Here's S. T. Coleridge in his own words:
"Whatever is comprised in the chain and mechanism of cause and effect, of course necessitated, and having its necessity in some other thing, antecedent or concurrent -- this is said to be natural; and the aggregate and system of all such things is Nature. It is, therefore, a contradiction in terms to include in this the free-will, of which the verbal definition is -- that which originates an act or state of being."
We can see that, before HPL was born, STC would have understood clearly what HPL meant by mechanistic materialism. (STC was writing circa 1815.)
Coleridge didn't believe he could prove the existence of free will objectively, but insisted that "every man may find for himself" that he is indeed a moral nature"; "there is more in man than can be rationally referred to the life of nature and the mechanism of organization." If a man choose "to disclaim our natural as moral beings.... he excommunicates himself. He forfeits his personal rights, and becomes a thing: that is, one who may rightfully be employed or used, as means to an end, against his will."
Coleridge critique of the positivist view, his certainty that the scientific method cannot give an adequate accounting of human awareness, thus does not make an appeal to a "God" located in the lacunae of the physical sciences, but rather proceeds from an appeal to the intuitive awareness of his readers, of themselves as purposive beings (who spontaneously feel the injustice that has occurred if their humannness is denied). He has no opposition to modern science, yet his thought is a descendant of the ancient Greek wisdom, which urged seriously
gnothi seauton, "know yourself," and of Plato's maxim that philosophy begins with wonder, etc. For the positivist mentality, "all that" has to amount to a shuffling of meaningless words. But you can see why I can wish that STC and HPL could have sat down together for an unhurried conversation (rather than a formal debate).
In writing the above, I haven't added much, if anything, new, to what I wrote before, but I wanted to share a little of Coleridge's own words.
My sense is that HPL rarely had conversations, or epistolary exchanges, with people who were as smart as he was, and he might have enjoyed the experience of talk with Coleridge, who did have exchanges with thinkers of his day, notably the chemist and inventor Humphry Davy.
[
www.jstor.org]
His interest in science was genuine and persistent.
[
www.oxfordhandbooks.com]
I see an intriguing affinity between STC and HPL as writers of exceptional imagination and as devotees of science. It's true that HPL was more intrigued by astronomy, Coleridge by chemistry, but they had some real common ground.
Incidentally, what did HPL say about "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Christabel," and "Kubla Khan" -- does anyone have that information?