Anti-Materialism

[Windwalker]

I absolutely agree with this. The moral relativist ends up becoming a hypocrite, but nobody can be a consistent moral relativist. There are few moral relativists, as you said, that would agree with Nazism.

There are different flavors of moral relativism. The extreme versions of it could not disagree with Nazim. Other flavors of it could and would. Just because morality is contextual, socially and historically relative, does not mean one can't make a value judgment that something is better than another. It is objective in the greater sense at a metalayer. What you can't do however is claim it is an external standard handing down by a god, as all of those expression are themselves culturally created and relative to that culture. It gets a little complicated, but you should get the gist. Moral relativism - Wikipedia

The same problem is with a subjectivist. If a subjectivist has the right to decide what is moral, then that right applies to others as well. If they decide doing charity is a good moral for them, then by the same logic, another can decide stealing is a good for them and they become morally equivalent claims.

Without taking the time to go into this at the moment, suffice to say none of these areas you are describing has anything to do with philosophical materialism. PM really has much more to do with a type of logical positivism rooted in modernity. Relativism comes out of postmodernity, which tends to reject strongly these logical positivistic tendencies of modernity. They actively deconstruct such certitudes, and hence why "relativism" flies straight into the face of it.

I'll probably respond more later when I have the time.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The thing is, at least as far as perceiving and describing the universe around us, the "material world" is really all we have to work with.

This is methodological materialism as opposed to metaphysical materialism, or as I put it, materialism as a worldview. However, even here the assumption that the stuff of the world you are dealing with if "matter" is not necessary, I can also call it "sense data" or "idea" or "content of awareness" Hence, even the argument that we must accept matter at least provisionally is refuted.

A worldview is a completely different way of looking at reality. I take an idealist viewpoint from the school of Hindu Advaita, I see the whole material universe you are talking about as just the waking state. I wouldn't even say this is an assumption, this is a description. The assumption is to say it is "matter"

We can certainly imagine all kinds of wonderful possibilities, but in the end, we don't really know. It doesn't mean that we all have to become nihilists or look only at the dark, depressing aspects of life. We can still be moral beings and pursue high-minded goals. We can still study, learn, and investigate more about this world and the universe around us.

No, of course we can be "moral" beings. I am just saying a materialist has no way to claim the existence of "morals" for them anything that is not material is imaginary, not really existent. In fact this extends as far to mind and consciousness or eliminative materialism.

To me, the most depressing, amoral position that anyone can take is the view that "we already know everything we need to know." That which leads people to stop learning, to stop seeking knowledge, to stop investigating - that's what is wrong.

The means of investigation are also affected by your worldview. An idealist, such as a Hindu yogi may look for knowledge within rather than without, because the latter may never lead to real knowledge. A dualist may look for knowledge by revelation.

It is very important which worldview we adopt because it informs our epistemology, ethics etc

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sure, materialistic nihilism has some depressing aspects, or can. But religious theologies can be depressing, too. My own religion, Catholicism, has a rather sadomasochistic side to it and can have a very dark view of the world, "mourning and weeping in this vale of tears". There's a flipside to most anything.

The difference is, you have something to look forward to provided you are good as per your religious theology, heaven. Materialists have nothing to look forward to. Consider this life: One is born ugly and have a sibling who is born beautiful. The beautiful one gets favourite treatment by family and friends, and the ugly one get constantly ignored. They go to school together, the beautiful one is in the popular group and has loads of friends and lovers and the ugly one is an outcaste and gets bullied and teased. They graduate from school and the ugly one fails their exams and the beautiful one passes with flying colours and gets to go uni. They then start work the ugly one takes up a job as janitor at some supermarket and the beautiful one becomes becomes a managing director at a big company. Then, the beautiful one does something and commits a crime, but blames it on the ugly one and frames him, and nobody believes him because they like the beautiful one more, and then the ugly goes to prison for a few years for crime he did not commit.

If you were the ugly one you wouldn't be depressed? The ugly one has nothing to look forward to. Their life is a curse from the very beginning.

If they turned for example to Christian theology and hear "The meek shall inherit the earth, blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven etc" at least that gives them some hope. On the other hand, a materialist will tell them "Nah, sorry nothing to look forward to sorry, bad luck"

If you are fortunate and living a comfortable life you have the luxury to make statements like "Oh, life is beautiful, happiness is a state of mind" but if you are unfortunate -- ugly, bullied, harassed, in the middle of war, live in poverty that you struggle to eat make ends meet, then you don't have this luxury. On the contrary, hearing somebody say stuff that undermines that is like hearing "Let them eat cake" they are oblivious of the suffering of people.

Unfortunate ones, who accept materialist worldview of the world have to either suffer commit suicide, live in depression or become criminals and social delinquents,

 

[David T]

I'm really enjoying this article.

I like how Alva thinks about things. He is picking up what religion should be doing but it does not because it has it's own serious issues which are not really much different from what Alva is saying about science.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

That's why we have civil law. As a society, the majority agrees on what is acceptable behavior and enforces it.

I think we should be careful not to conflate morals with civil laws. I agree civil laws are like state imposed morals, but not all ideas of morals are state enforced, in many countries in the world for example emotional abuse like bullying is not protected by law. There are law against certain drugs and intoxicants and in what circumstances you can consume them, but taking alcohol and nicotine etc is allowed in most countries. In most countries there no laws against certain sexual acts, even dark fetish like acts, which some consider immoral.

Laws themselves can be be considered immoral e.g. there was a time when it was illegal for a slave to run away from their master. There are laws which make discrimination like gender discrimination and race discrimination legal e.g Although admittedly, in developing countries they are getting better, but they are far from perfect.

Finally, civil laws are not always necessary enforced. It is a fact of life that criminals get away with their crimes. The number of people who get arrested is a fraction and of those the people who get prosecuted is also a faction and then the number of people who serve the full sentence are also a fraction.

The difference between human made laws and say a moral law like karma or God's law, is that it is perfect, not just every action but every thought is accounted for. In the materialist worldview a criminal can get away with a crime but not the religious worldview.

​

I see this as being able to choice for yourself meaning rather then having some other folks claiming to speak for God telling what life should mean.

This is only true in the materialist worldview. In the materialist worldview there is no objective real purpose, so you can choose whatever you want. In the religious worldview there is a definite purpose or mission in life and what you do during this earthly life carries huge consequences what happens after. If bad, depending on which religion, this varies: Broadly Dharmic (reincarnated again, as human, an animal, a demon or a ghost to face your karma) Broadly Abrahamic(eternal damnation)

If either of the religions views are right the materialist has a lot to lose if they act according to a wrong worldview.

​

Your view is so pessimistic, no wonder you find this life depressing. I can help people, I can support family/friends. I can work to improve myself. I can try to overcome my own challenges even though the odds seem against me. When you succeed it's even more fulfilling.

You are only saying this because you've not had to face an extent of suffering that others have. Can you tell a person in slavery that they can "improve themselves" Can you tell a Jew in Nazi Germany being escorted off to a gas chamber to "Overcome your challenges, smile"

The materialist worldview damn right sucks, because it allows for inequality and unfairness. Whatever hand you get dealt is a lottery. If you got a good hand, that's good for you, but it is not good for those who got dealt a bad hand. This is not being pessimistic, this is just being realistic and seeing life for what it is. It is suffering through and through. If we don't see this face of life, then we see it later as our bodies age and pain and discomfort increases in the body. Skin wrinkles, hair falls out, breathing becomes more laboured, senses weaken etc

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Here's where I believe your mindset on this all goes wrong... one word you included above gives you away: "suddenly". In my opinion this one word betrays that you can't or refuse to comprehend the incremental change or accretion of process or ability proposed in a process like evolution. Do all animals have the same level of consciousness that we experience? Do insects? How about bacteria? How do you account for all of these various levels and "strengths" of consciousness? I believe that a base level of consciousness arose because the ability to "be mindful" (to, at first, an infinitesimal degree) was proven to significantly increase the likelihood of survival of the organism. In the end, I also believe that consciousness is in place to support and prolong the life of the community of cells that have come together to form the body... and not the other way around. Think about it... single-celled organisms come together, and at that level the mixing of DNA is a matter of one "virus'" or "host's" strand of DNA supplanting some part of the other, and they are changed from that moment forward... even fused. As the "cluster" of cells grows, changes, and more varied capabilities are introduced, there needed to be something to "take the helm" if any of it was to survive at all. Rudimentary "consciousness" was likely started as the main/majority organism asserted dominance by leading the others as it went about it's business trying selfishly to survive. At some point the task of "leadership" was outsourced to a main functioning body of cells (a "brain"). Necessary because all of the other cells involved in the livelihood of the organism needed to go about their business of gathering oxygen and nutrients, running resources about the place, fighting off invaders, etc., and they needed to do so without thwarting one another in the process. So, after that whole mess of text, the point being, the consciousness of the brain was "hired" by the community of cells to do the job of leading - to help keep them ALL alive.

This all just an elaborate fairy tale. You still have in your fairy tale at some point a bunch of atoms forming into arrangements that suddenly become self-aware. Whether that happened at the ape stage, the fish stage or the bacteria stage is irrelevant, you are still proposing an illogical situation where atoms with no awareness suddenly from such an arrangement that they become self-aware. Why and how is this even possible? It's called the hard problem of consciousness and no single materialist can get past this fatal block.

However, even your "open-mindedness" extends only so far (do you believe in unicorns, for instance?), and you are also selective. Do you believe that anything I wrote above about the communities of cells is possible? If not, you have closed your mind to it - while I remain open to the possibility. Examining the evidences and theories, the above is what I have inferred. So you go on and on about all sorts of things for which there is very little or completely insufficient evidence and claim that everyone who doesn't believe as you do about those vaguely supported ideas is "closed-minded".

First of all, lets get this bit correct, I believe in communities of cells. I believe cells have basic self-awareness and believe humans are just more complex arrangement of cells. You need to get me past that stage where atoms with no self-awareness suddenly at some point collide with one another and form arrangements that are self-aware, as there is nothing within logic that can allow this impossibility to happen. If you are so credulous to believe this, you have no credibility to question those who believe in unicorns etc

Secondly, the "unicorn" argument is a strawman. I am not saying being "open minded" so that you believe and accept anything. I was arguing there are other means of knowledge other than sense perception. We know about sense objects(I won't use the word matter, because it a loaded term) through our senses. We know about mental objects with our mind and we finally know all of reality with awareness. There are truths, such as so-called a priori truths, that we don't know through sense perception, such as the truths of mathematics like pi. There are certain ideas that do not come to us through sense perception like morality, beauty, justice, truth etc. Hence, clearly there are other ways of knowing reality other than sense perception, and thus to only rely on sense perception is myopic and to reduce all of reality to just sense objects is narrow minded.

I'm sorry, but everything you said here is garbage. Ever hear of the "golden rule?" Do you believe that it requires God (or fairies, ghosts, individuals with psychic powers, genies, unicorns, etc.) to be valid?

Not everybody necessarily believes in the golden rule. There are some who believe that we shouldn't treat people as we want to be treated, because some people deserve better or worse treatment.

I admit to this - and so what? Obviously someone who has decided their purpose is to hurt as many people as possible is going to run into trouble trying to exercise that purpose on the others in the world. So they are stopped, put down, locked up, etc. And? What ends up being the ultimate problem with being able to write your own ticket in terms of "purpose"?

This is not necessarily a deterrence and it does not stop people from doing it. It did not stop the various gun shoots outs recently, it did not stop the Nice attack etc The problem is as per the materialist worldview, there is nothing inherently wrong about what these people have chosen to do. The problem with writing your own "ticket" is I can write the complete opposite of it and it equal and equivalent. The ultimate conclusion of this is nihilism, pointlessnessness. Nothing you do really has any meaning beyond the imaginary ones you assign.

And..... you're back to being wrong again. It is not depressing in the slightest... in fact, I feel it has freed me in quite a number of ways in which I know I would feel shackled were I to take up the mantle of any particular belief system. The big one being that there is no need to fear death whatsoever. No judgment to face, no pain, no ability to regret - in fact, anything you could possibly attribute to "death" is non-existent. What is there to fear? There is nothing... literally! And why would this ever make me "dead" while alive? Do you think I don't cherish the time I have? Knowing that it is THE ONLY time I will ever have? If anything, I would bet I have a greater reverence for life than a great number of "believers".

It is depressing, if you don't think selfishly. Sure things might be OK for you, but they are not OK for a starving malnourished kids in Africa. If you think selfishly, then it not depressing, survival of the fittest, everyman for himself. Then you end up living in a world of just individuals with competing selfish interests. Not a world where there is compassion, friendship, brotherhood, community and love.

Here are some depressing facts:

1. 22,000 kids starve to death everyday, 7 million kids every year
2. There are 250 million orphans in the world, 15% commit suicide before reaching age of 18
3. 80% of the worlds population lives on less than $10 a day
4. 2 million kids die every year, from preventable diseases, because they are too poor to afford medicines
5. 1.2 billion people live without clean water and 1.6 billion people cannot afford clean water
6. 250 million children live in forced labour conditions
7. 315,000 women die ever year giving a child birth because of malnourishement
8. 805 million children go hungry everyday
9. 350 million people over the world suffer from depression
10. The wealthiest 85 people have more money than the poorest 3.5 billion people combined
11. 50% of the poorest of the worlds population together owns less than 1%, 10% of the richest own 86%
12. The chance of Native American women being raped in the US in 1 in 3; 1.2 million US women get raped every year; 97% of rapists never got arrested
13. 1 in 4 women are victims of severe physical abuse
14. In the US more than 4 children die everyday as a result of child abuse, 702,000 experience child abuse ever year; 70% die from neglect; 80% of 21 year kids who experienced child abuse suffer from psychological illness
15. 3.2 million kids get bullied everyday in the US.

How is this not depressing? Is it because you have yet had to face suffering you say this?

Another little tidbit I am entirely freed from - thinking that anything is "unfair". I don't... ever. What happens happens... what will be, will be - unless I have the ability to change or fight it. I guarantee that I accept ill-fitting circumstances thrust upon myself far better than the vast majority of believers. Never a moment of "woe is me" thinking - and I am being 100% honest. I never have to question "why is this happening to ME?", or suffer through all of the conceit that is involved in such a question.

It is not a belief it us unfair, it IS unfair. The wold is an extremely cruel and unfair place for a majority of people living in it.

And in your final statements, another tell... you feel that you are entitled to "be enchanted". How quaint.

If the world has no meaning, no love, no purpose and there is nothing to look forward to beyond this unfair, cold and cruel world. If all we are just accidents of colliding atoms, then of course it is a disenchanting, dark, depressing worldview. It removes hope from people. If you are comfortable currently in your life, then you may not feel the suffering as much as somebody who is not comfortable currently, who is going for several days hungry and feels like just pressing the "eject" button.

Religion provides a majority of the people in the world hope for a better life than this one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This all just an elaborate fairy tale. You still have in your fairy tale at some point a bunch of atoms forming into arrangements that suddenly become self-aware. Whether that happened at the ape stage, the fish stage or the bacteria stage is irrelevant, you are still proposing an illogical situation where atoms with no awareness suddenly from such an arrangement that they become self-aware. Why and how is this even possible? It's called the hard problem of consciousness and no single materialist can get past this fatal block.

They have PROVEN that the compounds that make up RNA/DNA are able to combine, multiply and recombine - and even with small changes and "errors" in the recombinant strands. This has been done in labs using unexpected methods of creating the proper conditions. And there is zero consciousness required. This is just atoms within molecules seeking out more stable configurations. And it took years upon years of attempts and research to get even that far. People of belief like to parade around the idea that if a scientist in a lab can't do it, then it can't be done! It's idiotic! Who knows what matter alone is capable of? Given billions of years of chemical reactions and transformations... we have literally only scratched at the surface. Nature does everything a million times better than we have ever done. Ask a scientist to manufacture a "banana" for you. They can't! I have no "fatal block". I acknowledge that what I believe is exactly that... a belief. But the proof for my belief stares right into your face every time you look into the mirror. The matter of this universe CAN be constructed in such a way that it is self aware and "alive". Who is really to say what was or wasn't the process by which that came to pass? If it was "God" then I believe that raises a lot more questions than it answers. If it wasn't... then I am all set.

First of all, lets get this bit correct, I believe in communities of cells. I believe cells have basic self-awareness and believe humans are just more complex arrangement of cells. You need to get me past that stage where atoms with no self-awareness suddenly at some point collide with one another and form arrangements that are self-aware, as there is nothing within logic that can allow this impossibility to happen. If you are so credulous to believe this, you have no credibility to question those who believe in unicorns etc

You so openly dismiss the possibility. It's funny. You know, the same sorts of dismissals were handed to the first people claiming that the Earth was round instead of flat.

There are truths, such as so-called a priori truths, that we don't know through sense perception, such as the truths of mathematics like pi. There are certain ideas that do not come to us through sense perception like morality, beauty, justice, truth etc. Hence, clearly there are other ways of knowing reality other than sense perception, and thus to only rely on sense perception is myopic and to reduce all of reality to just sense objects is narrow minded.

Did I argue against all non-material inputs/experience? No. Not sure what your rant here is about. Though it could be argued that all of the idea-based items you referenced are derived from experience in the tangible/visible world anyway. Choose "morality", for example - there would be no need of such a concept if there weren't pain to be felt, atrocities to be seen, knowledge of suffering to be able to compare and contrast against your fellow man. Beauty, same thing - if you hadn't seen or felt anything, if you had no sensory input, what would beauty mean? Why would you need the concept? Justice is an extension of morality. Even "pi", the constant - if you couldn't interact with a circle (a thing that doesn't need to have physical form, granted, but only has real meaning as we apply it to physical forms (planets, wheels, drawings, vessels, etc.) then what does knowledge of "pi" even give you?

Not everybody necessarily believes in the golden rule. There are some who believe that we shouldn't treat people as we want to be treated, because some people deserve better or worse treatment.

But you're avoiding the real point. A morality can exist without needing to be handed to you by an outside "authority". You can actually look within. That some choose not to do so does not make that any less true.

This is not necessarily a deterrence and it does not stop people from doing it. It did not stop the various gun shoots outs recently, it did not stop the Nice attack etc.

And all people that commit this heinous acts are materialists? Does religion or belief actually stop these things from happening? Is belief the deterrent that you believe is the cure here? I can think of plenty of examples right off the top of my head that would display otherwise.

How is this not depressing? Is it because you have yet had to face suffering you say this?

Even as I suffer I would never claim that it was suffering. Or, put another way, I suppose I am a poor judge of when the point is reached at which I am "suffering". I always know that there is someone out there who has it worse than I do... no matter how bad it gets for myself - and so I take on burden after burden. Am I suffering? Perhaps through another's eyes. I leave that to them. And as for myself, I carry on. That there are others constantly suffering is depressing, yes - could I help more? Obviously. Any of us could. I don't pretend that I am some great humanitarian. Let me ask you - does your belief-driven view truly lift you out of lamenting over the fact that others suffer? It doesn't sound like it. Isn't it true then that the world is "depressing" in the ways you describe, regardless your belief set? Why blame the depressing state of the world on a particular group, when they are the smaller of opinions held on the whole of the Earth?

It is not a belief it us unfair, it IS unfair. The wold is an extremely cruel and unfair place for a majority of people living in it.

I don't see it this way. And neither do many who have suffered even more greatly than most of us could ever imagine. I've seen the stories of children from Africa whose village was destroyed by militants, their fathers killed or dismembered, their mothers killed or raped. And yet they report being thankful they are alive. Was what happened to them "unfair?" Or was what happened to them "what happened", however horrifying and tragic? A feeling of "unfairness" comes with an air of assumption - assumption that you are owed better. And how do any of us lay claim to such?

If the world has no meaning, no love, no purpose

Wait, wait, wait... who said this was the case? Certainly wasn't me. The world has plenty of all of those things.

Religion provides a majority of the people in the world hope for a better life than this one.

Well then, I suppose I hope you get what you're waiting for someone to give you. I think I'm going to continue working toward the betterment of life in this depressing, cold, cruel world... and do so as if there weren't another one waiting.

 

[psychoslice]

We are born into a material word, if there was no material world we wouldn't be here, enjoy all the materials of the world, just don't get caught up in any of it, after all that is why we came here to enjoy our own creations, for we are truly the Source in drag.

 

[Kapalika]

I have noticed there are quite a few people who self-identify as anti-theists, expressing a strong hatred for theists and religion in general. So, I thought why not self-identify as an anti-materialist, expressing my strong hatred for the view that all is just matter. That mind and consciousness is just the product of the brain, or for those materialists who like to play semantic games, "dependent on and arising from material processes" They do not generally believe in the survival of mind and consciousness after the death of the body, life after death, souls, gods, heaven and hell, moral law or that there is real purpose to life.

I find that reasoning to be reactionary and without merit by itself.

I reject this worldview on several grounds

1. It is illogical. How does matter having no mental properties originate mental properties i.e. hard problem of consciousness. How can and why would any arrangement of matter suddenly become self-aware? If this is not a fairy tale like Pinocchio coming alive, then I don't know what is​

We arbitrarily assign them for the sake of convenience and navigation. Our minds, being dualistic non-physical things must define the physical and nondual in terms it can understand. So the reality of the mental properties is closer to Maya in a typical understanding than the physical Universe. Brains and so minds emerged after the existence of physicality, not the other way around as many might believe.​

2. It is narrow minded and self-contradictory:

Materialists only accept as a valid epistemology sense perception or extensions to the senses like telescopes as their way of knowing reality, ignoring that we have other ways of knowing reality, through inference(those things which cannot be sensed or cannot currently be sensed, we can know through inferring from their effects.) And those materialists who accept inferences, like for atoms and gravity etc, then are selective about which inferences they select so that it does not breach their materialist paradigm e.g inferences to establish God, soul, reincarnation, other realms and PSI they reject.

They also deny other means of knowledge like intuition, revelation, psychic perception. Hence, they are myopic.​

It isn't that they out-right deny other means of knowledge it's that historically those 'other means' have proven to be very unreliable when put under the same scrutiny and processes that are used for scientific inquiry such as randomized, double-blind studies. Inference is a useful tool and is used by every major branch of science but everyone understands it is no substitute for direct evidence. It's been repeatably demonstrated under tight experimental criteria that the mind tries to rationalize, create or reinterpret things to make it's understanding fit to make those psychic types of things be correct. Again, to me it's the mind that is the dualistic, illusionary barrier between true reality and ourselves and from what I understand of science this seems to be the case.​

3. It is amoral.

Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do

Then how do you explain all the materialistic religions who believe in morals and have moral rules put down in either their scriptures or written down in places of authority? Just because one is a materialist doesn't mean that they are not a supernaturalist but even if they are not that either they will still have some kind of ethical or moral prescription since all religion is based in culture and tradition. That aside one does *not* need reigion to have morality. There are secular humanists after all.

4. It is nihilistic.

There is no real purpose in life, life is just an accident of material processes, of atoms colliding with one another. Hence, they make up whatever purpose they want, with only subjective meaning and no objective meaning. If one decides their purpose is to help as many people as they can, another purpose can be to hurt as many people as they can. If one wants to dress up as a cow and graze in the field, another can be to do scientific research. They are both equally valid interpretations. They are after all are accident of matter and what purpose does an accident have? Their individuals lives have as much meaning as a cow grazing a field i.e., no meaning.

That's a non sequitur and I can't even see how you made that leap. You know, I saw somewhere recently that 'just because something doesn't last forever doesn't mean it wasn't worth it. Try convincing anyone who just had sex that the orgasm was meaningless.'

One can have essential qualities that are deemed desirable based on either a philosophical foundation, empathy or practicality. It isn't any less real just because some anthropomorphized concept didn't tell you it was so.

5. It is dark depressing.

In the end they all believe in the same outcome: they will die and cease to exist. How they get to that final outcome each carries equal justification by natural causes, by an accident, by suicide or by murder. Some die before conception, some a few years after, some in their childhood, some in teens, some early adult years, some midlife, some elderly. They behave like death is not going to come anc go about pursuing all sort of things as if they have any real importance at all, and then either they are in the wrong place and time and they get gunned down or stabbed to death, get hit a bus or have a sudden heart attack. In fact they are already dead, just a bunch of skeletons walking about covered with flesh. If you had x-ray vision all you would see are skeletons walking about.

I object, as I don't believe I will cease to exist when I die. At least not if we are talking literally about death here.

But more importantly I find your view that it's dark and depressing a reflection of your own emotional needs for a belief in supernaturalism, to make everything feel like everyone gets a happy ending, than it does any reflection of reality. Yes, the world sucks. That's mostly because if we didn't see it that way we wouldn't fight so hard to stay alive. Natural selection and all that. The Universe doesn't owe us a happy or non-depressing reality, becuase happyness and depression are emergent products of the mind. Mental things. Dualities. Not part of the inherent, highest nondual reality of the Universe.
​

Who else here would consider themselves an anti-materialist and those who consider themselves materialists how do you plead to the above allegations?

I could not claim to be a materialist but my views would often by pigeon-holed into materialism by the layman and I do have overlap (I would identify to being closer to a neutral monist). I would argue that my scriptures hold that the material universe is real and closer to ultimate reality than most mental realities (and the mental realities which are just as real are only so because they have moved away from our normal mental/dualistic perceptions more towards a real physical one and so closer to the source of Shiva who's neither mental or physical). One can find moksha, in my opinion, with belief in materialism.

 

[Kapalika]

My apologies for my last post's formatting being so weird, the editor was being buggy and I don't want to touch it again least I make it not legible anymore.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

They have PROVEN that the compounds that make up RNA/DNA are able to combine, multiply and recombine - and even with small changes and "errors" in the recombinant strands.

You have not proven anything here beyond that scientists have been able produce a compound of chemicals, and then from that you make a giant leap to "therefore consciousness"

You so openly dismiss the possibility. It's funny. You know, the same sorts of dismissals were handed to the first people claiming that the Earth was round instead of flat.

No I said impossibility, not possibility. You have not shown me how and why under any condition an arrangement of matter can become self-aware. The atoms that make up a living body are the same elementary atoms that make up a rock, protons, electrons and neutrons, in turn made up of quarks, bosons etc, why would any combination of them become self-aware? You are proposing a fairy tale to me.

We can have reasonable doubts on the shape of the Earth, but we know objects have shapes. However, we don't know of rocks that are conscious.

Did I argue against all non-material inputs/experience? No. Not sure what your rant here is about. Though it could be argued that all of the idea-based items you referenced are derived from experience in the tangible/visible world anyway. Choose "morality", for example - there would be no need of such a concept if there weren't pain to be felt, atrocities to be seen, knowledge of suffering to be able to compare and contrast against your fellow man. Beauty, same thing - if you hadn't seen or felt anything, if you had no sensory input, what would beauty mean? Why would you need the concept? Justice is an extension of morality. Even "pi", the constant - if you couldn't interact with a circle (a thing that doesn't need to have physical form, granted, but only has real meaning as we apply it to physical forms (planets, wheels, drawings, vessels, etc.) then what does knowledge of "pi" even give you?

Your argument begs the question. In order for me to know something is pain and not painful, there has to be something within me that feels that pain with some things and not with others, this presupposes that something within me already has a predilection to preferring somethings and not preferring others, hence presupposing the mind already has priori ideas on what is pleasant and what is not. To know something is beautiful and not beautiful, again means there is something within me that has a predilection to preferring some forms over other forms, and this has even recently been scientifically proven in studies with infants even before they are socialised with ideas of beauty, they respond to certain faces of people as beautiful and certain features like symmetry, smoothness etc are found to be consistent. There are also studies showing how we form split second judgements when presented with beautiful stimuli even before consciously becoming aware it is beautiful. Hence, the mind already has a priori ideas of what is beautiful and what is not. Similarly, we know what is right and wrong, because the mind already has priori ideas of what is right and wrong. Studies have been done into this as well to how we have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Finally, regarding pi and truths of mathematics, science and logic etc. There is no such thing as a perfect circle or a perfect triangle existing in nature, hence we have never actually seen one, they exist as only abstract entities in the mind. You need to see an imperfect circle shape to form the idea of a perfect circle, but here again this presupposes that the mind already has the concept of recognising a circle shape and hence already has a priori ability to do mathematics. This point is proven in cases where some people are born with a natural ability to do mathematics or have a certain health condition like autism that they spot mathematical relationships that others normally cannot. The same similar is true for intuiting scientific laws, for me to spot a relationship between two things like the weight of an object and volume of water its displaces to discover Archimedes principle, presupposes the mind already has the ability for inferences and can spot those inferences. In some sense this also implies, that before we are consciously aware of these patterns in nature, the mind is already unconsciously aware.

Therefore, this all points to certain kinds of knowledge of coming not from our 5 senses and hence we cannot solely rely on just our 5 senses for knowledge. There are other ways of knowing reality. Morals etc are not sense objects, but mental objects, but that does not mean they are not real.

But you're avoiding the real point. A morality can exist without needing to be handed to you by an outside "authority". You can actually look within. That some choose not to do so does not make that any less true.

You are not responding to my argument. I never said that a materialist cannot have morals, I have argued in philosophical materialism which is about reducing all things to matter no such as mental objects like morals can exist, because only matter exists. What is matter? That which we know through the 5 senses. They do not believe in the real existence of minds and matter. Therefore, morals being imaginary objects for them, have no real existence beyond subjective interpretations. Thus, It makes every moral claim equivalent.

A dualist has no problem because we accept there is another reality a mental reality where morals etc are real objects. The materialist has a problem because they are reducing mind to matter and therefore are forced to speak of everything in terms of material phenomena e.g. happiness as a hormonal imbalance.

And all people that commit this heinous acts are materialists? Does religion or belief actually stop these things from happening? Is belief the deterrent that you believe is the cure here? I can think of plenty of examples right off the top of my head that would display otherwise.

Again, a strawman of my argument.

Even as I suffer I would never claim that it was suffering. Or, put another way, I suppose I am a poor judge of when the point is reached at which I am "suffering". I always know that there is someone out there who has it worse than I do... no matter how bad it gets for myself - and so I take on burden after burden. Am I suffering?

This is just delusional. It is like hippies arguing they are dropping love bombs on Iraq. Of course you know when you suffer. When you are starving and hungry, to the point you would go rummage through trash cans to find something to eat or even consider eating somebody, that is suffering. When we suffer, our mind knows we are suffering. We can use defence mechanisms like what you just suggested like "Is it really so bad, what about the the suffering of others" but this happens only after the suffering in order to cope with the suffering. These include denial and rationalisation and are delusional.

Perhaps through another's eyes. I leave that to them. And as for myself, I carry on. That there are others constantly suffering is depressing, yes - could I help more? Obviously. Any of us could. I don't pretend that I am some great humanitarian. Let me ask you - does your belief-driven view truly lift you out of lamenting over the fact that others suffer? It doesn't sound like it. Isn't it true then that the world is "depressing" in the ways you describe, regardless your belief set? Why blame the depressing state of the world on a particular group, when they are the smaller of opinions held on the whole of the Earth?

I never blamed the depressing state of the world on materialists. I said something entirely different, I said the material world is a world of suffering. The Buddha declared this some 3000 years ago as the first noble truth, and this when materialism wasn't even the philosophy in power. So I am not saying the problems of the world have anything to do with materialism, I am saying that is simply the nature of the material world. Disease, death, decacy, impermanence and inequality are just facts of material life. This is why if this is the only life you will ever get, then it sucks. Of course this is depressing.

Cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I don't see it this way. And neither do many who have suffered even more greatly than most of us could ever imagine. I've seen the stories of children from Africa whose village was destroyed by militants, their fathers killed or dismembered, their mothers killed or raped. And yet they report being thankful they are alive. Was what happened to them "unfair?" Or was what happened to them "what happened", however horrifying and tragic? A feeling of "unfairness" comes with an air of assumption - assumption that you are owed better. And how do any of us lay claim to such?

I am reminded by the definition of ignorance given in the Yoga sutras "Mistaking the untruth for the truth, pain for pleasure and the not-self for the self" and this sums up the delusional world of the materialist. They mistake the world to be matter, they mistake less suffering and misery to be happiness and the body for the self. As such this philosophy is known as "Lokayata" meaning the philosophy of the common people. It is the philosophy of ignorant people who have not thought about life and the world and just live it like animals because that is what the rest of the animals are doing. It is ironic I was reading a Hindu scripture known as the "Tripura Rahasaya" covering this topic:

34. As long as a man is afraid of the nightmare, obligation, so long must he placate it, or else he will not find peace.
35. How can a man stung by that Viper, obligation, ever be happy? Therefore, some men have gone mad, as if some poison had already entered their blood and were torturing their whole being.
36. While others are stupefied by the poison of obligation and unable to discriminate good from bad.
37. Wrongly do they ever engage in work, being deluded; such is the plight of humanity stupefied by the poison of the sense of obligation.
38. Men are from time immemorial being swallowed up by the terrific ocean of poison, like some travellers once on the Vindhya range.
39. Oppressed by hunger in the forest, they mistook the deceptive Nux Vomica fruits (vishamushti) for some delicious oranges.
40. And in their voracious hunger they ate them up without even detecting their bitter taste. They then suffered torment from the effects of the poison.
41. Having originally mistaken the poisonous fruit for an edible fruit, their reason being now blinded by poison, they eagerly sought relief from pain.
42. And in their agony they took hold of and ate thorn-apples, thinking them to be rose-apples. [Note: Thorn-apples are used for extracting a poisonous alkaloid. The fruit is either fatal or produces insanity.]
43. They became mad and lost their way. Some becoming blind fell into pits or gorges;
44. Some of them had their limbs and bodies cut by thorns; some were disabled in their hands, feet or other parts of the body; others began to quarrel, fight and shout among themselves.
45. They assaulted one another with their fists, stones, missiles, sticks, etc., till at length thoroughly exhausted, they reached a certain town.
46. They happened to come to the outskirts of the town at nightfall, and were prevented by the guards from entering.
47-49. Unaware of the time and place and unable to gauge the circumstances, they assaulted the guards and were soundly thrashed and chased away; some fell into ditches; some were caught by crocodiles in deep waters; some fell headlong into wells and were drowned; a few, more dead than alive, were caught and thrown into prison.
50. Similar is the fate of those who, deluded with the quest for happiness, have fallen into the snares of the taskmaster of action. They are bewildered in their frenzy and destruction awaits them.
51-52. You are fortunate, Bhargava, in having transcended that distracted state. Investigation is the root-cause of everything, and it is the first step to the supreme reward of indescribable bliss. How can anyone gain security without proper investigation?
53. Want of judgement is certain death, yet many are in its clutches. Success attends proper deliberation, till eventually the end is without doubt accomplished.
54. Indeliberateness is the ever-present weakness of the Daityas and Yatudhanas (Asuras and Rakshasas)

Chapter II​

Due to wrong views because materialists have not investigated what they really are and by default take themselves to be this body they make one error after the other and gets ensnared deeper and deeper into material world and commit one wrong act after the other, intensifying their bondage to it.

Well then, I suppose I hope you get what you're waiting for someone to give you. I think I'm going to continue working toward the betterment of life in this depressing, cold, cruel world... and do so as if there weren't another one waiting.

Religion is here to show you that this material world is just a temporal stop on the way, which the materialist has mistaken to the be all and end all, and not to get attached to it, to use it to better yourself by cultivating virtue, self-control, tolerance, wisdom etc Not to waste your life in sensual pursuits. It promises you a better world, of which this world is just a shadow, a world where perfect ideals and perfect beings exist, a world where there is love, truth and bliss etc.

It thus becomes necessary to condemn and show why the materialist worldview is wrong to save the materialist from the path of self-destruction they are set on. It is not out of hatred for them, but out of compassion for them that their worldview has to be condemned for its sheer idiotic and delusional teachings.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, admittedly, your work revolves around the Materialistic world, it's just that you aren't a materialist personally, right?

Anything discovered in Science is, necessarily, based on the study of the world as seen materialistically... Anything that you've ever researched, or produced, or uncovered, or questioned, or refuted, as a scientist, was done through the lens of materialism.

You may very well reject ideas of materialism in your personal philosophies, but the Science that you participate in does not - it's founded upon it.

How is Kirran 'participating in Science' to any greater degree than you are? Kirran simply figures out 'materialistic scientific' methods for doing things like harnessing electrons to create computers. While you participate in science by using things like computers that 'materialistic science' provides. Or do you 'reject' the materialistic science' that enables you to converse on forums such as this?

 

[Kirran]

At the least, I think Spirit Warrior should be commended for stimulating a lively discussion!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

We are born into a material word, if there was no material world we wouldn't be here, enjoy all the materials of the world, just don't get caught up in any of it, after all that is why we came here to enjoy our own creations, for we are truly the Source in drag.

No, we are not born into a material world. I reject that. When you enter into a dream do you say "I was born into a dream world" The "material world" you speak off is just the waking world. Right now, my consciousness is here present in this waking world manifesting it through the vehicle of the waking body(the physical body) in dream it is present in the dream world manifesting it through the vehicle of the dream body. In dreamless sleep there is no world but my consciousness pervades it.
Hence, it would simply be wrong to say that I was ever born. I have always been there and all that has ever changed is my associations with different states and different bodies.

We use words like "matter, birth, death" etc only to describe our practical reality, but in doing so, we create philosophical problems and errors of understanding. In this case the error of the materialist is thinking of this world to be the only real world, thinking the world is made of objects suspended in space and persisting in time. If you simply clarify the language, you won't make these errors. There are no such thing as "objects" that are located at fixed points in space and time, there is only sense data that we get through our senses. There is a delay between the time our senses contact with the sense data, meaning we get sense data from back in time and never actually see anything ever in the present. Every moment we get new data.

The other conclusion to derive from this not only do we never actually "see" anything in the present we always see something after it has been sensed and then processed and thus we never see reality-in-it-self. Hence, we cannot take the reality that is presented to us by sense perception to be the actual reality and only reality. To do so is ignorance and this is my charge against materialism. It is based on on ignorant and naive understanding about reality.
.

 

[psychoslice]

No, we are not born into a material world. I reject that. When you enter into a dream do you say "I was born into a dream world" The "material world" you speak off is just the waking world. Right now, my consciousness is here present in this waking world manifesting it through the vehicle of the waking body(the physical body) in dream it is present in the dream world manifesting it through the vehicle of the dream body. In dreamless sleep there is no world but my consciousness pervades it.
Hence, it would simply be wrong to say that I was ever born. I have always been there and all that has ever changed is my associations with different states and different bodies.

We use words like "matter, birth, death" etc only to describe our practical reality, but in doing so, we create philosophical problems and errors of understanding. In this case the error of the materialist is thinking of this world to be the only real world, thinking the world is made of objects suspended in space and persisting in time. If you simply clarify the language, you won't make these errors. There are no such thing as "objects" that are located at fixed points in space and time, there is only sense data that we get through our senses. There is a delay between the time our senses contact with the sense data, meaning we get sense data from back in time and never actually see anything ever in the present. Every moment we get new data.

The other conclusion to derive from this not only do we never actually "see" anything in the present we always see something after it has been sensed and then processed and thus we never see reality-in-it-self. Hence, we cannot take the reality that is presented to us by sense perception to be the actual reality and only reality. To do so is ignorance and this is my charge against materialism. It is based on on ignorant and naive understanding about reality.
.

I don't quit understand what you are getting at, but I have to say that this so called material world is the bee's knees, why on earth would you hate it, are you weak ?, are you so weak that you need a so called god or whatever in the sky to make you do the right thing ?.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I don't quit understand what you are getting at, but I have to say that this so called material world is the bee's knees, why on earth would you hate it, are you weak ?, are you so weak that you need a so called god or whatever in the sky to make you do the right thing ?.

Who says I hate the material world? I said I hate materialism(philosophical)

 

[psychoslice]

Who says I hate the material world? I said I hate materialism(philosophical)

Well that's great for you, I am happy for you.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I do not identify as an antitheist and have, on several occasions, explained why. I do, however, have problems with this list.


How is this any different from any argument from complexity? Complex systems which begin as simple components can and do happen. Molecules and cells which cannot see nevertheless developed over time, through gradual steps, to be an eye. There also seems to be weasel words like 'suddenly' As if any materialist believes there were no graduated forms of self-awareness that developed over time.

Complex systems do happen. You can have a complex arrangement of atoms for example with different physical properties. However, no combinations and permutations of atoms have mental properties like morality etc. Atoms have spin, charge, mass etc not awareness, morality, knowledge, love and hate. Therefore, if your argument is that matter gives rise to these, you need to show how and why.

I am using a more logical argument. I am saying, that because the properties of minds do not belong to atoms, we must postulate another a substance which is the locus of those properties which is superimposed on physical matter, hence causing us to mistake physical matter to be the locus, when is in fact it is not e.g. if we superimpose water with sugar, then the waste tastes sweet. However, water is not all the time found to be sweet. In fact sweetness is simply not a property of water. Therefore, we are forced to the inference, that it belongs to another invisible substance which is the locus of sweetness which is superimposed on the water i.e., sugar dissolved in it. Similarly, mental properties are found sometimes in a collection of atoms but only in living bodies which are a collection of atoms too, therefore there is another invisible substance which is the locus of those mental properties which is superimposed on those collections of atoms i.e., soul. When the souls is present the collections of atoms behaves "alive" and when the soul is absent it behaves "dead"

What inferences do you believe suggest gods or souls? I can't accept your intuition for my conclusions, nor something in tangibly demonstrated like psychic perception. That's not myopic, that's understanding the limitations of something like intuition as a demonstrative argument. Of course your intuition won't be convincing to someone not you.

The above was one inference to prove the soul exists(there are plenty of more arguments). I can also give you an inference to prove God exists, such as the anthropic principle. The physical universe is fined tuned for humans to exist and for it to continue to exist such that every moment some power keeps this universe in a state of dynamic equilibrium so that everything is sustained.

There's a number of normative ethics systems available to materialists, including utilitarian consequentialist, which is how I identify. Personally I find it to be more honest and more upright than morality by revelation, due to the unreliability of scriptures, interpretation of scriptures, or implicitly trusting an authority to make all the reasonable moral judgements for you, while you do not analytical work yourself. Even if I weren't a materialist, I would reject authoritarianism as basis for moral behavior.

I agree that humans have come up all kinds of moral systems themselves. However, you don't get my argument --- none of these moral systems and necessarily binding on anybody. If I break a moral as defined in utiltarian consequentialism what are the consequences I face and who enforces it? In contrast, in a real objective moral universe, not just every action, but every thought is accounted for and I must necessarily face consequences and the law system is perfect.

The problem with a materialist's moral system is by the definition of their own ontology it is imaginary and I am not obliged to follow any imaginary ethical code. The result of this, the materialist because they their own moral arbiter can do whatever they want and change their morals to suit them.

Neverminding that one must guess at their purpose based on their subjective interpretation of unproven scripture, and neverminding that the 'camera in the sky' method has not dissuaded many religious people from hurting people, I don't view a chosen purpose as any more inherently negative than a chosen profession, over one you feel like you're 'born into.'

Again in the materialist ontology there is no such thing as "purpose" either. It is again an imaginary thing. Hence, every purpose is equally imaginary and equally ultimately pointless. Consider the implications of this Nazi going around collecting people to escort to gas chambers is just as valid as going to Africa and feeding hungry children.
If you argue, not according to a certain system of morality like utilitarianism, I reply, well that is just according to a view and it is not necessarily accepted by all and binding on all. Besides, the Nazi could argue what they are doing is utilitarian too, that is it will give happiness to a maximum number of people in the future, when the undesirable have been purged from the gene pool to create a perfect happy race.

The problem with philosophical moral arguments is they never lead to absolute answers, just somebodies view or a shared view. On the other hand, religious moral arguments are binding on the adherents that accept that religion to be true. If it says in scripture that if you do x you will go to hell, then the person who believes in that religion if they do x, they must necessarily accept they are going to hell. If you argue, that religious people do those things anyway, it is not evidence against my argument, it simply means that at some level that person does not really believe in their religion sincerely enough .

Plenty of non-materialists believe everyone will be in the same destination and don't feel depressed about it. I certainly don't find it depressing. In fact, it motivates me to appreciate what I have, appreciate life for its brevity, not to procrastinate, not to leave correcting injustices for someone beyond the grave, and generally not treat my life as a weigh-station for the next

What is the point of correcting injustices at all, if in the end everybody is going to cease to exist anyway? It all becomes rather pointless. Why would, I for example, put my body(which according to the materialist is the real me) at risk and danger by fighting some oppression suppose for example opposing an evil dictator to correct an injustice against others, when I could just fend for myself, make sure I get what I need and others be damned. I consider it self-contradictory and even unwise for a materialist to behave morally, altruistically, charitably etc, because they themselves believe in a universe which is ultimately is amoral, purposeless and has no love or feeling. Therefore, if a materialist like Mao or Hitler does behave in accordance with such beliefs, looking at people as only just profit or gain or with the system or not with the system, why should they express problems with it if that is what they believe too?

I have an answer for this, because just like some theists claim to believe such and such(like love thy enemy) but in practice they do not, materialists claim to believe such and such(the universe is amoral, mind and consciousness is just chemical reactions) but do not actually practise it.

The real danger for us is when a materialist like Stalin, Mao or Hitler come along who do practice what they believe.

 

[Windwalker]

The means of investigation are also affected by your worldview. An idealist, such as a Hindu yogi may look for knowledge within rather than without, because the latter may never lead to real knowledge. A dualist may look for knowledge by revelation.

It is very important which worldview we adopt because it informs our epistemology, ethics etc

I prefer a worldview which allows for an epistemological pluralism, such as an integral aperspectival worldview. That way we aren't collapsing everything to our chosen perspective, be that theistic or atheistic, materialist or idealist, etc. To dismiss materialism or an atheistic perspective without regards is to commit the same error yourself you see them doing. Here's an enlightened quote from Sri Aurobindo I think might help bring some perspective here:

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism has done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."


~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 13,14
​