But this entire set-up seems so strange to me. For the "supposed alternative" to idealism would be neither materialism nor naturalism — which are both severe reductions of nature in doctrinal form — but realism.
Just to clarify terms, materialism is the doctrine that all things in the universe ultimately reduce to "matter in its motions" according to the physical laws, in a directionless or non-purposeful process. Naturalism simply states that all natural objects must have natural causes exclusively.
I don't think Piekoff or Rand disagree with naturalism. For both seemed preoccupied with that they called the "supernatural," and held it in contempt. Indeed, it is the reason, I suspect, they hold Christians in contempt, for believing in "supernatural" (and thus fictitious on their view) things. These Christians, therefore, must be irrational people! From this they derive that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, and that only reason can be trusted. They deny on a priori grounds that religious belief could ever be "reasonable." At best, they allow it to be a palliative for the existential angst of morons.
Sigh.... I see I'm grinding my ax again. Sorry, elfman2!
To get back on-track, let's look at idealism and realism. Both are tough to define because even philosophers do not all agree on what they refer to. The dictionary defines idealism as "the theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas." The philosophers Kant and Hegel are often classified as idealists.
The dictionary defines realism as "the doctrine that universal principles are more real than objects as sensed.... names somehow denote the essences of things or categories of things." By this definition, Plato would be a realist — although many people classify Plato as an idealist (Rand does).
Neither idealism nor realism gives priority to sense perception, a key ingredient of the scientific method. Realism suggests that objects exist independently of our observation or thoughts about them. They are what they are according to their organizational principle, which is immaterial and superior to them. Idealism suggests that objects are the reification of ideas, that is, of thoughts. Thus the world and all its contents is (somehow) the manifestation of Thought. In both cases we are speaking of systems of causation with immaterial, non-"natural" sources.
So I think it's safe to say that neither Rand nor Piekoff was either an idealist or a realist. It seems their ideas correspond to naturalism.
I don't understand the statement that materialism "eliminates all energies, forces, dimensions and transitions between them [Christians???] and matter (both known and unknown) so that a supernatural force becomes a more compelling necessity for consciousness." Christians, like all other human beings, and indeed all existents in nature, have physical bodies composed of matter. Matter operates with "energies, forces, dimensions and transitions"; the activities of matter are constantly going on in our physical bodies all the time, and at astronomical rates. Christians are not freaked out by such facts regarding the body. What probably separates a Christian from a Randian, however, is that where a Christian would say, "I have a body," the Randian would say, "I am my body." [Looks to me like the "reductionism" here is coming from the Randian side.]
But since there is no known natural source for human consciousness, it is unreasonable to expect that consciousness, and especially self-consciousness, arises from material, bodily states — unreasonable on the basis of the total lack of evidence to support such a view. If the cause or source of consciousness is not "material," as it appears, then consciousness, mind, thinking, reason, etc., are not subject to the laws that govern matter. They are "supra"-natural; or even "super"-natural in this sense.
In short, Christians are committed to the idea that the human person is an ensouled body. (They weren't the first to think this, BTW. The classical philosophers and Jewish scholars thought this, too.) The body is finite and perishes; the soul (mind, consciousness, spirit, heart) is infinite, immortal and imperishable. Science can corroborate that the body is, indeed, finite. But it has no method for addressing the phenomenon of soul — because soul is intangible, non-material, and completely nonsusceptible to direct observation.
Anyhoot, it seems to me that Christians not only do not try to "reduce" the world to make it fit their comfort zone, rather they do the very opposite. I think Rand and Piekoff have constructed a "strawman" on which to beat. I can't for the life of me figure out why they would want to do that.
Thank you so very much, elfman2, for the interesting discussion!
P.S.: To the extent that Objectivism regards "essence" as merely "epistemological," it is flirting with idealism, which conditions everything on the act of knowing (which is part of the subject matter of epistemology), not on the presupposition that things exist independently of our knowing them (the realist position).
As you say, science has “has no method for addressing the phenomenon of soul”. That’s because science makes no claim that it exists. A soul (or consciousness as an entity) is a religious creation. Now that this religious invention is incompatible with the natural world, it’s supposedly evidence that Objectivist epistemology is misguided and that God must exists? Come on, a slight of had like that should be taken to Vegas.
The evidence that self awareness is naturally possible is that it exists in nature. Even some animals have self awareness The burden of proof that it’s a creation of the supernatural lies with those making the claim.
“And consciousness is a natural attribute of certain living entities, their natural power, their specific mode of action--not an unaccountable element in a mechanistic universe, to be explained away somehow in terms of inanimate matter, nor a mystic miracle incompatible with physical reality, to be attributed to some occult source in another dimension.” – Rand’s review of Herman Randall's book Aristotle.
The key word there is consciousness as an “attribute” rather than an entity.
The “transitions” I referred to was between components of nature, not between natural components and Christians, although I didn’t mean to leave them out. I’m sure you guys transition too ;^)
I’d post some theist rips on atheism in response to atheists’ mistreatment of Christianity if that would ease your pain, but do we really want to go there?
Thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!