THANATOLOGY

Critique of Materialistic Annihilationism

Domenic Marbaniang, 2000.

Excerpts from unfinished rough draft of a writing project at
Seminary, 2000

Thanatology (the study or science of death) is a vast subject; its
literature incorporating a motley of massive corpus with a time
span of above five thousand years. In Christian theology, it is
treated under the division of Eschatology (the study or science
of Last Things).

Though, evidently, a significant subject, thanatology is,
ironically, one of the least non-debatable subjects of the world.
This is understandable, knowing that it is also one of the least
verifiable disciplines of all disciplines. And yet, it is a
significant one.

It is significant because of the psychological problems it
addresses like the shock of bereavement or loss of a beloved
one, the instinct of survival, the curiosity concerning the future,
or the unknown, etc. It is also significant because of the
philosophical
1
and theological problems it addresses like ,Why
is there the phenomenon of death, Why is there such a morbid
fear of death, and Is there any value of values (or is death the
end of all)? Its significance is also evidenced by by the rise of
its presence in drama, movie, literature, music, and painting, etc.

The past few decades have witnessed a considerable growth of
interest in the study of death. Levit and Weldon in their Is
There Life After Death? note that

There is a new interest and openness today about the worlds
most fearsome mystery where we go when we die. Invariably a
taboo topic, death has lately come into its own as a conversation
piece. Books are appearing one after the other, purporting to
explain the inexplicable, and folks who have returned from the
beyond are publicly willing to discuss their tours.Even
scientists are talking seriously about death, conducting research
and inquiry into a real frontier of human life. Psychology
Today points out: Death is in vogue as a topic of books,
seminars, scholarly articles and classes at every level from
college down to elementary school (Sept, 1976, p.44). A recent
Gallup Poll reported that 73% of Americans believe in life after
death (National Observer, May 15, 1976, p. 10), and that large
majority obviously has a more than routine interest in death.

Billy Graham noted in 1987 that
More books have been written about death in the last ten years
than in the previous century.

Thanatological beliefs affect greatly ones theological,
soteriological, and ethical beliefs and conduct. The same is also
true of vice versa. How a person comes to a particular
thanatological belief is important. It is understood that this
mysterious subject cannot be truly resolved by firsthand
experience, for death is the cessation of experience. No sane
man would expect a rotten body or skeleton to rise up, alive and
fresh, and recant what death meant to it. This has made some
persons to abandon the subject as being a wild-goose chase.

Epicurus said:
Death, feared as the most awful of evils, is really nothing. For
so long as we are, death has not come, and when it has come we
are not.
2




Job, in his reply to Zophar, his friend, said:
For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout
again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though
the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in
the ground; yet, through the scent of water it will bud, and bring
forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea,
man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? If a man die, shall he
live again? (Job 14:8-10,14, KJV)

Scientifically, the answer is "No". The concept of returning back
from the world of the dead is against the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. It is against the laws of biology. Death is the
irreversible cessation of life.

Yet, though an inductive, empirical approach to the subject is
understood to be an absolute impossibility, attempts are being
made to give the subject a very scientific outlook. Examples are:
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Erica Simon and
Swami Abhedananda. The London Society for Psychical
Research and the American Society for Psychical Research were
founded for the purpose of scientifically investigating psychical
phenomena. Movies, literature, and TV programmes are
attracting public attention towards spiritualist and Eastern
theories. Thanatology is significant. Biblical thanatology is
urgent.

[This work] purposes to examine the major thanatological
beliefs of the world from a rational biblical perspective and after
a most reasonable thanatology in accordance with the Bible....

Earlier, we had noted that beliefs concerning death cannot be
verified empirically. For example, if a statement such as "death
is the termination of existence" is made, how is that going to be
verified? Virtually, none. For once the experiment is conducted,
death has already taken place, and there is apparently no
returning back. There can't be the experience of death and the
experience of physical life (to furnish a verified thanatological
theory) at the same time. This doesn't relegate the fact, however,
that attempts have not been made. Attempts to prove the
existence of soul, by finding the difference of a body weight
before and after death, have been made (with an assumption that
the soul adds to body weight while on earth). The results,
however, are controversial. The Society for Psychical Research
has record of after death experiences, of people who have been
resuscitated. Theories have been made based on such
experiences. The experience, however, are varied and the
premises of most theories debatable. All such experience may be
considered a sort of revelation.

Scientific predictions are based on proved scientific laws and
principles. The theory that's formulated on basis of induction is
proved by experimentation. As to what is going to happen after
death cannot be predicted because what happens after death is
not and cannot be known a posteriori. For as we have already
said, death is the cessation of all physical experience. What then
is needed?

A clue. A revelation. The records of the experiences of
resuscitated persons and the like psychical experiences are
solitary revelations that cannot be given scientific and rational
credulity because of their varied recounting. It is not the
revelation that much matters but the placement of that revelation
in the available or known body of truths or facts. Does the
revelation cohere to the truth, to reason? That's where reason
comes into note. It must be noted that the experience or
revelation in itself cannot be verified. Reason must play a role.

Biblical revelation is the truth God has conveyed to us. In the
Bible is found all that we need to know concerning matters of
ultimate concern. God has given us sufficient reason to believe
the credibility of this inspired scripture....The Biblical revelation
fits well into the body of known truth. This will be obvious as
one reads this [paper]. It must also be significantly noted that
this [paper] is not an adventure in natural, rational theology but
is based on Biblical Systematic Theology. Thus, the [paper]
plans to first rationally investigate the thanatological beliefs and
then give the biblical verdict concerning them....
...........

Thanatology is not an island discipline as we have earlier noted.
Anything about anything cannot be said seclusively disregarding
the amount of mounting evidence or objections against it. The
unity of knowledge is necessary for the existence of absolute
truth. And to say that absolute truth doesn't exist is self-
contradictory, for how could one even believe that the statement
"absolute truth doesn't exist" is true if truth itself doesn't exist as
an absolute category. Thanatology, therefore, must also submit
to the principle of uniformity. The particular proposition must
stand fitted well in the body of available truth. someone would
place an excuse saying: "Well, but science is still young. Our
complex, high level knowledge, is, therefore, not understandable
to it." But are we concerned only with scientific or a posteriori
truths? Don't a priori truths play a role in the verification
process? Of course, they do, as we have already seen two of
them above: the law of non-contradiction and the principle of
uniformity. These cannot be denied without proving their
veracity at the same time. In addition, the excuse that science is
young and therefore must not interfere with a proposition is a
very lame one. If it were a matter of mere paradoxes, it may be
admitted, but where there are direct contradictions, reasonability
demands clarification and the law of contradiction must address
reality.

There are also others who say that their knowledge transcends
science and logic. Well, then what do they mean by transcend?
Of course, not irrationability and anti-science, for then they
would be contradicting themselves. Does transcend then mean
"beyond logic and science?" Then, could they be conveying that
knowledge in reasonable terms? Logic must play a role and any
attempt to explain the nature of the physical universe must at
least submit to known universal scientific principles.

It must be made clear, however, that the laws of science cannot
be forced upon thanatology itself. If the other world exists, there
is no reason why its laws should be identical with ours. What is
being said, actually, is that the assumptions and premises on
which a particular thanatological belief is based and the
problems it rises must be verified. "How reasonable is a
particular thanatological belief cosmologically and
teleologically?" "How beneficial is it to the community?" "How
pragmatical is it?" "How reasonable is it philosophically?" are
some of the many questions to probe the veracity or
reasonability of a proposition. The system which produces the
particular thanatology needs to be examined, first of all, seeing
that the thanatology itself cannot be examined on experience.
Therefore, a rational examination with the principle of
correspondence to truth in mind. If the foundations prevail, the
belief may be valid; if not, the belief collapses with the
foundation.

In final, let it be also understood that a perfect classification of
thanatological beliefs seems to be very difficult. For example,
Buddhism is both annihilistic and reincarnationist with a dash of
semi-agnosticism on the other hand.

For the sake of avoiding a host of classifications, the beliefs are
divided and placed in each divisions according to the degree of
importance they lend to a particular belief. For example,
Buddhism is dealt under reincarnation.


Major Thanatological Perspectives
Annihilationism
Annihilationism, by far, has been recognized to be the doctrine
of Western materialism. Nevertheless, traces of it can also be
found in the religions and philosophies of the East; for example,
the ancient Charvakas of India and the Sadducees of Palestine.
Materialism, being the main proponent of annihilationism, has
been chosen for a rational examination. Its main argumetns and
the problem it poses will be examined. If the foundation stands
the examination, so may the building.

1. Materialism
Materialism, the belief-system based on the proposition "all is
matter", is not a novel Western concept. Its roots can be traced
back to Leucippus and Democritus in the fourth century BC.
Unfortunately for it, its influence has been quite a minor one
with regard to population; but painfully, for the world, its effects
has been disastrous, giving rise to both existentialism and
spiritualism on the other hand.

The rise of rationalism and scientism led to a revolution which
attempted to explain everything naturally (i.e., in accordance to
the laws of nature). Then came Darwin (1802-1881) who gifted
the scientific world with the theory of Evolution which
revolutionized almost all thinking. Herbert Spencer, a
contemporary of Charles Darwin, discovered that the principle
of evolution may not be limited to biology alone, and thence
began a mission of evolutionary psychology, sociology, and
ethics. In process of time, religion also was evolutionized. This,
to the despair of religionists, ruled out the necessity of both God
and a human soul. Later developments in psychology and
studies in behaviorism contributed greatly towards a rigorous
materialistic worldview. Materialism dismissed the concept of
necessitated dualism: "nothing but matter exists" became its
widespread slogan. The failure of materialism, however, is
evident. It is still a minority belief.

a. Materialism bases its theory of annihilationism on the
phenomenon of the destructibility of the physical body; mainly,
the brain.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the English philosopher, tried to
limit all reality to corporeality. Both physical and mental events
were, according to him, nothing more than bodies in motion.
John Locke (1632-1704) went a little forward and propounded
that the mind is like a blank sheet of paper on which the sense
experiences are written (empiricism). George Berkeley (1685-
1753) turned against all this and argued that only the mind exists
(idealism). Then came David Hume (1711-1776) and destroyed
even that mind by his definition that mind is only the series of
ideas and thoughts; thus, annihilating the possibility of both
empiricism and idealism together. Thankfully, Immanuel Kant
(1714-1804) came along and resolved the problem by
propounding that the mind acts as a grid which sorts out and
coordinates sensations or ideas. But a problem still remained:
What is the mind? Is it simply the brain or something other than
the brain?

The mind-body problem has been a subject of great debate in
the history of philosophy. It is well known that Plato talked of
the psyche (soul, mind) as a disstinct entity imprisoned in the
body of a person. The psyche is immortal and immutable,
according to Plato. But, itnerestingly, Aristotle, a disciple of
Plato became an annihilationist. He brought the soul and the
body to such a close relationship that with the destruction of the
body, the soul, its organizing principle, also perished.
3
This
disagreement is significant as these were two of the greatests
thinkers of the ancient world. The disagreement is also typical
of the failures of human endeavors to come to any agreement on
the subject:

The mind-body problem is a persistent one. People have
struggled with it for centuries Interpretations of and solutions
to the mind-body problem are many and varied. The solutions
range from a complete denial of mind and a thoroughgoing
materialism to the assertion that mind is the only fundamental
reality and that what we have called matter is an illusion or a
byproduct of mind or consciousness. Most explanations,
however, have avoided these extremes. There is a widespread
belief that mind and body are essentially different.
4


The fact of the disagreement and the persistence of the problem
itself, however, speaks volumes. Why would an issue such as
this even be argued, if its facts were self-evident and axiomatic?
A matter of consideration is that if any of the theories posited
were really convincingly true, there wouldnt possibly be any
disagreements at all. The disagreements seem to prove that none
of these theories are satisfying enough, at least. Following is a
tentative investigation of the problem:

Dualist Interactionism. This is the widely accepted so called
commonsense view. According to it, in addition to a physical
causal sequence and a psychical causal sequence, the mind may
cause bodily changes, and bodily changes may produce mental
effects.
5
There needs to e no great, hardcore, endeavor to
explain this view. It is universally known that physical
conditions affect mental dispositions. The effects of chloroform,
LSD, alcohol, on the mind are well known. And we do know of
many psychosomatic illnesses, bodily ailments caused by mental
states and dispositions. We all know how emotions affect
bodily changes: shivering, blushing, quickened heart rates,
whitening, etc, and how bodily experiences produce thoughts
and emotions.

Titus, Nolan, and Smith note that
Despite the array of evidence and its widespread support, the
theory of interactionism has been criticized severely. People
question how two substances or entities so different could
possibly interact. A causal relation between a change in the
brain or nervous system and a muscular movement can be
understood. A causal relation between an ida and a physical
motion is difficult to comprehend. The two areas seem
independent and self-sufficient.

Well, cases of hypnotism and hypnotherapy seem to explain a
greater part of possible interactionism. But interactionism
doesnt seem to touch even the bone of the problem. As a matter
of fact, it assumes the existence of the one it is meant to prove in
the first place. It will be noticed that interactionism had already
assumed the existence of a duality: the mind and the body. But,
does the assuming of an assumption disqualify al its arguments
and experiments? The answer is a ready, no. Most scientific
theories themselves start from assumptions and then proceed on
to verification through experimentation. Dualist interactionism
poses lesser problems than ideal monism and material monism
as will be obvious in the following investigation. The only
problem lies in pin-pointing the mind, which is neither seen nor
able to be located in the body of the individual. In addition,
experiments in cephalogy seem to point out the possibility of
explaining all mental states as physical. The problem lies in that
of causality. Why cant it be that the mind affects the physical
changes and states to facilitate physical action and the mind is
affected by the physical body being conditioned by it for
possible function in a physical world? Both positions are
unverifiable.

Ideal Monism. This is the theory that whatever exists, exists in
the mind only. The only things that can be known are ideas.
George Berkeley (1685-1753) was one of the most popular
idealists known in the philosophical world. He summarized his
view in the Latin slogan esse est percipi, which means to exist
is to be perceived. Berkeley contends that objects exist because
there is a God who is continuously perceiving them. For any
object would have no existence unless it were perceived by at
least someone. Thus, only minds or spirits and ideas are the only
reality.

The problems of such ideal monism will be evident when one
centers around the perception alone. Since ideas alone can be
perceived, it is easily inferred that minds or spirits cannot be
perceived. But, ideas exist only in the mind and so what is
perceived is that which is in the mind itself. But how are these
variety of ideas caused to be perceived first of all? Berkeley
assumes that God causes them in each mind (even the
perceptions of the other minds as ideas- minds as ideas or ideas
in mind!)

Thus, God is brought into picture to make possible at least the
following two:
1. That the ideas perceived are not illusions.
2. That the ideas perceived are not uncaused or self-caused.

Berkeley is steaming with assumptions. First, he assumes that
since what we perceive is only ideas or sensations, ideas alone
exist with an accompanying assumption that ideas can resemble
ideas alone and nothing else. Then, he assumes that God exists
to facilitate reasonable idealism. But, if to exist is to be
perceived, how does one prove that God even exits? We see
Berkeley ending up in a cosmological, teleological argument.
But, the problem is that God is not perceived as an idea in the
mind as other minds or spirits are perceived. And even if He
were perceived, He would still be an idea in our mind and not
outside our mind (or minds). We see his argument falling down
here. How can one say that one exits in something (say, space)
when he has already reasoned that that something actually exists
in his mind as an idea? And that is what Berkeley himself does;
he calls God the one "in whom we live, and move, and have our
being" and at the same time, also as a spirit who is intimately
present to our minds.
6
He contradicts himself, first, by saying
that nothing exists except it is perceived and then by arguing
that God must exist, who it is clear is not perceived by any finite
human senses.

His own theory thus fails him. Sometimes common sense is
more intelligent and appropriate than secluded sense, if not
nonsense.

It has been understood that Berkeley's idealism was intended for
the purpose of salvaging the reasonability of the beliefs
concerning mind, spirits, and God, from the advancing influence
of materialism. Berkeley's approach, however, doesn't seem to
be quite feasible. In matters of belief, is it possible for one
extremism to destroy another? In addition, Berkeley's hypothesis
revolts against the very common sense of man.

Material Monism Materialism maintains the hypothesis that "all
is matter". Then the concept of anything other than physical is
considered meaningless in a materialistic worldview. Thus, the
mental is reduced to the physical. Geisler and Feinberg, in
their Introduction to Philosophy wrote:
While we do have a great deal to learn about physical behavior
and the mind, there have been numerous attempts to reduce the
mental to the physical, and all have failed. While it is always
logically possible that a reduction could be carried out, there are
good reasons for thinking that it is empirically impossible and
infact will never be accomplished.
7

Since it is this proponent of annihilationism that is presently
under consideration, a broader scrutiny of it is attempted below.

Materialist Arguments
Following are the basic arguments that materialists forward in
favor of materialism:
1. What begins must end. The thesis that things that begin
must of necessity flow towards termination is quite obviously in
the natural world. Everything follows the second Law of
Thermodynamics which states that the quantity of expendible
energy in the universes is decreasing - that the ascent of entropy
is irreversible. And, so argue the materialists that since man's
life also begins, death is his absolute termination, annihilation.

2. Consciousness depends on the brain and so must also fall
with it. The phenomena of mind failure, ageing, mind slowing
down, memory faults, blackouts, and such surely point to the
fallible activity and function of the brain. Memories and habits
are bound up with the structure of the brain, in much the same
way in which a river is connected with the riverbed. The brain is
dissolved at death and memory, therefore, may be expected to
be also dissolved.
8
Thus, since consciousness is due to the brain,
it must of necessity end with the death of brain.

3. Body concerns are universal. Though a person may believe
in an afterlife, he wouldn't be ready to go to that afterlife
immediately. Men are concerned with their bodies. The well-
being of their bodies is the well-being of their selves. What
happens to their bodies happens to them. Therefore, the self is
not to be thought other than the body itself. Thus, the
annihilation of the body means the annihilation of the self in
commonsense.

4. Materialism is relatively simpler. Materialists argue that
their view is relatively greater in simplicity than dualism and
therefore passes the checking of "Occam's razor" or the principle
of parsimony.
It is a principle of rational methodology that if all else is equal,
the simpler of two competing hypothesis should be preferred.
This principle is sometimes called "Ockham's Razor"... The
materialist postulates only one kind of substance (physical
material), and one class of properties (physical properties),
whereas the dualist postulates two kinds of matter and/or two
classes of properties. And to no explanatory advantage, charges
the materialist.
9

Following is a critical evaluation of the above four arguments:

1. Materialism itself is a belief founded on the proposition that
matter is eternal (since there is no God to transcend matter and
matter cannot be self-caused in the materialist's world). How
then does it speak of beginning and end? But, the materialist
would contend, beginning and end refer to the personality or
consciousness and not to matter itself. So, then personality is
distinct from matter. But in what way? Personality or
consciousness cannot be weighed and measured or located in
space. If it is not identical with matter, then what is it? Of
course, the materialistic world-view wouldn't allow for an other.
Therefore, consciousness and such mental states must be
reduced to physical states. The physical is, of sure, subject to the
law of entropy. The beginning of a person must, however,
account for a development and not for entropy; thus, a conflict
already arises. The problem is actually a cosmological one and
needs to be pushed further back. This will, therefore, be
postponed to a further discussion under cosmological problems.
Suffice to ask for now that when materialism talks of a
beginning, what does it mean by it? What cause does it refer to?
For if a cause beyond the material world could be proved
rationally, that cause's ability to keep something enduring
(lasting forever) cannot be disputed.

Secondly, the argument focuses only on the physical
phenomenon. If a spiritual realm is supposed, how would the
argument apply to it. It cannot be stated that what
begins must also end; but that what begins can also end. But,
what if God is brought into the picture and eternal life, as
quality, and everlasting life, as durability, be thus made
possible?

Thirdly, the theory that since all that begins must end and so
must consciousness end, must still pass the empirical test. It is
something that can be known only after death. But, how can one
prove it? It is a proposition which is unverifiable and
unfalsifiable; therefore, no judgement either concerning its
verifiability or falsity can be given. Dualists have argued that
the law of conservation of energy may be applied to
consciousness even, if it were merely physical. It, however,
doesn't seem quite feasible to start an argument for a
proposition, say mind, from a base, say matter, it itself stands
on...

2. The mind-body relationship problem has been explained
away by some dualists by the theory that while on earth, the
mind or soul is conditioned by the physical body. This, though
be a theory, is still more plausible than materialism which
struggles to explain how consciousness is produced by random
collocation of atoms. Why doesn't a stone, which too is a
collocation of rapidly moving atoms, not have consciousness or
even life? How does matter account for emotions, imaginations,
creativity, rationality, morality, freewill, and the religious
experience of man? These and other questions will be probed
under problems of materialism.

3. That body concerns are universal in no way proves that "the
body alone constitutes the self." A simple pondering like "Who
is concerned about the body?" may shatter the argument. For the
answer, "I" or "my" surely points to the fact that the body alone
doesn't constitute the self and that self is that which calls the
body its own.

Secondly, men are not just concerned about their own bodies but
also about their thoughts, attitudes, desires, emotions etc. And,
when concerned about a certain thought, it doesn't mean that
they are concerned about their body. The word "concern" itself
has a psychological background.

Thirdly, the fact of human affection shatters the body-concern
argument into pieces. That men make sacrifices out of love and
honor for others feelings, emotions, and honor cannot be denied.
Then, they are not just concerns about mere bodies, but about
"selves" in a more comprehensive sense.

Fourthly, how does the argument from body-concerns answer
the fact of asceticism, spiritual discipline, and other such
religious concerns? For spiritual concerns cannot be reduced in
anyway to mere, absolute body-concerns. The self, thus, is seen
to be more comprehensive than the body, at least in matters of
concerns.

4. Materialism is simple only superficially. In reality, it is a very
complex system. It's assumptions and theories, with their
subsequent implications, are devastating, and almost incredible
to commonsense, as we will see in the following section.

Problems of Materialism
Following are a few of the many problems of materialism that
are worth consideration...

1. Cosmological Problems. Materialism posits that matter is
eternal. That means that it is uncaused. For to say it is caused is
to annihilate its own eternality and presuppose an other external
but uncaused cause. To say it self-caused is to presuppose its
own existence before it caused itself, which is sheer nonsense.
To be uncaused means simply to be there disrespecting either
time or the laws of nature. But, that is not so with the universe;
it is in a space-time continuum and in subjection to certain laws
of science.

Secondly, if matter were eternal, in the sense that it never had a
beginning, we could never have had the present because of the
infinite regression of the past.

Thirdly, if matter were eternal, the second law of
thermodynamics demand the complete expiration of all useful
energy by now (if the word "now" can be used). The evidences
are, however, contrary to this.

Fourthly, if matter were eternal, in the sense of its being
timeless, it could never have reverted back to time. For to come
out of eternity is a sheer impossibility, since, once in eternity,
there is no more time and "to come back" requires the presence
of at least some time.
10


Fifthly, matter could never have gained the top of energy from
which it is now running down according to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, without an external act of propulsion or
starting of a mechanism; for to say that matter propelled itself
up is like saying a person could levitate by pulling up the straps
of the boot he is wearing. Therefore, there needs to be at least a
beginning where a mechanism is designed and then set to
motion. The eternality of matter is a philosophical impossibility.

2. Teleological Problems. Reason demands the existence of an
intelligent designer to account for the existence of design in the
universe, a designer who is above matter and its laws.
Materialism denies the existence of such a being; thus, giving
rise to at least two hypotheses to explain design, that is, that
either matter designed/designs itself or that all design is the
result of random chance and nothing else.

a. To say that matter designs itself amounts to saying that matter
is self-determining and intelligent; in other words, it is alive.
Pantheism, Gaia hypothesis, Mother Nature cults, etc are
popular forms of this theory. So then, the word "life" must be
redefined to suit this proposition. The facts are, however, at
odds with this concept. Matter doesn't design itself. As a matter
of fact, matter is irreversibly subject to the law of entropy and is
moving towards greater and increased disorder.

b. Concerning chance, R.C. Sproul well calls it as nothing.
Chance is nothing else but nothing.
...chance is nothing. It has no weight, no measurement, no
power. It is merely a word we use to describe mathematical
possibilities. It can do nothing. It can do nothing because it is
nothing. To say that the universe was created by chance is to
say that it came from nothing.

That is intellectual madness. What are the chances that the
universe was created by chance?
11

In anyway, chance, whatever it is, could not bring forth life in
the universe. Even man, with his sophisticated and brilliant
scientific mind, could not bring forth life out of dead matter,
how could then chance, whatever it is, do that. And it is not just
a matter of bringing forth life, it's also the matter of designing a
favorable habitat (earth) for that life. The following excerpt
displays the inefficiency of chance.

Dr. Emile Bord, one of the world's great experts on
mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability.
It states that the occurence of any event where the chances are
beyond one in 10
50
... is an event which we can state with
certainty will never happen-- no matter how much time is
alloted, no matter how many conceivable opportunities could
exist for the event to take place. In other words, life by chance is
mathematically impossible on earth or any place else.

... by calculating the chance of life itself evolving on just the
planet, i.e., the earth, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University
estimated this to be roughly one chance in ten followed by two
billion zeroes. A number this large would fill over 6,000 books
the size just to write it out. A number this size is so infinitely
beyond 10
50
(Bord's upper limit for an event to occur) it is
simply mind-boggling.
12

And so, matter, being non-living but subject to the laws of
entropy, cannot design itself; and chance, being nothing, can
design nothing. With that being obvious, materialism has,
evidently, no other way to solve the teleological problem. Isn't
the Biblical answer a more plausible one?

3. The Volitionistic Problem. Since matter is all in all, and
matter has no freewill, any of its product is predetermined.
There is no freewill, thus relegating the concept of freewill to
mere chimera or illusion.

In classical physics, you could predict the future behavior of a
particle if you knew its present velocity and the forces that were
going to act on it. These forces would be exerted by the
gravitational, electric, or magnetic fields of other particles.
Imagine an ideally intelligent person who would be given the
present position and velocity of every particle in the universe. In
principle, he could calculate the future motion of each particle
under the forces exerted on it by the others. Even though the
actual calculation would be too complicated for anybody to
carry out, the laws of physics certainly implied that the future of
the universe is completely determined by its state at present. The
universe was a machine; all its parts, including men, could
merely go through their predestined motions. Physics left no
room for freewill.
13

McCue goes on to say that the new Quantum physics resolves
the matter of freewill by destroying the principle of causality at
the atomic level. The problem, however, is how the mere
destruction of causality can facilitate the possibility of freewill.
Can freewill be possible without consciousness? If would be
ludicrous to suppose that atomic particles have consciousness
and then determine themselves their future. More problematic is
the inference of freewill from seeming non-causality. Matter
being an automata, its product would also be an automata.

This gives rise to several problems. Not only does freewill
become an allusion, but the responsibility of man is also
threatened. Man is no longer responsible for his actions. It was
determined. The concept of absolute morality and the concept of
justice are threatened. As we shall observe later, the concept
itself becomes an illusion. One may refer back to the laws of
Quantum mechanics again. Well, given the atoms possessed
self-consciousness and freewill (or say, were free from the law
of causality), one must still ask whether the laws of Quantum
mechanics themselves were eternal, i.e. uncaused (since to be
caused or to be self-cause is a threat to materialism). For once
the law of causality is destroyed, words like "because",
"therefore", become meaningless.... Thus, a great confusion
arises. Firstly, materialism says that since all is pre-determined
none ought to be blamed for his actions. Then, the concept of
"blaming" and "ought" is also deemed nonsense by the same
system. We turn now to the ethical problems. But before that,
doesn't the statement, "Only man created in the image of a
volitional being, God, can be volitional?" seem more plausible?

4. Ethical Problems. Morality is baseless in a materialistic
society. Firstly, because there is no God to authorize the
absoluteness of a moral law; secondly, because every action (or
happening or event) is determined; thirdly, because the concept
of an "ought" becomes nonsensical in a deterministic,
materialistic society. This last problem needs a little elaboration.

Materialism says that all is matter, and it is well known that
matter is continuously in a flux an dis moving towards increased
disorder. How then could it produce a mind (or whatever the
materialist would like to call it) that carries a concept of an
"ought" and thus calls for an order in the midst of disorder.

Secondly, since matter would be an automata and events, thus,
predetermined, the concept of an "ought" would be a useless
commodity. Where freewill doesn't exist, what is the use of the
concept "What ought to be"? Morality, then, becomes
meaningless and nonsensical in a materialistic world.

Some would opt for a theory of relative moralism. Since God
doesn't exist, man must dictate laws. But, men are many and
finite in being. Thus, the existence of relative moral laws. But, if
such laws were really possible, would they at least not be bound
by a common thread of a particular end? What do all moral laws
aim at? Say, the goal is the well being of the individual in the
society. Now if the end were one, how would it be that
contradictory means could lead to the same end. Obviously, a
theory of relativity could only be based on the possibility of
relative ends--i.e., where the ends are diversified. But that would
annihilate the possibility of a pluralistic morality. For, for an
absolute end, there must of necessity be an absolute means. The
absolute end cannot be reached by relative means. No battle can
be won, if some of the soldiers followed a moral law of
allegiance to their nation and others followed a so-called moral
law of traitorship. Anyone knows that traitorship is not a good
quality. Now, how traitorship is to be defined is another subject.
The existence of absolute moral teleological standards
themselves are evidence to the fact that materialism is not the
truth.

Practically, the only kind of morality possible in a materialistic
society is Nietzschean. The will to power. Dominion, violence,
survival of the powerful, oppression and even extinction of the
weak, and so on. Materialism has disastrous consequences. "Eat,
drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" is the real ethical
slogan of materialism.

5. Metaphysical Problems. The existence of metaphysics itself
is a great threat to materialism. For if materialism were true, no
metaphysics would have been possible. The two main
metaphysical problems materialism must accept defeat before
are as follows:

a. Abstract Thought. It is indubitably understood that man hs the
ability of abstract reasoning. But, how could abstract thought
flow out of concrete matter? Such concepts as "infinity",
"eternity", "perfection", "beyond", "existence", "justice", etc
would have been an impossibility if matter alone existed. But,
abstract thought is a reality and materialism becomes a rational
impossibility.

b. Absolute Truth. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias well exposes in his
sermon, "The Questions of a Man in Agony," if matter plus
chance plus time had produced the brain, then truth as an
absolute category would no longer exist; since truth to be truth
must be immutable disregarding space and time. But, matter is
changing, chance is changing, and time is changing; therefore,
truth as an absolute category can no longer exist in a materialist
world. The problem, however, is that if absolute truth were non-
existent how would one know that the statement "matter plus
chance plus time has produced my brain" is true?

Materialism thus is self-defeating and in all an utter rational
impossibility. It threatens the validity of the very reason on
which it had concluded that matter is all and all is matter. And
with the collapse of the foundation, materialistic annihilationism
also, hereby, collapses.


NOTES:

1
Schopenhauer noted that "Death is the true inspiring genius, or the
muse of philosophy... Indeed, without death men could scarcely
philosophize at all." (as cited by James L. Christian in Philosophy, An
Introduction to the Art of Wondering (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Wiston, 1986), p.544
2
Zola Levitt and John Weldon, Is There Life After Death (California:
Harvest House Publisher, 1977), pp.3,4
3
Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, IV. Edn. (New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1988), p.97
4
Harold H. Titus, Marilyn S. Smith, and Richard T. Nolan, Living
Issues in Philosophy, VIII Edn. (California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, 1986), pp.89-90
5
Ibid, p. 90
6
as cited by Manuel Valesquez, Philosophy IV Edn. (California:
Wadsworth, 1991), p. 262
7
Norman L. Geisler and Paul O. Feinberg, Introduction to
Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), p.219
8
Bertrand Russel in "The Illusion of Immortality" as reproduced
in Introduction to Philosophy by Louis P. Pojman (California:
Wasdworth Publishing, 1991), p. 367
9
Paul Churchland in "A Critique of Dualism" as reproduced by Louis
P. Pojman in Introduction to Philosophy, p. 314
10
Cf. Paul Davies in "Time", as reproduced by Daniel Kolak and
Raymon Martin in The Experience of Philosophy II Edn (California:
Wadsworth, 1992), p.85
11
R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Illinois: Tyndale House
Publishers, 1985), pp.21-22
12
John Weldon and Zola Levitt, UFOs: What on Earth is
Happening (California: Harvest House Publishing, 1915), p.155
13
J.J.G. McCue, The World of Atoms (New York: The Ronald Press,
1956), p.478