The final cause is peace. Grene writes, “We are concerned with its resolution through the reasoned refutation of the former alternative and the reasoned justification of the latter” (2). She wishes to show the weakness of Crick’s view and the strength of Heitler’s view.
The material cause is “materialism.” Grene writes, “A dogmatic and over-simple materialism like that of Crick can appear as triumph only to those who close to the irrefutable argument states as long ago as Plato’s Theaetetus: that the reduction of knowledge to an enumeration of the least particulars denies the possibility of knowledge itself” (2). If man is a machine and reduced to a set of mechanical parts, such as atoms, then abstract reasoning is impossible. To illustrate, staplers do not wonder if they are created in the image of God.
The first formal cause is “Hobbesianism.” Grene writes, “It is primarily Hobbes’ philosophy of nature with which I shall be concerned. For it is the reigning view of the scientific knowledge of nature” (3). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a brilliant philosopher who taught that a man is reduced to a thing with a “state of nature” that is selfish and violent. Grene writes, “The Leviathan may be seen as the Republic minus the Good” (5). Hobbes wrote the Leviathan in 1651 and stated that men need a strong, human leader. Hobbes writes, “For the Legislator, is he that maketh the Law” (Leviathan 26. 1).
The second formal cause is “Platonism.” Grene writes, “Plato found it necessary to establish a higher and transcendent Nature” (5). Plato (428-348 B.C.) was a brilliant philosopher who taught that man is guided by a superior Good. Grene writes, “The Good itself is the criterion for the problems of practice and knowledge” (5). Men don’t need a manual when things go wrong. Rather, they need a divine law to figure out how to escape pain and suffering. Plato writes, “And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means” (Republic, 2). The happy person will live balanced lives with their children and praise God. Thus, a mechanist wants to have laws from men while a naturalist prefers to have law from God.
The principal agent is the person. According materialism, “There are no persons in this universe, but machines for turning sensory input into sensory output” (8). Grene writes, “For twentieth-century mechanists, the proper concepts boil down to events, not substances, space-time coordinates and ultimate particles specified in terms of coordinates” (9). A mechanist is a philosopher who reduces minerals, plants animals and humans to “particles” and their “coordinates” (9). On the contrary, according to naturalism, persons in the universe are “wholes which can be as natural and real as parts” (15). Grene writes, “The acknowledgement of their existence is at the same time the acknowledgement of their significance” (15). A naturalist philosopher appreciates “wholes” and tries to understand substances. Thus, a mechanist sees people as “sensory input” while a naturalist views people as valuable subjects worth respect.
The preparing agent is the thinking man. According to materialism, a man thinks by “the stringing of names together” (6). The mechanist asserts that the human mind is “merely a machine for the efficient storage and translation of sensory input” (7). On the contrary, according to naturalism, a man thinks with “the real power of mind to affirm direct ontological import of geometrical thought” (6). The naturalist claims that the human mind has “an active power to know, and in knowing, to submit itself to the being whose luminousness is its judge” (6). Thus, a materialist stores information while the naturalist understands information.
The instrumental agents are the arts and sciences. According to the materialist, art and science are “the reportage of isolated and unmeaning data” (25). Grene writes, “All making, art, engineering, and even the making of pure science, has motion, power, sheer doing and self-assertion as its sole end” (26). Materialism reduces art, engineering and science to the “sheer doing and self-assertion” of the student. On the contrary, according to the naturalist, art and science have the “aim not only prediction but understanding, that is, responsible self-submission to what, to the best of our powers, we accredit as truth” (26). Grene writes, “This side of science already demands ontological levels for its interpretation, much as St. Augustine showed that external sense subordinates itself to internal sense, and inner sense to reason” (26). Naturalism appreciates art, engineering and science as helpful tools to help us understand and appreciate minerals, plants, animals, people and their Creator. Thus, a materialist enjoys using the arts and sciences to help him get through his day, while the naturalist uses art and sciences to feel the satisfaction of understanding the principles, causes and elements in nature and using the principles, causes and elements to improve his life and the lives of others.
Final remarks. Materialism robs the student from the view that every person is spiritual and created in the image of God (Genesis 1: 26). Thomas Hobbes writes, “The Son of Man, the Father’s own Son our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, came to reduce all nations into the Kingdome of the Father” (Leviathan, 16).