Thanatology: Critique of Materialistic Annihilationism

8/11/2019 Thanatology: Critique of Materialistic Annihilationism

1/23

THANATOLOGYCritique 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 timespan 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 asignificant 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 ,Whyis 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


2/23

There is a new interest and openness today about the worldsmost fearsome mysterywhere 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 toexplain 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

Todaypoints 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 recentGallup 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


3/23

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 inthe 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 ofThermodynamics. 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 PsychicalResearch 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


4/23

experience of physical life (to furnish a verified thanatologicaltheory) 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 weightbefore 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 beconsidered 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 knowna posteriori. For as we have already

said, death is the cessation of all physical experience. What thenis 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 believethe credibility of this inspired scripture....The Biblical revelation

fits well into the body of known truth. This will be obvious as


5/23

one reads this [paper]. It must also be significantly noted thatthis [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 andthen 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 absolutetruth. 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 understandableto 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 theywould be contradicting themselves. Does transcend then mean

"beyond logic and science?" Then, could they be conveying that


6/23

knowledge in reasonable terms? Logic must play a role and anyattempt 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 andteleologically?" "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, thebelief 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.


7/23

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 standsthe examination, so may the building.

1. MaterialismMaterialism, 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 whichrevolutionized 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 rigorousmaterialistic worldview. Materialism dismissed the concept of


8/23

necessitated dualism: "nothing but matter exists" became itswidespread 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.3This

disagreement is significant as these were two of the greateststhinkers of the ancient world. The disagreement is also typical


9/23

of the failures of human endeavors to come to any agreement onthe subject:

The mind-body problem is a persistent one. People havestruggled 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 widespreadbelief 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 noneof 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.5There 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 thoughtsand emotions.


10/23

Titus, Nolan, and Smith note thatDespite 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 couldpossibly 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 agreater 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 onto 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


11/23

view in the Latin sloganesse est percipi, which means to existis 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 atleast 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 isperceived 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;


12/23

he calls God the one "in whom we live, and move, and have ourbeing" and at the same time, also as a spirit who is intimately

present to our minds.6He contradicts himself, first, by saying

that nothing exists except it is perceived and then by arguingthat 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 MonismMaterialism 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

theirIntroduction to Philosophywrote:

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 ArgumentsFollowing are the basic arguments that materialists forward in

favor of materialism:


13/23

1. What begins must end. The thesis that things that beginmust 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 expendibleenergy 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 thefallible 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.8Thus, 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 believein 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"... Thematerialist postulates only one kind of substance (physical

material), and one class of properties (physical properties),


14/23

whereas the dualist postulates two kinds of matter and/or twoclasses 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 orconsciousness 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

beginsmustalso end; but that what beginscanalso end. But,

what if God is brought into the picture and eternal life, asquality, and everlasting life, as durability, be thus made

possible?


15/23

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 oneprove 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 standson...

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 acollocation 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


16/23

they are concerned about their body. The word "concern" itselfhas a psychological background.

Thirdly, the fact of human affection shatters the body-concernargument 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 suchreligious 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 incredibleto 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;


17/23

it is in a space-time continuum and in subjection to certain lawsof science.

Secondly, if matter were eternal, in the sense that it never had abeginning, 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 fromwhich 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.


18/23

a. To say that matter designs itself amounts to saying that matteris 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 beredefined 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 1050

... 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 couldexist for the event to take place. In other words, life by chance is

mathematically impossible on earth or any place else.


19/23

... 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 twobillion 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 1050

(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, candesign 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


20/23

McCue goes on to say that the new Quantum physics resolvesthe 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 fromseemingnon-causality. Matter

being an automata, its product would also be an automata.

This gives rise to several problems. Not only does freewillbecome 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 Quantummechanics 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 conceptof an "ought" becomes nonsensical in a deterministic,

materialistic society. This last problem needs a little elaboration.


21/23

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 thematerialist 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, becomesmeaningless 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 thesociety. 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,


22/23

survival of the powerful, oppression and even extinction of theweak, 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 annihilationismalso, hereby, collapses.


23/23

NOTES:

1Schopenhauer noted that "Death is the true inspiring genius, or themuse of philosophy... Indeed, without death men could scarcely

philosophize at all." (as cited by James L. Christian inPhilosophy, AnIntroduction to the Art of Wondering(New York: Holt, Rinehart andWiston, 1986), p.5442Zola Levitt and John Weldon,Is There Life After Death(California:

Harvest House Publisher, 1977), pp.3,43Samuel Enoch Stumpf,Socrates to Sartre, IV. Edn. (New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1988), p.974Harold H. Titus, Marilyn S. Smith, and Richard T. Nolan,Living

Issues in Philosophy, VIII Edn. (California: Wadsworth PublishingCompany, 1986), pp.89-905Ibid, p. 90

6as cited by Manuel Valesquez,PhilosophyIV Edn. (California:

Wadsworth, 1991), p. 2627Norman L. Geisler and Paul O. Feinberg,Introduction to

Philosophy(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), p.2198Bertrand Russel in "The Illusion of Immortality" as reproduced

inIntroduction to Philosophyby Louis P. Pojman (California:

Wasdworth Publishing, 1991), p. 3679Paul Churchland in "A Critique of Dualism" as reproduced by Louis

P. Pojman inIntroduction to Philosophy, p. 31410

Cf. Paul Davies in "Time", as reproduced by Daniel Kolak andRaymon Martin inThe Experience of PhilosophyII Edn (California:Wadsworth, 1992), p.8511R.C. Sproul,The Holiness of God(Illinois: Tyndale HousePublishers, 1985), pp.21-2212

John Weldon and Zola Levitt,UFOs: What on Earth isHappening(California: Harvest House Publishing, 1915), p.15513

J.J.G. McCue,The World of Atoms(New York: The Ronald Press,1956), p.478

Thanatology: Critique of Materialistic Annihilationism

Documents

Transcript of Thanatology: Critique of Materialistic Annihilationism