Keywords: Life, Holism, Vitalism, Mechanistic Approach, Sciences, Divine Religions
We can summarize contemporary approaches on life according to three basic views: the mechanistic approach, vitalism, and holism.
Introduction and present situation
The mechanistic approach is a philosophical doctrine that maintains that all events or phenomena, no matter their complexity, can ultimately be understood in a mechanical framework. The position is strongly deterministic and opposed to a host of other positions including dualism, idealism, mentalism, and vitalism.
Holism is a general label applied to any philosophical approach that focuses on the whole living organism. The basic axiom of a holistic position is that a complex phenomenon cannot be understood by an analysis of the constituent parts alone, in contrast with elementarism and atomism. Gestalt and Freudian theories are classic examples of holistic approaches in psychology.
Vitalism is a philosophical point of view which holds that a “vital force” not explicable by mechanical, chemical or physical principles is responsible for life. It is a form of pluralism, involving the vital force in addition to the mind and body of dualism.
I focused on vitalism until recent months, when I became engaged with developing this paper. But now I prefer to defend holism, for the following reasons.
Although the theory of vitalism is in itself a holistic approach, some workers believe that it is synonymous with idealism and cannot interpret life by itself; so I prefer to integrate vitalism into holism and defend holism, which can cover vitalism as well. It seems that this trend will become stronger and more defensible in this sense. It also seems that the more striking message of the two principles is the same: there is a non-chemical agent in bio-organisms, I mean “life”, which is in contrast to the deterministic approach of the mechanistic theory, and it is the core of our study.
I will show some of the contradictions of the mechanistic approach in this paper; then the scientific field will be empty for holism.
Hypothesis
We have two opposing approaches to interpret life:
- Bio-organisms have only a chemical structure with a special pattern.
- Molecules by themselves, with any conceivable pattern, cannot create bio-organisms, and we have to accept the role of a non-chemical agent in addition to the role of molecules in living creatures.
If we reject one of the two approaches, the field will be empty for the other.
Methodology
Our methodology contains the use and follow-up of “the cause and effect principle” in some biologic, behavioral and humanistic sciences as examples, and some components of the Divine religions as well. We are going to find the factor that is responsible for fulfilling biologic and behavioral activities in all bio-organisms. We studied some of the biologic and behavioral activities in plants, microorganisms, animals and humans, but they are not described here for reasons of time.
Findings and results
We find motion, sense, lawful and goal-directed regular activities in living creatures that have been active from the beginning of life in the world; they continue in all bio-organisms all over the world, without any mistake, and they will continue forever according to the Divine religions. These activities are the source of different biologic and behavioral sciences. In humans the trend is more complicated, and we are confronted with man’s unique identity that, according to the Divine religions, will be active forever.
Conclusions and discussion
As we mentioned before, we can summarize contemporary approaches to life into three basic views: the mechanistic approach on one side, and vitalism and holism on the other. As the existence of a non-chemical agent in living creatures has been confirmed in the two disciplines, holism and vitalism, and given the broad spectrum of holism, we can integrate vitalism into holism. So there would be only two approaches to explain life: holism and the mechanistic approach.
Research shows that the characteristics of molecules in bio-organisms are the same as their characteristics in the non-living state. By reviewing some regular, lawful and goal-directed activities in bio-organisms, animals and humans, and some psychological, social and spiritual trends in humans, one can rewrite the essence of the mechanistic approach as follows:
- According to scientific and experimental facts, the chemical elements of Mendeleev’s periodic law, which are the known chemical agents, are motionless and lack life, knowledge, power, wisdom and volition; and it is obvious that they have no ability to grant motion, knowledge, power, wisdom and volition to other things.
- The chemical elements of Mendeleev’s periodic law, although motionless by themselves and lacking knowledge, power and wisdom, have granted motility, knowledge, power, wisdom and volition to all bio-organisms, including all animals and humans.
By reviewing the two sentences above, one can find a contradiction in the belief of the mechanistic approach. We hope to convince the followers of this school of thought to come together to the reasonable strategy of holism, which can clearly interpret life and its multidimensional aspects without trouble or contradiction.
If our colleagues who are interested in the mechanistic approach are still determined to follow their belief, we expect at least that they clarify that this school cannot interpret life and that it has an obvious contradiction in this process. In this case many ambiguities will be removed, and a field of mutual understanding will be generated.
We should remember that the existence of a non-chemical factor in bio-organisms has been accepted as an evident axiom through the history of science: I mean the classification of creatures into animate and inanimate beings. All of us, even followers of the mechanistic approach, use this classification frequently in different branches of science, keeping in mind that life is different from inanimate chemical agents. If we say that the universe is nothing except molecules, then this classification would be useless.
A very big question can arise: although it seems the problem has been solved, why may some of our colleagues still resist? The answer may relate to the definition of science. In our contemporary accepted definition of science, which has been based on the mechanistic approach, any observable thing can be studied in the field of science, and anything which is not observable, although we can see its effects, cannot be studied in the field of science. Yet we are now studying many non-visible aspects of humans in clinical psychology, and they are instruments of our everyday practice of psychology and psychiatry; according to the above definition, they are all outside the field of science.
According to Islamic scholars such as Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaii, science can cover non-visible subjects as well as visible ones, such as cognition and wisdom. They are not convinced by the contemporary definition of science and suggest it should be modified to cover all facts. The psyche by itself is a “thing”, but a special thing, different from chemical elements; this definition can be applied to God too. Although we cannot sense either of them, we can have a good scientific understanding by studying the results of their activities.
In this sense the sciences and religion can and should have mutual collaborations.
Now that we have succeeded in throwing away this illogical definition, we can simply rescue ourselves from its complications. Anything which is non-visible, but whose effects we can see through sensory or rational data, can be brought into the scientific field.
As we can reject one of the two theories, we can confirm holism as the basis of all biologic, behavioral and humanistic sciences, and of the Divine religions as well.
