Let us suspend reality for just a moment and imagine that St. Athanasius has returned from the grave . . . and is desperately craving a cup of hot coffee. After locating the nearest local coffee shop, he walks in with a huge smile on his face–having at last found a place to satisfy his craving. To his great surprise, he discovers the imminent physicalists Jagewon Kim and Jeffery Poland sitting in the back of the shop enjoying their morning brew. A dialog quickly ensues . . .
Athanasius: “Good morning gentlemen! Grace to you and peace from our heavenly Father who spoke all things into existence through His own eternal Logos, through which all things hold together harmoniously and in good order!”
Jeffery Poland: “Good god man, you can’t be serious! If you please, I’m attempting to enjoy a cup of coffee before my next lecture.
Athanasius: “My apologies my friend, but surely one can not help but extol the wonders of the Logos who holds all things together!”
Jaegwon Kim: “You’re somewhat of an odd fellow. Are you not aware that what holds all things together are the fundamental laws of physics? My dear friend, there is no God. For, all things that exist in this world are bits of matter and structures aggregated out of bits of matter, all behaving in accordance with laws of physics . . . any phenomenon of the world can be physically explained if it can be explained at all. (1) So, enough of this nonsense about a divine logos.”
Athanasius: “I see. But, if you will, please explain to me the nature of these laws. Are the laws of physics themselves physical?
Jaegwon Kim: “Do we not experience them in the physical world? For all the things we experience are physical. Is this not obvious?
Athanasius: “Obvious indeed. So what you are saying is that the fundamental laws of physics . . . are the fundamental laws of physics?
Jaegwon Kim: “No, that would be circular reasoning.”
Athanasius: “My dear friend, if your ontology is correct then the only possible answer to the question of the nature of the laws of physics is that they are ultimately bits of matter and structures aggregated out of bits of matter all behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. For, as you say, “any phenomenon of the world can be physically explained if it can be explained at all.”
Jaegwon Kim: “Yes, I did say that. But . . . “
Jeffery Poland: “I didn’t want to get involved in this discussion, but I can hardly sit quietly any longer! The relevant point here is that physicalists are (or should be) concerned with what exists in nature: i.e. with what can be spatially and temporally related to us, with that with which we can interact and by which we can be influenced, and with that of which we and the things around us are made . . . sets, propositions, universals, and so on, when abstractly conceived, are not considered to be in nature at all. Nor are they within the scope of the physicalists domain of study. (2) Hence, your argument is superfluous.”
Athanasius: “But Mr. Poland, do you not state in your writings that ‘everything that exists is either an element of the physical basis or is constituted by elements in that basis?” and do you not further assert that, ‘everything that exists is, in this sense, ‘ontologically grounded’ in the physical domain?” (3)
Jeffery Poland: “Well yes . . .”
Athanasius: “So, physicalism is committed to the belief that everything which exists is ultimately grounded in the physical domain?
Jeffery Poland: ” . . . yes.”
Athanasius: “Tell me, Mr. Poland, do the laws of physics exist?
Jeffery Poland: “Well, of course . . .”
Athanasius: “Clearly, then, the laws of physics fall within the explanatory scope of physicalism!”
Jeffery Poland: “But that would lead to a tautology.”
Athanasius: “Exactly! And you’ve only two ways in which to avoid this tautology: (1) you can accept that the laws of physics are nonphysical universal truths, or (2) you can reformulate physicalism as being a methodological doctrine rather than an ontological one. Perhaps the notion of a divine logos is not so foolish after-all?”
(1) Kim, Jaegwon. Physicalism or Something Near Enough. New York: Princeton University Press, 2001. 149-150.
(2) Poland, Jeffrey. Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations. New York: Oxford, 1994. 228.
(3) Ibid. 18.