6 Arguments For the Existence of the Non-Physical

I often hear materialists suggest that there is "no proof" for the existence of anything immaterial. Leaving aside the fact that the smaller material things get the less "material" they actually seem, is there no other way to evidence the non-physical?

We can begin by trying to define what actually constitutes physicality.  By and large, what we mean when we say that something is physical is that it exists a) in time and space or b) in a mind. To discover the immaterial, therefore, is simply a matter of demonstrating the existence of that which is nether a nor b.  To explore this I am drawing from the work of my favorite theological philosopher, Edward Feser in his superb book, The Last Superstition. Here are some examples:

1. The "one over many" argument.  While there may be very many examples of triangles such as scalene, obtuse and isosceles and many shades of blue such as cobalt, turquoise and ultramarine, "triangularity" and "blueness" are not reducible to any particular triangle or blue thing.  Indeed, even if there were no physical examples of any triangle or anything blue, they would still be truths that could come to be exemplified in the future.  They also can, and many times are, exemplified even when no human mind is aware of them.  Hence, triangularity, blueness and many other "universals" are neither material nor dependent on a human mind for their existence.
2. The argument from abstract objects.  Geometry deals with perfect lines, angles, circles, etc and discovers objective facts about them.  As the facts are objective, we haven't invented them and they could not be altered (like material things).  Clearly then, they do not depend of our minds. Also, no physical objects have the perfection that geometrical ones do so clearly they do not depend on the material world.
3. The argument from mathematics.  Like other universals, math is necessary and unchangeable - exactly the opposite of material things.  2+7=9 was true before there was a physical universe or any mind to apprehend it and would be true even after both were long gone. Another interesting twist with this one is though there is an infinite series of numbers, there is only a finite amount of physical things and mental events.  Therefore, the series of numbers can't be equated with the physical or the mental.  Take 10 minutes to listen to mathematician David Berlinski discussing this here.  
4. The argument from the nature of propositions. A proposition like "Kurt Cobain is a member of the 27 Club" would remain true even if the entire world and all the minds in it suddenly went out of existence.  Interestingly, even if no mind or material world had ever existed, the proposition "there is neither a material world nor any human mind" would still be true - proving that it is neither material nor mental.
5. The argument from science.  Science is the business of discovering objective mind-independent facts (though that often is not really the case).  As such, to accept the results of science is to accept the notion that there are such things as mind-independent universals.  Here's an interesting video of MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder discussing the implications of the laws of nature as universals.   
6. The argument from words and concepts.  How is it that I understand what you mean when you say "puppy?" Clearly, there is a universal understanding of a word that is shared over and above our various utterances of it.  If one were to argue that there is no standard conception of what various words mean then we would run into some serious problems, such as the fact that it would render all communication impossible since we would never be truly using the same words - even, perhaps, when speaking to ourselves!  Would it be possible to suggest that I think about my own Pythagorean theorem and you think about yours (which is different from mine)? Obviously not.  Rather, we are sharing one universal notion.  One that is neither physical nor mental.

Granted, all of this is a tad heady and it should be acknowledged that there is a good deal of philosophical back and forth about this approach - which I think doesn't at all defeat the premise.  I strongly suggest picking up The Last Superstition and giving it a careful read.  Each chapter builds on the previous in a deep but accessible presentation that lays out what I consider to be as air tight a case as can be made for something.

Religion: Just Some Speculations of Some Ancient Superstitious People

Here's (part of) a comment I received on my last piece:

"Dear Rabbi, Scientific paradoxes are rooted in empirical data. And they may be eventually resolved with more data and improved scientific theories. Theological paradoxes are not rooted in empirical data, not rooted in scientific theory, but instead are rooted in religious dogma and the speculations of ancient superstitious peoples."

Rather than just respond directly I thought it might be instructive to offer a bit of a fuller treatment.

Scientists are biased too

It's obvious to this reader that science is superior to religion.  Science, as he says, is rooted in empirical data.  That, of course, is true, but not necessarily relevant.  As I've written before in many places like here, here and here, scientific "facts" oftentimes have a shelf life and that what is accepted as indisputable fact today becomes tomorrow's phrenology.

Scientists are both significantly more biased than most people think and are getting caught more and more in fraudulent research due, in part, to that fact that they must publish in respected scientific journals to receive grant money, etc.  Very little research outside of the currently established norms makes it to print so that the scientists are essentially coerced into printing what the establishment wants - and not what the empirical evidence suggests.  Have a look at http://retractionwatch.com/ for a few good examples of that.

We could also do a little thought experiment.  What if there was scientific evidence that supported basic theological claims about Creation, God or any other "dogma."  Do you suppose that these scientifically-minded individuals would start keeping kosher or going to mass, etc?  Or is it more presumable that they would ridicule the findings and quickly "debunk" them - no matter thoroughly and professionally the research was conducted?  There is real research, for instance, that supports "Intelligent Design," Near Death Experiences (NDE's) and Bible Codes.  These may or may not be true ideas, but naturally, they are summarily dismissed by the scientific majority as rank quackery while research on topics like fracking, climate change and GMO's are accepted as proven beyond all doubt despite a large body of conflicting evidence.  See http://www.climatedepot.com/ for instance.

Science is only a methodology

The Scientific Method is a great tool (when untainted by bias) for improving our understanding of the natural world.  It provides raw information.  However, what that information means and how it may apply to our lives is the realm of philosophy - of which theology is one type.  A scientist's skill in gathering information on a particular topic in no way gives him or her the ability to extrapolate or draw particular conclusions about that information.  As such, both the scientist and the philosopher are making critical contributions towards humanity's general understanding of the nature of reality.

Theology has no Scientific Method in that it deals with ideas of transcendence that are the realm of metaphysics (ie: beyond physics). This is not to suggest that there is no rigor to it or that it can't contribute to our understanding of the physical (or non-physical) world.  Theology helps us to understand that logical inferences can be drawn from our physical world that teach us about the nature of the non-physical - which is by definition non-empirical.  So the suggestion that theology is somehow deficient since it doesn't (and can't possibly) function in the way that science does it simply false - like comparing apples to oranges.  On the contrary, theology is essential for making any sense of what science discovers.

Just Some Speculations?

One might be tempted to ask if there is any empirical evidence to support our reader's supposition that the ancient and the superstitious were merely speculating.  Is that a scientific fact or just an emotional position?  There is an unfortunate phenomenon by which many people hubristically suppose that people who lived long ago were basically stupid.  I wonder, when contemplating the distant future, of these same people pre-regard themselves as uninformed, backwards and ignorant as compared to our future progeny.  I doubt it, but if they do I would think that it would give them some pause.  Judaism tends to take the position that those who lived before us were mentally and spiritually superior - very much unlike most of our contemporaries.  In any event, there was no shortage of geniuses who lived long ago.  True, they did not create the Keurig Machine, but they may have had a pretty firm grasp of various aspects of the nature of reality - perhaps better than we do.

More often than not, people who buy into something tend to regard it as fact, proven, self-evident, etc.  Those that do not think the opposite and tend to be irritated that others can't appreciate the simple and obvious logic of their position.  Aspersions can certainly be cast on either group and as such it seems to me a better starting position would be one of mutual respect and understanding.  Has religion truly contributed nothing to the world?  Just some random speculations?  Fortunately, there are many who can, and do, acknowledge the folly of those sentiments.  Here's my favorite:

“Certainly, the world without the Jews would have been a radically different place. Humanity might have eventually stumbled upon all the Jewish insights. But we cannot be sure. All the great conceptual discoveries of the human intellect seem obvious and inescapable once they had been revealed, but it requires a special genius to formulate them for the first time. The Jews had this gift. To them we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of human person; of the individual conscience and so a personal redemption; of collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind. Without Jews it might have been a much emptier place.”

-Paul Johnson

Thank God for all that ancient, superstitious speculation.

The "New Atheists" Are Not Logical

As I've mentioned before, the "New Atheist" crowd are a group of people with above average intelligence who happen to be gifted in the art of the spoken and written word.  Richard Dawkins is a biologist by training, Chris Hitchens was a journalist, Sam Harris was trained in neuroscience (plus a BA in philosophy).  Of this group only Daniel Dennett has advanced training in Philosophy - receiving his Ph.D from Oxford.  As such, the first three could be forgiven to some extent for failing to truly understand what it is that they claim to be refuting.  Dennett, it would seem, has no excuse.

This group has done inestimable harm to the general public by wrapping their flawed and incomplete comprehension of theology in a veneer of erudition and confidence.  Often more bluster than substance, these aggressive and often intolerant people are long on attitude and short on facts.  For instance, Richard Dawkins believes that he refuted the Cosmological argument in "The God Delusion" by claiming that the main thrust of the argument is that "everything has a cause" and therefore "what caused God?"  The only issue is that no one ever presented the argument like that - not Aristotle, nor Aquinas, nor Al Ghazali nor Maimonides.  The argument has always been that "that which begins to exist has a cause" which closes the loop on the "what caused God" rebuttal.  So one of two things is possible - either a) he was unaware of this - which would seem highly unacceptable for someone writing a book refuting God's existence (without refuting any of the actual arguments that theists make in favor of His existence) or b) he did it willfully - which is deceptive and intellectually dishonest.  Which one do you think it is?

Ok, so maybe they're not that versed in classical theology but they sure can think!  Isn't the force of their reason enough to put the last nail in the coffin of the the folly that is religion?  Not so much.  I recently came across an essay by Ian Kluge on a website called www.bahaiphilosophystudies.com that outlines the (very many) logical errors in the writing of these four men.  His stated aim of the piece is not to demonstrate their lack of theological prowess but rather to "show that their reasoning is not to be trusted."  Here's a sample from the Hitchens section:

I.  GOD IS NOT GREAT by Christopher Hitchens

# 1: much of this book is an extended non sequitur: proving that God does not exist is logically distinct from God’s nature, i.e. God may be evil but He may exist nonetheless.

# 2: It is also a category mistake, i.e. confusing the category of existence with the category of ethics. Goodness or badness cannot prove that something does or does not exist.

# 3: “It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers or heretics or adherents of other faiths.” (p. 17): Besides being an error of fact, this is non-sequitur: it does not follow from the fact that some religions have ‘interfered’ that all have or that all “must” do so as part of their inherent nature.

# 4: This is also an unsupported assertion and an sweeping generalization (fallacy of accident), i.e. a confusion/conflation of ‘some’ with ‘all,’ i.e. a failure to note exceptions.

# 5: “Once again, religion has poisoned everything.” (p. 27) Rhetorical exaggeration: this has no reasonable content, i.e. is logical and scientific nonsense, i.e. this is not a proposition that is amenable to scientific testing and has no scientific meaning at all – which leads Hitchens into inconsistency since he thinks our thought should be scientific.  It is irrational: how could religion poison mother’s milk, the manufacture of ball-point pens, and the activity of bird-watching? What does “poisons” actually mean? If he means it as a metaphor it is either an example of poetic license, hyperbole, in which case there is no point trying to prove it – it can’t be; or it is meant literally, then H has discovered scientific evidence of a new agent that can poison mother’s milk, the manufacture of book-ends and prospecting for beryllium. He provides no such evidence. This claim is pure rhetoric, i.e. has no reason to support it but relies on emotional connotations.

He makes 119 points in part I and an additional 180 points in part II.  Read it and see if you feel that these folks are the brilliant thinkers they are purported to be.

Bravo Mr. Kluge...