of ‘brain malfunction’ (Susan Blackmore).

Forgive me for assuming that you thought religious ideas are false. If you agree, as you say you do, that religious ideas arose as the direct experience of early people, then it is hard to see why they need an evolutionary explanation, which was the theme of your original article. (That suggested to me that you thought experiences of the supernatural were illusions.) I don’t mean to sound trivial, but we don’t evolutionary explanations as to why humans think the sky is blue, or that 2+2 = 4. We think these things because they’re true.

I was aware of the Dobzhansky quote, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, and completely agree. The real debate, however, is not about whether there has been evolution (unless you are a Creationist), but whether natural (i.e. blind, purposeless) selection acting upon random genetic mutations can account for it. I broadly accept your overview of evolutionary science, except perhaps the idea that natural selection was the primary process driving evolution. I think that this is probably an assumption made by materialists because, according to their philosophy, that would be the only possible explanation.

You ask for any evidence derived by the scientific method or specific criticisms that indicate otherwise. There are numerous writings by the various scientists at the website I referenced in the last article. That would take up a lot of your time, so I’ll try to do something brief here. The most important question is, does a theory adequately explain all the data? In the case of Darwinian evolution physicist Paul Davies thought not. This is a book from some time ago, and I’m aware that scientific research moves forward, so progress might have been made in some of the problems he addresses. However, in The Cosmic Blueprint he outlined what I consider to be significant objections. Even though I thought that the problems that he raises might be resolved by a ‘spiritual’ understanding, he nevertheless insists that he is a scientist seeking naturalistic explanations, and wants to avoid an appeal to mystical or transcendent principles. However, he sees the need for a revolution in scientific thinking: “Now there is the new paradigm of the creative universe, which recognizes the progressive, innovative character of physical processes. The new paradigm emphasizes the collective, cooperative and organizational aspects of nature; its perspective is synthetic and holistic rather than analytic and reductionist”.

If the universe is creative, which implies intelligence, then its evolution is not guided by natural selection, if by that is meant blind, undirected processes. (I’ve discussed Davies’ book in more detail here, but this is a taster of his argument: “Strong organizing principles are invoked by those who find existing physical laws inadequate to explain the high degree of organizational potency found in nature and see this as evidence that matter and energy are somehow being guided or encouraged into progressively higher organizational levels by additional creative influences”. He also refers to “some ‘behind the scenes’ creative activity”. If you then want to pursue further the relevance of physics to biology, then I’ve discussed the relevance of fields here. I’ve written other articles if you want me to point you in their direction.)

Regarding any further criticisms, it depends on what you understand by Darwinian evolutionary theory. Is it merely an explanation for the development of, and adaptations within, organisms once they exist? Or is it meant to be a total explanation for life on Earth? If the latter, it would have to explain the origin of life from inorganic matter, and also the evolution of consciousness as a function of the brain. As far as I’m aware, neither of these problems has ever been resolved satisfactorily. It’s therefore possible that Darwinism (or materialism in general) cannot solve them, in which case it’s an inadequate theory. In regard to the question of consciousness, you’re probably aware that the philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. I’m not sure how keen you are on philosophers ‘interfering’ in scientific questions.

Regarding quantum physics, my quotes were, as you say, something along the lines of analogies and metaphors, not the actual science. They were, however, statements made by physicists based upon the science they conducted using, I assume, the scientific method. I think they are therefore worthy of your attention.

You say: “One of the findings from quantum physics that you state as a fact is that matter, as we perceive it, is an illusion. Later you criticize me because I think beliefs are illusions, which you think is not a fact. Seems to me that you can’t have it both ways, but then I’m probably misinterpreting you. You will clarify, but just for me to pre-clarify, all beliefs including social, political, and religious beliefs are constructions (as Sender Spike says) very much like memories, but they are still generated by human brains. In a sense beliefs can still be considered illusions since a mental construction does not reflect actual reality, whatever that is”.

This paragraph of yours could be the subject of a whole article, if not a book, but I’ll try to be as brief as I can. You say that you haven’t said that religious ideas are false (although I’ve explained above why I thought that). My objection is directed to those scientists who claim that experiences of the supernatural, spiritual experiences in general, are illusions, for no good reason apart from their pre-existing commitment to materialism. I’d be happy to hear that you don’t include yourself in that group. This is a completely different topic from the belief of quantum physicists that matter is an illusion.

SenderSpike operates from a completely different worldview to yours, so it seems to me. I think his (I assume) use of the word ‘illusion’ would be different from that of a materialist scientist. Without getting into a convoluted semantic discussion about the word ‘constructions’, let’s take it at face value. Does that mean that these beliefs are therefore ‘illusions’? I would argue that the beliefs exist, or are at least as real as the ‘material’ universe. (The more relevant question would be whether they are true or not.) Your statement that “they are still generated by human brains” is debatable, but I understand that a materialist could not think otherwise.

====================================

I’ll probably edit this and publish it as a full article, to see if anyone else wants to add some thoughts.

My next planned article might be of interest to you. At the very least I’d be interested in your comments. I’ll let you know when it comes out.

Best wishes. Thanks for the discussion.