Yesterday, as I was browsing through google news, I stumbled upon an article decrying the “Gospel of Scientific Materialism.” The article was posted on first things, a christian fundamentalist website, so one has to wonder – I certainly did – what they have to say on anything that has to do with science. (Spoiler: not a lot, as it turned out.)
The article was written by R. R. Reno, a professor of theology. By all means, read the article – it’s as good an example as any of the christian apologetic discourse. I am only going to comment on the first part.
The scientific popularizers—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and others—don’t go in for nuance, as David Hart has pointed out again and again in our pages.
“Scientific popularizer”… is that a popularizer who is scientific? A popularizer of what exactly? Certainly not of science, as that would be a “science popularizer” or, for the sake of completeness (and at the risk of being verbose,) a “popularizer of science.” It is an awkward turn of phrase, one that must have been meant as derogatory. In any case, professors Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker have certainly done their best to make science more popular and accessible. No one can fault them for that, but it is seems they are accused of lacking nuance. I, for one, think that is a good thing as I do not believe there is place for nuance in serious discourse. Reno seems to disagree, but then does he “go in” for nuance? One needs only to read that first sentence to answer that in the negative.
They cheerfully champion the most reductive sort of materialism, including the idea that free will does not exist because our minds are just neural networks that function according to physical laws.
I don’t see anything wrong with being cheerful, unless one overdoes it, but the sweeping statement that these three professors champion “the most reductive” sort of materialism is simply not true. There are more reductive materialisms than those to which these professors adhere. Also, it is simply not true that anyone of them thinks that a mind is “just” a neural network that functions according to physical laws. Although, to be fair, I am sure that whatever they think a mind is, they would all agree that it functions according to physical laws.
Why are they so enthusiastic about this idea that our minds are just neural networks? It’s not at first sight a very attractive belief. After all, free will provides a sense of self-possession, and it’s the source of the drama in life.
I do not know if professors Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker are all that enthusiastic about it, but I am sure Reno is better informed about their demeanour than I am. What troubles me, though, is that he attaches importance to the attraction of beliefs.
Who cares if a belief is attractive? Are we supposed to believe what we like? This is a very, very important point – and one that keeps coming up in apologetic discourse. Well, no. Believing what you like instead of what is supported by compelling evidence is not only disingenuous, it is immoral as false beliefs lead to false judgements. But then, is it really possible to believe what you like if you know it is false? You give that a try.
Anyway, there is one last thing that is wrong with this paragraph: Reno implies that if free will is incompatible with the assertion that minds are just neural networks [that function according to physical laws.] Well, perhaps it is, though he does not bother explaining why this should be so.
No matter. According to Reno, if you do not like the idea that minds are neural networks governed by physical laws, you should not believe it. Well, believe what you will but it would be hubris to think that what you like or what you believe is of any importance. Believing in something does not make it so.
If you disagree, then please try to believe it is not raining when it is because the idea of getting wet is not attractive to you, and see how long you will stay dry without an umbrella.
As I said earlier, I have only commented on the first part. Here’s why: the rest of the article is postmodernist incoherent gobbledygook, so there is really no way to say anything interesting about it. That’s a shame. After all, Reno is a professor, and professors should be careful not to publish nonsense.
If he was alive, 
