materialism + dawkins

materialism

• Materialists argue that human beings are a single substance and that substance is a material one 

• Identity of a person is linked inextricably to the physical body 

• No LAD 

dawkins + no LAD

• Presents case in favour of materialism with no survival post mortem 

• Only sense in which humans survive death is through memories of them in others minds and through their genes 

• Genes do not have any sense of goal/ direction, and that genes are ‘potentially immortal’ as they are the basic unit of natural selection (‘The selfish gene’) 

concept of a soul

• The idea of the ‘soul’ is a mythological concept invented to explain the mysteries of consciousness (almost like a god-of-the-gaps argument) 

• The concept of a soul is not an explanation but an evasion of the mysteries of consciousness 

• Dawkins predicts that scientists will eventually be able to understand the mystery of consciousness 

• Suggests that there may be place for talking about a soul in a metaphorical/ symbolic way 

• Distinguishes between a ‘soul one’ and a ‘soul two’ 

• Soul one: traditional view of soul as a principle of life + a real/ separate thing that is spiritual and contains personality. REJECTS due to lack of evidence 

• Soul two: ‘intellectual power’ or deep feeling + sensitivity -> metaphorical, meaningful descriptor provided we are clear that this doesn’t refer to a separate thing. Soul two is real, and part of who we are 

WEAKNESS: Chalmers 

• Chalmers would criticise Dawkins on the basis that one can distinguish the difference between the ‘easy problem of consciousness’ and ‘hard problem of consciousness’ 

• Whilst Chalmers recognises the success of neuroscience in explaining the ‘easy problem of consciousness’, it has not come close to solving the hard problem, and any solution will require discovery of something radically different to anything we currently understand, which arguably opens the door to a dualist mental property which could explain consciousness. 

• Easy problem of consciousness -> finding out the responsibilities of certain brain processes, 

• Hard problem of consciousness -> the question of what brain process is responsible for consciousness itself 

COUNTER to chalmers

• Argument that there are many things in nature which we cannot currently explain by science, however it would be unreasonable to claim that this means the solution is non-physical, especially because we have no empirical proof for the existence of anything non-physical. 

• Neuroscience is a young science and the brain is so incredibly complicated that it’s no surprise that no progress has been made on the hard problem of consciousness. That cannot be evidence for the possibility of science not being able to understand it because of it being a non-physical thing. In fact, since we know that there is so much about the physical structure of the brain that we don’t understand, arguably that should be a case for expecting the explanation of consciousness to be found once we gain more scientific understanding of the physical brain. 

STRENGTH: scientific grounding in evolutionary biology 

• Argues that pre-scientific explanations of consciousness of life are now superseded by evolutionary biology 

• What we call ‘consciousness’ is a result of evolutionary programming designed to enhance survival and gene proagation 

• Dawkins’ view aligns with Occam’s Razor, avoiding unnecessary metaphysical postulations. 

•  Supported by work in neurobiology and cognitive science, especially by scientists like Antonio Damasio (Descartes’ Error, 1994), who argues that the mind is rooted in the brain's physical structure. 

•  Figures like Patricia and Paul Churchland support Dawkins’ materialist position. Paul Churchland’s eliminative materialism holds that folk psychological concepts like “soul” and “mind” are outdated and should be replaced by neuroscientific terms. 

COUNTER to churchland

• Mary Midgley criticises Dawkins for overreaching science into areas best left to philosophy and ethics 

• In Evolution as a Religion, she argues Dawkins commits the ‘nothing buttery’ fallacy –reducing complex human experiences to nothing but biological processes 

• Dismisses metaphysical views of the soul, which is reductionist 

WEAKNESS: leads to existential nihilism 

• Dawkins’ materialist view may lead to existential nihilism, where human life lacks objective meaning, value, or purpose beyond biological imperatives. 

• Philosopher Roger Scruton in The Soul of the World (2014) warns that scientific materialism, while effective in the lab, fails to capture the meaningful aspects of life, such as love, beauty, and morality. 

• Moral nihilism -> If the soul is merely a set of chemical processes, some argue it weakens the foundation for intrinsic human dignity and rights 

• Religious scholars argue that belief in a soul provides comfort and hope, especially regarding death and suffering. Removing this belief can leave an existential vacuum. 

COUNTER to scruton

• Dawkins insists that meaning can be found in awe at the complexity of the universe. In Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), he emphasizes that science itself offers poetic wonder 

• Without metaphysical entities like the soul or divine judgment, people are freer to define their own moral paths. 

• Compatibility with Secular Ethics: Peter Singer and Sam Harris argue that objective ethics can be developed through rational reflection and human well-being, without reference to a soul or divine law.