Out of My Depth

In 1979 a very close friend called with a request to meet for lunch at a popular Baton Rouge eatery adjacent to the LSU campus. I agreed and further denied that I would be bothered by the presence of a visitor from out of town. Once there and introduced, I was delighted to be with this seventy–seven year old man with the distinguished appearance and razor sharp mind. Lunch was accompanied by continuous conversation between two men who, it developed, were light years apart in background but shared many mutual interests. I detected in his speech and manners some European background and pursued it to find he was a naturalized Hungarian. Anecdotes of Europe flowed from there. When the waiter cleared the table, I regretted seeing the end of the opportunity to be with this remarkable gentleman.

Even had I not later been apprised of his standing I would have found the experience uplifting. Afterward, I learned that my luncheon companion, Eugene Wigner, visiting from Princeton, was a leading light in the Manhattan project, an intimate of Albert Einstein, and one of the (if not “the”) leading experts in the field of quantum physics. In 1963, he had won the Nobel Prize for physics and numerous other awards on both a national and international scale. None of these associations and honors was even hinted during our two hour lunch. The mere definition of quantum physics would have escaped me anyway so I’m happy he chose not to “talk shop.” Happily, I pray, he lived well until his death in his nineties.

This happy memory was recalled because of a recent discussion regarding materialists' evaluation of the human mind. They triumphantly enjoy the success of computers to defeat even the brightest at chess. They predict, as a result, a machine driven society with the capacity to solve every vile human condition from warts to world hunger. It would be delightful if true. However, it’s far more complex than programming the movements of the bishop and the rook. Obviously a computer, with a massive memory, can certainly best any human mind on a subject with a predictable mathematical outcome. Can it detect the sensation of cozy warmth of seventy-one degrees as opposed to the chill of sixty nine? It becomes even more complicated when you check the thermostat and find that the actual temperature is neither one. While the brain’s chemical reactions may be quantifiable, the overall sensations are not so easily catalogued.

One barrier to the materialist is the issue of free will. If all behavior were mathematically predictable it could be expressed as law. If not, it could be described as random. The governing factor then is freedom, or in Restorationist’s parlance, "agency". An inner sense, devoid of mathematical probability, then rules the behavior. “If it feels good, do it!” That cry from the sixties underlines the antithesis of the materialist’s goals. We are governed by that force of will rather than a conditioned response to a set of data. Hence, we are free to exercise our free will, and also bear the responsibility. Otherwise we could claim every misdeed to be the result of being “hard wired” to misbehave. We are men, not robots, and we have choices.

My dog and my computer have much in common. They both respond (mostly) to my commands. She will come, sit, stay, etc. in concert with the training she has received. The more training she received, the more responsive she became. This does not speak to her “feelings” for me but rather, to her intensive training. Of course she greets me in a state of obvious joy which I realistically attribute to her desire for treats, companionship and a good ear rub. Does she “love” me or is it a conditioned response? Ego aside, I think it is the latter. The computer is in the same mold. Open, file, print, copy, paste—whatever I request it does without complaint. All though both have occasional lapses, neither makes a bad decision. Neither is governed by free will.

The computer recognizes truth but it cannot recognize “meaning". This is the critical separation between man and all else. The crucial fault in materialism must lie in the failure to recognize “meaning” and “will". It is easy to see why a mathematician might be unable to understand such a nebulous concept. Research indicates that not all these scholars deny it. My luncheon companion, with impeccable credentials, is credited with since writing that materialism is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” It’s easy to imagine his measured tone as he said it. As a Hungarian Jew in the thirties, he and his family were expeditiously converted to Christianity. When hostilities ceased, he did not return to the original faith.

Why then is it necessary to address this issue of materialism? If we have no opportunity for making decisions, there is no foundation for judgment. Lacking that, we may only be seen as “machines” without agency and consequently without salvation. For believers, this seems an elementary exercise. For those swept up in the fever of "science knows all," it is a recipe for disaster in the afterlife as well as the here and now. The entire fabric of our society depends on the decision making process to differentiate between right and wrong. We cannot hide from these responsibilities. Our God who made us also provided the platform to exercise these daily decisions we make for good or ill. Given the end result, the matter becomes all the more critical.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon