Atheism and Materialsm

[LuisDantas]

What kind of evidence do you have for this axiomatic assumption as the first one here:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

So you are for the bold the judge of all humans and atheism, for which I am not a part of that, yet I am an atheist. So if that is rational, I rather be irrational and decide for me what matters and don't let you decide that.

I don't understand what you mean to say here, but I want to let you know that I have concluded that you don't know or care either. I will follow suit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand what you mean to say here, but I want to let you know that I have concluded that you don't know or care either. I will follow suit.

Yeah, atheism says nothing about being rational. It is that simple. For evidence that is a norm in your brain and not a fact. I have another norm for evidence.

 

[Yerda]

I have one other thought for consideration. We are talking about morals as they relate to human beings. We do not think of morals in terms of most other organisms, say worms, bacteria, or plants. Indeed, it would seem that this abstract concept would be limited to organisms that have the capacity to override or ignore instinctual behavior, that some actions are not automatic or reflexive. In terms of the cosmos, species that qualify might be considered relatively few. In addition, for most of the timespan that encompasses life on earth, organisms do not seem to have such capacity. Add to this the greater amount of time in which there has been no life.

That some other species exhibit similar behavior to those we describe as moral, it lends further credence in my mind to the notion that such behaviors are born organically out of the organisms themselves.

Aye, sure. Other species muddy the waters somewhat but I'm not sure they fundamentally affect the question of whether a moral statement can be said to be true or false etc.

Where we get our intuitive moral sense from is a legitimate question. I expect that we, and some other species (as well as possible species on other worlds) all got it the same way - it was selected for because it provides a fitness advantage. We also have intuitive physics and psychology modules within our minds which are notoriously (and amusingly) unreliable outwith the scope of our everyday experience - as do many other species.

We wouldn't say that physics and psychology come from us. Only that we have an intuition which is partially accurate at best. It is perhaps possible to think of morality in the same way.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist? So many of the atheists one encounters today seem not only to reject God, but the idea of the 'other' as a whole. Anything that cannot be discovered by one of any scientific methods is rejected. It is a very modern view, I think.

Why has atheism so embraced materialism? Would you say anyone in Antiquity or pre-Enlightenment who claimed to be an atheist would fit our modern definition of 'atheist'? Would they concur with materialism and reductionism? There also seems to be a disdain for Philosophy (see Stephen Hawking for 'Philosophy is dead').

Why is this?

I’ve heard of non materialistic atheists and I am a materialistic theist.

 

[Yerda]

I’ve heard of non materialistic atheists and I am a materialistic theist.

You mean that there is a god and this god is made of matter?

 

[syo]

Why is this?

Atheists don't know what to believe.

 

[osgart]

Does the study go into any more detail about what they consider a 'higher power'? as this would seem to defeat the whole point of atheism.

For me there is evidence of honesty being a power and influence in the world. Yet I can't quite justify an all powerful, all knowing God.

If a person studies the qualities of their own character, and character potential, they'll recognize the potential to choose to be honest. So within one's self there are evidences of many character traits that one could choose to employ.
This is evidence of a higher power to me as an atheist. People recognize character qualities in others. Since I can obtain evidence of character traits in myself and others, and I can imagine ideals of character traits as a form of higher power; I can aspire to a higher power.

This kind of evidence isn't always materially evidenced. So I'm basically an atheist and not a materialist.

How does one come across evidence of honesty?
How does one recognize that honesty is even a reality worth exploring?
How does atoms and molecules translate into the reality of being honest?
How is honesty even physical?

Honesty is an abstract quality. Yet as part of a higher power it is very much an existent reality.

As an atheist I even explore God as an archetype of ideal character, and higher power without being convinced that God exists.

I'm definitely not in the norm as far as popular atheists go.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You mean that there is a god and this god is made of matter?

I don’t see why not. That’s how Gods started.

 

[blü 2]

I magically define with my thoughts something to be real, because it becomes real, because I as thinking define it as real. Something is real, because I think it is real. That is your trick. And now I will define, that you are unreal because then by the magic of words by definition you are unreal.

The thoughts are real. What they contain may or may not be real (meaning 'objectively real'), depending on whether they have a counterpart in the world external to the self.

As long as you don't understand how words work as not being magical by definition, then you are unreal by definition.

The only way magic exists is by concepts in real brains. Magic is not found in (external) reality.

So how do your thoughts in you as subjective reality travel into objective reality as the Internet and reach me as me in my subjective reality?

Via objective reality, of course ─ the objectively real computer, connection, sorting and routing center, to the other relevant computer.

So what is subjective reality and what is objective reality and how do they connect?

Subjective reality is your experience of your real brain working, Objective reality is your experience of the world external to you, which you know about through your senses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find it difficult to account for conscious experience and the existence of moral facts with materialism. I wouldn't say it's impossible but for me these are good reasons to doubt the materialist position.

How's that? We can see how various brain activities and shapes effect consciousness, and morality is a thing we observe in social animals.

 

[Yerda]

How's that? We can see how various brain activities and shapes effect consciousness, and morality is a thing we observe in social animals.

Hi.

Yes, I know. The question is how do we account for these things from a purely physical description of the world? Those two look particularly difficult, imo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi.

Yes, I know. The question is how do we account for these things from a purely physical description of the world? Those two look particularly difficult, imo.

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.

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

A Ghost in the Machine - Daylight Atheism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The thoughts are real. What they contain may or may not be real (meaning 'objectively real'), depending on whether they have a counterpart in the world external to the self.
The only way magic exists is by concepts in real brains. Magic is not found in (external) reality.
Via objective reality, of course ─ the objectively real computer, connection, sorting and routing center, to the other relevant computer.
Subjective reality is your experience of your real brain working, Objective reality is your experience of the world external to you, which you know about through your senses.

So how do this actually work? Subjective to objective to subjective. You haven't explain that. You only claim it works.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What actually is this matter of which materialists are so certain? What is it's substance? The elementary particles from which atoms are composed, are now held to be agitations of a quantum field; and the fields themselves? A language with which to describe forms and interactions. A kaleidoscope of patterns, with no more apparent substance than sunlight refracted through mist.

"We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but then the pieces, when examined, are not there."
- Anthony Aguirre

It seems to me that atheists, realists and materialists have one thing in common; they need the certainty offered by solid ground. But the ground beneath our feet is not solid, even the hardest rock is "a momentary interaction of forces, a process that for a brief moment manages to keep it's shape, to hold itself in equilibrium before disintegrating into dust" (Carlo Rovelli).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What actually is this matter of which materialists are so certain? What is it's substance? The elementary particles from which atoms are composed, are now held to be agitations of a quantum field; and the fields themselves? A language with which to describe forms and interactions. A kaleidoscope of patterns, with no more substance than sunlight reflected through mist.

"We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but then the pieces, when examined, are not there."
- Anthony Aguirre

It seems to me that atheists, realists and materialists have one thing in common; they need the certainty offered by solid ground. But the ground beneath our feet is not solid, even the hardest rock is "a momentary interaction of forces, a process that for a brief moment manages to keep it's shape, to hold itself in equilibrium before disintegrating into dust" (Carlo Rovelli).

i can't remember, which mathematician, who on the term "physical" pointed out that, the term itself is a cognitive abstract and construct, which he nonetheless believed in, because it was useful.

BTW as always, I am an atheist but never consider me a realist or materialist. Them are fighting words

 

[RestlessSoul]

i can't remember, which mathematician, who on the term "physical" pointed out that, the term itself is a cognitive abstract and construct, which he nonetheless believed in, because it was useful.

BTW as always, I am an atheist but never consider me a realist or materialist. Them are fighting words

'Realist' is a broad term, reaching a consensus on a definition could take us some time. I am a pragmatist though, like the mathematician you refer to; I am open to whatever works, and faith works for me in some quite specific areas of my life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

'Realist' is a broad term, reaching a consensus on a definition could take us some time. I am a pragmatist though, like the mathematician you refer to; I am open to whatever works, and faith works for me in some quite specific areas of my life.

Well, I am also a pragmatic, but since I don't do positive metaphysics and real to me, is also a cognitive and abstract construct, I use real to mean: A claim of confidence in "something" as it seems to work and is not doubted.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, I am also a pragmatic, but since I don't do positive metaphysics and real to me, is also a cognitive and abstract construct, I use real to mean: A claim of confidence in "something" as it seems to work and is not doubted.

I think there are two questions to which both a philosophical realist and a scientific realist would probably answer 'yes';

First, does an objective mind-independent reality exist in any meaningful sense? And if so, can we know truths about it?

I could only offer qualified answers to each of these questions, so in that sense I'm not a realist. But neither am I a solipsist or an idealist

 

[Altfish]

Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social, or mathematical nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are physical, or at least bear an important relation to the physical.

Physicalism - Wikipedia

Basically a denial of the supernatural, beyond material nature, in any form.

Somewhat moved the goal post and giving a definition of Physicalism rather than Materialism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think there are two questions to which both a philosophical realist and a scientific realist would probably answer 'yes';

First, does an objective mind-independent reality exist in any meaningful sense? And if so, can we know truths about it?

I could only offer qualified answers to each of these questions, so in that sense I'm not a realist. But neither am I a solipsist or an idealist

Well, look up transcendental idealism (it comes in various forms) and das Ding an sich or the thing in itself. So, I end in a similar place like you:
Not a metaphysical realist.
Not a metaphysical solipsist.
And not a metaphysical idealist.