from materialism to miracles: connections and contradictions

8/14/2019 From Materialism to Miracles: Connections and Contradictions

1/4

From Materialism to Miracles: Connections and Contradictions

Lloyd D. Graham

The worlds of scientific materialism and religious belief are usually regarded as oppositeextremes of the philosophical spectrum. An attempt to journey from one to the other, in

either direction, is seldom made, but it is not impossible to traverse the barriers which

traditionally separate the multiplicity of world-views, both secular and religious, withinthis spectrum. While the method I will adopt may be criticized for avoiding rather than

overcoming these divisions, the result may nevertheless be interesting and instructive. It

is in the hope of highlighting internal contradictions within, and constructive resonancesbetween, the many traditions of thought and belief that this wide-ranging account is

offered.

Recent advances in understanding the ways in which natural selection operates

and the level at which it operates

have provided plausible explanations for much, if notall, of what is observed in the biological world. Thus, an organism is best considered as a

survival machine built solely in order to further the propagation of its genetic alleles, or'selfish genes'. In population biology, kin selection and reciprocal altruism emerge as

winning sociobiological strategies for such organisms [1]. Such rationalizations must, of

course, apply in turn to mankind, and it is therefore logical to conclude that all humanimpulses towards altruistic behavior have arisen simply as a matter of evolutionary

expedience. On a personal level, this conclusion may easily lead to a cynical approach

to life.

In opposition to this school of thought stands the somewhat old-fashioned notionof 'Natural Law'; that is, the doctrine of an objective framework of propriety, of right and

wrong a fundamental law which rates selfish motives as evil, and insists upon altruism.

To the sociobiologist, this viewpoint amounts to no more than a profoundmisunderstanding of the situation. It is true that the moralist's position is normally

propounded as requiring a leap of faith a leap which, whatever its emotional appeal,

seems unnecessary and intellectually dishonest to the objective sociobiologist. The latter

is only prepared to consider rational argument; unhappily, science uses exclusively theindicative mood whereas morality uses the imperative, and no amount of reasoning can

derive an imperative from an indicative.

Inherent in the cynicism arising from the sociobiological world-view described

above is the assumption that if altruistic motivations can be explained genetically, then

any concept of altruism possessing intrinsic merit becomes meaningless. This need notbe so, however; just as no amount of reasoning can derive an imperative from an

indicative, neither can any amount of reasoning deny such an imperative its meaning.

The idea of a 'Natural Law' may no longer be necessary to rationalize the human

perception of right and wrong, but that does not mean that the emergence of a moralsense is without some further significance. Science cannot pronounce on spiritual

matters, which, like the fundamental mystery of existence itself, lie beyond its scope.


2/4

The silence of science on the central issue of what, if anything, is demanded ofthe individual in life can be seen as an intellectual vacuum which permits complete

freedom of speculation. Interpretations ranging from absolute nihilism to the most

complex and demanding dogmas have flourished: this is the domain of faith and religion.

It is inevitable that an individual's religious commitment will reflect his or herpsychological profile and cultural environment. It also seems likely that any religious

sense instilled during childhood will continue to influence the adult. However, if we can

bring ourselves to forget, or at least suspend, all our preconceived notions about God, weare left with a definition as opposed to a description or characterization of God as the

'deepest, veriest truth about the structure of reality, the ultimate meaning and significance

of existence at the deepest level of its mystery' [2]. In the relatively fresh terms of whatis generally called radical theology, a movement within the Christian tradition, God is

best understood as the ground of our, and of all, being [3]. This is not to relocate the

superbeing of traditional Western theism the omnipotent deity-persona inhabiting someparallel supernatural realm but to resist it, in deference to modern psychology, as an

anthropomorphic projection [4]. This position is actually closer to the Easternunderstanding of God. One is reminded of the sage of the Hindu Upanishads who, when

asked for a definition of God, remains silent, meaning that God is silence; when asked toexpress his God in words, he says Neti, Neti ('Not this, Not this'), meaning God is not

the sensory world; but when pressed for a positive explanation, utters the simple words

Tat Tvam Asi ('That Thou Art') [5]. Or, in a saying more familiar to us in the Westernworld, 'The Kingdom of God is within you' (Luke 17.21) [6].

Those who seek the absolute, the ultimate and the eternal usually envisagesomething beyond this world. However, the statements above contradict this, their

declaration being one of immanence. Moreover, to understand the mystical term 'eternal'merely to signify an infinitely long existence must surely be naive. In contrast, it is hard

to find a more meaningful interpretation of the term than Alan Watts' one drawn from

Zen Buddhism of full absorption into the now, the present, the finite moment. Thisblatantly immediate view actually affords a real escape from time: wanting to prolong a

particular moment is merely the result of being self-conscious in the experience, and

hence incompletely aware of it [7]. True awareness, on the other hand, occurs when the

observer is totally preoccupied with what he/she observes, to the extent where he/sheforgets their identity as beholder and is only aware of what is beheld. However, since

selflessness in any relationship is the hallmark of love, it seems reasonable to suppose

that the relationship of true awareness is one of love between the beholder and the beheld.Taking this idea to its natural conclusion, love may be considered as the true ground of

all awareness. But if as affirmed above God is the ground of all being, these two

postulates need to be reconciled by a simple resolution: that God is love.

This, of course, has been the essential message of the prophets, evangelists and

sages through the ages, although their inspiration derived from revelation rather than

speculative analysis. The Christian apostle John is perhaps the most forthright: 'He whodoes not love does not know God, for God is love' (1 John 4.8). As John Robinson puts

it, it is precisely his thesis that our convictions of love and its ultimacy are not


3/4

projections from human love; rather, our sense of the sacredness of love derives from the

fact that in this relationship as nowhere else is disclosed and laid bare the divine groundof all our being. And this revelation for St. John finds its focus and final vindication in

the fact of Jesus Christ ... It is in Jesus, and Jesus alone, that there is nothing of self to be

seen, but solely the ultimate, unconditional love of God [8].

To attest of Jesus that there is nothing of self to be seen recapitulates what was

suggested above about the relationship between selflessness and love. But the idea of

selflessness is also central to the great Eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism. In thelife of the Buddha, his enlightenment is explained solely in the following words: 'From

the summit of the world he could detect no self anywhere ... He had reached perfection'

(Legend of the Buddha Shakyamuni)[9]. In the Hindu Upanishads, the principal theme is'When all desires that cling to the heart are surrendered, then a mortal becomes immortal,

and even in this world he becomes one with God' (Katha Upanishad) ... 'Whenever the

soul has thoughts of "I" and "mine" it binds itself, even as a bird with the net of a snare'(Maitri Upanishad). Such aspirations are not far from those expressed by Jesus, who

issued such challenges as 'Anyone who wishes to be a follower of mine must leave selfbehind; he must take up his cross, and come with me' (Mark 8.34). Selflessness, it would

appear, is the way, the truth and the life, the love in which we encounter the ground of allbeing, God. The imperative is unconditional: 'Love your enemies, do good to those that

hate you' (Luke 6.27). Here is anything but silence on what is demanded of the

individual in life!

Many people feel that their partisan affiliation to a particular revelationary

tradition is vindicated by the miraculous events attending the revelation, and this isparticularly so with Christianity. However, I think it is fair to say that to insist upon, or

indeed argue from the supernatural or magical elements of the scriptures is a perversedisplacement of emphasis. In basing faith upon such things, a Christian stands accused

by Jesus himself, who sighs deeply and says 'Why does this generation ask for a sign? I

tell you this: no sign shall be given to this generation' (Mark 8.12). It is also necessary torecall that Jesus acknowledges miracles of his opponents: 'And if it is by Beelzebub that I

cast out devils, by whom do your own people drive them out?' (Matthew 12.27), and

'Imposters will come claiming to be messiahs and prophets, and they will produce signs

and wonders...' (Mark13.22). New Testament references to Simon Magus (Acts 6.9-10)and Bar-Jesus (Acts 13.6), for example, confirm that attribution of supernatural or

magical power is no guarantee of divine sanction. All religions that have so desired have

had their miracles, as the study of comparative mythology reveals, and many of themiraculous formulae in the Gospels the virgin birth, baptism in Jordan, temptation in

the wilderness, the healing and nature miracles can be rather convincingly related to

symbolic supernatural motifs found in other religions and legends [10]. To contend thatthe supernatural embroidery of historical fabric was a commonplace device, reflecting the

mentality of the times and designed to highlight the importance of the history, seems

most reasonable in the light of modern scholarship. The Gnostic Gospels show

admirably what happens when such embroidery is carried to excess. Philosophically, torely upon supernatural manifestations as a way to faith is pure short-sightedness. As the

Oxbridge polymath Juan Mascaro elaborates: 'Those who rely on physical miracles to


4/4

prove the truth of spiritual things forget the ever-present miracle of the universe and our

own lives. The lover of the physical miracle is in fact a materialist: instead of makingmaterial things spiritual, as the poet or spiritual man does, he simply makes spiritual

things material, and this is the source of all idolatry and superstition' [11]. As an aid to

the propagation and expression of a message, mythology is indispensable; but if

superstition is made a foundation of (or prerequisite for) belief, it can become aninsuperable obstacle to the modern mind.

The argument has progressed from materialism to spirituality and thence tomaterialism once more. What has been learned from this round-trip? It seems inevitable

that reconciling the moral dimension of human life with the amorality of the physical

world will require some holistic theory, where higher levels of physical sophisticationinvoke or express principles hitherto absent or unapparent. Myopic extrapolations from

sociobiological models serve as little to deny the significance of the moral sense as

thaumaturgics to confirm it, but, between these two extremes, the fruits of philosophicalreflection often bear an uncanny resemblance to the fundamental teachings enshrined in

the great and ancient religions of the world.

References

1. R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press, 1989.2. J.A.T. Robinson,Honest to God, SCM Press, 1963, p.49.

3. P. Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations, Penguin, 1969, p.53-70.

4. E. Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, Yale University Press, 1950.5. Hindu scriptural quotations are fromBuddhist Scriptures, Penguin, 1959.

6. Biblical quotations are from theNew English Bible.7. W.A. Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity, Rider, 1983, p.130.

8. J.A.T. Robinson,Honest to God, p.53 & p.74.

9. Buddhist scriptural quotations are from The Upanishads, Penguin, 196510. J. Campbell, Occidental Mythology - The Masks of God, Penguin, 1976.

11. J. Mascaro, Introduction to The Upanishads, p.40.

---

A philosophical essay comparing and reconciling scientific rationalism with morality and

religious belief. A slightly edited version of an essay published in 1993 inMC(NewSeries) XXXIV (4), 44-48.MCis now the journalModern Believing. Copyright remains

with the author.

from materialism to miracles: connections and contradictions

Documents