Is all reality nothing but a collection of atoms? Materialism can be defined as the worldview that nothing exists but what is material or physical. As Julian Baggini explains in his book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, “There is one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff comes minds, beauty, emotions, moral values—in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.” If materialism is true, there is no God, no soul, and no afterlife.
The chief argument for materialism is the success of science. Science proceeds by adopting materialism, and science clearly shows us truths about reality. Given the spectacular success of science in curing diseases and providing technological advances, it is unscientific and irrational not to accept materialism.
This argument fails to distinguish between methodological materialism and ontological materialism. Methodological materialism is doing scientific experiments by focusing simply on what is material, what can be quantified and measured. Ontological materialism is believing that only matter exists. Materialism as a practice of science is distinct from materialism as a philosophy of reality.
Many successful scientists (Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Lemaître, Einstein, Collins, Huberman) believe that God exists. So they accept methodological materialism in doing science but reject the philosophy of materialism. So, the argument from the success of science fails, since many scientists do science successfully without the materialist worldview.
If math is mere fiction, we might as well use Jack and the Beanstalk to explain the biology of plant growth . . .
Are scientists who reject the philosophy of materialism inconsistent? Not in the least. In doing math, we factor out as irrelevant whether the problem is written in black ink or white chalk. But black ink and white chalk do exist and are relevant in other ways. So, too, science factors out nonmaterial causes in conducting experiments. But it does not follow that only material causes exist. As Edward Feser has pointed out, the success of metal detectors in finding metal does not show that metal alone exists. So, too, the success of science in understanding matter does not show that matter alone exists.
Indeed, the claim that only material realities exist is difficult to reconcile with the reality that 2+2=4. This reality is not material. It is not composed of molecules, chemicals, or atoms. It has no particular length or weight or density. Before the material universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago, it was the case that 2+2=4, and it would remain the case even if the material universe ceased to exist. So, this mathematical reality does not depend on matter.
Of course, every written representation of the reality that 2+2=4 has certain material characteristics. But the written representation and the reality are two different things. I can write “2+2=4” in large script or small, in pink ink or in crimson crayon, but none of these changes in written representation change the reality of 2+2=4 in the least. These written representations manifest the same unaltered reality, despite the changing and changeable molecules of representation. The innumerable truths of mathematics are not material realities with a particular length, or color, or weight, or chemical composition. So, since there are realities that are not material, materialism as a worldview is false.
Indeed, chemistry, biology, and physics all presuppose the truth of mathematics. For example, Newton’s second law of motion, “Force equals mass times acceleration,” assumes the truth of multiplication, as does E = mc2. Scientific success is impossible without reliance on the truth of immaterial mathematical realities.
If the philosophy of materialism were true, immaterial realities would not exist. Immaterial mathematical claims would turn out to be just concepts in our minds, mere fictions, just stories we make up that don’t correspond to what actually is outside our minds. If mathematical truths don’t really exist, then the application of mathematical formulas would not help us to understand the world. If math is mere fiction, we might as well use Jack and the Beanstalk to explain the biology of plant growth, Beauty and the Beast to understand endangered species, or Aladdin and His Magic Lamp to engineer planes. But science is real, so math is not fiction.
The philosophy of materialism and practice of science are difficult to reconcile in another way. If materialism as a philosophy is right, then the only realities that exist are composed of chemicals, molecules, and atoms. But ethical norms are not material realities. The ethical propositions “Seek the truth,” “Don’t falsify lab results,” and “Don’t fabricate your work” are not composed of chemicals, molecules, and atoms. Despite the efforts of some philosopher advocates of materialism, the “is” of matter alone doesn’t readily yield the “ought” of ethics. Science is a collaborative endeavor that cannot succeed if scientists falsify their lab results and fabricate their findings. So unless scientists live in accordance with these nonmaterial realities, then science as a social practice cannot flourish.
To accept the philosophy of materialism but act on a rejection of materialism in following ethical norms is a kind of contradiction. As Flanner O’Connor pointed out, “About the only way we know whether we believe or not is by what we do.” So, science as a practice is inconsistent with materialism.
What is the bottom line? The success of science does not justify materialism as a worldview. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Lemaître, Einstein, Collins, Huberman and a majority of Nobel Prize winners in science in the twentieth century believed in the existence of God (so they rejected materialism as a worldview), but they did excellent science. Indeed, the success of science is a reason to reject the philosophy of materialism. Science presupposes the reality of nonphysical mathematical truths. The practice of science also requires acting in ways consistent with nonmaterial realities of moral norms such as “Seek the truth,” “Don’t falsify lab results,” and “Don’t fabricate your work.” So, combining the philosophy of materialism and science is self-defeating. To be consistent, we must choose science or materialism. Pick a lane.