What is reductionism?

Answer

Like many terms in philosophy, reductionism can be applied to a variety of interrelated ideas. All of these concepts share a common theme. According to reductionism, seemingly more complex events and things can be entirely explained and understood in terms of seemingly less complex events and things. For example, reductionism states that the mind-boggling complexity of the human brain can only be understood by examining the individual chemical reactions within the brain. Once we understand the individual pieces, the entire puzzle falls into place.

The application of reductionism most meaningful to religion or spirituality explains a thing in terms of its components with the implication that the thing described carries no more meaning than any of the individual components themselves. The meaning of any system depends not on the inherent qualities of the system but on its individual parts and their relation to each other. A belief in reductionism is usually expressed using variations of the phrase “nothing but.” For example, a reductionist might describe a river as “nothing but” a large collection of moving water molecules. A book could be reductively explained as “nothing but” a series of ink marks on paper.

Spiritually speaking, reductionism is a view that claims that meaning is entirely derived from mechanisms. In other words, if something can be explained in terms of some series of smaller components, then that subject is said to be “nothing but” those smaller events. The reductionist most often implies that the subject holds no more meaning than the separate parts; in some cases, he implies that the subject does not really exist, for all intents and purposes. A reductionist might reject the validity of spiritual experience by saying, “Your religious beliefs are nothing but the sum of human evolution, cultural mythology, and your own psychological make-up.”

Two important points immediatelyLately come to mind when considering reductionism. The first is the distinction between explanations and values. As commonly used in religious or spiritual discussions, reductionism seeks to utilize an explanation of how something happens, or what causes it, as a reason to disregard the value of that thing. Consequently, morality is disregarded as “nothing but” a social construct. Love is “nothing but” a chemical reaction. DNA is “nothing but” a complex arrangement of molecules. Setting aside the debate of whether those explanations are comprehensive, the implication of reductionism is that morality, love, and DNA lack inherent value or significance since we can recognize and explain their components.

This type of reductionism is an almost self-defeating concept. While it’s accurate that a book is, physically, composed of ink marks on paper, there is a significant distinction between a collection of random words and a novel. While reductionists acknowledge that arrangement is a crucial factor, concepts like design and information pose a significant challenge to the reductionist perspective. This causes many reductionists to simply reject the notions of design and information as fictional: if it can’t be explained, it doesn’t exist; if it can be explained, it holds no meaning; and so on, and so forth.

The second aspect to contemplate regarding reductionism is the contrast between characteristics of parts and characteristics of the whole. Combining specific components often yields properties not present in any of the constituents. Alloys of different metals, for instance, frequently exhibit properties that neither of their parent elements possesses. The properties of table salt are nothing like the properties of sodium or chlorine, individually. Attempting to diminish life as “nothing but” chemical reactions overlooks the fact that living things possess properties and abilities that their constituent chemicals lack.

From a spiritual perspective, reductionism is often conceit disguised as analysis. The rejection of certain ideasAs “nothing but” some lesser mechanism often comes in the context of rejecting those ideas as false or meaningless. When applied by some critics of religion, reductionism is rooted in a common human assumption: that which I cannot understand cannot be understood; that which I can understand is beneath me.

As a philosophy, reductionism directly contradicts the Bible. Man is explicitly said to be made—physically—of dust «And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. », (Genesis 2:7), yet we are something more than dust. In reality, we are more than “just” a crass combination of a body and soul; we are whole persons uniquely created by God «So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. », (Genesis 1:27). In an even higher sense, the biblical concept of the Trinity conflicts with reductionism: God’s existence as one Being in three Persons defies a reductionist explanation of parts and wholes.

While reductionism has many other possible definitions and implications, its validity in spiritual matters is almost nonexistent. Not all things can be reductively defined as the sum of their parts, and not everything that can be explained is irrelevant.