Introduction
I love science, and I think it's been the single most important driver of innovation, technology and human well-being. What historically propelled science was our curiosity to understand, not just the world we inhabited, but also the heavens that eluded us (metaphorically speaking). While we looked around and tried to explain material phenomena, we also constantly looked above and contemplated larger questions - "How did all this come about", "Why am I here?", "Is there any meaning at all to life." Science, Theology, and Philosophy went hand in hand, and in its earlier incarnation, Science was referred to as Natural philosophy.
However, the advent of modern science, kick started by the scientific revolution, revolutionized our understanding of the world. Many of the entrenched, theological views (for e.g. the geocentric model) fell along the wayside, to pave the way for a more scientific understanding of reality. Advances in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and geology, culminating in biology (with evolution) offered a completely naturalistic explanation of reality. Science became the best model to explain everything, and continues to remain so. Such advancements gave rise to the practice of, what many philosophers call Scientism - a term philosophers use to describe what they view as science worship.
Those who practice scientism believe that science is the only way to know reality. After all, scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and
Hawking have explicitly dismissed philosophy, and I don't even have to describe what their attitude might be towards theology.
Today, an average person with a scientific bent of mind might think. "Aha.. Science has indeed explained everything."
I mean, why would they not think that way? After all, we believe that we have a cohesive narrative about everything - The big bang, formation of earth, origins of life, Cambrian explosion, modern human migration, agricultural revolution, founding of Civilisation, industrial revolution, present day. With this opinion, the person might think of the larger questions I had mentioned earlier irrelevant, or assume science has already answered. As a consequence, they might scoff at philosophy and theology.
Consequently, I'd like to argue that the idea of a metaphysical power being the source of everything is still relevant and worth contemplating. In my endeavor, I've tried my best not to appeal to theology, unjustified faith, or mindless belief. Rather, I've formulated my arguments by referring largely to philosophy, logic, and experience - Insofar as I understand these two disciplines. Before I set out to elaborate on my arguments, I'd like to begin by discussing modern science and how it's done.
How is modern science done?
Modern science is characterized by the scientific method. The scientific method involves following a set of practices.
1. Make an observation: You observe a pattern in the world.
2. Ask a question: Why does it behave that way?
3. Form a hypothesis: Make an educated guess that entails a testable prediction
4. Experiment: Conduct experiments to test your prediction. If a prediction turns out to be incorrect, refine the hypothesis, and if it turns out to be right, test more.
5. Test more: Subject your hypothesis to further rigorous testing, and if it still stands the scrutiny, generalize
6. Induction: Generalize and form a theory based on inductive reasoning.
The Scientific method and its central feature
The central feature behind this method is its ability to be falsified. According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are characterized by future predictions that can invalidate the theory. This feature, in Popper's eyes, distinguished science from pseudo-science. Here's Popper's account of why the theory of general relativity is science, whereas Freud's theory of psychoanalysis and marxists' theory of history are pseudo-science. In a nutshell, Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of general relativity made specific predictions, which if it did not agree with observations, could've been proven wrong, as with how Newton's theory of gravity was indeed proven to be an incorrect account of gravity. Whereas any behavioral phenomena could be retro-fitted into Freud's model of psychoanalysis. Popper thought this was a problem. Given Popper's observations, we can infer that scientific theories are subject to change.
Thomas Kuhn, a historian and philosopher of science, made similar observations about science. In his book philosophy of science, Samir Osaka discusses khun's views on science. In Khun's opinion - Paraphrasing from the book,
Many think that science progresses towards the truth in a linear fashion. They believe that incorrect ideas get replaced by newer, correct ones, thus later theories are objectively better than earlier ones, and hence, scientific knowledge accumulates over time.
The central point is, with new tools, new approaches, and new pieces of information, scientific theories are bound to change. So, they don’t necessarily offer true descriptions about reality, but they offer convenient explanations for our empirical observations! With this context, let me set out to make some arguments which have been historically made for the existence of a higher source of truth. While there are many more such powerful arguments, I have chosen the below - primarily because I believe they have good explanatory power.
1.The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thomas Aquinas made 5 arguments to prove god's existence. The first four are collectively referred to as the cosmological arguments. However, I'd like to discuss its variant - The Kalam cosmological argument, which was propounded by Al-Ghazali - a twelfth century Muslim theologian and later explicated by Dr. William Lane Craig, who I profoundly admire.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Objection
Quantum particles can come into existence from nothing.
Scientists like Lawrence Krauss maintain that quantum particles frequently pop in and out of existence from nothing.
Response 1
In his review of Lawrence Krauss's book, Here's what David Albert, B.S., Physics, Columbia College; Ph.D., Theoretical Physics, The Rockefeller University wrote.
"And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them right — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing." - Review by David Albert
According to Hilbert, Krauss argues that quantum particles pop in and out of existence because of the fundamental physical laws that govern relativistic quantum field theories. However, Hilbert argues that does not constitute nothing.
"The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."
Response 2
Dr Craig tackles this problem in his own way and gives 3 reasons to support the 1st premise. To summarize his responses, Dr Craig argues that we have no good reasons to believe that something can come out of nothing and reckons such arguments an appeal to something worse than magic. So, Krauss and his proponents fail to establish how something can come out of nothing. In other words, they fail to provide a logical explanation for how something can come into existence without a cause.
Response 3
In order to show that something can come out of nothing, it's imperative to establish that something can be one of the consequences of nothing. But nothingness has no properties and hence it cannot yield any consequences. Therefore, it's not logically plausible for something to come out of nothing.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist (which means, it’s finite in time, size and space)
Objection 1
The universe always existed and will always exist.
Response 1
This implies that the universe had an infinite past. However, infinite regress of events, Craig argues, would lead to all kinds of absurdities, as he explains with this Hilbert hotel example. Here's another explanation for why infinite regress is logically not possible in the following.
If we had an actual infinite universe, then it would not be logically possible to reach the present. We reach the present by successive additions, one moment of time is added by another moment of time and then added by another moment of time. But if we have an infinite past, if we could go forever into the past, then there is no point we can begin to add moments in order to reach the present.
Assume you set out on a journey to your home, and your home was an infinite miles away. No matter how long you walked, you will never reach your home, as you'd still have to cover an infinite amount of distance. The same applies when you traverse the past. If the past is infinite, then no matter how much time has passed by, you will never reach the present moment, because it would take an infinite amount of time to come to the present. But we are in the present moment. So because of this we have to reject an actual infinite universe and the possibility of infinite regress.
Response 2
We know from our existing cosmological theory, which we refer to as the Big bang that the universe had a beginning. I think it'd be unnecessary to discuss the evidence for the Big bang in this article. So, I leave it at this.
Objection 2
Our universe is part of a multiverse - a cyclic set of events that cause the Big bang,the death and destruction of the universe, followed by another Big bang.
Response 1
Who created the multiverse? We discussed how infinite regress of events is not plausible. Therefore, there must have been a first cause.
Response 2
Why is there something at all and not nothing?
Objection 3
We need to take it as a brute fact that the universe exists.
This line of argument was propounded by Betrand Russell and Sean Carroll
Response:If we have to take it on faith that It's a brute fact that the universe exists, why not take it on faith that God created the universe?
Let me summarize the premise 1 and 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence. Now, let's discuss the nature of the cause. Let me make 2 more arguments.
1. A finite system (Universe) cannot cause itself into existence.
You don't see objects and things around you cause themselves into existence. Both living and nonliving things don't cause their own existence. The universe is made up of only living and nonliving things. Therefore, it's reasonable to argue that the universe could not have caused itself into existence.
2. No properties (Space & time) of a system (Universe) can cause the system to come into existence.
The CPU, RAM and ROM don't cause the computer to come into existence. Our hands and legs don't cause us to come into existence. The properties of both living and nonliving things don't cause the living and nonliving things to come into existence. Because the universe is made up of living and nonliving things, it's logical to argue that no properties of the universe could not have caused itself into existence.
Therefore, it follows that the universe had an external cause.
Since the universe is finite in space and time, and since it had an external cause, it's reasonable and justified to posit a single uncaused cause of the universe, Infinite in space and time.
2. Freewill
In this section of my piece, I purport to do the following
- Explain why the debate about freewill is important
- Articulate why it's inconsistent with science
- To make an argument that freewill exists (Although it's inconsistent with science)
- Argue that we derive freewill from a metaphysical source
Any discussion about freewill must begin with the definition of the term. While philosophers have debated its actual definition, I go with a simple and a relatable one. Freewill, in my view, is the capacity that enables conscious beings to make choices. It's the idea that we are presented with different choices, and that we can will to pursue any of the choices. Think about walking to the pantry to grab a cup of coffee. If you had freewill, it would imply that you willed to get up from your seat and walk to the pantry to drink the coffee. With the term freewill, I obviously don't intend to mean we are unconstrained in every way. We are certainly constrained by various environmental variables. But that's not how I am construing the term. For me, freewill is about having the capacity to make a choice, regardless of whether that choice enables one to achieve a desired outcome.
A) Why the debate about freewill is important
The idea that humans have freewill is essential to how the world functions. Our legal, political, and social systems are predicated on the idea that we have freewill. I mean, why send someone to prison, if they were already determined to commit a crime? "But hey, why is there a debate about freewill, isn't it obvious that we have one?" If you have this question, read on. The idea that we possess freewill might seem rudimentary to readers, but turns out that it's not.The idea of freewill is inconsistent with science.
B) Why the idea of Freewill is inconsistent with science.
Whenever I come across a science worshiper, I pose the question of whether they believe in freewill. Most - in my experience - have said yes, and have been perplexed completely at my retort that their view was untenable. Freewill does not make sense from a scientific standpoint. Let me explain,
Science teaches us that we are made up of matter at a fundamental level. Atom is a unit of matter that contains particles like quarks, leptons, electrons, etc. Now, these particles obey the physical laws. This means, all our actions, thoughts, decisions and everything are determined by the physical laws. And they have been determined - not now, but even before we were born, even before our species existed, even before any living things existed, even before our earth existed. In a nutshell, the totality of everything (I literally mean everything from the beginning to the end) is already determined at Big bang.
Robert Sapolsky, neuroscientist at Stanford, explains this idea in his new book Determined: Life without freewill. Here's his interview in which he discusses his new book. I have skimmed through his earlier book - Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst,
where he goes into comprehensive detail as to why we don't have freewill. Not just Sapolsky, but many other scientists who I admire, like Brian Greene, theoretical physicist and mathematician at Columbia university and Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, maintain this position. Why do many scientists think this way?
Because since matter came into existence after the big bang, it's been governed by the laws of physics - At the macroscopic level, it's been governed by cause and effect or what we call the principle of causality and at the microscopic level, by quantum indeterminacy. So based on this view, every action, every thought, every decision that you take is contingent on an earlier cause, which itself is contingent on the earlier one - all the way till the Big bang.
However, freewill - by definition - requires you to break the causal chain.You cannot freely will to do something, if your actions are contingent on earlier causes. Hence freewill does not exist from a scientific point of view.
C) Argument for why freewill exists
The notion that we are a bag of particles obeying the laws of physics (by which we are determined or indeterminate) comes from the idea that we are made up only of matter. It also stems from a pompous view that anything that can't be understood or explained within a scientific context must be discarded or must be false. Let me first explain why science is not the only framework to make meaning about reality.
There are different ways to make meaning of the reality we experience.
1. Empirically: Observing, hypothesizing, experimenting and testing and generalizing. The scientific enterprise is built around this form.
2. Deductively (Via logic):
Premise 1: Josephs is a boy's school
Premise 2: Person X studies in Josephs
Conclusion: Therefore, it logically follows that Person X is a boy!
3. Mathematically: Mathematical statements like 1+1= 2 are logically necessary truths that are not contingent on the empirical world. In other words, mathematical statements like 1+1=2 don't depend on our existence or physical objects to be true.They would be true whether we existed or not, within the formal framework (here integer arithmetic) that they are part of.
4. Only intuitively (via first person experience): All your conscious experiences like - pleasure, pain, joy etc can only be learnt via experience. One can't conduct experiments to demonstrate, or mathematically offer proofs, or logically deduce the sweetness of sugar. Conscious experiences can only be known intuitively!
So, the point is - The scientific framework is not the only framework with which to understand reality. When you can't scientifically understand something that you deeply experience everyday, it's not prudent to dismiss it as a mere illusion, without entertaining the possibility that science may not be the right framework to understand that experience. It's unintelligent to assume science can explain everything or plainly discard other things as untrue, false and illusory when you can't explain it via science.
Now, coming to freewill. I don't think freewill is a consequence of physical processes (matter). I have reasons to believe that freewill exists, and it flows from the idea that we have a metaphysical Self, and this Self is imbued with freewill. Here's my argument for the self and how it gives us freewill.
Life and death - Argument 1 for Self
Let's assume for a moment that we are made up only of matter. Then technically, it must be possible to bring someone back to life. Why have we not managed to bring anyone back to life with all the advancements we have made in science? We refer to someone as a being, and a second after their death, we call them dead. What changed in that split-second. I am sure there was no considerable change in matter - In the sense, the heart may have stopped beating, oxygen supply to the brain might have got cut off, cells might starve with lack of oxygen, but the heart, brain and other matter particles are right there. They haven't perished, yet something seems to have left the body. It's become so fancy to compare humans and machines. If life and death are solely a consequence of physical processes, then we must ideally be able to fix humans and bring them back to life, much like how we fix a machine and make it work.
Reflection - Argument 2 for Self
Reflection is a capacity to contemplate about oneself - about one's actions, desires, motivations. It's the aboutness. I can think about my vacation. I can think about my piano performance. In other words, it's not merely standard awareness of the world, but an acute self-awareness of your situation in the world- the capacity to reflect on one's own mental states and make judgements. For instance, assume you are with your group of friends, and they crack a joke on you that makes you angry. You have the capacity to reflect on the situation and act in a particular way (moving away from that place). We are aware of our mere existence unrelated to any other objects. Any physical object or matter in general, does not have intentions. If you don't agree, try to strike a conversation with your study table.
Conscious experience - Argument 3 for Self
I have discussed this argument in detail under Consciousness.
Why can't the Self be an emergent property of matter, much like how water is an emergent property of H20? because, if it were an emergent property of matter, we must be able to measure it. If you call the idea of Self an illusion, then you need to contest my arguments and provide a reasonable explanation.
Believing in a Self seems more reasonable to me than believing that we are made up only of matter. To deny Self - in my opinion - is to deny one's existence and one's everyday experience of life. Since the Self is immaterial, it's not necessarily bound by physical laws, and because freewill is a property of self, it follows by necessity that freewill is not bound by physical laws, and our everyday experience stands as a testament.
However, the Self is characterized by its finitude and contingency, because
1. The Self does not contain within itself the ingredients needed to sustain all lives.
2. The Self is also limited to a particular conscious being, so it cannot be the reason for freewill of all conscious beings.
3. The Self is not a necessary thing. The world would exist without conscious selves with only non-living things.
Therefore it's reasonable to posit that the contingent Self must be contained within a metaphysically necessary, unbounded Self.
Let me summarize.
1. I explained why science is not necessarily the only way to understand reality.
2. I made a couple of arguments for a metaphysical Self.
3. With those arguments, I made a case for why the Self is metaphysical (Can't be grounded in physical processes)
4. I made a case that freewill logically follows from the Self because the idea of freewill is also metaphysical.
5. I explained why the Self is finite and contingent and therefore concluded that as a matter of metaphysical necessity, it's reasonable to argue that the Self be contained in an unbounded Self.
3. Consciousness
In this section, I intend to do the following
1. Define the idea of consciousness as construed largely in the west
2. Explain why is there a debate about consciousness
3. Make an argument that it can't be understood from a scientific perspective.
4. A metaphysical case for consciousness
A) Why is there a debate about consciousness?
It matters because consciousness seems to elude our understanding of
- What it is - Is it a substance? or is it non-physical?
- Its relationship with the physical world - how does it affect change in the physical world?
- Its centrality in human experience - why there is “something it is like” for a subject in a conscious experience? and why a subject experiences a specific type of experience.
Let me explain,
The conventional scientific view is that we are made up only of matter. Matter possesses physical properties like shape, size, mass etc. These physical quantities can be observed, measured, tested and understood. But we also have experiences which appear to be non-physical in nature. Is it possible to measure the size of pain or test the mass of joy? These are qualitative experiences that don't have physical properties, and they are experienced only subjectively, and in consequence, seem to be happening in a world of their own. But the catch is, the phenomenal and the physical seem to interact. When I hit my leg against a wall (physical process), I can experience a conscious state of pain (phenomenal experience). Conversely, I can jump in joy, scream in fear, and shout in anger (phenomenal state causing physical activities). The physical process and phenomenal experience seem to be in different worlds, yet they interact, and that's what has given rise to the debate about the nature of consciousness.
B) Science may not explain consciousness
You might've noticed that in the earlier paragraph, I mentioned that the physical and phenomenal worlds seem to interact. You might wonder "What's the mystery here?" phenomenal experiences are caused by physical events. After all, we have neurophysiological explanations for experiences like pain. Scientists and many philosophers argue that phenomenal experiences like pain, joy, love etc are contents of consciousness, and with advancements in neuroscience, cognitive psychology and other branches of brain science, we must have a complete understanding of consciousness.
Those who make such arguments miss a crucial point. The explanation surrounding the nature of consciousness can be classified into 3 categories: The what, The how and The why. Scientific explanations can only provide answers (hypothetically) to 'The what' and not the rest.
The what
There is definitely a correlation between physical states and phenomenal experiences. For instance, I feel really fresh after a half hour evening swim, and very relaxed after a few minutes of practice on the piano. Now, I am sure we can do studies to understand why this happens. For instance, someone can do a detailed study on how swimming can boost your mood, and offer explanations for every single neurochemical process that takes place during swimming and correlate that with the experience of feeling fresh.
I am willing to even entertain the idea that in the remote future, we could have a super computer that could potentially map the physical properties of a person (atoms, electrons etc) in terms of neurochemistry and neurobiology and explain what the person is experiencing at the moment. (It's highly improbable, but within the bounds of logical possibility)
But that's not the point in the debate about consciousness. The points are 'The how' and 'The why'
The how
To put it simply, how does matter with physical properties correlate with a subjective conscious experience. This is what must be explained. Let me illustrate my point with an example.
Consider this thought experiment.
Assume you are walking towards your home after a hectic day at the office. As you are walking, you realize you have an important call to attend right now. Hurriedly, you pick up the phone, open the meeting app, and connect to the call. Since you are too focused on the call, you fail to notice a large wall in front of you, and you eventually ram into it with full force. You had a terrible crash and are in excruciating pain.
At this moment, if someone journeyed through your brain and body, what would they witness? They might witness certain physical processes like blood capturing oxygen, sugars being burned, DNA being constructed, neurons forming synaptic connections, and probably physical processes associated with pain. For the sake of argument, let's assume they witness the entire gamut of physical processes that are happening in your body at that moment.
Now, would they be able to experience your pain? Logically, it seems no? They technically have more information about your internal state. Yet, only you have the subjective visceral experience of pain. Only you know what it means to 'feel' the pain. So, where does this experience (feeling of pain) come from? My example is a variation of Mary's room or the Knowledge argument.
Science can probably never explain this because matter contains only physical properties like mass, size, electric charge etc. But pain is a subjective feeling. How things translate from a physical level of mass, size, or charge, into a phenomenal level of conscious experience is something science can never explain. Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? This is also referred to as the hard problem of consciousness. Even if scientists ascribe subjective qualia to matter, you can't really test the qualia using scientific method. Hence, the attempt to explain consciousness in scientific terms might prove to be futile. As I mentioned earlier, scientists can, at best, explain what neuro-physical processes are correlatedwithcertain experiences. But this still begs the question of where that experience comes from?
The why
Why are physical processes accompanied by specific phenomenal experiences? Why should the feeling of pain feel that specific way as opposed to the feeling of joy? Earlier, I shared an article that explained the neurobiology of pain. Why should that particular neurobiology correlate with that specific experience of pain and why couldn't that correlate with happiness or another phenomenal experience? Again, I don't think this question belongs to the domain of science. Which again proves, science is not the right tool to understand consciousness.
Metaphysical case for consciousness
My argument will be similar to the one I propounded for freewill. I have good reasons to believe in an immaterial Self that is imbued with freewill, and consciousness. Let me summarize my reasons.
1. Science can never explain consciousness, as I have explained in the earlier paragraphs.
2. Unlike freewill, one can't call consciousness an illusion - one needs to be conscious even to say that.
3. Nothing is more real than consciousness, yet it cannot be explained in terms of matter.
4. If we go with the assumption that we are made up only of matter, then we must not have a subjective experience. Yet we have!
5. Therefore, consciousness has to be explained from a non-physicalist perspective.
6. It's reasonable to argue that we have a Self - that imbues us with freewill and consciousness - as I have discussed in the earlier under freewill.
However, this consciousness of the Self is finite and contingent, as it's the source of only an individual's phenomenal experience. It's contingent because the world would still function without this individual consciousness. Therefore, it's reasonable to posit that the finite, contingent consciousness must be contained within a metaphysically necessary, infinite consciousness!
Piecing the threads together
I can't emphasize enough that my aim is not to challenge science, but Scientism - science worship that makes people scoff at other endeavors of inquiry. I genuinely believe that science, by no means, has had its final say on the biggest questions humanity has pondered since ages, and I have tried my best to articulate my reasons. In no way do I claim to have proven anything with 100% certainty through my arguments. My intention with this article is to sow the seeds of curiosity in the minds of people who practice scientism and encourage them to embark on a seeking journey of their own.
My opinion is the following.
The domain of freewill and consciousness is perhaps the domain of God. I posit this, because there is no objective way of explaining any of the 3 from a scientific standpoint, yet, in my opinion, our everyday subjective experience corroborates the existence of at least the first two, although science - by its very nature - disallows the possibility for the existence of freewill and it cannot explain consciousness (especially the how and the why). Does this situation render consciousness and freewill any less true? Is my experience of rose's redness an illusion? Was my idea of writing this post predetermined at the time of the Big bang?
OR
Is it the case that the scientific means of 'KNOWING' just does not map on to the subjective domain of human 'EXPERIENCE'? I am inclined to believe that it's the latter. If the subjective is exclusive from scientific means of knowing and if people are in relation to God in their subjective space, I don't see why there must be a compulsion to prove the existence of God. God could very well be a reality that perhaps cannot be empirically demonstrated, mathematically proven, or even logically deduced, but only subjectively experienced!
