Atheism and Materialsm

[Kfox]

Would you please hold something as something? And, no, not e.g. a cat. You are confusing abstracts with concretes and doing that fallacy of reification.
A fallacy is a noun. Now hold it.

Is there a point to all of this?

 

[Rival]

Why not present them and we can examine them.
Promise I won't "just say" irrational or ill-informed. I will explain why.

It is not irrational to accept that the fundamental constants are they way they are. I'm not sure of anyone who claims that they aren't what they are.
However, it is irrational to then go on and insist that because the constants are the way they are, they must have been designed by a conscious entity with a plan.

The reason why it is irrational to insist that the way the universe is must have been designed by a god is because there is nothing we know about the universe that suggests this. Furthermore, invoking a god doesn't explain anything, so we now have an extra layer of unexplained complexity.

Again, do you think it is rational for me to insist my keys were stolen by pixies rather than just mislaid?

I don't see why you think inferring a designer is irrational at this point, though; this is where you lose me. If it were anything else, any other object, we don't just infer a designer we absolutely know there is one. I think the issue here is lacking the full picture. If one believes in a designed universe, sees evidence of design, fine-tuning, and matches this with the accepted belief that the universe had a beginning in finite time one asks why and how. This leads one to believing in an outside force having been responsible, whether one calls this force God or the Superthing or whatever, it must necessarily be outside of the universe as we know, currently, that the universe came into being at a finite point and with it was created time, space, matter and so on. The Superthing must therefore be outside of all these categories and that description, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, transcendent, starts to sound a lot like common theistic descriptions of God.

God doesn't add any more complexity than any other theory of 'What was responsible for the beginning for he universe...' would, as something necessarily is being posited one way or the other.

Whether or not one believes this, I do not think it is irrational or ill-informed.

Again though, not what this thread is for. I want to know why so many atheists are materialists.

But I think I have my answer: a basic belief in materialism a priori.

 

[Yerda]

Morality is easy enough to explain. It is the perhaps unavoidable result of having both the ability of perceiving events and their consequences and the ability to emphatize.

Hallo.

The problem isn't why are we moral (or not). It is how do we account for moral facts with a description of the world that assumes everything is fundamentally material?

How would a material description of the world capture the situation where "it is wrong to burn your neighbours houses down on a whim" is true?

That seems like an issue for materialism, imo. One solution is to dismiss the existence of moral facts. Which is fine. I'm more on the side of moral facts being a thing but open to alternatives.

The idea that consciousness is in some sense a mystery that would be difficult to explain without the supernatural is not very solid either.

It is certainly a mystery. I personally wouldn't go for the supernatural though.

I will grant that it may appear counter-intuitive for some people, and is perhaps unappealling to many; again, these are matters of aesthetical attachment as opposed to rational controversy. At the end of the day ignorance is still ignorance even when one wants very much to call it divine.

Um, ok.

It does appear to me that there is a genuine issue with accounting for conscious experience in a materialist description of the world. In order to do so we'd have to have some idea of how qualitative subjective experience can be produced from particles and fields and their aggregates.

This might point to gods if you're god-inclined. I'm not. It just tells me that there is a problem with the materialist account of reality.

 

[osgart]

The assumption that the properties of existence must only be physical because anything else is inconceivable is probably a default position that many atheist people develope early on. So it must dominate the thinking of the physicalist. They follow this line of reasoning all the way no matter what they come up against. Imo, it dictates everything for them. I don't think it ever goes questioned in their world. All conclusions must follow suit with this certainty that they have about it. Everything else seems ridiculous to them.

As an atheist myself, I recognize a powerful, immaterial realm of spirituality. For me it's an underlying fundamental reality, and not necessarily a God, or many. After all no one has ever been able to model the existence of qualities of being such as honesty in any physical way. It's assumed to be a physical known as part of what the brain does, but never demonstrated. The brain is intimately correlated with the soul in every way but the explanatory gap is forever out of reach.

 

[LuisDantas]

How would a material description of the world capture the situation where "it is wrong to burn your neighbours houses down on a whim" is true?

You mean ethics?

Whatever you are calling materialism in this thread is simply no obstacle nor hindrance to the development of ethics. As I explained a few posts ago, it is very easy to explain ethics as a natural (even unavoidable) emergent result of the coexistence of reason with perception.

It does appear to me that there is a genuine issue with accounting for conscious experience in a materialist description of the world. In order to do so we'd have to have some idea of how qualitative subjective experience can be produced from particles and fields and their aggregates.

This might point to gods if you're god-inclined. I'm not. It just tells me that there is a problem with the materialist account of reality.

Sorry, what would that problem be again? I must have missed the part where you explain that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think some of you may be talking about "materialism" when what you truly mean is "skepticism". That is unfortunate and hurts mutual understanding.

 

[Rival]

I think some of you may be talking about "materialism" when what you truly mean is "skepticism". That is unfortunate and hurts mutual understanding.

This is what I'm referring to in the OP Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Along with Physicalism - Wikipedia

 

[Kfox]

The assumption that the properties of existence must only be physical because anything else is inconceivable is probably a default position that many atheist people develope early on. So it must dominate the thinking of the physicalist. They follow this line of reasoning all the way no matter what they come up against. Imo, it dictates everything for them. I don't think it ever goes questioned in their world. All conclusions must follow suit with this certainty that they have about it. Everything else seems ridiculous to them.

That’s because the physical is the only thing we know to have an actual existence. Do you see any evidence of something non physical having an actual existence?

As an atheist myself, I recognize a powerful, immaterial realm of spirituality.

Why? What evidence do you see for the spiritual world? Why do you assume such a thing is real outside of thoughts and imagination?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't see why you think inferring a designer is irrational at this point, though; this is where you lose me. If it were anything else, any other object, we don't just infer a designer we absolutely know there is one. I think the issue here is lacking the full picture. If one believes in a designed universe, sees evidence of design, fine-tuning, and matches this with the accepted belief that the universe had a beginning in finite time one asks why and how. This leads one to believing in an outside force having been responsible, whether one calls this force God or the Superthing or whatever, it must necessarily be outside of the universe as we know, currently, that the universe came into being at a finite point and with it was created time, space, matter and so on. The Superthing must therefore be outside of all these categories and that description, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, transcendent, starts to sound a lot like common theistic descriptions of God.

God doesn't add any more complexity than any other theory of 'What was responsible for the beginning for he universe...' would, as something necessarily is being posited one way or the other.

Whether or not one believes this, I do not think it is irrational or ill-informed.

Again though, not what this thread is for. I want to know why so many atheists are materialists.

But I think I have my answer: a basic belief in materialism a priori.

Imo it's not materialism a priori it's empiricism a priori.
The assumption is that the empiricism through the scientific method is the best way to accrue knowledge because it has to be an assumption. Otherwise you'd have to use empiricism to prove itself or only judge the worthiness of any other method by empiricism.

To many (I wouldn't say most) atheists, materialism (or physicalism) is naturally deduced from empiricism based on their reading of the same evidence. E.g. the universe wasn't fine tuned for life, life adapted to fit the universe as is (re: puddle analogy.) And since science can only be used to observe the natural world, and gods are supluferous to the mechanics of the natural world, they are discarded as an unnecessary addition via occam.
Whether or not that's correct, I think the starting point for that chain isn't necessarily materialism but empiricism.

 

[osgart]

That’s because the physical is the only thing we know to have an actual existence. Do you see any evidence of something non physical having an actual existence?

The qualities of being, such as honesty, compassion, patience, etc.

The faculties of being, such as will, thoughts, reasoning.

Why? What evidence do you see for the spiritual world? Why do you assume such a thing is real outside of thoughts and imagination?

The power of spiritual qualities of character, and being. The capacity to care, love, hate, etc.

The capacity to create meaning, discover meaning, and the ability to relate on higher levels than necessity, and survival.

The life suited, organized, in sync, arrangement of multi faceted human functionalities.

The intelligibility of certain aspects of existence.

The fact that we can assign truth value to things, and ideas in nature.

Sophisticated languages, such as English, Latin, math have meaning and truth value.

The way all of it works together, the physical and the abstract.

 

[Yerda]

You mean ethics?

Whatever you are calling materialism in this thread is simply no obstacle nor hindrance to the development of ethics. As I explained a few posts ago, it is very easy to explain ethics as a natural (even unavoidable) emergent result of the coexistence of reason with perception.

Not quite. I mean, if you think moral facts are a thing, what description of the world in terms of particles and fields and such would give us this?

"Reason" and "perception" seem like the could be a bit tricky within that framework too, imo. Intentions and goals etc also.

Sorry, what would that problem be again? I must have missed the part where you explain that.

Why is it a problem that a materialist ontology can't (yet, at least) provide an account for subjective qualitative states? It isn't really. If it can't give that account it can't be a full description of reality, but that isn't such a big deal unless you're committed to materialism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not quite. I mean, if you think moral facts are a thing, what description of the world in terms of particles and fields and such would give us this?

One that at some point involves perception and reason as real things as well.

"Reason" and "perception" seem like the could be a bit tricky within that framework too, imo. Intentions and goals etc also.

Not sure I follow you here. You may find reason and perception difficult to define and explain, I suppose. But that is largely a matter of understanding the neurology involved.

Perception, particularly, is definitely a thing however you understand materialism. There are physical and chemical reactions to the presence of various stimuli such as light, heat and touch. They are known and demonstrated to cause effects in human brains.

Reason is probably a bit trickier, but so what? At one time we did not understand magnetism either. It turns out to be very much physical in nature.

In any case, I take it that no one here believes that materialism, however you define it, implies denial of the existence of reason and perception.

Why is it a problem that a materialist ontology can't (yet, at least) provide an account for subjective qualitative states? It isn't really. If it can't give that account it can't be a full description of reality, but that isn't such a big deal unless you're committed to materialism.

However that may be defined...

 

[blü 2]

The problem is scientism; a refusal to accept other forms of argument, or refusing to accept that those who accept them are not irrational.

There's a sense in which I agree. It may be rational or irrational, depending on the goal the individual is pursuing.

If the goal is to make accurate statements about reality, which is what science seeks to do, then proceeding without examinable evidence to a highly improbable and arbitrary conclusion on the grounds that it makes one feel comfortable is irrational.

If however the goal is to feel comfortable ─ and often to accord with one's culture ─ then it may be a rational way to do that.

Theology has answers to the questions you raised, but many folks are not inclined to look them up or just see the answers as useless theology or philosophising because they can't be verified by naturalistic methods. This just leads to a stalemate with one side refusing to even acknowledge the arguments of the other.

Theology too often has rationalizations rather than answers. Christian apologists (for example) love to assert that a reader is allowed to edit the five by no means fully compatible versions of Jesus in the NT so that only one character emerges, whereas all this achieves is a sixth by no means fully compatible version.

But no one (so far) can tell me what objective test can distinguish the manner in which gods exist from the manner in which characters in fiction exist.

And no one (so far) can give me a definition appropriate to a god with objective existence, such that if we find a real candidate we can determine whether it's god or not.

So I remain an igtheist.

 

[blü 2]

To quote another of the 20th Century's great thinkers (and doers), Bill W. - Wikipedia, "Either God is everything, or he is nothing. Now which was it to be?". This, perhaps, is the nature and extent of the gulf between believer and non believer; a small matter of everything and nothing.

This of course is a view about Abrahamic monotheism. What of other religions that have many gods, such as Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, Graeco-Roman and Norse religion, tribal religions around the world?

The existence of so many versions of god or God or goddess or animal deity argues against the existence of any particular "real" form of the supernatural, no?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm tiring of religion and theism being called 'irrational' or 'superstition' or such. There are many philosophers and theologians out there making rationally sound arguments for the existence of God.

There are?

I haven't found any, and it's not for lack of looking.

I am starting to believe that when atheists claim these arguments aren't 'rational' they're not referring to the content of the argument. For instance, I fail to see how seeing design and order in nature and coming to the conclusion that there is a designer is in any way irrational, or that, with majority scientific consensus, believing that the universe had a beginning and believing that God is the ultimate cause of the beginning of the universe is irrational. How are these beliefs in any way irrational? They're based on perfectly logical argument and conclusion. I fail to see how this is superstition or otherwise. You can disagree with the argument, but calling the argument irrational is far-fetched.

Is this question sincere or rhetorical? I can tell you exactly why the argument from design is irrational, but I feel like that would be taking the thread off-track.

Philosophers and theologians have been making and perfecting these arguments for thousands of years now, and who are you to say they are irrational garbage? Do you think you're a better mind than Augustine, Anselm or Aquinas?

It's baffling.

Here's the thing: the reputation of Aquinas - or you or me - is irrelevant. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; their argument either stand on their own merits or they don't... and a lot of their arguments don't.

Again: if you want me to go into the details, I can.

Of course, if reputation is so important to you, we can play the same game in reverse: who are you to think you're a better mind than, say, Bertrand Russell?

 

[blü 2]

Go outside and find say a rock. Then find real, hold it, look at it and so on. Then take 2 pictures and upload them and show me a stone and real. Then I will listen to you.

This may surprise you, but you can do all that for yourself! Or, more emphatically, yourself!!!!

 

[RestlessSoul]

This of course is a view about Abrahamic monotheism. What of other religions that have many gods, such as Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, Graeco-Roman and Norse religion, tribal religions around the world?

The existence of so many versions of god or God or goddess or animal deity argues against the existence of any particular "real" form of the supernatural, no?

While the reference to God as a He may be characteristic of Abrahamic religions, I would argue that the message expressed here is more universal than that, and certainly compatible with Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. If you have read the Bhagavad Gita, for example, you will recall Krishna revealing to Arjuna that all phenomena emanate from him. Similarly, the concept of a unified divine being manifesting itself as a fragmented multiplicity, is compatible with most schools of Buddhism, including those where the concept of God is most alien.

While the interpretation of spiritual experience, and the practice of religious observance, around the world and throughout history reflects the diversity of cultures in which it is expressed and in which it takes root, it is my contention that surrender to a power greater than oneself, leading to transcendental experience of divine love, is a phenomenon common to many religions.

 

[KWED]

I don't see why you think inferring a designer is irrational at this point, though; this is where you lose me.

It is not irrational to consider a supernatural designer as a possible explanation, to be considered on the basis of evidence and rational argument.
It is irrational to insist that the universe must be designed as it is impossible for it to have occurred by natural means.

If it were anything else, any other object, we don't just infer a designer we absolutely know there is one.

Like what? A tree? A snowflake? A sunset?

Claiming that you "absolutely know" the universe was designed by a supernatural being is irrational, because you cannot "absolutely know" it.

I think the issue here is lacking the full picture. If one believes in a designed universe, sees evidence of design, fine-tuning, and matches this with the accepted belief that the universe had a beginning in finite time one asks why and how. This leads one to believing in an outside force having been responsible, whether one calls this force God or the Superthing or whatever, it must necessarily be outside of the universe as we know, currently, that the universe came into being at a finite point and with it was created time, space, matter and so on. The Superthing must therefore be outside of all these categories and that description, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, transcendent, starts to sound a lot like common theistic descriptions of God.

The concept of something that is involved in the universe "residing outside of space and time" itself is an irrational concept because as far as we know and can hypothesise, there is no "outside of space and time".

God doesn't add any more complexity than any other theory of 'What was responsible for the beginning for he universe...' would, as something necessarily is being posited one way or the other.

It does, because any natural explanation does not require the existence of gods. It relies solely on natural processes, which we know exist.
The god explanation requires both natural processes plus god. And we do not know that god exists.

Whether or not one believes this, I do not think it is irrational or ill-informed.

So people who hold irrational beliefs do not think their beliefs are irrational? Who knew?

Again though, not what this thread is for. I want to know why so many atheists are materialists.

Because many atheists base their position on evidence and rational argument. Evidence and rational argument not only suggest a lack of gods, but also that everything we experience is a result of physical processes. It is simply the best explanation derived from the evidence.

But I think I have my answer: a basic belief in materialism a priori.

It is both a priori and a posteriori. There is not only plenty of evidence, but the very idea that something can exist without existing is irrational.

 

[KWED]

As an atheist myself, I recognize a powerful, immaterial realm of spirituality. For me it's an underlying fundamental reality,

What is the evidence you have to support this "fundamental reality"?

After all no one has ever been able to model the existence of qualities of being such as honesty in any physical way.

This is just the argument from ignorance.

It's assumed to be a physical known as part of what the brain does, but never demonstrated.

We are able to map the physical changes in the brain that show things like "honesty" working. All the evidence we have suggests that "honesty" is a product of the physical brain.

The brain is intimately correlated with the soul in every way

Question begging. What makes you think we have "a soul" (in the sense of something independent of the physical brain)?

but the explanatory gap is forever out of reach.

More argument from ignorance (or god of the gaps, if you prefer).

 

[KWED]

The qualities of being, such as honesty, compassion, patience, etc.

The faculties of being, such as will, thoughts, reasoning.

The power of spiritual qualities of character, and being. The capacity to care, love, hate, etc.

The capacity to create meaning, discover meaning, and the ability to relate on higher levels than necessity, and survival.

The fact that these characteristics can be manipulated by physical manipulation of the brain suggests that they are merely products of the physical brain.

The life suited, organized, in sync, arrangement of multi faceted human functionalities.

The intelligibility of certain aspects of existence.

How is the ability to understand things a sign of a spiritual realm?

The fact that we can assign truth value to things, and ideas in nature.

So if people can hold different truth values, then that is evidence that those values are products of the individual, not external to them.

Sophisticated languages, such as English, Latin, math have meaning and truth value.

Whuh?

The way all of it works together, the physical and the abstract.

Sounds suspiciously like the argument from personal incredulity.

BTW, "abstract" is simply a concept we use to describe things. It would not exist without the human mind to define it.