Yesterday's post closed with the question of what's at stake in the debate between materialists and dualists. Materialism is the belief that human beings are comprised solely of material stuff and that everything about us can, in theory, be explained in terms of matter (and energy).
Dualists maintain that human beings display certain traits that cannot even in principle be explained in terms of material, physical causes, among which are the phenomena of consciousness. This fact leads them to conclude that there must be something else about us that's involved in our mental life. This something else must somehow be integrated with the material brain yet immaterial and non-spatial and not reducible to the brain.
This something else has traditionally been called the mind or soul.
So why does it matter? Well, if materialism is correct several consequences follow that many consider to be hard to reconcile with our human experience.
For example, if we're just material beings completely in thrall to the laws of physics it's hard to see how there could be anything like free will. All our choices must be the consequence of prior events occuring in our brains over which we have no real control.
But if that's so then we're not really responsible for our choices, in which case there's really no such thing as morality. For morality and moral responsibility to exist individuals must exert some control over the choices they make.
Also, if we have no free will it's hard to see how the notion of human dignity can be anything more than a pleasant illusion. We're just animals like any other. Yes, we have the ability to reason and speak, but some animals have the ability to fly or swim. Why is rationality and speech to be privileged over flight or grace under water?
And if we're just animals what exactly do we mean when we talk about human rights or human equality? Are animals all equal? Do animals have rights? If so, where do they come from?
Moreover, if we're merely a particular arrangement of carbon and assorted other atoms it's very hard to say what we mean when we talk about the self. Can there be a self, an I, if the atoms that comprise our bodies are constantly being replaced by other atoms and the contents of our brains are constantly changing?
We are no more the same self over time than the image of a kaleidoscope is the same image over time.
Finally, if materialism is true and there is no mind or soul it becomes much more difficult to believe that anything about us survives the death of our bodies. The notion of an afterlife becomes increasingly tenuous as does belief that there exists an immaterial being or mind called God.
Ideas have consequences. If we choose to believe the idea that we are purely physical matter then it's hard to see how we can avoid accepting all of implications listed above, and indeed most materialists do accept all of those implications.
If, on the other hand, we believe we're not just a material body but also an immaterial mind then those difficulties evaporate.
Which view, then, conforms most comfortably with our experience of life, a view which entails a denial of free will, moral responsibility, human dignity, human rights, human equality, the self and the hope of God and an afterlife, or a view which is compatible with all of these?