FAITH EVANGELICAL SEMINARY

“REDUCING REDUCTIONISM”

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR JOWERS AS REQUIRED PER THE

SYLLABUS FOR: TH 5324 - PHILOSOPHY & CHRISTIANITY

BY SEAN GIORDANO

March 13, 2007

TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 2
Reducing Reductionism

Contents

Abstract.................................................................................................................................... 3

Definitions............................................................................................................................... 4-6

Analogies................................................................................................................................. 6-8

Examples................................................................................................................................. 8-9

Tests........................................................................................................................................ 9-10

Knowledge.............................................................................................................................. 10-12

Self-Refutations...................................................................................................................... 12-15

Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 15

Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 16-18
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 3
Reducing Reductionism

Abstract

Determinism believes that every event -- moral, social, physical -- is preceded and caused in

some way by a physical event preceding it... all the way back to the big-bang or the many multi-

verses preceding ours. If this were true, then love could be weighed as it is a chemical reaction

to neurons firing in the brain caused by external physical conditions. The belief that every

human action or response -- moral, social, physical -- is determined by physical causes that

predated said action or response by a human is self-evidently false, which will be clearly shown.

Such a belief is clearly a metaphysical step and not compelled by the naturalistic evidence alone.

Believing that both determinists and non-determinists are “determined” to believe such relegates

this theory to the self-referentially false category.

TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 4
Reducing Reductionism

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the

motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose

that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for

supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” ~ J.B.S.

Haldane1

Definitions

Physicalism can be quite hard to grasp in all its nuances.23 However, speaking to the man on the

street – so-to-speak – nuances mean nothing. As the current line in our political spectrum today

says, “nothin’ but the straight dope,” the hope is to actually get to the straight dope of refuting a

part of Physicalism called reductionism. As with any concept, word, model, or the like...

defining principles should be first and foremost in the conversation. So we will start with some

definitional understandings of key concepts dealt with herein.

Physicalism can best be defined as “[t]he view that everything (or every substance) in the

universe is physical and subject to the laws of science. Related to the mind/body problem. The

1
Quoted in Victor Reppert’s, C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Arguments from Reason (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2003), 50.
2
I am not the biggest fan of this treatment by DeWeese and Moreland on this topic found in chapter 5. It would be better for a
mid-level treatment rather than a beginner’s (see TH 5324 syllabus).
3
For instance, there are different types of Physicalism: Type-identity Physicalism – mental properties (e.g., painfulness) are
identical to physical properties (e.g., being a C-fiber firing); Functionalism – Types of mental states are “software states”
identical to (1) bodily inputs, (2) behaviors and (3) other mental states are functional roles realized by particular brain states. A
pain type state is identical to (1) a state of being caused by things like pin sticks, (2) a state of causing one to grimace and shout
“ouch” and (3) a state of causing one to want pity; Eliminative materialism – Mental states do not exist, and mental terms
belong to an outmoded theory called folk psychology. Taken from, Garrett J. DeWeese and J.P. Moreland, Philosophy Made
Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginners guide to Life’s Big Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005), 120.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 5
Reducing Reductionism

physicalist says that even our mental states are physical states, we have no separate soul or

mind.”4 This could pretty much be the definition for materialism, or reductionism as well. For

instance, one author defines materialism as follows:

“Materialist” is used of people who believe that whatever exists is either matter

itself, or is dependant on matter for its existence. So all your experiences –

tasting, hurting, loving, happiness – are mental states, but these metal states are

simply states of the brain. They are material processes because they are located in

the structure of the brain.”5

That sounds awfully close to the definition given for Physicalism. Another concept or word

needing to be defined (since it is in the title) is the word reductionism. Reductionism can best be

defined as,

[t]he tendency to reduce certain notions to allegedly simpler, or more basic, or

more easily accessible notions. For example, consciousness to a physical brain

process, moral values to the dictates of society, physical objects to patterns of

sensations and mental images. Reductionism is often the attempt to reduce the

“higher” (e.g., mind, spirit) to the “lower” (e.g., matter, physical forces).6

One can get the sense that all these concepts are related in some form or fashion. So the

refutation, of say, reductionism, would refute the whole kit'n caboodle, idiomatically speaking of

course. All this plays into the debate about free will as well – if we have it, or if we are

4
Louis P. Pojman, Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 5th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 621.
5
Willian Raeper & Linda Edwards, A Brief Guide to Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 48.
6
Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular
Society (Chicago, IL: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 365.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 6
Reducing Reductionism

determined beforehand. Determinism7 says that “the laws of physics are ‘deterministic,’ in the

sense that what happens at a later date is uniquely determined through the laws of physics by

what happened at earlier times.”8 The author goes on to say that all of human history could have

been – if determinism was determined to be true – calculated because every event was

determined by a succession of events happening before it guided by physical laws.9

Analogies

Gregory Ganssle, author of the book Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy, has a great

analogy about this concept. To set the stage, Greg has just spilled a box of Cheerios on his

kitchen floor explaining that where they end up seems random, let’s pick up there:

Well, it seems as though it is random. It is random in the sense that I cannot predict

where each will go or that there is no special reason why they land in one place rather

than another. Nor do I much care where they land. Actually I do not think it is really

random. Exactly where a particular piece of Cheerio lands depends on the friction of the

floor, at what angle I dropped the box, how high the box was, as well as the rate of

gravitational acceleration and all of that.... When we say Cheerios land randomly, we

7
There is a sense in which we are all “determined” if God exists. In classical theistic thinking, God created the space/time
continuum, so God (in a sense) has a view of all of time, from its inception to its demise, since he is outside the space/time
continuum (inferred by Him creating it). If you draw a line from one end of a chalkboard to the other and then stand back, one
end of the line is the beginning, the other is the end (even if we are in the middle of this historical time-line, all of it is viewable).
This is analogous to God’s view and thus He knows who responds and whom doesn’t to the Gospel message. This view also
explains God “knowing us in the womb before forming us” (Jeremiah 1:5). Hank Hanegraaff, a radio show broadcaster, has
a story that somewhat explains this position (rough retelling of it): One day I come over to your job to have lunch
with you. As we get into my car we decide we will have lunch at the first restaurant we find by chance. So we head
down the street about a mile and then you say turn left. As we head in our new direction I decide to turn right about
another half-mile down the road in which you want to head in a more easterly direction. Within minutes we see a
restaurant and pull in to have lunch. While we were freely making choices based on chance and whimsical guesses
not knowing where we would end up... God, while not determining where we would go knew ahead of time even our
chance encounter with said restaurant.
8
Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 2003), 27.
9
Ibid.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 7
Reducing Reductionism

mean only that we do not much care about all the little details that determine where they

land.”10

When applied to the mind and choice, this theory can be (if true) detrimental to the Christian

worldview, and thus society. Ravi Zacharias gave a speech 11 where he referenced another speech

given by the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawkings, who holds the Lucasian Professor of

Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair. At this lecture given to a university crowd in England

entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate,” Dr. Hawkings discussed

whether we are the random products of chance, hence not free, or whether God had designed

these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or

do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free

atoms? Tom Morris explains exactly the mindset of these “thinkers:”

According to these thinkers, everything that happens in nature

has a cause. Suppose then that an event occurs, which, in

context, is clearly a human action of the sort that we would

normally call free. As an occurrence in this universe, it has a

cause. But then that cause, in turn, has a cause. And that cause

in turn has a cause, and so on, and so on [remember,

reductionism].

• “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end,

by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the

10
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 130.
11
I cannot for the life of me find this talk.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 8
Reducing Reductionism

insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic

dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an

invisible player” ~ Albert Einstein.

As a result of this scientific world view, we get the following

picture:

Natural conditions outside our control

cause

Inner bodily and brain states,

which cause

mental and physical actions

But if this is true, then you are, ultimately, just a conduit or

pipeline for chains of natural causation that reach far back into

the past before your birth and continue far forward into the

future after your death. You are not an originating cause of

anything [this includes brain activity of all degrees, that is, love,

pain, etc.). Nothing you ever do is due to your choices or

thoughts alone. You are a puppet of nature. You are no more

than a robot programmed by an unfeeling cosmos.12

12
Philosophy for Dummies (Foster City, CA: IDG Books; 1999), 133-134.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 9
Reducing Reductionism

Examples

This is what is at stake in this discussion, not only in the religious realm, but in the social realm

as well. Take these recent headlines into consideration:

• “Infidelity 'is natural'”;13

• “Infidelity – It May Be In Our Genes” (Time, August 15, 1994);

• “20th Century Blues” – Stress, anxiety, depression: the new science of evolutionary

psychology finds the roots of modern maladies in our genes (Time, August 28, 1995);

• “Born Happy (Or Not)” – Happiness is more than just a state of mind… It is in the genes

too (New Zealand Herald, August 8, 1996);

• “Born To Be Gay?” (New Scientist, September 28, 1996, p. 32);

• “What Makes Them Do It?” – People who crave thrills, new evidence indicates, may be

prompted at least partly by their genes (Time, January 15, 1996);

• “Your Genes May Be Forcing You to Eat Too Much” (Sunday Star-Times (Auckland),

January 18, 1998).

Tests

One can see that this type of determining factor undermines all rational thought and expression,

thus morals. The old saying “the devil made me do it” has been replaced with a newer version of

“evolution made me do it.” This also makes the Christian concept of Christ coming not to make

bad men good, but rather, making dead men alive all the more important and applicable to

making choices, moral choices; these moral choices can only be an option via the regenerating
13
BBC Sci/Tech news (published September 25, 1998). Can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/179988.stm ;
last checked 3-09-2008.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 10
Reducing Reductionism

power of the Holy Spirit helping us to rise above our determined nature, which is determined to

sin.14 There is a story worth mentioning that will shed some light on this topic a bit of will verses

genes.

One day there was an experiment that a gentleman volunteered for, it was to test

motor functions and will. The scientists hooked up electrical stimulators to the

gentlemen’s area of the brain that controls motor functions. After they were

ready, they told the man to stop his right hand from clenching closed – [or]

making a fist. The man acknowledged this, and proceeded to do just [as told].

However, the man’s hand clenched shut on the scientists prompt. The scientist

again told the man to try harder, the same result followed. Again the scientist

asked the man to try as hard as possible. As you can imagine, the same result.

The scientist mentioned that the next time would be the last, as, there was nothing

the man could do to stop his neuron-firing impulses from stopping his hand from

becoming a fist. Just as the man felt the surge of power, he reached over with his

left hand and kept his right hand from becoming a fist.15

Knowledge

It seems as if our will is above nature or events caused by nature itself or forced on us by others.

Knowledge is also affected by this naturalistic attack on common sense. What this debate offers

is a great chance to understand and delineate between types of knowledge. One of the best

examples of this comes from Howard Robinson who is Soros Professor of Philosophy at the
14
Romans 7:13-25; 8:1-39
15
Again, I cannot remember where I heard this or read it from (I have read over 1,800 books cover-to-cover, it’s hard to recall
where I read or heard something).
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 11
Reducing Reductionism

Eotvos Lorand University as well as being Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of

Liverpool. It is long so buckle into your seat, but this is one of the best analogies to explain the

different levels of knowledge.

A deaf scientist (DS) might become the world’s leading expert on

the physical aspects of sound and hearing. Assuming science to

be more advanced than at present, DS’s knowledge of the

physiology, physics, chemistry and AI-style cognitive psychology

of hearing might be complete. But there remains something

which he does not know. The information he lacks concerns

what might variously be characterized as what it is like to hear

or what things sound like, or the phenomenal nature of sound or

the qualitative nature of sound. Since he knows all there is to

know about the physical process of hearing, that about which he

does not know must not be a physical state of affairs: so what is

it like to hear, what things sound like, and the phenomenal and

qualitative natures of sound must be non-physical features of

hearing.

The various expressions which can be used to say what DS lacks

all concern the subjective properties of hearing, but the first two

of them pick out character of the phenomenal objects of sense.

For our purposes, this is a distinction without a serious

difference, for the character of sensory experience is given by its

TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 12
Reducing Reductionism

internal phenomenal object: hence what it is like to hear for a

given subject is a direct function of the phenomenal nature of

sound in his experience – that is, of the way sound seems to him.

Saying this does not involve denying that there is a distinction

between the act and object of experience, for such a distinction

is compatible with the introspectible character of the former

being dependent on the latter.

For purposes of close discussion, the argument needs to be put

in a more formal manner.

1. DS knows all those facts about hearing which can in principle be

expressed in the vocabulary of physical science.

2. Unlike those who can, DS does not know the phenomenal nature

of sound (etc.).

Therefore:

3. The phenomenal nature of sound in principle cannot be

characterized using vocabulary of physical science.

4. The nature of any physical thing, state, or property can be

expressed in the vocabulary of science.

Therefore:
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 13
Reducing Reductionism

5. The phenomenal nature of sound is not a physical thing, state, or

property.16

A page later the above is put into an even simpler format:

1. Concerning hearing, DS knows everything which could in

principle be expressed in the vocabulary of physical science.

2. Concerning hearing, DS does not the phenomenal nature of its

object, sound.17

Self-Refutations

Apologies seem necessary for such a lengthy quote, but this succinct argument not only explains

well the types of knowledge we encounter in our daily lives without realizing it, but also makes a

strong philosophical argument that consciousness is not merely physical.18 Another short

refutation comes from J. R. Lucas who is a Fellow of the British Academy and was formerly a

Fellow Merton College, Oxford. Lucas speaks about determinists saying that determinism is

true, but that this “affords us no reason whatever for supposing that it really is true, but is to be

construed solely as the end-product of some physical process.”19 In other words, just because we

are at the end of a physical process does not mean something is true. He goes on to point out that

determinists “want to be considered as rational agents arguing with other rational agents,”20 but

he further points out that,

16
Howard Robinson, ed., Objections to Physicalism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 159-160.
17
Ibid., 161.
18
See: Garrett J. DeWeese and J.P. Moreland, Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginners guide to Life’s Big
Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005), 108-112; Ric Machuga, In Defense of the Soul: What it Means to be Human (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002), 148-158; Ronald Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 37-58.
19
The Freedom of the Will (New York, NY: Clarendon Press-Oxford University Press, 1970), 112.
20
Ibid.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 14
Reducing Reductionism

Determinism, therefore cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the

determinists’ arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned

reflexes. Their statements should not be regarded as really claiming to be true,

but only as seeking to cause us to respond in some way desired by them.21

Continuing with this line of thinking C.S. Lewis pointed out that even our ability to reason and

think rationally would be called into question if this reductionist thinking was in reality, true:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the

appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole

evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are

mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this

holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their

thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merely accidental by-products, why

should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident

should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.22

Phillip Johnson, law professor at Berkley for thirty years, explains this dilemma as well:

Are our thoughts ‘nothing but’ the products of chemical reactions in the brain, and

did our thinking abilities originate for no reason other than their utility in allowing

our DNA to reproduce itself? Even scientific materialists have a hard time

believing that. For one thing, materialism applied to the mind undermines the

validity of all reasoning, including one’s own. If our theories are products of

21
Ibid.
22
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 52-53.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 15
Reducing Reductionism

chemical reactions [rather than from our soul or spirit, as evolutionists would

say], how can we know whether our theories are true? Perhaps [evolutionist]

Richard Dawkins believes in Darwinism only because he has a certain chemical in

his brain, and if his belief be changed by somehow inserting a different

chemical.23

To get this into layman’s terms, I will let the philosopher J. P. Moreland,24 from his debate with

renowned atheist Kai Nielson, explain it:

Suppose you were driving on a train and you saw a sign on the hillside that said,

“Wales in ten miles.” Suppose you knew that the wind had blown that sign

together. If the sign had been put together by a purely non-intelligent random

process… there would be no reason to trust the information conveyed by the

sign.25

C. S. Lewis finishes his thought from above:

It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a

milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it

was upset.26

Lewis’ understanding of this issue was so advanced that really his arguments will stand for

generations to come. He is basically saying that “if the mind is no more than well-organized

matter, which is wholly subject to physical laws and has no purpose or direction, then how can it

23
Phillip E, Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997), 81-82.
24
For the best treatment of this issue see pp. 90-103 in J.P. Moreland’s, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987).
25
Ibid., 50.
26
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 53.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 16
Reducing Reductionism

give obvious direction to the matter in its environment? In other words, where did the purpose,

the ‘will’ come from?”27 Such a construct cannot simply be true! “Science” does not somehow

compel the “open-minded, intellectually superior people to become naturalists. There is no more

‘proof’ to support naturalism than that which supports theism.”28

Conclusions

And so we are left with the words of philosopher Roger Scruton, while not specifically

referencing reductionism, his challenge is applicable somewhat to the above discussion when he

commented that when a writer “says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely negative,’

[he] is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”29 Besides being self-referentially false,

reductionism/determinism destroys human responsibility, makes praise or blame meaningless, as

well as leading to fatalism, but most importantly – it is unbiblical! 30 We are not merely machines

but rather we are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27).31

27
Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us about God (Wheeling, IL: Day Star Publications,
1998), 55.
28
Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992),
120.
29
Modern Philosophy (New York, NY: Penguin, 1996), 6. Found in, Does God Believe in Atheists? by John Blanchard
(Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000), 172.
30
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 197.
31
Ibid., 198.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 17
Reducing Reductionism

Bibliography

Barr, Stephen M. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 2003.

BBC Sci/Tech news (published September 25, 1998). Can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/179988.stm ; last checked 3-09-2008.

Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000.

DeWeese, Garrett J. and J.P. Moreland. Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginners

guide to Life’s Big Questions. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005.

Ganssle, Gregory. Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,

2004.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

1999.

Heeren, Fred. Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us about God. Wheeling,

IL: Day Star Publications, 1998.

Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 18
Reducing Reductionism

Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1970.

Lucas, J. R. The Freedom of the Will. New York, NY: Clarendon Press-Oxford University Press,

1970.

Machuga, Ric. In Defense of the Soul: What it Means to be Human. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos

Press, 2002.

Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Books, 1987.

Morris, Tom. Philosophy for Dummies. Foster City, CA: IDG Books; 1999.

Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

___________Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1999.

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2002.

Raeper, Willian and Linda Edwards. A Brief Guide to Ideas. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

1997.
TH 5324 Philosophy & Christianity Prof Whatley/Prof Jowers 19
Reducing Reductionism

Reppert’s, Victor. C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Arguments from Reason.

Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003.

Robinson, Howard ed. Objections to Physicalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

1993.

Scruton, Roger. Modern Philosophy. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996.

Varghese, Roy Abraham, ed. The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the

Christian Student in a Secular Society. Chicago, IL: Regnery Gateway, 1984.