Atheism and Materialsm

[Rival]

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?

 

[Altfish]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist?

No, certainly no more than most religious people are.

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 an astonishingly modern view. 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?

Why should anyone accept anything without proof? Science is a good way to discover if something is 'true' and is a good proof.
I don't know what you think I do? Am I killing babies, robbing banks, counting my money and accumulating property and jewellery?
How many atheists do you know? No, not those who write books and have YouTube channels; ordinary atheists who live down your street, play golf, are on the PTA, help at Food Banks, etc?

 

[sun rise]

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.

 

[icehorse]

Some atheists might be, but I wouldn't say I am. I can allow the chance that the materialists might be correct, but my perspective is that if we're honest we have to say we've barely scratched the surface of knowing all that's possible to know. In the meantime (perhaps forever), I think things like morals and ethics and utilitarianism are all important.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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 an astonishingly modern view.

There is nothing modern about it.

Skeptics and atheists have always been around. Or to put it differently, as long as there has been common sense, we have had one or more atheists walking the Earth.

 

[Rival]

No, certainly no more than most religious people are.


Why should anyone accept anything without proof? Science is a good way to discover if something is 'true' and is a good proof.
I don't know what you think I do? Am I killing babies, robbing banks, counting my money and accumulating property and jewellery?
How many atheists do you know? No, not those who write books and have YouTube channels; ordinary atheists who live down your street, play golf, are on the PTA, help at Food Banks, etc?

Pretty much everyone around me is an atheist. It's the default around here.

 

[Left Coast]

No, certainly no more than most religious people are.

Really? You think just as high a percentage of religious people are materialists as atheists are materialists?

To date I've met zero religious materialists. Are they all in England?

 

[Rival]

Really? You think just as high a percentage of religious people are materialists as atheists are materialists?

To date I've met zero religious materialists. Are they all in England?

I'm wondering if he became confused by 'materialism' and thinks I mean the consumerist kind.

 

[Rival]

I'm talking about scientific materialism; the idea that everything in the universe can be reduced to matter.

 

[Rival]

There is nothing modern about it.

Skeptics and atheists have always been around. Or to put it differently, as long as there has been common sense, we have had one or more atheists walking the Earth.

But are there atheists, generally in the West, who also believe in souls, for instance? I know some, but many are materialist reductionists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are these two so often seen together? 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 an astonishingly modern view. 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?

For this atheist and materialist, it's not so much that I reject the existence of things beyond the purview of science; I reject the capability of people to talk from a place of knowledge about factual claims beyond the purview of science.

There's a Steven Novella quote I like to pull out in these conversations:

What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results.

Looking at things through that mindset, it's hard to see "claims that aren't supported by science" as anything other than "claims that don't have rigorous support at all."

And in practice, I've noticed that "the supernatural" (or whatever other term a person wants to use for things beyond the material) gets used in a way that implies the distinction between immaterial & material, or supernatural & natural is based entirely on epistemological quality.

I mean, when people talk about the supernatural/gods/etc. it's never "here are the principles that this realm operates under that are different from the material realm and here's how we know;" it's always "here's a set of things we're personally invested in that you can't prove don't exist."

A stopped clock is right twice a day, so I can't say that a conclusion that someone pulled out of their butt must be false, but I can say that when someone starts describing a claim that sounds testable as "beyond science," they're talking out of their butts.

 

[sun rise]

But are there atheists, generally in the West, who also believe in souls, for instance? I know some, but many are materialist reductionists.

Souls, nature spirits and the like are pagans presumably at least some would be.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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 an astonishingly modern view. 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?

To me, atheism doesn't necessarily imply materialism: it's not so much that I believe everything is reducible to matter (I don't believe there's absolute evidence to make that conclusion) as it is that so far, I haven't encountered any convincing evidence that something or some phenomenon actually goes beyond the material universe.

Science is just one rigorous tool out of a few that we can use to arrive at evidence that something is true or that it exists; logic and mathematics aren't natural sciences, but they still provide evidence for many things and tell us a lot about the workings of our world. Yet I haven't encountered any evidence of something "immaterial"--that is, beyond the material universe--whether in the natural sciences or in other fields that can provide us with evidence.

 

[Yerda]

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.

Hi.

I wouldn't agree that it is required - I'm an atheist but I don't accept any particular metaphysical theory of substances.

I think some of the ancient Greek and Indian philospohers were materialists, or precursors to modern materialism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 an astonishingly modern view. 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 think that's not really accurate. In the sense that I believe that matter (which is convertible to energy, and back) is the fundamental reality of all things we know -- yes, including mental states -- I do not think that is a fulsome view. My mental states are, in fact, more like objects in an OO programming language -- while they are physically represented in my brain's wiring, they are in themselves merely representations...placeholders...for something more esoteric. To know that it is wrong to murder, for example, is not a material object in my brain -- rather, it is a construct made of a complex interplay of ideas.

What I do not accept, however, is that there are invisible, indetectable, non-physical "stuff" (outside of represented ideas) that somehow interact with and interfere in our existence.

And I do not disdain philosophy at all -- in fact I'm quite fond of it. I merely reject the bits that appear to be based on magical thinking. Philosophy, which is again little more than ideas endeavouring to understand ourselves in the context of our reality. And because those ideas can be represented by objects and super-objects in my brain's wiring, it's all totally available to me.

 

[Yerda]

To me, atheism doesn't necessarily imply materialism: it's not so much that I believe everything is reducible to matter (I don't believe there's absolute evidence to make that conclusion) as it is that so far, I haven't encountered any convincing evidence that something or some phenomenon actually goes beyond the material universe.

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.

 

[MikeF]

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 an astonishingly modern view. 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 suppose I would ask you if you agree that human beings can believe things that are factually not true. If you agree with this, then that necessitates the need to distinguish between beliefs that represent what is true, what is possible (and ranked by probability), and that which is improbable, false, or impossible.

Language, logic, mathematics are abstractions we create to help us organize, reason upon, and communicate our experiences. The realm of abstraction is unbounded and infinite. When we think in abstraction, we must ensure that what we think and reason still corresponds to reality, what is. The simple fact that we can think it does not make it true or possible.

Atheism and the rejection of non-physical existence are not embraced, but are simply conclusions reasoned and drawn from our current level of corroborated knowledge about the world. The ideas you reference ('God' - a label ill-defined or used such that it is meaningless, along with 'other') were beliefs formed in a much more primitive time for humanity with a highly restricted knowledge base of how the world works. Once developed, these beliefs are passed down generationally, reinforced through indoctrination and socialization. Is it wrong to re-evaluate such beliefs in light of our current knowledge and understanding of the world, and if unsupported, to set them aside?

 

[F1fan]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist?

From what I have gathered from theists over the decades is that we are all materialists, but theists believe their illusory belief system is outside of materialism. Of course this makes no sense since their belief and thinking is a material process. Theists are just looking to be different and using the materialism claims as a way to evade accountability for why they believe in non-rational religious concepts.

So many of the atheists one encounters today seem not only to reject God, but the idea of the 'other' as a whole.

No, we reject the claims made by a variety of theists that their many gods exist. Why? because there is no evidence that the religious, who are material beings, have any special powers to detect gods. This belief tends to follow the social and cultural influence of where the theist was born and raised, not from a genuine experience of a divine force.

Anything that cannot be discovered by one of any scientific methods is rejected. It is an astonishingly modern view.

Right, make an unverifiable claim without evidence, it is rejected due to the rules of logic and debate. No one is obligated to accept the claims by theists. I suggest most theists have no idea why they ended up believing what they do. But some seem to feel stress that atheists don't accept their claims.

Why has atheism so embraced materialism?

Because it has a basis in fact, not illusions. What credible alternative is there?

Would you say anyone in Antiquity or pre-Enlightenment who claimed to be an atheist would fit our modern definition of 'atheist'?

It takes less courage these days to admit to being an atheist, along with being gay and other marginalized historical prejudices.

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?

These would have to be answered by specific types of atheists. But the bottom line is that theists hold beliefs that not only have no evidence, but are often in contrast to what we know of reality, and that alone is enough to reject religious claims.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Atheism for the longest time didn't mean 'without god' because theism didn't mean 'with god.' Theism meant a personal God which guided mankind and was involved with everyday life. Most (though not all) noncontrmporary atheists would look like deists, animists and 'spiritual not religious'ists.

The idea of materialism is modern, but even by modern standards I wouldn't say most atheists are materialists. If you asked how many atheists believed in things like ghosts I think you'd be surprised at the answer.

Personally I don't believe there's any consciousness without physical structure and reject the idea of non-physical energy, but that's rare outside of the sort of atheists who would come debate on the subject, I think.

Also, like Nietzsch's "God is dead" quote, theres a little more meaning to Hawking's "Philosophy is dead" quote. It doesn't mean philosophy is gone. Epistemology, empiricism, etc are all philosophy. What doesn't have sway anymore is pre-Aristotle philosophy where questioning the natural world didn't involve methodically collecting data about the natural world through scientific means. Even ethics and psychology require empiricism to be taken seriously as a major field of study.

Personally, as someone with an ethical system more aligned with utilitarianism and consequentialism, I'm happy to see that way. If there's anything I disdain it's deontology and virtue ethics where rules for social conduct are set based on things like religious rules or cultural virtues, rejecting consideration for social conduct based on its impact, rather than on its virtue. I find it presumptuous, sometimes willfully ignorant and wishful thinking over practicality. But I don't think you need to have a religion or spirituality that works like that to have a religion or spirituality. Particularly religions like Taoism, which if I had any religion, it'd be that.

 

[Rival]

Atheism for the longest time didn't mean 'without god' because theism didn't mean 'with god.' Theism meant a personal God which guided mankind and was involved with everyday life. Most (though not all) noncontrmporary atheists would look like deists, animists and 'spiritual not religious'ists.

The idea of materialism is modern, but even by modern standards I wouldn't say most atheists are materialists. If you asked how many atheists believed in things like ghosts I think you'd be surprised at the answer.

Personally I don't believe there's any consciousness without physical structure and reject the idea of non-physical energy, but that's rare outside of the sort of atheists who would come debate on the subject, I think.

Also, like Nietzsch's "God is dead" quote, theres a little more meaning to Hawking's "Philosophy is dead" quote. It doesn't mean philosophy is gone. Epistemology, empiricism, etc are all philosophy. What doesn't have sway anymore is pre-Aristotle philosophy where questioning the natural world didn't involve methodically collecting data about the natural world through scientific means. Even ethics and psychology require empiricism to be taken seriously as a major field of study.

Personally, as someone with an ethical system more aligned with utilitarianism and consequentialism, I'm happy to see that way. If there's anything I disdain it's deontology and virtue ethics where rules for social conduct are set based on things like religious rules or cultural virtues, rejecting consideration for social conduct based on its impact, rather than on its virtue. I find it presumptuous, sometimes willfully ignorant and wishful thinking over practicality. But I don't think you need to have a religion or spirituality that works like that to have a religion or spirituality. Particularly religions like Taoism, which if I had any religion, it'd be that.

I'd be more interested to hear your take on Virtue Ethics. I took Philosophy classes and most in the class agreed it was the best system out of Deontology, Teleology and Virtue Ethics, which were given as different systems. I don't recall that VE had much of anything to do with religion, but it's a long time now since I studied it.