During my frequent debates on one of my favorite blogs, ReligiousFreaks.com, I entered into a metaphysical debate with Neando (and others) over the topic of Monism vs. Dualism. The original post was about the morality of the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son on God’s command and it’s implications to modern insanity defense. Since the debate slowly drifted too far off-topic, we agreed to move our debate to my blog. If you wish to contribute or comment, you can do so here.

Our debate is about metaphysics. In particular, our debate is over monism versus dualism. I have tentatively taken up the position of a monist. I say tentatively because I am unsure of my own metaphysical assumptions. This is a shortcoming that I hope this debate will help shore up. Neando has taken up the position of a dualist. Below, I’ve provided excerpts (with links to the full comments) from our debate thus far. I’ll start with Neando’s line of questioning about my metaphysical assumptions:

Neando: On a side note, you mentioned “information.” In computer talk we call it software. Do you believe software is real? If so, what do you think is the nature of of its existence? What is its origin? Hardware is a bit easier. We can easily conceive of the bits coming together and flying apart when an IT guy gets mad. We can also conceive “By arranging molecules of silicon (and other molecules) in particular patterns and running electrons through them we create highly ordered information. Clearly the programs that run your computer are greater than just a bunch of silicon and electrons.” But we talk as if this complex arrangement of little on/off switches produces another entity.

Sid: To answer your question, yes, I consider software ‘real’, but not independent of matter. Sure, the exact same program can run on entirely different sets of matter (two different computers), but programs in particular and information in general is still dependent on matter for existence. A program is a separate entity from any particular set of logic gates, but still dependent on some set of logic gates.

Neando: Would you not say that numbers also apply to immaterial objects or are merely a property of matter? Would not threeness exist even if there were never three objects to count or any persons to count them? This would also apply to logic. The law of non-contradiction is true prior to there being particular statements or propositions.

So do not these immaterial substances exist independent of the material particulars to which they apply? In our theorising we apply principles of logic and numbers to theoretical entities that do not materially exist as much as we do to material particulars.

Sid: I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.

By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.

Neando: You seem to imply that God as a “metaphysically necessary being” could not exist without the prior existence of matter. I don’t understand your thinking on this.

Could not logic, numbers, qualia, shape, virtues, etc., exist prior to their material instantiation? Also it appears that most of these can refer to other such immaterial substances.

Sid: As with many metaphysical hypothesis, they certainly could exist prior to material instantiation. We have no way of finding out. We have no way of observing a non-material universe to see if logic, etc. exist. All we have to go on is our experience and our experience is that logic, etc. apply in a materially-based universe.

Neando: You said:

“I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.”

If logic and numbers are contingent on matter, how can they be necessary? Can matter exist without them or are they prior to it? Are not logic and numbers mind dependent?

“By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.” On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?

Sid: Numbers and logic are emergent properties of matter. They are like form and size. Once any matter exists at all, it has certain properties such as size, shape, number, etc. Even logic emerges. A chunk of matter cannot both be and not be, be both a cube and a sphere simultaneously, etc. (unless you’re a Buddhist). My metaphysical guess (guesses are the best we can do wrt metaphysics) is that these properties will always emerge in any possible, non-empty universe. In this sense, logic, numbers, etc necessarily exist if any thing exists at all. I hope this clarifies what I meant.

Neando: your statements seem to presuppose materialism. You said previously “By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.” I am curious as to how you would handle my question: “On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?” as you have expressed a belief in some concept of God previously.

Sid: Well, materialism paints a rather broad brush. It only states that everything that is ‘real’ is ultimately made of ’stuff’. The only alternative is to say that there are some things that are real that are made of nothing. Since we have no experiences of things made of nothing, it is safe to assume that everything is made of some ’stuff’. So materialism isn’t really a presupposition, but an inductively drawn conclusion.

If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.

Neando: This kind of empiricism seems to stem from its roots in the Eighteenth Century, particularly Hume. Hence a scepticism about immaterial substances.

This appears to be a pantheistic concept that calls the universe with it’s emergent properties simply by another name. A bit like the “Force” — an impersonal invisible power that has light and dark properties but is still a part of the whole.

In theistic terms, this is a form of atheism as is any variety of monism: pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, or finite-godism. If one is bounded by an ultimate commitment to Naturalism in one form or another, then of course, only naturalistic evidences for supernaturalistic realities will be accepted. Which is nonsense.

If I asked you “Who, or what, made your god?” you can easily answer that it is the product of matter, etc. But, and I’m sure you know this, the theistic concept of God is that He is self-existent: The uncaused cause of all that exists. Anything short of this requires a cause for its existence, including all matter and its emergent properties–including your god.

Sid: Empiricism was part and parcel of the Age of Reason. Sharing philosophical ties with the rise of rational thought in England is something I am proud of. Empiricism has also proven to be extraordinarily useful as it gave rise to the scientific method. Skepticism about everything, not just immaterial substances, is part of the empirical method. What is an ‘immaterial substance’ anyway? It reads like an oxymoron.

I never claimed that God is supernatural. Actually, I think that ’supernatural’ is an ill-defined term. I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.

I find the cosmological argument compelling. But this argument does not guarantee that God is non-material nor that this self-caused entity is God as described in the Bible, Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, etc, or even intelligent. The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists. The cosmological argument fails to prove any particular concept of God.

Neando: The rise of science and scientific methodology predated empiricism and scepticism. The age of science was well under way when Locke and Hume appeared. Despite offical resistence, it was the mileu of the Judeo-Christian (dualistic) world view that gave rise to scientific investigation.

“I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.”

Presupposed in the above statement is the materialist belief that all that exists is material “stuff” and is a restatement of what you said in #226. Thus existence is defined a posteriori from sense experience. The presumption is that nothing can exist that cannot be presented to human experience.

I’m wondering what version of cosmological argument you have in mind. You said: “The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists.” But did not say self-caused but “uncaused” and “self-existent” By “self-existent” I mean existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause.

A self-caused entity is impossible. Causality of existence demands that a being be prior to itself in order to cause itself.

You said: “If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.”

First, it seems to me that if something is an “emergent phenomenon” of matter, it must be contingent on matter, and if contingent, then it can’t be necessary.

Second, what material entity can be an emergent phenomenon of ALL matter? If such an entity can or does exist, could it be greater than all matter? Would such an entity empirically verifiable since you say that “it is ultimately material in nature”?

Third, all our experience of the universe indicates that no part of it is uncaused. All natural entities, all the bits of the universe, are contingent and finite. Everything and every event has a cause for its existence. If everything, the whole universe, comprises the aggregate of contingent, dependent entities, then the universe as a whole requires a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.

Therefore, there must necessarily exist a first uncaused Cause of all that exists

The debate continues here!