Atheism and Materialsm

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions." Google from Wiki.

Here is an other overview:
materialism | Definition, Theories, History, & Facts

It is a bit like Abrahamic religion. There are different versions of what objective reality is, but they are similar traits.

 

[KWED]

I know there are SOME atheists who write in terms that are the same as believers if you substitute "science" for God. This was not of course possible before science became as we know it's become.

Not sure what you mean by this.
Are you claiming that there are people who think that their computer only works because they believe it works?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure what you mean by this.
Are you claiming that there are people who think that their computer only works because they believe it works?

No. they believe that only science can determine truth about the world. Just as some people believe that only God can determine truth about the world.
Natural science scientism is that belief that in the end that only the objective is really real. The problem is that real has no objective referent just like God.
We have at least some of those believers here on RF.

 

[Rival]

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

They're often used interchangeably, as Wikipedia notes

 

[blü 2]

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

You know it works, or you wouldn't be talking to me ─ or anyone else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know it works, or you wouldn't be talking to me ─ or anyone else.

I don't know how it works. It only appears to work.

 

[blü 2]

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.

An example would be helpful, if you can link or quote one.

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

Isn't that the 'argument from design'? It took a severe beating when evolution was accepted to explain variety, specialization, 'beauty', and so on in nature.

Of course the argument from design isn't limited to biology. The subjects studied by physics appear to behave in an orderly manner and at present we know of no clear counterexample to the proposition that the same orderly manner operates throughout the universe. But if the forms of biology are explicable, why is it rational to assume that the apparent orderliness of physics is not explicable, and requires a superbeing to explain it?

And doesn't the superbeing hypothesis raise many more problems than it solves? What real thing is a superbeing? Where did IT come from, and how did that Where come to exist? How did our superbeing come to possess the powers attributed to it? Why would it want to create a universe? Since we know of biology only on one planet in the entire universe (out of however many planets perhaps 20 septillion stars entail), and it didn't arise till the universe was maybe ten billion years old, why would we think the superbeing had biology in mind in creating the universe? Let alone one species ─ H. sap sap ─ that took another four billion years or more to evolve?

And we've found nothing from our reasoned enquiries into nature that might directly suggest the reality of such a being.

So is the hypothesis of a superbeing really rational?

 

[blü 2]

I don't know how it works. It only appears to work.

But it appears to work a great deal better than any of the alternatives appear to work. To start close to home, it brings about continual improvements in medicine ─ let alone computers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

So is the hypothesis of a superbeing really rational?

So if thoughts are real as thoughts, but the content is only real if the content corresponds to objective reality, then is the content of the thought that the content is only real if the content corresponds to objective reality really rational, since the bold only corresponds to an internal/subjective content as in effect a norm and not an objective, external real fact?
So how rational is that?

Unless you can actually make a really rational model of the world, I will listen to you. Until then you are a believer, like the rest of us.
In practice nobody have been able to make a rational model of the world, because everybody else can in effect believe differently for the everyday world. In that sense philosophy is useless for all attempts of rationally explaining the world. Of course someone may do it one day, but you are not that one. Neither am I.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it appears to work a great deal better than any of the alternatives appear to work. To start close to home, it brings about continual improvements in medicine ─ let alone computers.

A great deal better is internal as a thought and not real, because it rests on how you think and not correspondence to the real world. How rational is that?
I know I am not always rational. What about you? Are you always rational and what is your objective evidence for that, because it doesn't count that you think it, because that is not real for the content as the content of the thought. That wouldn't be rational!

 

[RestlessSoul]

An example would be helpful, if you can link or quote one.

John Polkinghorne - Wikipedia

 

[Rival]

So is the hypothesis of a superbeing really rational?

Yes

 

[Altfish]

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions." Google from Wiki.

Here is an other overview:
materialism | Definition, Theories, History, & Facts

It is a bit like Abrahamic religion. There are different versions of what objective reality is, but they are similar traits.

You have still not changed my mind, atheists are no more

They're often used interchangeably, as Wikipedia notes

Maybe but Materialsim is the gathering and coveting of 'things' or at least I thought it was, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Rival]

Maybe but Materialsim is the gathering and coveting of 'things' or at least I thought it was, maybe I'm wrong.

Yes, within philosophical and theological circles 'materialism' refers to scientific naturalism/physicalism. It's, as noted, not exactly the same as those concepts, but is close enough that over time the word has come to mean basically the same thing as 'physicalism'. So while I do acknowledge a less than dictionary accurate definition of the word, its plebeian usage is generally synonymous with naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

John Polkinghorne - Wikipedia

In general I don't do dualism as monism. I do a triad of monism. I know something. That is 3 parts and I have never been able to reduce away any of the 3 parts. You can also spot in what words do. They have a meaning, they are a stand in/sign and they have a referent/they are about something.
For a much better one than me, look up Charles Sanders Peirce. I am not doing it the credit it deserves.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, within philosophical and theological circles 'materialism' refers to scientific naturalism/physicalism. It's, as noted, not exactly the same as those concepts, but is close enough that over time the word has come to mean basically the same thing as 'physicalism'. So while I do acknowledge a less than dictionary accurate definition of the word, its plebeian usage is generally synonymous with naturalism.

I though naturalism was taking all your kit off on the beach

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have still not changed my mind, atheists are no more

...

Can you rephrase that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I though naturalism was taking all your kit off on the beach

No, you are everything, but everybody else don't really understand reality and thus they are not in it.
All words have only one meaning and the meaning is Altfish.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes

Well, yes. It is rational to include the hypothesis of a superbeing, because to me we can't rule it out.

 

[blü 2]

So if thoughts are real as thoughts, but the content is only real if the content corresponds to objective reality, then is the content of the thought that the content is only real if the content corresponds to objective reality really rational, since the bold only corresponds to an internal/subjective content as in effect a norm and not an objective, external real fact?

No.

The thought exists in reality as a brainstate or sequence of brain states.

It is these your biologically generated sense of self subjectively is aware of and can interact with, in the sense of altering, adding to, putting in a different setting, reacting to, and so on.

Unless you can actually make a really rational model of the world, I will listen to you.

Reasoned enquiry, of which the sciences and scientific method are a subset, seeks to do exactly that, by seeking to examine the world external to the self in order to explore, describe, and try to explain it.

And the justification for reasoned enquiry is that not only does it frequently work ─ succeed at its chosen tasks ─ but it works better and more frequently than any other method presently known.

That's how you know why you haven't fallen through the floor and down to the center of the earth.