A debate about matter, energy and spirit.

A follow up from one of the many interesting discussions coming out of the TOK Religious Knowledge Day. I briefly started to debate with Mr. Suarez the concept of ‘matter‘, energy and energy.

I take a strictly materialist point of view. That is to say, for me, matter is primary. This is a rejection of the idea that spirit or consciousness could precede matter. From the Big Bang to the history of our own lives, matter is the starting point of analysis. Atoms come together, cells grow and these processes lead to life.  Life itself is able to express conscious thoughts but this is because of the evolutionary development of life from very rudimentary single cells organism to the complex and abstract thinking that this debate represents. Mankind is nature made conscious. This is a bold claim. But, I believe, no other living organism, or matter itself, has consciousness of the same quality as man’s consciousness. Mankind is aware of its history and with that awareness it can rise to challenge of shaping it’s own future.

If like me, you believe that ‘matter is primary’, then this perspective should also pervade your methodology. When I look at Historical events, from the Rwanda Genocide to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I begin my investigation by looking at the material conditions that led to changes in the way that the consciousness of a population changed. I believe that the expression of hatred that was so damaging to each of these societies was driven by material conditions. In Rwanda a key factor was the falling crop yields. In Northern Ireland the poor state of the area’s housing and the high levels unemployment were the flash point of the conflict. It is surely difficult to believe that doctrinal difference in faith between Catholic and Protestant was the real cause of the conflict. Conscious and spirit were the product of material conditions and not the other way round.

Mr Suarez correctly pointed out that there is a real challenge being a materialist. I still have to explain what matter is. I have to reject, without sufficient evidence, that the Universe is ‘knowing‘ in some way.

So, if time allows, I would like to invite Mr Suarez to begin a well mannered debate on this topic of a Universe without any meaning spirit outside what mankind gives it. Over to you Mr Suarez.