The Arrogance of Proof: Science, Materialism and Green Morality

Confidence is temporary, and conviction is permanent. It's a cute soundbite if nothing else. But underneath the nice symmetry of this throw-away remark, is, I argue, a certain admirable desire for integrity in the face of an all-powerful consumer materialism.

Listening to Green Philosopher Dale Jamieson interviewed on Philosophy Bites with Nigel Warburton, got me thinking about the world's hyper-confident material capitalism, and its inability to tolerate other moral convictions that might frighten and stifle mass consumption. [Link to Dale Jamieson on Green Virtues]

So what is the relationship that a human being has to his/her environment? And what is the psycho-spiritual impact that material possessions have on human beings? From a moralistic point of view, I do have concerns for materialism's desire to negate the existence of spirituality in society; and for the backing that some scientists so willingly give to it. To be aware that the resources of the earth are finite and therefore precious, is, as Dale Jamieson states, a modern virtue that is an essential moral of our time. It is a spiritual understanding, because it requires that we deny ourselves material possessions in the faith that we can protect the world for those who we do not personally know, and for those who will come after us in the future.

On a most basic level, looking after our possessions indicates this human moral responsibility. It shows that we understand that the world is not for mindless pillaging. It shows that we appreciate the 'use value' of tools and crucially, therefore also the 'emotive value'. It is this emotive value that we often want to deny, or turn into an OCD. Yet, I argue that when we treat possessions carelessly, and as ever-replaceable and as instantly disposable, we are defiantly disrespectful of not just the resources themselves, but also the energy and effort 'footprint' that weaves intricately back to a sacred source. Sacred, because it is surely a marvellous, as well as enormous, privilege to be able to conjure up material possessions at the click of a button.

My concern with materialism and science, is that it can focus too much on finding 'the next innovation', and it often ploughs through vast quantities of the earth's finite resources in its relentless quest to get better tools. I compare science with art in this respect, because art, by contrast, asks us to delight in the infinite possibility and potential of materials. It asks us to be creative with raw materials, to recycle, rethink, observe, re-observe and reuse. Whereas science and materialism can be frustrated by the slowness and limitations of material resources, art rejoices in the restrictions imposed by our environment, because it focuses a wild imagination.

If we imagine a world and our individual lives as being devoid of anything other than that which we can sense bodily, then how can we give value and meaning to nurturing a collective sense of harmonious human society? The short answer is that we cannot. But having faith in humanity does not require us to abandon the laws of physics. The two are not mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006) shows how some scientists can so wholly misunderstand spirituality when they set out to debase the truth behind organised religion.

Separating his profession from his life, the material scientist risks becoming arrogant and even a menace to society, because he fails to understand the responsibility that society has for the welfare of its citizens. Faith is the shield that each and every one of us possesses, with which to protect our human dignity in the face of oppression. How else would we reconcile the constant hardships we experience in our mortal existence?

Faith is not about living in a fairytale world where god looks down on us. Faith is about being allowed to believe in people. If science wants to take away our right to believe in humanity, then its lack of moral intelligence is in danger of preventing anyone from taking it seriously as a discipline. Thankfully this is not the intentions of science. It is the misinterpretation of certain people who deny the significance of their own spirituality in a misguided loyalty to scientific truth. Worryingly however, in a capitalist world that is becoming ever more dismissive of and hostile to any activity that is not driven by material productivity, I wonder how much longer can spirituality defend itself against the global Consumer State?

To deny us a spiritual space is to deny us an alternative to rampant consumer capitalism. We must already acknowledge that capitalism is the supremely dominant social force of our times. Must we be so humiliated as to accept that it is also the best?