9 Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism

[David T]

I'm a fan of Madonna. :0)

In fact I'll chime in with.....

That got a.live chortle as I am.sitting in a.very she she bar!!!!drinking my madonna up a.

Take that immaterialists!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that is quite accurate. It may possibly be true only to the extent that there is no materialistic evidence, but the reality that we are more that only material is evident from the fact that we hold thoughts and ideas which are not physical, concepts which do not originate from the material world. Materialism cannot explain even the simplest realities we experience daily, much less profound thoughts,philosophical concepts, the drive for knowledge, desire for purpose, or appreciation of beauty, truth, or hatred of evil and longing for justice. The fact that we understand and think about non-physical concepts reveals that our real selves exist independent of our physical bodies. If the only thoughts we can hold are the result of some physical object in a purely materialistic world, then what physical stimulus evokes the idea of God whom we understand to be the ultimate non-physical Being? With no such physical stimulus humans could not possibly invent the concept of a non-physical God Being. The same holds true for Satan, demons, angels or any other spiritual ideas. I think the fact that humans have concepts of spirit beings and non-physical thoughts and ideas, that these thoughts do not originate in the material universe provide good reason to believe that there is some reality beyond the physical that this awareness has established itself in human consciousness.

There is no evidence against materialism there. Thought appears to be just a very complex chemical reaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha, why talk about refutation when you can refute?

Try again in English please.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Materialism does not have evidence that supports it specifically and relies on faith in future discovery, it violates the Law of Identity, it puts what we know (consciousness) under what we know through it (matter), the abilities of consciousness go against the material world, consciousness can manipulate and change the material world, what we know about the rise of consciousness doesn’t fit with materialistic evolution as we know it, materialism reduces to absurdity, and materialism is a dangerous faith that puts its own beliefs over objective knowledge which could benefit human beings.

Was just participating recently in another thread in which the OP was basically arguing that mind must be "spiritual" in nature because it certainly isn't matter or material of any kind. Sort of like what the OP of this thread is getting at.

Anyway, I felt prompted to notify the poster that if what they were describing is what qualifies something as "spiritual," then an instance/thread of software running its course through a computer's CPU should also be classified as "spiritual." The execution phase of a computer program also takes up no space, does work on data and inputs, and produces results that also need take up no space. And yet we know for a fact that ALL of that activity is impossible without the matter and energy doing all the supporting work - and even YOU likely would be reluctant to equate the processing of a computer with your precious ideas of "consciousness."

Additionally... what does the universe look/feel/taste/smell like to a "mind" that is unfettered by the shackles of "matter?" What is there to produce qualia of ANY variety to a "mind" and mind alone?

Here's an interesting quote of your OP to go along with this second point I am making here:

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

To posit that the mind is capable of being separated from the matter that supports it, you are doing the same thing you chastise materialists of doing here. You're making a claim without the ability to rely on anything to support your ideas. For instance, all you could say in response to my point about the lack of senses a "mind" alone would have is something like: "Maybe one day we will explain how the mind, separated from the body, can perceive the universe without any plausible way to perceive it" In the end, all I'd like to ask is that you just don't pretend yours is the "high-road".

 

[1137]

Was just participating recently in another thread in which the OP was basically arguing that mind must be "spiritual" in nature because it certainly isn't matter or material of any kind. Sort of like what the OP of this thread is getting at.

Anyway, I felt prompted to notify the poster that if what they were describing is what qualifies something as "spiritual," then an instance/thread of software running its course through a computer's CPU should also be classified as "spiritual." The execution phase of a computer program also takes up no space, does work on data and inputs, and produces results that also need take up no space. And yet we know for a fact that ALL of that activity is impossible without the matter and energy doing all the supporting work - and even YOU likely would be reluctant to equate the processing of a computer with your precious ideas of "consciousness."

Additionally... what does the universe look/feel/taste/smell like to a "mind" that is unfettered by the shackles of "matter?" What is there to produce qualia of ANY variety to a "mind" and mind alone?

Here's an interesting quote of your OP to go along with this second point I am making here:


To posit that the mind is capable of being separated from the matter that supports it, you are doing the same thing you chastise materialists of doing here. You're making a claim without the ability to rely on anything to support your ideas. For instance, all you could say in response to my point about the lack of senses a "mind" alone would have is something like: "Maybe one day we will explain how the mind, separated from the body, can perceive the universe without any plausible way to perceive it" In the end, all I'd like to ask is that you just don't pretend yours is the "high-road".

You really don't understand the difference between accepting something evidenced and something without any? And where have I mentioned the spiritual here?

 

[1137]

Try again in English please.

I'm laughing at the fact that you claim you can refute my points instead of actually doing it, while also claiming to not understand what I'm saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm laughing at the fact that you claim you can refute my points instead of actually doing it, while also claiming to not understand what I'm saying.

Your inability to understand a refutation does not mean that it did not happen. When you hand wave in an argument, and that is all that you ever do, a mere hand wave refutes it.

 

[blü 2]

Yo, 1137 ─ I trust you're well.

What is materialism?

In my case, the view that only those entities and processes are real which are recognized by physics from time to time.

This is a faith-based position.

When you say 'faith', do you mean 'reasonable confidence in'? Or do you mean unshiftable belief? I don't have unshiftable belief in materialism. If someone comes along with an evidence-based alternative that's more persuasive, I'll be for it.

[...] It is philosophically unsound

It's philosophically sound, and my definition is from Smart and Armstrong, two eminent philosophers.

and has no supporting evidence.

It has ample supporting evidence. And vastly more, and of a consistently higher standard, than alternative hypotheses.

1) The “evidence” for materialism is that doing something to the brain effects how consciousness comes through. Take a drug or a hammer to your head and you may start slurring, seeing things, hearing things, stumbling, etc. This is not evidence of materialism because it is also expected in more supported positions such as dualism and idealism, as we will see.

The evidence for materialism, at least where brain function is the topic, is that injury to very specific parts of the brain can result in very specific deficits in the subject; that very specific drugs can precisely affect very specific brain functions for the subject's benefit; that experiments in observing brains in operation in real time have shown that the subconscious may have made a decision ten seconds or more before the conscious knows about it; and much more.

It is the only support that materialism has presented thus far in its favor

As you know because you don't believe in unicorns, absence of evidence can be excellent evidence of absence.

The evidence that all brain function is material is overwhelmingly stronger than evidence that some immaterial element is relevant to its function, not least because no objective test can distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary. (The same is true of 'spiritual', too.)

2) The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties

With respect, you've just assumed the very thing you're setting out to demonstrate. The conscious world may be, and in my view is, wholly material. So I reject any conclusion based on your undemonstrated assumption.

being spacial vs. not taking up space

If I'm right, the brain is material and all its functions occur within spacetime. I have the evidence eg of real-time brain scans to show that this is at the very least partly true. You have no evidence whatsoever that 'non-material' can mean anything but 'imaginary' or that the consciousness you speak of has any other source than a material one.

being objective and being subjective

If brain functions are material, and the evidence and I say they are, then subjectivity is the result of materiality, not of anything else.

being universally accessible and being wholly private,

What does that mean?

imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

That is, the image and accompanying emotions are produced by brain function. Nothing you say demonstrates otherwise and nothing you say requires brain functions to be anything but material.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings.

Not so. Watch a baby in its first hours of life and you'll see it comes into this world genetically equipped with a great variety of instincts that direct its breathing, its limb movements, its head turning, its vocalizing, and much more. When offered the breast, it will know what to do, as do all mammalian offspring. It will very shortly know to make eye contact, to imitate what it sees, to look where its primary carer is looking, or points, and on and on. All through our lives, a great deal of our conduct is instinctive ─ not least the motivation and consequent actions regarding sex. Compare rather than contrast it to other mammal newborns.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain.

Things like cognitive science? Then you'll have scientific evidence that the mind is independent of the brain, and not the wholly false dichotomy I think it is. Chapter and verse on those experiments please, because I've never heard of them.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will.

So are bacteria and insects and plants and so on across all the biological phyla. Are you saying they too have immaterial parts without which they can't function? If so, then on the basis of what evidence?

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.”

Why do you think we won't? Are you familiar with where science is at on this? Do you understand eg the Global Workspace hypothesis, which has some experimental support in its favor?

If you're not familiar with that field of work, can you say you have a place to stand when you make such claims?

This is blind faith and nothing more.

No, this is science following the evidence, not anyone else requiring the evidence to say what they want. And yes, a fair amount of optimism and confidence are involved, but not unshakeable confidence, and certainly not 'blind faith'.

As I pointed out, you assume all the way through the correctness of the very thing whose correctness you need to demonstrate. Y

Nothing in knowledge is final or absolute. All conclusions of science are tentative. But I'm persuaded by good reasoning from examinable evidence, and the evidence is there. It supports my view.

What examinable evidence have you got to demonstrate to me that what you're talking about is anything but imaginary?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You really don't understand the difference between accepting something evidenced and something without any?

I didn't see any evidence. All I saw in your OP were thought-exercises (like I tried to make you go through), and attempts to label ideas as "absurd" or "dangerous" in order to strawman them. That is literally all you have.

I enjoy seeing that you didn't make any comment on the executing-software/CPU comment, nor the inability of a mind to process or interpret qualia without matter - the only two points I actually made.

And where have I mentioned the spiritual here?

If that's not at all where you are ultimately going with this, please do let me know.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more.

Imaginary beings may not take up "space", but I can still track your thoughts with an MRI.

Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain.

That the brain has coping mechanisms is not proof of being magic.

Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

Therapy can "reprogram" your brain. It's not magic and, like drugs, can fail as well.

Narcissistic sociopaths with little to no working mirror neurons simply cannot feel empathy and no amount of drugs or therapy will work because the required anatomy of a physical brain is not there.

Jesus said his Way would be transformative. Be honest after reading about the apostles. Did they look transformed to you? I mean, other than becoming leaders of a cult despite Jesus saying they never understood him?

If what you believe is true, Jesus should've been able to make them better people. He didn't and possibly couldn't. Their personality flaws remain pretty much unchanged.

One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe.

I live in the US, where bridges and buildings and roads are decomposing and crumbling into nothingness. Not as impressed, really.

Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”.

Do you understand what movies and music are? One is just a long series of ever so slightly changing pictures and music is playing with sound waves.

Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

Again, this doesn't help your argument, since materials are being changed. The scientists aren't just wishing the flu away.

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

We can now use technology to help communicate with "locked in" people, those who cannot even move even just tiny bit to communicate. We can determine whether you are thinking of places or people or actions. We know the areas of the brain responsible for different types of things. Investigation into the materials involved got us there, not blind faith.

This led to the creation of art,

religion

Nonhumans have rituals and can associate things with other irrelevant things.

the rise of individuality

Social beings have personalities. You don't need to be human to have one.

the creation of languages

Lots of creatures have languages.

Me: Where is that flower?
You: Well, it's over there in that yard. You know, the one with the oak tree? Yeah, that's it.
Bee: *wiggles butt in direction of flower which gives all that information in one gesture*

the formations of societies

AntsCanada

Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it.

Only for people who haven't studied reality and won't accept it even if they did. Anthropocentrism is absurd.

Finally, materialism is dangerous.

Sooooooo many people have died throughout human history because reality was unknown or willfully ignored.

Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

When Jesus, who could heal people, was depressed about John the Baptist's beheading, maybe he needed a counselor to learn to accept that sometimes you just can't control something.

As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur.

Yes and no. Chemical imbalances don't really need "therapy". They need the imbalance to be fixed. Issues with reasoning and memory will need "therapy", perhaps boosted by chemicals.

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

Peer reviewed studies are where?

what often goes with the materialistic greediness

This does not explain the Prosperity Gospel.

Then we have the immaterial madonna. Which is slightly different. So really we have the fans of material madonna vs the fans of the immaterial madonna that's the real discussion. What I have learned about women is they are both.

LOL. Anyway, Madonna has at least been productive in life. Not sure what the other one is famous for other than being a tween mother.

concepts which do not originate from the material world.

Except they do. You believe in a God Who objectively exists? Then your thoughts about God originate in the material world, yes?

much less profound thoughts,philosophical concepts, the drive for knowledge, desire for purpose, or appreciation of beauty, truth, or hatred of evil and longing for justice.

Know too many people who are completely shallow and have little to no desire for much thought.

The same holds true for Satan, demons, angels or any other spiritual ideas.

The people who first talked about all those beings thought those beings existed in reality.

 

[WalterTrull]

Therefore since it cuts 2 ways it is actually an invalid philosophical statement

Huh?

 

[David T]

"One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe."

It's in this area that I think the confusion exists certainly 1137 has made it. As a "carpenter" architects are complete idiots. What's gravity? Rational is way over rated.

On a side note" laws" of physics.... ha ha ha.. is that a materialist statement or an immaterialist statement because it's factually confused.

 

[David T]

Huh?

You can quote him people do but it's like Bayesian statistics to prove God doesn't exist. It was developed to provide god exists. So it depends on various factors other than the statement.

 

[WalterTrull]

Ockham btw was a Franciscan monk who was convinced that his razor affirmed his idea of gods existence. Therefore since it cuts 2 ways it is actually an invalid philosophical statement although wielded today as if it is!!!

OK, OK. I still don't understand your complaint. I feel that overly complicated explanations are usually incorrect. (Well that's MY philosophy). I do understand that William, himself, was somewhat conflicted by saying that God is allowed to be complicated. However, "I am that I am" is a very simple concept. Truth is simple, but the entertainment is quite varied.

 

[sealchan]

What is materialism? It is known as other things like material reductionism and physicalism among others. It is the view that only one substance exists – matter – and that all reduces to matter. This is a faith-based position that is spreading wildly through the West as a reaction to oppressive Western religions. It is philosophically unsound and has no supporting evidence. Let at look at this.

1) The “evidence” for materialism is that doing something to the brain effects how consciousness comes through. Take a drug or a hammer to your head and you may start slurring, seeing things, hearing things, stumbling, etc. This is not evidence of materialism because it is also expected in more supported positions such as dualism and idealism, as we will see. It is the only support that materialism has presented thus far in its favor and it does not even actually suggest materialism itself. We will look at this more below.

2) The Law of Identity is the most basic and foundational law of logic and states that things with different properties cannot be identical – “A is A and not Non-A”. The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more. We can illustrate this by looking at a brain, having others see it as well, and measuring the space taken up by the brain. Now imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings. This includes matter. So to reduce consciousness to matter reduces the one thing we know with certainty to something that we know through it. This is unreasonable.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain. Self-regulation, internal coping skills, bio-feedback, meditation – all are conscious and willful acts that override the material body. This can be seen such as in a depression patient recognizing a depressed episode coming on and using skills like Self-talk and meditation to keep the episode at bay. This is scientific fact, and once you remove willful engagement from therapy it becomes ineffective. Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will. One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe. Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”. Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

7) The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was an event in human history that saw the species leap from “just another animal” to a species with higher consciousness. This led to the creation of art, religion, the rise of individuality, the creation of languages, the formations of societies, etc. Everything that let human beings become the dominant species on this planet occurred during the UPR. However, we had already existed as an evolved species for tens of thousands of years before the UPR. Further, this changes seems to have affected the species as a whole over a relatively short amount of time, rather than through the longer-term genetic changes we see with evolution. On top of this, the consciousness that it produced, as we have been discussing, had not only different properties from the natural world but was able to question, manipulate, and go against it. This again shows that consciousness is entirely different from the material world and how it functions.

8 ) Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it. For example it pretends to be a skeptical position but relies on the senses and puts what we know aside for what we know through it. This is the exact opposite of skepticism, and skepticism and materialism are mutually exclusive.

Further absurdity is that the only “evidence” for materialism amounts to nothing more than correlations – we may as well also accept the pastafarian position that the decline in pirates causes global warming!

Metaphors that materialism tries to create reduce to absurdity – for example they will say “mind” is what the brain does like “running” is what feet do, that “mind” and “running” have the same properties. Does running not take up space, can it not be seen, heard, felt? Another example is that water is not identical to the atoms which create it, similar to the mind and brain. Yet are both atoms and water not spacial, objective, universally accessible?

Yet another absurd reduction of materialism is again found in the single piece of evidence that doing things to the brain affects consciousness. Sure, maybe this means that materialism is true, but there is no other evidence that materialism is true! It would be like saying “well MAYBE magic leprechauns are the cause of gravity.” Sure that could theoretically explain it, but is that really the most rational way to go about it?

9) Finally, materialism is dangerous. For example we can look at mental and behavioral health and how those are treated. For instance, any good doctor who prescribes medication to address the physiological side of mental illness will also recommend therapy to address the mental side. As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur. It would be dangerous to address only the physiological and not the mental aspects of these illnesses. Further, belief that individuals are deterministic machines with no control over their lives would make any kind of mental/behavioral healthwork impossible. Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

SUMMARY / TLDR

Materialism does not have evidence that supports it specifically and relies on faith in future discovery, it violates the Law of Identity, it puts what we know (consciousness) under what we know through it (matter), the abilities of consciousness go against the material world, consciousness can manipulate and change the material world, what we know about the rise of consciousness doesn’t fit with materialistic evolution as we know it, materialism reduces to absurdity, and materialism is a dangerous faith that puts its own beliefs over objective knowledge which could benefit human beings.

This is all addressable in the context of systems science. In systems thinking the contrast is often made between itself and reductionism. The distinction is whether one can claim that a system exhibits behaviour that can be reduced to the behaviour of the parts. If the claim is that this is not the case, then one is claiming that some phenomenon is an emergent property of the supporting layer.

However in neither view is there a sense that the emergent layer is wholly independent of the supporting layer. There is a sense that there might be something indescribable in terms of the supporting layer "emerging" in a new layer. It might also be said that as such this emergwnt phenomenon is also as fundamental as any properties of the supporting layer. But it might equally be said that all "fundamental" properties are implicit in the overall order and that different specific layers of systemic phenomena differently express that underlying order.

In the case of consciousness we have a claim to a phenomenon that in and of itself seems to be not expressible in terms of the more readily accessible supporting material system. However we should also consider the fact that in this particular case we happen to have the experiencer of the phenomenon is also identifying itself AS being one and the same AS that phenomenon. In other words we have introduced the problem of self-reference although unavoidably.

To understand how such a problem should be addressed perhaps we should look at how the truth is decided in another context where we do not identify as the subject under investigation, but we recognize that the subject is engaging in an act of self-reference and how we resolve that subjects dilemma.

Then by analogy we can look at our own question about the objective nature of our own subjective selves.

 

[David T]

OK, OK. I still don't understand your complaint. I feel that overly complicated explanations are usually incorrect. (Well that's MY philosophy). I do understand that William, himself, was somewhat conflicted by saying that God is allowed to be complicated. However, "I am that I am" is a very simple concept. Truth is simple, but the entertainment is quite varied.

It's simple its totally subjective.

 

[sealchan]

Another consideration here is that there is growing evidence supporting the idea that our consciousness in terms of all of its contents and all of the meanings of its concepts and categories are built up from sensory input in such a way that nothing in consciousness would hold without it being in some way referenced by perception of the world and the body. This type of "embodied consciousness" would further reduced the mind-body split.

This plus coming to terms with the problem of self reference may fundamentally transform how we think about this topic.

 

[WalterTrull]

It's simple its totally subjective.

Well yeah. Subjective is where it's at.
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." - Matthew 21
Now that's subjective!

 

[David T]

Well yeah. Subjective is where it's at.
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." - Matthew 21
Now that's subjective!

Ironic don't you think the statement is mocking belief!!!! And.non belief and agnosticism as well. Jesus was an a$$ho£e..... in a good way. I mean believers did killed him. He placed belief non belief agnosticism in.the magic category irrelevant. Now what is relevant? Oh death very relevant.

 

[WalterTrull]

Ironic don't you think the statement is mocking belief!!!!

Nah. I think he was giving very good, though likely misunderstood, directions. It has nice application to the Jobish thing.
"For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me." - Job 3:25
Man, learning to walk is tough!