Contemporary science is shaking the philosophical foundations on which materialism rests.

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Keywords: God, Science, Cosmology, Big Bang[ edit ].


For centuries, classical materialism was based on a representation of the universe as stationary, without beginning or end, purely deterministic, and on a notion of primordial matter composed of localizable and compact particles, or "billiard balls". Since the 20th century, all these founding elements of materialism have been called into question. Today's representation of an evolving universe and of matter contradicts the foundations of classical materialism. Most atheists have stuck to an outdated mechanistic vision of the universe, and have not yet integrated the scientific advances of the 20th century.

Science is destroying the worldview on which materialism traditionally rested. So it's illegitimate to say that future explanations will go in the direction of scientism; rather, the opposite is likely.



Arguments forJustifications

Arguments againstObjections

  • Argument againstEven if matter is no longer represented as it was in the classical age, this does not mean that it was created by God.
  • Argument againstMany cosmological models postulate that the universe did not have an absolute beginning, and was therefore not created by God.
  • Argument againstIt's a cheap New Age recovery to claim that contemporary science is tending towards spirituality.

Parent debateParent debate