The Myth of Materialism:
A Metaphysical Study

Materialism has undoubtedly emerged as the prevailing intellectual paradigm of the modern era, profoundly shaping the domains of science, culture, and ideology. At its core, materialism posits that existence is wholly reducible to physical processes governed by matter and its interactions. Needless to say, this assertion stands in stark opposition to religious traditions, such as Islam, which affirm the existence of transcendent dimensions of reality and attribute to life an ultimate purpose, moral order, and existential meaning. Yet, despite its broad acceptance, materialism rests upon fragile philosophical foundations, raising questions about its coherence and explanatory power.​

​

Within the materialist framework, matter is conceived as the fundamental substratum of reality, a substance capable of assuming an infinite variety of forms, configurations, and structures. These include, for instance, specific atomic, molecular, and biological compositions, each exhibiting distinct properties and organizational principles. Hence, from a metaphysical perspective, the materialist conception of reality depicts matter as the locus of pure potentiality. The critical issue with materialism, however, lies in its failure to explain how matter transitions from a state of potentiality into particular, actualized forms. A block of marble, for instance, possesses the latent potential to become a statue, but it requires an already-actualized agent—the sculptor—to bring this potential into realization. Similarly, matter requires a pre-actualized cause to achieve order and form; otherwise, it would remain perpetually confined to a state of potentiality and disarray. ​​

​

To circumvent this issue, materialists often invoke fundamental forces, such as gravity, as the means by which matter is able to manifest into specific forms. However, this explanation merely defers the central question because if gravity, for example, is viewed as an actualizing principle, one must still, nevertheless, account for gravity's own origin. In due course, one is either forced to postulate that gravity arises from some prior immaterial cause—an option that materialism cannot accommodate—or entertain the questionable notion that matter possesses the intrinsic ability to actualize its own potential.

With regard to the latter proposition, if matter were truly self-actualizing, it would have to possess an already-actualized cause internal to itself. In that context, matter would be both pure potential and, in some respect, actual simultaneously—a logical impossibility. At the same time, by denying an external directive force, materialists fail to account for why matter organizes itself into predictable, highly ordered structures rather than descending into chaos or why it seems to “prefer” certain forms over others. 

​

On the other hand, if one asserts that a force like gravity serves as the actualizing principle, this merely shifts the explanatory burden further back, requiring an account of gravity’s own ontological foundation. But even if an explanation were to be provided, another explanation would, in due course, be required to account for the origin of the preceding cause. Thus, to resolve the problem of an infinite regress, reason dictates that there must exist a first cause that is itself pure actuality or pure being since the realization or becoming of every potential necessitates a pre-actualized cause. This first principle must therefore be eternal, unchanging, and infinite by virtue of its very nature (as pure actuality), and hence, in classical theology, this first principle is identified as none other than God...

​​

Ironically, by rejecting this first principle, materialists unwittingly ascribe divine attributes to matter itself. Indeed, in attempting to account for existence without recourse to the immaterial, they elevate matter—particularly the atom or fundamental particles—to the role of an ultimate explanatory ground, attributing to it qualities of necessity, permanence, and self-sufficiency. Yet this stands in direct contradiction to the very nature of matter, which is defined by potentiality and contingency. Materialism, then, finds itself in an untenable position, implicitly affirming the metaphysical realities it seeks to deny while simultaneously failing to account for the order and intelligibility of existence.

​

In this light, materialism appears less as a purely rational doctrine and more as a kind of pseudo-religious commitment—one that is not guided by reasoned metaphysical reflection but rather by an aversion to the recognition of a transcendent source of being and thus to the truth of God—

​

“Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators (of themselves)?” (Quran 52:35)

​​

​​​​​

​​