Anti-Materialism

[jonathan180iq]

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?

You've misread the conversation.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

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

I found this quote in the article you linked the most pertinent to our discussion:

Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, has written: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.​

Morality cannot be merely subjective or personal opinion, because otherwise it has no transpersonal application to use the monks words or to use my words you cannot settle any moral disputes or comes to any moral agreements

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.

I agree morality has nothing to do with philosophical materialism. There is no such thing as "morality" in PM, as morals are not properties of matter. In PM only matter exists and matter has physical properties and not mental properties like morality, truth, love etc. Therefore, I have called it correct by saying "It is amoral" Nonetheless, despite materialists believing in amorality ontologically, very few if any adhere to this. They will condemn Nazism, Mao, Stalin for example. They will have an individual sense about morality, "a conscience" if you like which will stop them from totally immoral behaviour e.g. there is nothing in their ontology that would separate a toaster from a human being, both being material things(there are a class of materialist philosophers who argue machines like toasters and thermostats are just less complex versions of humans) but a materialist would feel wrong to turn off a human than turn off a toaster. The problem is because the materialist admits that their morals are just imaginary and subjective, they cannot generalise them to others. If one materialist did actually say it was OK to turn off human beings because they are just machines anyway and it our delusion to think of them as "conscious" it would actually be fully consistent with PM and another materialist could say nothing to prevent it, beyond just giving an opinion "No don't do that, it's wrong according to me"

On the other hand, if morality is objective and there are real consequences for doing bad things like turning off another human thinking they are a machine, then that person is going to suffer terribly for their actions. If I can convince that person that there is an objective moral law, they can be dissuaded from their actions because of the possibility of real consequences. Another materialist cannot dissuade them from their actions because there are no real consequences, they are speaking purely on a sentimental level.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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 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​

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.​

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.​

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.

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.

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Some are born with diseases, like paralysis, and are severely limited in what they can do in life. Diseases can strike at point in life, but by the age of 30-40 the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases attack the body increasing discomfort and pain in life and limiting ones ability to enjoy it.

Inequality is another depressing fact of life. Life sucks, it is unfair. It is unfair from the very start some are born weak, some strong; some stupid, some intelligent; some with rich parents and some with poor parents; some in developed countries and some in developing countries. Then it is unfair through life as we see from school itself, how certain fortunate kids get popular and other unfortunate kids are bullied, some to the point of suicide. Then we see unfairness in society at every level at the work place, in government and in law. We see criminals get away with crimes and innocent people punished. We read in history of the horrible things humans do to each other(slavery, genocide) and are still doing to each other(Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria etc)

If this is the only world that exists, then it is depressing.​

Overall: The materialist worldview is illogical, narrow minded, self contradictory, amoral/cold and dark and depressing. It disenchants life.

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

That's quite the straw man you've constructed there. I'm sure, if such a person that holds the views you describe actually exists, he is devastated at your disapproval.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

That's quite the straw man you've constructed there. I'm sure, if such a person that holds the views you describe actually exists, he is devastated at your disapproval.

What are you talking about. Philosophical materialists do exist, one person in this thread has already put his hand up to admit he is one.

There are loads of people today who believe in the things PM believe consciousness is produced by the brain, feelings are just chemical reactions, no afterlife, no moral laws and no purpose to the universe, no God, no soul etc

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

So the reality of the mental properties is closer to Maya in a typical understanding than the physical Universe

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.

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.

Not part of the inherent, highest nondual reality of the Universe.

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.

I think it is pointless debating with you, because you are not a materialist and don't speak the language of a materialist and don't believe in the same thing materialists do. I learned my lesson from debating with Sayak in the "Can Hindu be atheists thread" He spent pages defending materialism, only in the end to find out he remembers two of his past lives and experiences God. He was not materialist, and yet some reason he dedicated several days, time and energy to defend materialists. I honestly don't understand what motivates Hindus like him, and yourself to jump in for the rescue of materialists like dutiful Sepoy, when yourselves are not materialists and do not believe what materialists believe. However, seeing we are both on the same side and share the same worldview(were almost from the same school too Shaiva Tantra LHP) I do not see any reason to debate with you. Let materialists fight their own battles.

 

[Windwalker]

I found this quote in the article you linked the most pertinent to our discussion:

Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, has written: "By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view ... threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.​

Morality cannot be merely subjective or personal opinion, because otherwise it has no transpersonal application to use the monks words or to use my words you cannot settle any moral disputes or comes to any moral agreements

But morality is not merely subjective or personal opinion to a moral relativist. That's a gross misinterpretation of it from the perspective of someone who operates under a more mythical construct that there are "Laws" external to humankind, Cosmic laws if you will, that we have to follow. When they hear someone say morality is culturally relative, they see the only alternative to external laws to be subjectivity and lawlessness. But let's examine that more closely.

Morality is part of a social contract between humans. It's not merely "I feel it, I'll do it, and you can't say it's wrong because there is no God." If they do that, they will find rather quickly it's not okay when society puts them in jail or kicks them out of the tribe, or puts them to death even for violating societal rules. So right there, you have morality being objective. It is objective because it exists outside the individual. Intersubjectivity creates objectivity for the individual.

We live within what rightly is called a "consensus reality". It is an objective reality created by individuals within a collective. We adopt certain truths and modes of thinking from others in that collective, and participate as individuals within it. It is outside of us, and inside of us. We are part of it, and it is part of us. So morality, is in fact part of that shared, albeight created collective reality. That reality is objective to us, even though at a higher understanding it is recognized that those collective realities are relative to that culture.

Are there any universals that can be applied to all cultures? I think so, as I indicated above in talking about the various shades of relativism I linked you to. Are those universals cosmic truths, built into the fabric of the universe itself? That's a harder metaphysical question to speculate about, but for all intents and purposes it is to us in our experiences as human beings. Would they hold true for the praying mantis on the other hand? That's a harder question. Probably not.

Now as far as the monk claiming without teaching these cosmic laws we have no basis to teach morality, I think that's a poor understanding on his part. Being deep in interior states of consciousness, which I fully respect and embrace, does not make you magically educated about social theory. That actually requires research to see, not introspection. Hence why later I quote from Aurindo to make this point to you.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What are you talking about. Philosophical materialists do exist, one person in this thread has already put his hand up to admit he is one.

There are loads of people today who believe in the things PM believe consciousness is produced by the brain, feelings are just chemical reactions, no afterlife, no moral laws and no purpose to the universe, no God, no soul etc

There is quite the divide between what is on that list(I would agree to each), and the silly goth/emo characterization you constructed.

The real question is why do you think someone must hold the views that you do to be happy? Seems a tad presumptuous to me.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

But morality is not merely subjective or personal opinion to a moral relativist. That's a gross misinterpretation of it from the perspective of someone who operates under a more mythical construct that there are "Laws" external to humankind, Cosmic laws if you will, that we have to follow. When they hear someone say morality is culturally relative, they see the only alternative to external laws to be subjectivity and lawlessness. But let's examine that more closely.

Morality is part of a social contract between humans. It's not merely "I feel it, I'll do it, and you can't say it's wrong because there is no God." If they do that, they will find rather quickly it's not okay when society puts them in jail or kicks them out of the tribe, or puts them to death even for violating societal rules. So right there, you have morality being objective. It is objective because it exists outside the individual. Intersubjectivity creates objectivity for the individual.

It is not that I am not giving your post due attention, it is that I have already answered the points you have raised before. Human created moral systems are not perfect, and we see all the time criminals get away with their crimes. Recall what I said of the criminals that commit crimes, a fraction are arrested, of those that arrested a fraction are prosecuted and of those that are prosecuted a fraction serve the full sentence.

I also showed that not all civil laws account for all ideas of morals e.g. bullying, emotional violence and abuse in most societies in the world is not considered a civil crime.

Some laws themselves are considered immoral e.g. past laws like slaves running away from their master.

Human created moral systems are inadequate. Natural moral systems, that is if the universe is a perfect moral system are though. If suppose a criminal gets away with murder, the religious person can say "You have escaped human laws, but you will not escape God's law"

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

There is quite the divide between what is on that list(I would agree to each), and the silly goth/emo characterization you constructed.

The real question is why do you think someone must hold the views that you do to be happy? Seems a tad presumptuous to me.

So there you go you are a philosophical materialist and I have correctly identified every item you believe in.

The rest of the OP is the objections I have to your worldview re illogical, narrow minded and self contradictory, cold and amoral, nihilistic and depressing. If you do not think these are valid objections, then refute my arguments.

 

[Kirran]

It's worth noting, many of these points address why you don't like materialism, not necessarily why it isn't true. Only the 'illogical' point addresses that (and perhaps the narrow-minded/contradictory one). It's probably the only one I agree with!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So there you go you are a philosophical materialist and I have correctly identified every item you believe in.

The rest of the OP is the objections I have to your worldview re illogical, narrow minded and self contradictory, cold and amoral, nihilistic and depressing. If you do not think these are valid objections, then refute my arguments.

But you haven't presented any arguments, just a series of non sequiturs that seem to be based on some very specific biases.

Again, these problems you present aren't problems of materialism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It's worth noting, many of these points address why you don't like materialism, not necessarily why it isn't true. Only the 'illogical' point addresses that (and perhaps the narrow-minded/contradictory one). It's probably the only one I agree with!

Amoral and nihilistic too though Kirran, because there are no such thing as "morals" and "purposes" in PM, they are not properties of matter.

Depressing, I admit, is not necessary. As materialist can simply delude themselves into thinking "life is beautiful" when hundreds of millions starve around them. To that I argue, just wait for the truth to catch up.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

To add to clarify, not all my arguments were to show materialism is not true. The first two were challenging its reality, the others were challenging it on its ethical implications to show why it is an abhorrent worldview.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which is to say, you created a strawman.

 

[Kirran]

Which is to say, you created a strawman.

It's more like he first established why it is he has philosophical disagreements with materialism and then went on to say what, in his opinion, its ethical implications are. We may disagree with him on the latter, of course, but it doesn't mean it is necessarily a strawman.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

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.

I disagree, because you are making an assumption here that knowledge derived from different means of knowledge is all equally valid. I argue not so. You heard the saying "the proof is in the pudding?" Reading a description of the taste of the pudding is not equal and equivalent to tasting the pudding. It is when you taste the pudding can you say you know the taste of the pudding. Similarly, we make a distinction in indirect knowledge(paroksha jnana) and direct knowledge(aporkasha jnana) in classical Indian epistemology. Indirect knowledge is exactly that materialist/atheist knowledge you are indicating here, it is indirect because it is through the instruments of the senses and the mind and is akin to seeing something through a lens and the attributes of the lens get mixed with it. Direct knowledge is being able to directly apprehend something without using the senses or the mind and it is considered not only superior knowledge, but true knowledge.

However, my argument that materialism was narrow minded and self contradictory was NOT based on which means of knowledge is superior or inferior, but simply demonstrating there are other means of knowledge by which we know and it is through these means we know mind, consciousness, morals, purpose, truth, beauty etc Hence, to argue that they do not exist because our 5 senses cannot see, hear, feel, taste and smell them is myopic. As these are not objects that the 5 senses can apprehend. It would be like deaf person denying that sound exists just because they cannot apprehend sound with the other 4 senses; or a blind person denying colour exists just because cannot apprehend colour with the other 4 senses. As each sense apprehend a specific object of reality, it cannot apprehend the other. It is only through that sense we know of the reality of that object. Similarly, the mind is another sense we have that apprehends ideas, feelings etc.

The irony is intuition is a means of knowledge that several scientists and mathematicians have themselves credited for the discoveries they made.

Self-contradictory, because the materialist themselves relies on other means of knowledge when it suits them even though they insist only only the 5 senses e.g. When a materialist goes to the doctor because they are experiencing a pain in their head, what means do they rely on? Of course mental perception. If the doctor said "Nah sorry, you have no pain, because I cannot see your pain" they would be annoyed. When a materialist says "It has been proven there is water on Mars," what means of knowledge do they rely on? Testimony. When the materialist says "Gravity exists, because objects fall" what means are they relying on? Inference. When exactly the same means are used by non-materialists they cry foul.
Take for example fields like Parapsychology, which use exactly the same scientific method that other sciences like Psychology and Physics use, but when with this method they establish non-materialist truths like telepathy, precognition, ghosts, reincarnation etc they cry foul. As long as it is in the materialist paradigm, they will accept anything from dark energy, time travel to parallel universes, but if it preaches the materialist paradigm, it is no longer science -- it is religion, philosophy or pseudoscience.

Materialists are thus a bunch of hypocrites who have no consistent standards of truth. They will accept inference when it suits them, accept mental perception and intuition when it suits them, and testimony when it suits them.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Take for example fields like Parapsychology, which use exactly the same scientific method that other sciences like Psychology and Physics use.

LOL

That's a good one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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"

Exactly as you cannot show one shred of evidence for a deity and yet make the giant leap to "it created all things", or "is powerful beyond measure" or "influences our daily lives." Where is the real difference? The difference is not held in the realm of "logic", I can assure you.

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.

In the end we don't know the reality. But from the "depressing" (your word, not mine) state of the universe, what fits the facts better? That mater, as versatile and protean as it is, and as in-motion and in-transition as it ALWAYS is, can somehow find that perfect balance, that stable configuration that is so stable it becomes something more - or that God (unknowable, unexplainable, having existed for eternity, with no creator necessary - even though everything else has to have had one, He is somehow exempt, etc., etc., etc.) did it? To me, my belief fits better, to you... yours. Do not forget that what you propose is most certainly a fairy tale to me also.

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.

You're still stuck without the faintest idea what may have gone on. You expect... even demand... that consciousness be a one-shot addition. "Boom!" and it's there. You're the one whose thinking is in error here. Guaranteed.

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. 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.

As I was reading all this I sort of had this obvious thought coming to mind again and again. What you're describing is called "instinct." The idea that our chemical composition and DNA-driven traits are so complex and so intricate, that even fore-born thoughts and ideas are baked in. Understanding where our appendages are at, spatially,for example. What constitutes a an attractive/viable mate. What is "beautiful" to us. All built-in in order to instruct us on how to have that edge that will allow for greater likelihood of survival.

Let's not forget that even if God exists, that He USES these methods to get the job done. Instinct EXISTS. Chemical signals that tell your body how to react to things EXIST. DNA encoding of every ounce of your physical makeup - the instruction set upon which YOU were BUILT EXISTS. These tools are in place - physical tools - not "magic", not "supernatural" in any way, shape or form. Whether they were built by accretion over millions to billions of years, or were put there by God makes almost no difference. We deal NOW with real, physical cause and effect as our bodies interact with the world around us. That is the lot we are given. We're not out crossing some astral plane, not honing our skills in affecting the matter of the universe with our minds, not suffering pain or loss as some sort of punishment for transgressions as witnessed by some outside magical being.

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.

Well, I do believe that we are made up of matter and energy alone - and do not have a "spirit" component. However, I very much deny that every "moral claim" is equivalent. Whether that disqualifies me from being considered a "materialist"... I couldn't care much less. The label is what it is, and I don't care if it exists or not, describes some portion of my ideas and beliefs or not... or even whether it is applied to me or not. The mind DOES exist - obviously. However there is no trace to be found of it once the physical container it resides within is destroyed, decayed or otherwise found devoid of life. The energies dissipate, and move on to other things. As evidence all you have to do is look at anyone who has suffered physical injury and has come out of it with a reduced mental capacity - an injured "mind". Physical damage affects the mind. The mind is not immune to physical dependency - that is fact, and has been seen to be true millions upon millions of times. What happens when you have a high-grade fever, and the temperature of your blood rises dangerously as it runs to your brain? I know from first hand experience... I stood up, dazed and in a state of confusion. I was mumbling incoherently, trying to tell someone that something was wrong, but unable to express myself. My head felt huge, and I couldn't gauge the location of my extremities. I had to look at my hands to use them. What is the "mind"? Not magic, I can tell you that.

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.

I guess I am not all materialist then. Because emotions do exist, and they do so more than just being chemical processes or reactions. The "mind", as I said, is real. It is an abstract - part of the body, and yet not of it. We are free to do with it as we please, and finding something like "happiness" is a pursuit of the mind, not the body. I understand this. Doesn't change the fact that the mind has nowhere else to go but the body.

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.

So... foraging for food is "suffering", are you serious? you do what you have to do to survive. ALL animals do. If I had to rummage through trash cans to get the job done... so be it. For goodness sake... do you think that animals in the wild feel that they are "suffering?" Are you delusional? What there are are the circumstances you are in and the circumstances you are not in. That's pretty much it. Survival is the call... always. Whether or not you answer it in the way that you have to, in the moment that you have to, is up to you. You can point to others all you want and cry about how much better they have it than you do... or you can realize that nothing they are doing matters any more than what you are doing... so do what you are doing and live on. Sounds to me like you are the one more trapped in the comforts of this day and age- and being without them makes you extremely uncomfortable. Honestly, I don't buy things. I mean, I do, but I don't care about any of them. What car I have? Who cares, as long as it runs. The clothes I wear - comfort is paramount, all other considerations - nothing. My hair style? Ha... why the hell would I EVER "style" my hair? Music... I enjoy it, but it isn't necessary, I can make my own. Food? Well... I like food, but at any given moment, what I have to eat is what I have to eat. I don't squabble and I don't do "picky". If a meteor hit tomorrow, or a volcano erupted near my home - if everything went to hell in a handbasket, I can guarantee I would hit the ground running. Not even a second's hesitation. My family and I would be out there, making it work.

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.

And what I am trying to tell you is that you may find it depressing, but I don't. And you want to convince me that your mindset on the subject is better? Seriously?

 

[sayak83]

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 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​

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.​

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.​

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.

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.

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Some are born with diseases, like paralysis, and are severely limited in what they can do in life. Diseases can strike at point in life, but by the age of 30-40 the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases attack the body increasing discomfort and pain in life and limiting ones ability to enjoy it.

Inequality is another depressing fact of life. Life sucks, it is unfair. It is unfair from the very start some are born weak, some strong; some stupid, some intelligent; some with rich parents and some with poor parents; some in developed countries and some in developing countries. Then it is unfair through life as we see from school itself, how certain fortunate kids get popular and other unfortunate kids are bullied, some to the point of suicide. Then we see unfairness in society at every level at the work place, in government and in law. We see criminals get away with crimes and innocent people punished. We read in history of the horrible things humans do to each other(slavery, genocide) and are still doing to each other(Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria etc)

If this is the only world that exists, then it is depressing.​

Overall: The materialist worldview is illogical, narrow minded, self contradictory, amoral/cold and dark and depressing. It disenchants life.

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

I believe that, just like the anti-theists against theism and anti-immaterialists against spirituality, the anti-materialists are narrow minded, biased and bigoted in their views against materialism.

For one, worldviews can be wrong or incomplete without being irrational or immoral. For example classical mechanics is only partially correct without being irrational while alchemy is wrong without being immoral. So each part of the three part thesis has to be conclusively demonstrated before one can claim an intellectual-rational-moral right to be anti-X.

1) One has to show that X is conclusively wrong so that no future evidence can change this assessment.
(eg. X is a belief that the earth is flat). one gains an intellectual right to be anti-X
AND
2) X is irrational and hence one cannot lead a rational life with a commitment to X.
(eg. X is a belief that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are true) One gains a rational right to be anti-X
AND
3) X is immoral and/or unethical so that one cannot logically lead a moral life with a commitment to X.
(eg. X is a belief that causing suffering to other beings is the supreme goal of life). One gains a moral right to be anti-X.

So now let's assess the OP

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

Argument from incredulity. The OP provided a very dangerous argument here, for this kind of thinking can be so easily refuted in the future by scientists creating a conscious AI (which I am certain they will). The progressive refutations of such arguments from incredulity (how can mere matter be alive, how can mere matter do logical and mathematical analysis, how can mere matter organize into complex systems....) should caution us against the kind of argument that is being advanced. Indeed, my reading of the Upanisads show that consciousness, mind, intellect, ego-self etc. are all products of matter (either atomic or Samkhya guna-s) and hence the questions of consciousness etc. will have a material and scientific answer. (See Chandayoga upanisad part 6 which clearly states that mind, memory, verbal thinking and speech etc are products of matter). So Upanisadic ideas would be falsified if consciousness, mind, memory, perception etc. are not found to be explainable by scientific materialism eventually. Furthermore, Gita and Upanisads clearly states that self (purusha/atman) cannot be created and destroyed, only its awareness manifests itself under certain conditions within the field of nama-rupa. Hence once again, its entirely possible to create a self-aware AI if humans manage to replicate such conditions, and nothing in Hindu philosophy says something like this cannot happen.

The poster humbly entreats all readers to stop mixing up Cartesian immaterialism with upanisadic immaterialism.

 

[Windwalker]

It is not that I am not giving your post due attention, it is that I have already answered the points you have raised before. Human created moral systems are not perfect, and we see all the time criminals get away with their crimes.

This is not a problem with morality. It's a problem with the criminal justice system. Those are different things. Flaws in the criminal justice system have nothing to do with relativism. Why do you think it does? If it did, then they should say "we don't care", yet we do and are upset when the system fails. We don't think it's okay.

Recall what I said of the criminals that commit crimes, a fraction are arrested, of those that arrested a fraction are prosecuted and of those that are prosecuted a fraction serve the full sentence.

This has nothing to do with morality. If it did, as you think, then they wouldn't be considered crimes at all. But they are considered crimes. Do you see the difference now?

Human created moral systems are inadequate.

Religious moral systems are also human moral systems, and are historically inferior to secular ones. Do you believe in Theocracies? Do you believe in an eye for an eye? Where do you see moral systems coming from that aren't human? Explain. What system does not have a human being interpreting and declaring it?

Natural moral systems, that is if the universe is a perfect moral system are though.

But who is interpreting this, but humans? Different people understand this differently, right? It's still relative, if it it claims to be absolute. How can it be absolute?

If suppose a criminal gets away with murder, the religious person can say "You have escaped human laws, but you will not escape God's law"

That's just assuming justice will somehow be served despite the failing of the system. It doesn't actually provide a basis for moral codes. Those come from humans, and coming from humans, it will in fact be culturally based and therefore relative.