Massimo Pigliucci vs. The Dalai Lama

Massimo Pigliucci and I just might agree on more of the basics than I had previously thought. If the Wiki article on him is accurate, he acknowledges that there is a difference between what he refers to as “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism”, (I call it materialism for reasons of clarity) and that scientists should acknowledge the distinction between statements of truth and statements of fact. These things I agree with totally and have written about at length.

Now on his blog, Pigliucci has taken the Dalai Lama to task, along with those who would grant compatibility between science and religion. Pigliucci:

“The best that can be said about science and religion is that they have nothing to do with each other, and most certainly nothing to teach to each other.”

I think that Pigliucci is over-reacting to a caricature of a non-material subject, not the real, basic concept of an unmoved mover, a time-less creator, a being unrestricted by dimensional or physical constraints. He is condemning religion in its ecclesiastical, human cloak of unyielding dogma. He is incensed at the intrusion of intelligent design and creationism into legitimate science’s “cause and effect” investigations. And rightly so, in my view.

But there he stops, not budging beyond the issue of illegitimate religious concepts nor delving into the possibility of legitimate non-material existences and truths. He does not differentiate apparently as he enthusiastically embraces philosophical materialism.

MRI “phrenology” (Michael Shermer's term as I recall for photos of brain activity) is accepted by Pigliucci as evidence of a material source for a pseudo-subjective space embedded in the neural connections of the brain, not as evidence for the brain as a scaffold, a medium or substrate upon which the non-material mind plays. That science is beyond weak, it is misused for ideological rationalization.

From such photos of brain activity Pigliucci concludes:

“...that consciousness is an emergent property of neuronal organization is much more than a “guess,” as serious research in neurobiology has made stunning progress in identifying specific regions of the brain that provide the material basis for specific aspects of the conscious experience.”

The conclusion that consciousness “emerges” somehow from neural connections, is entirely unwarranted except and unless the proponent desires that to be the conclusion. It is no more logical than deciding that blood and arteries are the same thing or at least one is “emergent” (that magical word again) from the other.

Pigliucci’s commitment to materialism of the philosophical sort appears to go beyond just a casual belief. He is a member of several skeptic/humanist/Atheist groups, and he argues the anti- side in “Is there a God” debates. As a “skeptic” he is a debunker, predisposed to disbelief, or at least belief that all non-material reality is a hoax awaiting materialist puncture.

Yet if he thinks that science is purely a methodological naturalism pursuit then why does he insist on science having all the answers? Especially answers to such things as introspection and subjective regions of reality which are not approachable by the methodology of science? If science is NOT philosophical materialism, and philosophical materialism is NOT science, then what is it that validates his chosen philosophical materialism? Could it be validated solely by Pigliucci’s subjective intuition, informed incompletely by a predetermined need of some sort? Informed then, by his subjective space, and needing a good hard introspective investigation?

One can only suspect that the aversion to things non-material is emotionally based, emotionally held, and out-of-bounds to serious personal investigation on his part.

The loss is his, except for those followers who value his opinion in directing their own explorations, no matter how truncated his opinion and exploration might be. He has summarily closed the door on an entire portion of reality.