The Heart of the Matter: A Case for Meaning in a Material World

The Heart of the Matter

A Case for Meaning in a Material World

Bob Edwards

Writers Club Press

San Jose New York Lincoln Shanghai

The Heart of the Matter A Case for Meaning in a Material World

All Rights Reserved © 2002 by Bob Edwards

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Writers Club Press

an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse, Inc.

5220 S. 16th St., Suite 200

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

Illustrations by Lydia Kirsopp Lake, Still Waters Arts & Services

ISBN: 0-595-24006-2

ISBN 978-1-46979-4600 (ebook)

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Acknowledgements

A Matter of Principles

Defining the Material World

Existence and the Limits of Logic

The Principles of Creation

The Causes of Things

The Nature of Life

What is Consciousness?

Purpose in Action

Values and Meaning

The Heart of the Matter

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

Select Bibliography

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

Marcia Burnett, Deborah Haber, Melissa Haber, and Ezra Glenn, for making this book better than it was planning to be.

Roger and Elaine Edwards, for making the author better than he was planning to be.

And Lydia Kirsopp Lake, for making my life better than it was planning to be.

1

A Matter of Principles

a) What kind of world do we live in? a material world, characterized by matter and physical laws a meaningful world, characterized by values and meaningful events

Ifyou want to understand how the world works, you need to answer this question. But you need to be careful. As biologist Lynn Margulis says: Our outlooks shape what we see and how we know. Any idea we conceive as fact or truth is integrated into an entire style of thought, of which we are usually unaware.

b) And there’s something wrong with the way this question is phrased. To have a full set of choices, we need to add: both of the above none of the above

Many people feel that they have to choose between (a) and (b). Some people believe that accepting (a) automatically means rejecting (b), that a belief in material principles is incompatible with a belief in meaning.

I believe that (c) is the correct answer. To support this belief, this book presents an argument, a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. The argument analyzes the nature of the material world and logical systems, to show that there is room for meaning in a material world. It presents scientific evidence for meaning. Finally, it suggests a method by which meaning can operate within a material framework.

We will review current scientific observations from astronomy, biology, and physics, as well as insights from mathematics, philosophy, psychology, and religion. We will look at the nature oflogic, the nature of the universe, and the nature of life. In the end, we will see a world that has a firm foundation of physical principles, yet has room for meaning and values as well.

Is this a reasonable goal? Should we expect to be able to harmonize matter and meaning, or is it obvious that there can be only one right answer? To begin with, where might we get the idea that the world is characterized by two opposing principles? The study of first principles isn’t new; it has a long history in the field of philosophy. The belief that we must choose between apparent opposites is also not new; philosophers have been choosing sides for millennia. So let’s start by looking at the philosophical roots of this idea.

Monism, Dualism and Holism

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell became interested in philosophy at an early age. His family disapproved. When the subject of philosophy came up, they used to show their dislike for it by repeating: What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. Russell was not amused.

On the surface, this saying dismisses philosophical questions: no matter and never mind mean the same thing as who cares? Yet on a deeper level the saying summarizes one version of a philosophical position called dualism. Dualism is the belief that there are two distinct principles in the world. In metaphysical discussions, the two principles are mind and matter. Dualism says that the principles have equal status; each is equally real. Radical dualism says that the two principles are completely independent of each other. Mind is no matter; matter is never mind.

The primary alternative to dualism is monism. Monism is the belief that there is really only one principle in the world. What appears to be a second principle can ultimately be reduced to an aspect of the first principle. For example, materialistic monism believes that matter is the one true reality—mind is merely what’s called an epiphenomenon, an offshoot of matter. Idealistic monism, on the other hand, believes that mind is the only true reality—matter is ultimately an outgrowth of mind.

Sometimes people call any belief in two opposing principles dualism. It’s worth remembering that dualism is the position that both principles have equal status. Monism also believes in two principles, but believes that one is primary, and the second is a derivative of the first. In either case the principles are seen as being in some kind of opposition. From there it’s a short step to believing we must choose between them.

Author Ken Wilber sees it this way: In philosophy we handle conceptual opposites by dismissing one of the poles or trying to reduce it to the other. The materialist tries to reduce mind to matter, while the idealist tries to reduce matter to mind.

In contemporary popular works, the principles that are most often treated as opposed are not matter and mind, but matter and meaning. We’re more often concerned with the meaning of life than the operation of mind in the abstract. Matter and meaning are the two principles we’ll be looking at in this book.

I would like to suggest an alternative that we might call holism. Dualism says that there are two opposing principles. Monism says that only one of the two is truly real. Holism says that both are real, because the two are really one. That is, there is ultimately one principle, and both of the apparently opposing principles are aspects of it.

Dualism says: You see these two opposing things? They are separate, but equal. Monism says: You see these two opposing things? One of them really matters, and the other doesn’t. Holism says: You see these two things? They are not opposed; they are complementary. The question is: is a holistic approach to the world possible?

False Dichotomies

The tendency to see the world in pairs of opposites is pervasive. We see it in political and social policy (liberal/conservative), in economics (free market/central planning), and even in dictionary design (prescriptive/ descriptive). When we look at ways of understanding the fundamental principles of the world, we find such opposing pairs as science/religion, reason/faith and logic/emotion.

Each of these is a method of knowing the world. Do we need to see these methods as opposed? I don’t think so. I believe that these conflicts are false dichotomies—we don’t need to choose between science and religion, reason and faith, or logic and emotion. In each case, a harmony between the two is possible, and preferable. Let’s look at these examples in detail. If we find that ways of knowing can complement each other, it may be easier to believe that the principles we find in the world can be complementary, too.

Consider science and religion. There doesn’t need to be a battle between them, since they’re interested in different domains. They should be able to complement one another. Albert Einstein said:

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Pope John Paul II has made similar observations about the benefits each domain can offer the other. Science, he says, can purify religion from error and superstition. On the other hand, religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. This is the language of complementarity, not dichotomy. The majority of working scientists have religious beliefs. Likewise, the majority of religious professionals believe in scientific principles.

Science studies the mechanics of the world. Part of its purpose is to determine how things work. Science normally restricts itself to questions that can be resolved by observation and experiment. Thoughtful scientists acknowledge that questions of value aren’t to be decided on scientific grounds. They also point out that science can’t address questions that aren’t subject to empirical verification.

Religion concerns the values of the world. Part of its purpose is to describe how we should live. Religion normally restricts itself to questions of meaning and behavior. Thoughtful theologians are wary of trying to describe how the world works based on religious grounds alone. They know that questions of mechanics aren’t the province of religion.

Throughout history, there have always been people who want to use the authority of scripture to overrule the experience of individuals. They say, You can’t believe that, because that’s not what scripture says. Throughout history, there have also always been people who want to use the authority of the intellect to deny the experience of individuals. They say, You can’t have experienced that, because things like that can’t happen.

In either case, this says more about the psychology of the people involved than it does about the authority they invoke. Reasonable people try to learn from experience, keeping their preconceived ideas to a minimum. Throughout history, reasonable people have been able to integrate science and religion. As the geneticist J.B.S. Haldane said, The wise man regulates his conduct by the theories both of religion and science.

Figure 1-1: False dichotomy—a cup or two faces?

The supposed choice between reason and faith is equally baffling to me, in a similar way. Once again, the two aren’t opposites, but complements. Reason is primarily (though not exclusively) a thought process; faith is mostly (though not only) a feeling process. There are beliefs based on thoughts, and there are beliefs based on feelings (some of which may be too complex to form into thoughts). They aren’t the same kind of thing, and they don’t come from the same process, but that doesn’t mean they’re incompatible.

For example, by a process of reason I believe that the earth goes around the sun. It doesn’t look that way to me, but I have reviewed the various arguments, and they seem convincing. I form a picture in my mind of the relationship between the earth and the sun, the earth’s daily rotation and its yearly revolution, and I wind up with a belief about them. This is a process of analysis and thought.

By a process of faith I believe that my wife loves me. I don’t arrive at this conclusion through analysis and argument; I have developed a feeling of trust through experience. To me, faith means something very close to trust. We don’t believe something "because of’ faith; we have faith in something that we believe through experience. When people say they have faith in God, I believe they are announcing that they possess a sense of trust, not that they have performed an act of intellectual analysis.

Both reason and faith should be grounded in experience. Throughout history, there have been people who argue that pure reason shows us what must be true, regardless of what observation would tell us. Throughout history, there have been people who say that true faith is the only reliable guide, regardless of how things may appear. Again, in each case the problem is believing that there’s one exclusive source of all truth, not a conflict between knowledge and trust. The two can go hand in hand.

Reason doesn’t mean disrespect for faith. It was the mathematician Blaise Pascal who said the heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of. Rational people, for example, know that faith in doctors and medicines is an important factor in healing. The placebo effect, in which the value of a medicine is affected by the patient’s belief in it, is well known (one study showed that 35% of patients who received a placebo reported relief from their symptoms even though they received no actual medication). Conversely, faith doesn’t mean disrespect for reason and physical principles. People of faith do not have to ignore competent medical advice if they are sick or injured. The dichotomy between faith and reason is another false dichotomy.

Consider finally the conflict between logic and emotion. What reasonable person would want to do without either one? A complete lack of emotional response is one of the warning signs of schizophrenia; an excessively logical thought process (based, of course, on false premises) is characteristic of paranoid thought disorder. On the other hand, excessively emotional actions are responsible for much of the tragedy in the world, and a lack of logic hinders us in solving many of the world’s important problems. We are all both thinking and feeling creatures; do we really want to restrict ourselves to just one of these faculties?

Logic provides the light of life. It helps us to see clearly how things work. Without any logic, we’re at the mercy of our impulses. Logic can help us to set aside the emotions of anger and fear, and learn to get along with each other. If something in our experience doesn’t make logical sense, we know that we need to look at it more closely.

Emotion provides the heat of life. It helps us to feel the value of our relationships. Without emotions, we are capable of unbalanced reasoning. Emotion helps us to be sure that our logic is based on sane premises. If something doesn’t feel right, many times this is a warning that our logic has become rigid, and has denied some part of our experience.

Once again, there are always people at each extreme. Throughout history there have been people advocating the need for logic in controlling emotions, and others celebrating the need for emotion to break out of the confines of a rigid logical structure. This is a fruitless debate. A balance between the head and the heart has always been the most desirable goal. In this case, as in the previous cases, the ideal is the Golden Mean, an appropriate integration of the two. A dichotomy between them would be dangerous to our mental health.

False Analogies

So we don’t have to choose between ways of knowing the world. Different methods yield different results, but each result is valid, and valuable. Many of us become so fond of our favorite method of seeing that we forget this.

And as Lynn Margulis said, Our outlooks shape what we see and how we know. Since we prefer using science, or reason, or logic, we see a material world; since we prefer religion, or faith, or emotion, we find a meaningful one. But is this necessary? Must a scientifically-minded person see only materialism? Must a spiritually-oriented person see only meaning?

Figure 1-2: Our outlook shapes what we see—half full or half empty?

I believe that the answer is no. When we equate one way of looking at the world with material principles and another with the principle of meaning, we create a false analogy. Our interest in science or religion, or our use of logic or emotion, doesn’t force us to choose between a material perspective and a meaningful one. These false analogies distract us from considering the principles of matter and meaning clearly.

For example, equating science exclusively with mechanics and religion exclusively with values is a false analogy. To say that all scientists must abandon values, or that all theologians must ignore material principles, is clearly false.

A science devoid of any values is a frightening prospect. It’s true that the scientific method involves studying the mechanics of events, not their meaning. Yet there is a definite aesthetic sense in science. Many scientists are largely motivated by a sense of wonder, and most consider beauty to be one sign of a good theory. In addition, a good scientist holds truth as the highest value in science. To suggest that truth has no meaning would make science pointless.

At the same time, religion deals with the mechanics of the world as well as its values. The Roman Catholic church, for example, receives many reports of miracles from places like Lourdes. Each of these claims is subjected to considerable critical scrutiny, including detailed medical analysis. Almost all such claims are rejected, despite their meaningful-ness to the people involved, because there are adequate physical explanations for them. Religion does not have to use meaning as its only guidepost.

To be a scientist doesn’t mean having no personal values. A scientist does not have to be unfamiliar with love, or honor, or decency. And to be a religious professional doesn’t mean to be ignorant of physical principles. A monk, priest or rabbi doesn’t have to be incapable of driving a car, or changing its oil. The fact that professionals in either area may specialize in certain issues doesn’t mean that their approach to life must be unbalanced.

Likewise, identifying reason exclusively with the material world and faith exclusively with the meaningful world is a misguided analogy. The idea that reason has nothing to say about values and faith has no relationship to the material world is surely wrong. We should use our reason to help us examine our values, not only to study mechanics. For example, reason helps us to see that there are more important values than immediate self-gratification. And faith helps us in our daily approach to the physical world. It’s faith in mechanical principles that gets us into cars, and boats, and airplanes, not mere rational analysis. Mathematical demonstrations alone don’t convince people that it’s safe to expect a heavy metal object to float, or to fly—it takes the confidence and trust that comes from experience.

And as in the previous cases, an analogy between logic and mechanics on the one hand and emotions and values