In a Huffington Post blog, Psychologist Kelly Bulkeley, a Visiting Scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley asks Does Neuroscience Require a Rejection of Religion?
In the preceding paragraphs [from his book, A Portrait of the Brain, Adam] Zeman acknowledges that philosophers like Thomas Nagel, Colin McGinn and David Chalmers have raised devastating critical questions about physicalism that he cannot refute. Yet he decides to accept physicalism anyway, based on what he calls a "hunch," a strong "intuition," and something he "suspect(s)" about the crypto-religious beliefs of those who do not accept physicalism.
These personal sentiments may be enough for Zeman to persuade himself, but they certainly do not qualify as a rational, evidence-based argument in favor of physicalism.
And I sense shroud science like studies of consciousness are at a stage – we don’t know enough or we can’t know enough – that we rely on hunches and intuition. I imagine this may be true for committed believers like Giulio Fanti and John Jackson and strong skeptics like Colin Berry and Joe Nickel.
Religion causes conflict between people, conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. People are inhibited from thinking rationally and have blind spots about religious matters. An example of a blind spot is the two solutions offered for the following thought experiment due to John Leslie. Suppose a man is shot at by a firing squad consisting of many good shooters each firing many rounds and the victim is not hit by a single bullet. According to many ordinarily intelligent people, there are two theories that explain this: chance and design.
This is a fallacy because there is another theory: The bullets disappeared into thin air, or the universe is not intelligible.
At the beginning of the 20th century, it was said that Science knew a lot about what, when and how, but very little about why! Quantum Physics answered some of the ‘why’ questions, but I believe there will always be some things that will very likely remain unknowable. We know that certain light frequencies may appear red to us, while others appear yellow, but we don’t know really know why. I don’t believe that even neuroscience can answer this question. I really have no way of knowing whether my sensation of red, is the same as anyone else’s, even though experts have informed me that I’m not colour-blind. The dilemma is as old as Adam & Eve!
“Then the serpent said to the woman ‘No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it (the fruit of the tree of knowledge) your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.’ “. Gen 3:4-5.
The complexities of the argument may have developed and become more sophisticated, but the basic temptation has not really changed. Behind it, is the arrogance of becoming “like gods’. Yet it is possible for humility to accompany the most knowledgable of scientists, and for them to have a faith which their science can only illuminate. Fanatacism of whatever brand, the agnostic sceptic’s or the religious fundamentalist’s, whether of the ignoramus or the scholar, such fanaticism can never illuminate. It is both “Faith and Reason” that make us fully human. Every mother knows her child and that it is hers; but not every father demands a DNA test to have sufficient faith that the child is his.
We don’t really know why the fundamental forces, or the fundamental atomic constants have the values that they do. But if they were any different, none of us would be here. It’s all together too serendipitous! The agnostic may call up the “anthropic principle” but it answers nothing!
“Accept physicalism anyway”? Zeman has not done enough research and is indulging in wishful thinking.
“It suggests that at least some of the appeal of physicalism has nothing to do with scientific evidence but rather with a general sense of antipathy toward religion.”
It suggests that Mr. Bulkeley has an antipathy toward physicalism and that he doesn’t know well what physicalism is and what criticism means. Because…
One: Physicalism isn’t a scientific theory. It is a philosophical theory. (They actually are several different theories). So it can’t be based on “scientific evidence”. Intuition, coherence, praxis, probability or another else are good or bad arguments about physicalism, not “scientific evidence”.
Two: Adam Zeman suspects that some sense of religion is the cause of the attacks against physicalism. He believes religion is wrong at this point, i.e., metaphysics-physical relations or translations to physical concepts from mental ones. You can say that someone is wrong while you love this person. So I think Mr. Bulkeley is wrong in supposing that disagree implies some form of antipathy. I have no kind of antipathy for Mr. Bulkeley.
Three: I have an intuition. I think Mr. Bulkeley is wrong because he has a strong religious feeling or similar. He erroneously believes that when someone criticizes his beliefs is attacking his person. I think a more even-tempered insight would allow him a more correct assessment of the situation.
The situation is Mr. Zeman thinks that religious dualism is a strong influence against philosophical physicalism. It seems to me a credible explanation. There are others to consider. It is all.
Zeman wants to get closer to Spinoza and get Descartes out of the way but finds no way to do it. One wonders how he tackles the questions of causal closure and reductionism.