In modern times, the world has ignored its spiritual side. The world has become too materialistic in its outlook. That which pertains to spirituality is mocked. This, in itself, is not new to our era. What is new is the arrogance of some materialists. They bring out many old philosophical ideas and treats them as something new and spectacular. What is even worse, there has arisen what can only be called an anti-philosopher. He is someone, like an empirical scientist, who has no philosophical background:  without knowing anything about metaphysics and ontology, he makes philosophical judgments, and strangely enough he denies that he is doing so. The roots of empirical science, the ones which are needed in order for science to be valid, are ignored. While science should not be treated to be true without examining its base, the new anti-philosophers denies there is any need to explore the basis for science, and in doing so, makes the science he proclaims to be without strength or support, and it becomes groundless. But the anti-philosopher will deny the groundless basis of his view, and state there is no need to explore the ground of science. This creates an apathy towards the truth that is spread about in the general populace, and everything at best becomes pragmatic. It is strange that many do not desire to explore the philosophical ground by which science is based upon, while they believe science is the height of learning. If something is considered the highlight of education and knowledge, than its basis should be quite important. But, by ignoring the basis of empirical science, this provides a model for further apathy in other realms of knowledge as well. Hence, our modern education, which is considered so high and noble, is nonetheless far able to provide knowledge and wisdom than these anti-philosophers would have us believe. It explains in part, not all, of the current trend of the education system -- the same system which tends to be producing more graduates that can not do simple reading and mathematics. Science offers for its proof inventions and "advances," which seems to the normal person as enough evidence to him to believe that science is indeed the perfection of human knowledge. Logically, this kind of proof is not all conclusive. It is because of this trend that man is no longer able to be truly enlightened and wise. It has also allowed him to depart from understanding and having a belief in the immaterial, spiritual realm of reality. What needs to be shown is that there is indeed a higher realm of existence, beyond the purely mechanical universe which the modern empirical scientist demonstrates. It must be said that not all scientists treat science in this fashion, nor that science is of itself bad (for it is not, but rather good and necessary), but the media and the "elites" of science have made materialism as the end all of being (though this is indeed nothing old; it is indeed a result of materialistic speculation that has been observed for centuries, and it often leads to strong decay in spiritual matters). To do this, what must be shown is the kind of man that materialistic science describes, and to show how it can not be acceptable.
    Man for the materialistic scientist is a machine at best, and at worst just chemical reactions. The universe is run by physical laws, on many different levels: sub-atomic, atomic, physical, chemical, biological, etc. These different levels used to create the concept that what makes man are laws which control his or her reactions: a conditioned experience, or to put it in more simple terms, a man who has no free will. What a man does is controlled by chemical processes: not only are they said to influence the actions of a man, they must be said to make these actions. If one could understand every single reaction that is being made on the face of the earth, and every way each reaction is reacting to other reactions, the scientist must lead to the conclusion that they would be able to determine the results of these reactions. Hence, one would be able to determine the actions of all men. That is, each human would be fated to do certain reactions (and not in the same way as divine foreknowledge would have it). Free will would be in itself entirely removed. If one is said to even possess a will, it must be described as the results of chemical reactions. On the other hand, instead of chemical reactions controlling the actions of man, one can postulate that there is something beyond the physical nature of the universe, something which actually can control the chemical reactions within a body. If free will exists (and it seems obvious that it does, that choices are truly choices: in fact, if there is even one time that one is said to have a true choice of actions, it gives in to free will), then it must have its power beyond the physical realm of existence. If it is free, then it is not controlled entirely by chemical reactions. It might be the cause of chemical reactions, just like the scientist is the cause of chemical reactions in the laboratory.  We must also understand that free will is not a random process: it assumes that there is a decision made, out of a person's free choice, which would require an intellectual faculty. For free will to be free, this faculty has to beyond the physical realm, although it must be said to be connected to it, especially through sensual input. With an intellect and a will, we have two important aspects of a person which must be beyond the physical realm of existence (assuming of course that we really have free will). Now these two must have a connection, and thus one concludes that they are connected together in the spiritual realm, via what is normally called the soul. How these are placed together through the soul is often debated: whether they are parts of the soul, or connected to the soul (for example, one primary question is: is man a dichotomy of body and soul, or a trichotomy of mind, body, and soul). It is not this that needs to be addressed at this moment. Indeed, what needed to be addressed has been addressed: that within man, we need to understand that there is more then the physical realm, chemical realm which can be observed, but there is also a spiritual realm which extends beyond empirical observation.
    Society, by having laws, suggests that man accepts that there is indeed freedom of will, and that man as a choice in his actions. Society can only exist and have a rational explanation if there is free will. With that one assumption (one that has to be made, and one which I think is philosophically sound), the spiritual realm must be said to exist. Society can only exist, then, with an understanding that there is something spiritual in man, something beyond the mere mechanical side that empirical science provides -- and on a pragmatic side, this demands that society has some sort of spiritual concepts in order for it to survive. There might be some who postulate that "free will" questions are answered by quantum mechanics, but what that does is to push the question of control back a bit further, and makes it in a random act of control on man. Randomness is not freedom of the will: freedom of the will automatically assumes that it is beyond the bounds of random control, but that man is able to make his own decisions. To use theories of randomness, such as quantum mechanics, therefore does not answer the question of how man can have free will if there is only a physical reality. Thus, while man continues to have society and laws, and man continues to view himself with a will which is free to choose between different options, the only conclusion man can make is that there has to be more to himself than a physical being, but rather, he must also be spiritual and outside of the realm of empirical laws.

Back to the Apologetics Page