Cosmological perturbation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology, cosmological perturbation theory is the theory by which the evolution of structure is understood in the Big Bang model. It uses general relativity to compute the gravitational forces causing small perturbations to grow and eventually seed the formation of stars, quasars, galaxies and clusters. It only applies to situations in which the universe is predominantly homogeneous, such as during cosmic inflation and large parts of the Big Bang. The universe is believed to still be homogeneous enough that the theory is a good approximation on the largest scales, but on smaller scales more involved techniques, such as N-body simulations, must be used.

Because of the gauge invariance of general relativity, the correct formulation of cosmological perturbation theory is subtle. In particular, when describing an inhomogeneous spacetime there is often not a preferred coordinate choice. There are currently two distinct approaches to perturbation theory in classical general relativity:

• gauge-invariant perturbation theory based on foliating a space-time with hyper-surfaces, and
• 1+3 covariant gauge-invariant perturbation theory based on threading a space-time with frames.

Gauge-invariant perturbation theory

The gauge-invariant perturbation theory is based on developments by Bardeen (1980), Kodama and Sasaki (1984) building on the work of Lifshitz (1946). This is the standard approach to perturbation theory of general relativity for cosmology. This approach is widely used for the computation of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation as part of the physical cosmology program and focuses on predictions arising from linearisations that preserve gauge invariance with respect to Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models. This approach draws heavily on the use of Newtonian like analogue and usually has as it starting point the FRW background around which perturbations are developed. The approach is non-local and coordinate dependent but gauge invariant as the resulting linear framework is built from a specified family of background hyper-surfaces which are linked by gauge preserving mappings to foliate the space-time. Although intuitive this approach does not deal well with the nonlinearities natural to general relativity.

1+3 covariant gauge-invariant perturbation theory

In relativistic cosmology using the Lagrangian threading dynamics of Ehlers (1971) and Ellis (1971) it is usual to use the gauge-invariant covariant perturbation theory developed by Hawking (1966) and Ellis and Bruni (1989). Here rather than starting with a background and perturbing away from that background one starts with full general relativity and systematically reduces the theory down to one that is linear around a particular background. The approach is local and both covariant as well as gauge invariant but can be non-linear because the approach is built around the local comoving observer frame (see frame bundle) which is used to thread the entire space-time. This approach to perturbation theory produces differential equations that are of just the right order needed to describe the true physical degrees of freedom and as such no non-physical gauge modes exist. It is usual to express the theory in a coordinate free manner. For applications of kinetic theory, because one is required to use the full tangent bundle, it becomes convenient to use the tetrad formulation of relativistic cosmology. The application of this approach to the computation of anisotropies in cosmic microwave background radiation requires the linearization of the full relativistic kinetic theory developed by Thorne (1980) and Ellis, Matravers and Treciokas (1983).

Gauge freedom and frame fixing

In relativistic cosmology there is a freedom associated with the choice of threading frame, this frame choice is distinct from choice associated with coordinates. Picking this frame is equivalent to fixing the choice of timelike world lines mapped into each other, this reduces the gauge freedom it does not fix the gauge but the theory remains gauge invariant under the remaining gauge freedoms. In order to fix the gauge a specification of correspondences between the time surfaces in the real universe (perturbed) and the background universe are required along with the correspondences between points on the initial spacelike surfaces in the background and in the real universe. This is the link between the gauge-invariant perturbation theory and the gauge-invariant covariant perturbation theory. Gauge invariance is only guaranteed if the choice of frame coincides exactly with that of the background; usually this is trivial to ensure because physical frames have this property.

Newtonian-like equations

Newtonian-like equations emerge from perturbative general relativity with the choice of the Newtonian gauge; the Newtonian gauge provides the direct link between the variables typically used in the gauge-invariant perturbation theory and those arising from the more general gauge-invariant covariant perturbation theory.

Critical realism (philosophy of the social sciences)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_(philosophy_of_the_social_sciences) 

Critical realism is a philosophical approach to understanding science developed by Roy Bhaskar (1944–2014). It combines a general philosophy of science (transcendental realism) with a philosophy of social science (critical naturalism). It specifically opposes forms of empiricism and positivism by viewing science as concerned with identifying causal mechanisms. Also, in the context of social science it argues that scientific investigation can lead directly to critique of social arrangements and institutions, in a similar manner to the work of Karl Marx. In the last decades of the twentieth century it also stood against various forms of 'postmodernism'. It is one of a range of types of philosophical realism, as well as forms of realism advocated within social science such as analytic realism and subtle realism.

Contemporary critical realism

Overview

Bhaskar developed a general philosophy of science that he described as transcendental realism and a special philosophy of the human sciences that he called critical naturalism. The two terms were combined by other authors to form the umbrella term critical realism.

Transcendental realism attempts to establish that in order for scientific investigation to take place, the object of that investigation must have real, manipulable, internal mechanisms that can be actualized to produce particular outcomes. This is what we do when we conduct experiments. This stands in contrast to empiricist scientists' claim that all scientists can do is observe the relationship between cause and effect and impose meaning. Whilst empiricism, and positivism more generally, locate causal relationships at the level of events, critical realism locates them at the level of the generative mechanism, arguing that causal relationships are irreducible to empirical constant conjunctions of David Hume's doctrine; in other words, a constant conjunctive relationship between events is neither sufficient nor even necessary to establish a causal relationship.

The implication of this is that science should be understood as an ongoing process in which scientists improve the concepts they use to understand the mechanisms that they study. It should not, in contrast to the claim of empiricists, be about the identification of a coincidence between a postulated independent variable and dependent variable. Positivism/falsificationism are also rejected due to the observation that it is highly plausible that a mechanism will exist but either a) go unactivated, b) be activated, but not perceived, or c) be activated, but counteracted by other mechanisms, which results in its having unpredictable effects. Thus, non-realisation of a posited mechanism cannot (in contrast to the claim of some positivists) be taken to signify its non-existence. Falsificationism can be viewed at the statement level (naive falsificationism) or at the theorem level (more common in practice). In this way, the two approaches can be reconciled to some extent.

Critical naturalism argues that the transcendental realist model of science is equally applicable to both the physical and the human worlds. However, when we study the human world we are studying something fundamentally different from the physical world and must, therefore, adapt our strategy to studying it. Critical naturalism, therefore, prescribes social scientific methods which seek to identify the mechanisms producing social events, but with a recognition that these are in a much greater state of flux than those of the physical world (as human structures change much more readily than those of, say, a leaf). In particular, we must understand that human agency is made possible by social structures that themselves require the reproduction of certain actions/pre-conditions. Further, the individuals that inhabit these social structures are capable of consciously reflecting upon, and changing, the actions that produce them—a practice that is in part facilitated by social scientific research.

Critical realism has become an influential movement in British sociology and social science in general as a reaction to, and reconciliation of, postmodern critiques.

Developments

Since Bhaskar made the first big steps in popularising the theory of critical realism in the 1970s, it has become one of the major strands of social scientific method, rivalling positivism/empiricism, and post-structuralism/relativism/interpretivism.

After his development of critical realism, Bhaskar went on to develop a philosophical system he calls dialectical critical realism, which is most clearly outlined in his weighty book, Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom.

An accessible introduction to Bhaskar's writings was written by Andrew Collier. Andrew Sayer has written accessible texts on critical realism in social science. Danermark et al. have also produced an accessible account. Margaret Archer is associated with this school, as is the ecosocialist writer Peter Dickens.

David Graeber relies on critical realism, which he understands as a form of 'heraclitean' philosophy, emphasizing flux and change over stable essences, in his anthropological book on the concept of value, Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams.

Recently, attention has turned to the challenge of implementing critical realism in applied social research. An edited volume examined the use of critical realism for studying organizations (Edwards, O'Mahoney, and Vincent 2014). Other authors (Fletcher 2016, Parr 2015, Bunt 2018, Hoddy 2018) have discussed which specific research methodologies and methods are conducive (or not) to research guided by critical realism as a philosophy of science.

In economics

Heterodox economists like Tony Lawson, Lars Pålsson Syll, Frederic Lee or Geoffrey Hodgson are trying to work the ideas of critical realism into economics, especially the dynamic idea of macro-micro interaction.

According to critical realist economists, the central aim of economic theory is to provide explanations in terms of hidden generative structures. This position combines transcendental realism with a critique of mainstream economics. It argues that mainstream economics (i) relies excessively on deductivist methodology, (ii) embraces an uncritical enthusiasm for formalism, and (iii) believes in strong conditional predictions in economics despite repeated failures.

The world that mainstream economists study is the empirical world. But this world is "out of phase" (Lawson) with the underlying ontology of economic regularities. The mainstream view is thus a limited reality because empirical realists presume that the objects of inquiry are solely "empirical regularities"—that is, objects and events at the level of the experienced.

The critical realist views the domain of real causal mechanisms as the appropriate object of economic science, whereas the positivist view is that the reality is exhausted in empirical, i.e. experienced reality. Tony Lawson argues that economics ought to embrace a "social ontology" to include the underlying causes of economic phenomena.

Marxism

A development of Bhaskar's critical realism lies at the ontological root of contemporary streams of Marxist political and economic theory. The realist philosophy described by Bhaskar in A Realist Theory of Science is compatible with Marx's work in that it differentiates between an intransitive reality, which exists independently of human knowledge of it, and the socially produced world of science and empirical knowledge. This dualist logic is clearly present in the Marxian theory of ideology, according to which social reality may be very different from its empirically observable surface appearance. Notably, Alex Callinicos has argued for a 'critical realist' ontology in the philosophy of social science and explicitly acknowledges Bhaskar's influence (while also rejecting the latter's 'spiritualist turn' in his later work). The relationship between critical realist philosophy and Marxism has also been discussed in an article co-authored by Bhaskar and Callinicos and published in the Journal of Critical Realism.

In international relations theory

Since 2000, critical realist philosophy has also been increasingly influential in the field of international relations (IR) theory. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson has called it 'all the rage' in the field. Bob Jessop, Colin Wight, Milja Kurki, Jonathan Joseph and Hidemi Suganami have all published major works on the utility of beginning IR research from a critical realist social ontology—an ontology they all credit Roy Bhaskar with originating.

Ecological economics

The British ecological economist Clive Spash holds the opinion that critical realism offers a thorough basis—as a philosophy of science—for the theoretical foundation of ecological economics. He therefore uses a critical realist lens for conducting research in (ecological) economics.

However, also other scholars base ecological economics on a critical realist foundation, such as Leigh Price from Rhodes University.

Materialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism 

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. 

Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term physicalism is preferred over materialism by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, panpsychism, and other forms of monism.

Overview

In 1748, French doctor and philosopher La Mettrie espouses a materialistic definition of the human soul in L'Homme Machine

Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology, and is thus different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism. It can also contrast with phenomenalism, vitalism, and dual-aspect monism. Its materiality can, in some ways, be linked to the concept of determinism, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers.

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, defined in contrast to each other: idealism and materialism. The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality—the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of?" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary—the product of matter acting upon matter.

The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically by René Descartes; however, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. In practice, it is frequently assimilated to one variety of physicalism or another.

Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces and the curvature of space; however, philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.

During the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels extended the concept of materialism to elaborate a materialist conception of history centered on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced or destroyed by that activity. They also developed dialectical materialism, by taking Hegelian dialectics, stripping them of their idealist aspects, and fusing them with materialism (see Modern philosophy).

Non-reductive materialism

Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description—typically, at a more reduced level.

Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics.

Early history

Before Common Era

Materialism developed, possibly independently, in several geographically separated regions of Eurasia during what Karl Jaspers termed the Axial Age (c. 800–200 BC).

In ancient Indian philosophy, materialism developed around 600 BC with the works of Ajita Kesakambali, Payasi, Kanada and the proponents of the Cārvāka school of philosophy. Kanada became one of the early proponents of atomism. The Nyaya–Vaisesika school (c. 600–100 BC) developed one of the earliest forms of atomism (although their proofs of God and their positing that consciousness was not material precludes labelling them as materialists). Buddhist atomism and the Jaina school continued the atomic tradition.

Ancient Greek atomists like Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus prefigure later materialists. The Latin poem De Rerum Natura by Lucretius (99 – c. 55 BC) reflects the mechanistic philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus. According to this view, all that exists is matter and void, and all phenomena result from different motions and conglomerations of base material particles called atoms (literally 'indivisibles').

 De Rerum Natura provides mechanistic explanations for phenomena such as erosion, evaporation, wind, and sound. Famous principles like "nothing can touch body but body" first appeared in the works of Lucretius. Democritus and Epicurus, however, did not hold to a monist ontology since they held to the ontological separation of matter and space (i.e. space being "another kind" of being) indicating that the definition of materialism is wider than the given scope of this article.

Early Common Era

Wang Chong (27 – c. 100 AD) was a Chinese thinker of the early Common Era said to be a materialist. Later Indian materialist Jayaraashi Bhatta (6th century) in his work Tattvopaplavasimha ('The upsetting of all principles') refuted the Nyāya Sūtra epistemology. The materialistic Cārvāka philosophy appears to have died out some time after 1400; when Madhavacharya compiled Sarva-darśana-samgraha ('a digest of all philosophies') in the 14th century, he had no Cārvāka (or Lokāyata) text to quote from or refer to.

In early 12th-century al-Andalus, Arabian philosopher Ibn Tufail (a.k.a. Abubacer) wrote discussions on materialism in his philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan (Philosophus Autodidactus), while vaguely foreshadowing the idea of a historical materialism.

Modern philosophy

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Pierre Gassendi (1592–1665) represented the materialist tradition in opposition to the attempts of René Descartes (1596–1650) to provide the natural sciences with dualist foundations. There followed the materialist and atheist abbé Jean Meslier (1664–1729), along with the works of the French materialists: Julien Offray de La Mettrie, German-French Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789), Denis Diderot (1713–1784), and other French Enlightenment thinkers. In England, John "Walking" Stewart (1747–1822) insisted on seeing matter as endowed with a moral dimension, which had a major impact on the philosophical poetry of William Wordsworth (1770–1850).

In late modern philosophy, German atheist anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach would signal a new turn in materialism through his book The Essence of Christianity (1841), which presented a humanist account of religion as the outward projection of man's inward nature. Feuerbach introduced anthropological materialism, a version of materialism that views materialist anthropology as the universal science.

Feuerbach's variety of materialism would go on to heavily influence Karl Marx,^[13] who in the late 19th century elaborated the concept of historical materialism—the basis for what Marx and Friedrich Engels outlined as scientific socialism:

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.

— Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Scientific and Utopian (1880)

Through his Dialectics of Nature (1883), Engels later developed a "materialist dialectic" philosophy of nature; a worldview that would be given the title dialectical materialism by Georgi Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism. In early 20th-century Russian philosophy, Vladimir Lenin further developed dialectical materialism in his book Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909), which connected the political conceptions put forth by his opponents to their anti-materialist philosophies.

A more naturalist-oriented materialist school of thought that developed in the middle of the 19th century (also in Germany) was German materialism, members of which included Ludwig Büchner, Jacob Moleschott, and Carl Vogt.

Contemporary history

Analytic philosophy

Contemporary analytic philosophers (e.g. Daniel Dennett, Willard Van Orman Quine, Donald Davidson, and Jerry Fodor) operate within a broadly physicalist or scientific materialist framework, producing rival accounts of how best to accommodate the mind, including functionalism, anomalous monism, identity theory, and so on.

Scientific materialism is often synonymous with, and has typically been described as being, a reductive materialism. In the early 21st century, Paul and Patricia Churchland advocated a radically contrasting position (at least, in regards to certain hypotheses): eliminative materialism. Eliminative materialism holds that some mental phenomena simply do not exist at all, and that talk of those mental phenomena reflects a totally spurious "folk psychology" and introspection illusion. A materialist of this variety might believe that a concept like "belief" simply has no basis in fact (e.g. the way folk science speaks of demon-caused illnesses).

With reductive materialism being at one end of a continuum (our theories will reduce to facts) and eliminative materialism on the other (certain theories will need to be eliminated in light of new facts), revisionary materialism is somewhere in the middle.

Continental philosophy

Contemporary continental philosopher Gilles Deleuze has attempted to rework and strengthen classical materialist ideas. Contemporary theorists such as Manuel DeLanda, working with this reinvigorated materialism, have come to be classified as new materialist in persuasion. New materialism has now become its own specialized subfield of knowledge, with courses being offered on the topic at major universities, as well as numerous conferences, edited collections and monographs devoted to it.

Jane Bennett's book Vibrant Matter (2010) has been particularly instrumental in bringing theories of monist ontology and vitalism back into a critical theoretical fold dominated by poststructuralist theories of language and discourse. Scholars such as Mel Y. Chen and Zakiyyah Iman Jackson, however, have critiqued this body of new materialist literature for its neglect in considering the materiality of race and gender in particular.

Métis scholar Zoe Todd, as well as Mohawk (Bear Clan, Six Nations) and Anishinaabe scholar Vanessa Watts, query the colonial orientation of the race for a "new" materialism. Watts in particular describes the tendency to regard matter as a subject of feminist or philosophical care as a tendency that is too invested in the reanimation of a Eurocentric tradition of inquiry at the expense of an Indigenous ethic of responsibility. While, other scholars, such as Helene Vosters, echo their concerns and have questioned whether there is anything particularly "new" about this so-called "new materialism," as Indigenous and other animist ontologies have attested to what might be called the "vibrancy of matter" for centuries. Other scholars such as Thomas Nail have critiqued "vitalist" versions of new materialism for its depoliticizing "flat ontology" and for being ahistorical in nature.

Quentin Meillassoux proposed speculative materialism, a post-Kantian return to David Hume which is also based on materialist ideas.

Defining 'matter'

The nature and definition of matter—like other key concepts in science and philosophy—have occasioned much debate:

• Is there a single kind of matter (hyle) that everything is made of, or multiple kinds?
• Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism); or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)?
• Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory) or is it lacking them (prima materia)?

One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible 'stuff' came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the other hand, the Standard Model of particle physics uses quantum field theory to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field.

According to the dominant cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, less than 5% of the universe's energy density is made up of the "matter" described by the Standard Model, and the majority of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, with little agreement among scientists about what these are made of.

With the advent of quantum physics, some scientists believed the concept of matter had merely changed, while others believed the conventional position could no longer be maintained. For instance Werner Heisenberg said, "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…atoms are not things." Likewise, some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use the terms materialism and physicalism interchangeably.

The concept of matter has changed in response to new scientific discoveries. Thus materialism has no definite content independent of the particular theory of matter on which it is based. According to Noam Chomsky, any property can be considered material, if one defines matter such that it has that property.

Physicalism

George Stack distinguishes between materialism and physicalism:

In the twentieth century, physicalism has emerged out of positivism. Physicalism restricts meaningful statements to physical bodies or processes that are verifiable or in principle verifiable. It is an empirical hypothesis that is subject to revision and, hence, lacks the dogmatic stance of classical materialism. Herbert Feigl defended physicalism in the United States and consistently held that mental states are brain states and that mental terms have the same referent as physical terms. The twentieth century has witnessed many materialist theories of the mental, and much debate surrounding them.

However, not all conceptions of physicalism are tied to verificationist theories of meaning or direct realist accounts of perception. Rather, physicalists believe that no "element of reality" is missing from the mathematical formalism of our best description of the world. "Materialist" physicalists also believe that the formalism describes fields of insentience. In other words, the intrinsic nature of the physical is non-experiential.

Criticism and alternatives

From scientists

Rudolf Peierls, a physicist who played a major role in the Manhattan Project, rejected materialism: "The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being…including knowledge and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."

Erwin Schrödinger said, "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

Werner Heisenberg, who came up with the uncertainty principle, wrote, "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible.… Atoms are not things."

Quantum mechanics

Some 20th-century physicists (e.g., Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp), as well as modern day physicists and science writers (e.g., Stephen Barr, Paul Davies, and John Gribbin) have argued that materialism is flawed due to certain recent scientific findings in physics, such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory. According to Gribbin and Davies (1991):

Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less "substance" than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.

— Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth, Chapter 1: "The Death of Materialism"

Digital physics

The objections of Davies and Gribbin are shared by proponents of digital physics who view information rather than matter to be fundamental. Famous physicist and proponent of digital physics John Archibald Wheeler wrote, "all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." Their objections were also shared by some founders of quantum theory, such as Max Planck, who wrote:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

— Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie, 1944

James Jeans concurred with Planck saying, "The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter."

Religious and spiritual views

According to Constantin Gutberlet writing in Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), materialism, defined as "a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world…denies the existence of God and the soul." In this view, materialism could be perceived incompatible with world religions that ascribe existence to immaterial objects. Materialism may be conflated with atheism; according to Friedrich A. Lange (1892), "Diderot has not always in the Encyclopædia expressed his own individual opinion, but it is just as true that at its commencement he had not yet got as far as Atheism and Materialism."

Most of Hinduism and transcendentalism regard all matter as an illusion, or maya, blinding humans from knowing the truth. Transcendental experiences like the perception of Brahman are considered to destroy the illusion.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, taught: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." This spirit element is believed to always have existed and to be co-eternal with God.

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science movement, denied the existence of matter on the basis of the allness of Mind (which she regarded as a synonym for God).

Philosophical objections

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant argued against materialism in defending his transcendental idealism (as well as offering arguments against subjective idealism and mind–body dualism). However, Kant with his refutation of idealism, argues that change and time require an enduring substrate.

Postmodern/poststructuralist thinkers also express a skepticism about any all-encompassing metaphysical scheme. Philosopher Mary Midgley argues that materialism is a self-refuting idea, at least in its eliminative materialist form.

Varieties of idealism

Arguments for idealism, such as those of Hegel and Berkeley, often take the form of an argument against materialism; indeed, the idealism of Berkeley was called immaterialism. Now, matter can be argued to be redundant, as in bundle theory, and mind-independent properties can, in turn, be reduced to subjective percepts. Berkeley presents an example of the latter by pointing out that it is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience.

If matter and energy are seen as necessary to explain the physical world, but incapable of explaining mind, dualism results. Emergence, holism and process philosophy seek to ameliorate the perceived shortcomings of traditional (especially mechanistic) materialism without abandoning materialism entirely.

Materialism as methodology

Some critics object to materialism as part of an overly skeptical, narrow or reductivist approach to theorizing, rather than to the ontological claim that matter is the only substance. Particle physicist and Anglican theologian John Polkinghorne objects to what he calls promissory materialism—claims that materialistic science will eventually succeed in explaining phenomena it has not so far been able to explain. Polkinghorne prefers "dual-aspect monism" to materialism.

Some scientific materialists have been criticized for failing to provide clear definitions for what constitutes matter, leaving the term materialism without any definite meaning. Noam Chomsky states that since the concept of matter may be affected by new scientific discoveries, as has happened in the past, scientific materialists are being dogmatic in assuming the opposite.

 

Freedom From Religion Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is an American non-profit organization, which advocates for atheists, agnostics, and non-theists. Formed in 1976, FFRF promotes the separation of church and state, and challenges the legitimacy of many federal and state programs that are faith-based. It supports groups such as nonreligious students and clergy who are wanting to leave their faith.

Play media

Dan Barker introduces himself and the FFRF in London, July 2017.

History

The FFRF was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 and was incorporated nationally on April 15, 1978. The organization is supported by over 19,000 members as of 2012 and operates from an 1855-era building in Madison, Wisconsin, that once served as a church rectory.

In March 2011, FFRF, along with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, began The Clergy Project, a confidential on-line community that supports clergy as they leave their faith. In 2012, it gave its first Freedom From Religion Foundation and Clergy Project "Hardship Grant" to Jerry DeWitt, a former pastor who left the ministry to join the atheist movement.

FFRF provides financial support to the Secular Student Alliance, an organization that has affiliate groups for nonreligious students on college campuses.

In 2015, FFRF announced Nonbelief Relief, a related organization that obtained and later gave up its federal tax-exempt status. Nonbelief Relief was unsuccessful in a lawsuit against the IRS because it lacked standing to challenge the Form 990 exemption that applies to churches. Nonbelief Relief is a humanitarian agency for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and their supporters. Nonbelief Relief was created by the executive board of FFRF to remediate conditions of human suffering and injustice on a global scale, whether the result of natural disasters, human actions or adherence to religious dogma.

Media and publications

The FFRF publishes a newspaper, Freethought Today, 10 times a year. Since 2006, as the Freethought Radio Network, FFRF has produced the Freethought Radio show, called the "only weekly Freethought radio broadcast anywhere," is an hour-long show broadcast live on WXXM-FM Saturdays at 11 a.m. CDT. It had also been broadcast on Air America before that service ceased operation in March, 2010.

 The show is hosted by the co-presidents of FFRF, Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. Regular features include "Theocracy Alert" and "Freethinkers Almanac." The latter highlights historic freethinkers, many of whom are also songwriters. The show's intro and outro make use of John Lennon's "Imagine", which has an antireligious theme. A podcast archive is available at the FFRF website.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF, is the author of Women Without Superstition: No Gods - No Masters and the nonfiction book on clergy pedophilia scandals Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children (out of print) and editor of the anthology Woe to the Women. She edited the FFRF newspaper Freethought Today until July 2008. Her husband, Dan Barker, author of Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God, "Life Driven Purpose", "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction" and Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children, is a musician and songwriter, a former Pentecostal Christian minister, and co-president of FFRF.

Litigation

Social programs

Social services

In June 2004, the FFRF challenged the constitutionality of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The Foundation's complaint alleged that "the use of money appropriated by Congress under Article I, section 8, to fund conferences that various executive branch agencies hold to promote President Bush's 'Faith-Based and Community Initiatives'" conflicted with the First Amendment. The suit "contended that the defendant officials violated the Establishment Clause by organizing national and regional conferences at which faith-based organizations allegedly 'are singled out as being particularly worthy of federal funding because of their religious orientation, and the belief in God is extolled as distinguishing the claimed effectiveness of faith-based social services.'" The FFRF also alleged that "the defendant officials 'engage in myriad activities, such as making public appearances and giving speeches, throughout the United States, intended to promote and advocate for funding for faith-based organizations." The FFRF further asserted, "Congressional appropriations [are] used to support the activities of the defendants." In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures made by the executive branch.

In May 2007, the FFRF, on behalf of Indiana taxpayers, challenged the creation of a chaplaincy pilot program for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). The FSSA hired Pastor Michael L. Latham, a Baptist minister, in 2006, at a salary of $60,000 a year. In September 2007, in response to the FFRF's suit, Indiana ended the program.

Health care

In April 2003, the FFRF, on behalf of Montana residents, sued the Montana Office of Rural Health and its executive director David M. Young along with the Montana State University-Bozeman and the Montana Faith-Health Cooperative. It was alleged that Young favored faith-based nursing parish programs for state funding. In October 2004, the Federal District Court for the District of Montana held that the state's "direct and preferential funding of inherently and pervasively religious parish nursing programs was undertaken for the impermissible purpose, and has the impermissible effect, of favoring and advancing the integration of religion into the provision of secular health care services." According to the court, the state funding of faith-based healthcare violated the First Amendment.

In April 2006, the FFRF sued to challenge the pervasive integration of "spirituality" into health care by the Department of Veteran Affairs. Specifically stating that the practice of asking patients about their religion in spiritual assessments, the use of chaplains to treat patients, and drug and alcohol treatment programs that incorporate religion violated the separation of state and church. The case was later dismissed after the Hein decision because of lack of standing.

Education

In 2001, the FFRF, on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs, sued the Rhea County School District. The plaintiffs alleged that weekly bible classes were being held for all students in the elementary schools. In June 2004, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district judgment holding that it was unconstitutional for the school district to "teach the Bible as literal truth" to students, including first graders.

In March 2005, the FFRF filed suit against the University of Minnesota because of its involvement with the Minnesota Faith Health Consortium, a partnership with Luther Seminary, which is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and Fairview Health Services, stating that state taxpayer funds are helping to fund a faith-based organization. In September 2005 the University agreed to end the partnership and to cease teaching "courses on the intersection of faith and health", with the FFRF agreeing to drop its lawsuit.

In April 2005, the FFRF filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education because of its distribution of funds to the Alaska Christian College, a Bible college run by the Evangelical Covenant Church of Alaska. The foundation stated that in the students' first year at the college, they take only religious-based courses, and finish that year with a Certificate of Biblical Studies. The college, the foundation says, "does not offer traditional college courses, such as math or English". In October 2005 the FFRF and the U.S. Department of Education settled the lawsuit, with the Department of Education agreeing not to distribute $435,000 of federal funds to the College.

Criminal justice programs

In October 2000, the FFRF brought suit, as taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin, against Faith Works located in Milwaukee. Their case stated that a faith-based addiction-treatment program should not be used as a court ordered treatment program using taxpayer funds. In January 2002 the ruling was decided in the FFRF's favor; that receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in public money is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The judge wrote "Because I find that the Department of Workforce Development's grant to Faith Works constitutes unrestricted, direct funding of an organization that engages in religious indoctrination, I conclude that this funding stream violates the establishment clause." On Appeal, in April 2003, The Seventh Circuit later ruled against the FFRF on the narrower issue of whether prisoners joining specific faith-based programs on their own free will are coerced by government endorsement of religion.

The FFRF brought a suit against the awarding of a federal grant to MentorKids USA, a group providing mentors to children of prisoners, alleging that only Christian mentors were hired and that they were to give monthly reports on the children's religious activities. In January 2005, the court vacated HHS's funding of this group citing "federal funds have been used by the MentorKids program to advance religion in violation of the Establishment Clause".

In May 2006 the FFRF filed suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons alleging that its decision to fund not only multi-faith-based but also single-faith-based programs violated constitutional standards for separation of state and church. The parties later agreed to a dismissal of that claim, but additional counts within the lawsuit, alleging separate violations, continued.

Religion in the public sphere

Employment issues

In 1995 the FFRF sued the state of Wisconsin for designating Good Friday as a state legal holiday. In 1996 the federal district court ruled that Wisconsin's Good Friday holiday was indeed a First Amendment violation because the "promotion of Christianity is the primary purpose of the law."

Religious displays on public property

On December 2007, the FFRF, on behalf of a group of concerned Green Bay residents and invoking the First Amendment rights of all of the city's residents, sued the city because of the placement of a nativity scene at Green Bay's city hall. Before the case was heard, the city removed the nativity scene. The judge then dismissed the suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. Since the nativity scene already was removed and a moratorium imposed on future such displays, there remained no basis for continued dispute. He went on to say, "the plaintiffs have already won. ...the Plaintiffs have won a concrete victory that changes the circumstances on the ground."

In 2011, in response to the refusal of the city of Warren, Michigan, to remove a nativity display in the civic center, the FFRF sought to place a winter solstice display. The mayor refused the request and the FFRF brought suit. The suit was dismissed by Judge Zatkoff of the U.S. District Court; the dismissal was upheld by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court in 2013.

In September 2011, the FFRF, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sued the Giles County, Virginia school district on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs. A display of the Ten Commandments had been placed beside a copy of the U.S. Constitution at Giles County public schools. Prior to the suit, in January and June 2011, the FFRF and the ACLU had sent letters to the school board requesting removal of the display. The school superintendent ordered that the displays of the Ten Commandments be removed. The Giles County school board met in June 2011 and voted to overturn the superintendent's decision to remove the display. After the suit was filed, the school board in 2012 agreed to remove the display and to pay attorneys' fees.

In November, 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker referred to the Capitol's Christmas tree as a "Christmas tree" instead of a "holiday tree." The FFRF, which opposed prior efforts to restore the name to "Christmas tree," objected to the title.

In May 2012, the FFRF, acting on a complaint from a resident, asked the city of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, to remove a Latin cross from a World War I and II memorial on public land. The city refused to do so. The FFRF states that it is currently looking for a plaintiff in the area to represent for a suit, which the FFRF have yet to do, citing the difficulty with another case that occurred with another plaintiff in the state, Jessica Ahlquist, in the case Ahlquist v. Cranston.

On July 24, 2012, after receiving a letter from the FFRF, the Steubenville, Ohio, city council decided to remove the image of the Christ the King Chapel at the Franciscan University of Steubenville from its town logo.

In August 2012, the FFRF, on behalf of a resident, threatened a lawsuit challenging a Latin cross that had been displayed on top of the water tower of Whiteville, Tennessee. After the FFRF wrote three initial letters, but before the lawsuit was filed, the town removed one arm of the cross. The removal cost the town $4,000, and as part of the settlement the town paid $20,000 in the FFRF's attorneys fees. The town also agreed never to replace the missing arm and not to place other crosses on public property.

In August 2012, the FFRF, on behalf of a Montana resident, sued the United States Forest Service. A special use permit for the placement of a statue of Jesus on federal land was granted in 1954 at the request of the Knights of Columbus. The Forest Service continued to grant renewals of the permit until 2010. When the Service declined to renew, the Knights declined to remove the statue citing "tradition" and the "historical" value of the statue. After on-line protests the statue was allowed to stay and the permit granted. The FFRF filed suit in February 2012. In June 2013, a federal judge found in favor of the defendants, allowing the statue to remain. In August 2013, the FFRF filed an appeal of the decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected FFRF's arguments and upheld the memorial.

In 2012, the FFRF wrote several letters to Prudhommes Restaurant, in Columbia, Pennsylvania, explaining that offering a 10% discount to Sunday patrons who present a church bulletin is a violation of state and federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The individual who brought the matter to the FFRF's attention has filed a discrimination complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations. The FFRF was only involved in an advisory capacity. The Pennsylvania Human Relations entered a final order allowing the restaurant to continue the church bulletin discount.

Prayer in government/schools

In October 2008, the FFRF filed suit against the U.S. government over the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer (NDoP). In 2010, Federal judge Barbara Brandriff Crabb ruled it unconstitutional as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function". This ruling was appealed by the U.S. government. In April 2011, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the FFRF's challenge to the NDoP, holding that the FFRF did not have standing to challenge the NDoP statute or proclamations and that only the President was injured enough to challenge the NDoP statute.

The FFRF, in January 2013, after receiving a complaint from a resident, asked the city council of Rapid City, South Dakota, to eliminate its practice of beginning each city council meeting with a Christian prayer. After the FFRF sent a second letter in February 2013, the mayor stated at that time that prayers would continue.

Internal Revenue Service

Parish exemption

The FFRF filed suit against the IRS over the parish exemption that allows "ministers of the gospel" to claim part of their salary as an income-tax-free housing allowance. This was originally filed in 2009, in California, then subsequently dropped and re-filed in 2011, in Wisconsin, because of standing. In August 2012, a federal judge stated that the suit could go forward. In August 2013, the Justice Department argued that leaders of an atheist group may qualify for the parish exemption. Gaylor states "this is not what we are after," going on to say that the government should not give religious groups any special treatment.

On November 21, 2013, a federal judge ruled in the FFRF's favor. In January 2014, the Department of Justice filed an appeal in federal court. In November 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision, concluding that the federal tax code provision that treats church-provided housing allowances to ministers as income tax-free must stand.

Electioneering

In November 2012, The FFRF filed a lawsuit against the IRS for not enforcing its own electioneering laws. The FFRF cited in its suit the placement of full page ads by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; the diocese requiring priests to read a statement urging Catholics to vote; and the institution of "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". The group claimed that not enforcing the federal tax codes that prohibit tax-exempt religious organizations from electioneering is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The group stated that the increasing involvement of religious institutions in politics was "blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions". The IRS had filed a motion to dismiss in federal court, but in August 2013 it was decided that the lawsuit could proceed stating that the FFRF "has standing to seek an order requiring the IRS to treat religious organizations no more favorably than it treats the Foundation". In 2014, the federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after the parties reached an agreement.

990 Form

In December 2012 the FFRF filed suit against the IRS for not requiring the yearly filing of a 990 Form for religious institutions, which is required for all other non-profit organizations. The case, FFRF v. Werfel, was dismissed for lack of standing.

State capitol signs

Florida

In December 2013, the FFRF was permitted to hang a banner at the capitol after a nativity scene was placed by a private group.

Illinois

On December 23, 2009, William J. Kelly, conservative activist and candidate for Illinois Comptroller, attempted to remove a FFRF sign at a holiday display. The case was dismissed on several grounds, including that the lawsuit ran afoul of the First Amendment prohibition against content-based discrimination and that the plaintiff's rights had not been violated.

Washington

A plaque with the same text as the Wisconsin State Capitol sign was displayed for the 2008 Christmas season at the state capitol in Olympia, Washington, next to a nativity scene. The sign was stolen and then later found and returned to the state capitol. The addition of the sign incited a large number of individuals and groups to request other additions, such as a Festivus pole, a request by the Westboro Baptist Church for a sign stating "Santa Claus will take you to hell" (among other things), a sign paying homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and many others.

Front (left) and back (right) of sign displayed at the Wisconsin State Capitol. The sign in Washington displays the same message.

Wisconsin

The FFRF maintains a sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol during the Christmas season, which reads:

At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

In 2013, a natural nativity featuring Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Mark Twain as the three wise men, the Statue of Liberty and an astronaut as angels and an African American girl baby doll to represent that "humankind was birthed in Africa" was added.

Rhode Island

In 2013, the FFRF was allowed to place a sign in the rotunda, after complaints from its members, as a response to the crèches and other religious symbols that are already in place at the statehouse.

Dayton, Tennessee

On July 14, 2017, a statue of Clarence Darrow was unveiled in Dayton, Tennessee on the Rhea County Courthouse lawn, funded by a $150,000 donation from the FFRF. The courthouse was the site of the historic 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial wherein Darrow unsuccessfully defended a teacher, John T. Scopes, who was found guilty of teaching evolution in a public school in violation of what was then a Tennessee state law. The statue was placed just a few feet away from a statue of William Jennings Bryan, Darrow's creationist opponent in the trial, which had been erected in 2005 by nearby Bryan College.

Athens, Texas

In 2011, the FFRF was contacted by a local Austin citizen regarding the placement of a nativity scene on Henderson County courthouse property. A letter of complaint was sent. After it was decided that the nativity scene would remain, the FFRF petitioned to have its own banner placed on the site, but county officials declined to discuss its placement. The FFRF banner was placed without permission on the courthouse property, but was soon removed. In April 2012, the request to place the banner was denied.

Events and activities

FFRF has held conventions since 1977, one year after the group formed and one year prior to its official incorporation. Conventions have included speakers such as Christopher Hitchens, awards presented to recognize contributions to the advancement of the freethought community, "NonPrayer Breakfasts" with "moments of bedlam," and piano music by FFRF Co-President Dan Barker.

The Emperor Has No Clothes Award has been awarded by the Foundation since 1999 in recognition of "plain speaking" on the shortcomings of religion by public figures. Past recipients include: Steven Weinberg; Jesse Ventura; Ted Turner; Andy Rooney; Janeane Garofalo; George Carlin; Richard Dawkins; Katha Pollitt; Robert Sapolsky; Steve Benson; Penn & Teller; Roger, Pat & Melody Cleveland; Natalie Angier; Ron Reagan; Peter Singer; Robyn Blumner; Anne Nicol Gaylor; Steven Pinker; Oliver Sacks; Julia Sweeney; Christopher Hitchens; Daniel C. Dennett; Ron Reagan; Ursula K. Le Guin; William Lobdell; Cenk Uygur; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Jerry Coyne; Charles Strouse; Dan Savage; Juan Mendez; Bart D. Ehrman; Sean M. Carroll; Donald Johanson; Taslima Nasrin; Ernie Chambers; Lawrence Krauss; Steven Pinker; Paula Poundstone; Jared Huffman; Salman Rushdie; Adam Savage; Trae Crowder; and Anthony B. Pinn.

Finances

In 2013, Charity Navigator gave FFRF a four star rating and reported that FFRF had revenues of $3,878,938 USD, with a net surplus (after expenses) of $1,715,563 and net assets of $11,519,770. Officer compensation for the "co-presidents," husband and wife Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, was $88,700 and $86,500 ($175,200 combined) or approximately 10% of the net surplus.

According to the 2011 IRS tax Form-990, FFRF spent just over $200,000 on legal fees and services and just under $1 million on education, outreach, publishing, broadcasting, and events. The allotment for legal fees is primarily used in cases supporting the separation of church and state that involve governmental entities.