Minimalism: A Bridge between Classical Philosophy and the Bahá'í Revelation

by William S. Hatcher

During the axial period of classical Greek philosophy (roughly 500-200 B.C.E.), philosophers posed virtually every question that it is possible to ask concerning the world, humanity, God, and the meaning of life. Different schools of philosophy gave different answers to these questions. Some of these answers have proved wrong (e.g., Aristotle's contention that rest is the natural state of motion of a physical body), some have proved true (e.g., Archimedes' principle) and some remain speculative (e.g., whether or not matter is infinitely divisible). In the modern period, beginning with Descartes and his method, empirical investigation of the world replaced rational speculation about the world as the "prime mover" of philosophical (including scientific) thought. Empirical science is "bottom up," beginning with concrete observation and then moving inductively to general, abstract laws and principles, whereas classical philosophy and metaphysics are typically "top down," starting with certain abstract, general principles and then moving deductively towards application to the concrete. However, empirical science has been increasingly mathematized, especially after the 19th-20th century discovery of the new and powerful logic of relations (classical, Aristotlean logic was only attributional, not relational). This highly mathematized empirical science now finds itself facing the same questions posed by classical philosophy. Minimalism is the name given by Professor Hatcher to his method of applying modern relational logic retroactively to problems in classical philosophy such as the existence and nature of God. The answers obtained by a persistent application of this method are seen to coincide remarkably with the answers to these same questions found in the Sacred Scriptures of the Bahá'í Faith. Thus, with respect to fundamental issues of philosophy, Hatcher's minimalism seems to constitute an empirical/logical approach parallel and complementary to the exegetical study of the Bahá'í Writings themselves.

132 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2004

Reviews

[Jonathan Widell · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Minimalism, Hatcher discusses diverse philosophical things and then he proves that God exists. He uses logic to prove the existence of God. He argues that the universe cannot be its own cause because that would mean that the whole would be the cause of its parts, which is impossible. Therefore, the universe was created by something or someone else. That something or someone else is God.

So what has that got to do with minimalism (the title of the book)? In minimalism, the acceptance of things that do not make sense does not mean that you should not try to make sense of things to the best of your ability. Conversely, accepting the validity of things that do make sense does not mean that there are not things that do not make sense. Hence, you should have some logical reasons for believing in God.

Okay, so does God exist? In his answer to Hawkings, Hatcher says that God exists outside space and time. Does that mean that God does NOT exist in space and time? I am not convinced. What does it mean to exist anyway? Fortunately, that is one of the big questions of our time (referring to Alain Badiou here). Ergo, the book does open interesting vistas, this question being only one of them.

[J. Allyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

- The human brain cannot be a deterministic device. We now know certainly that any substantial theory of reality represents a compromise between exactness and adequacy.

- For science, clarity of meaning is given a priori, but truth is determined a posteriori. For religion, truth is given a priori, the meaning is determined a posteriori

- Objectivity and objectification mean viewpoint explicitness, not viewpoint neutrality.

- Many reductionists are also materialists

- It may exist objectively, but it cannot be specified objectively

- There is a logical incompatibility between comprehensiveness and exactness. If we insist on exactness, then we cannot have completeness, and if we insist on completeness, then we cannot have exactness.

- There is no non-metaphorical description of reality as a whole

- Postmodern subjectivism flies in the face of reality itself. We don’t really need philosophy to refute it.

- There can be no transfer of information without the generation of noise