Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

[paarsurrey]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

 

[viole]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

In general, materialism entails atheism, but atheism does entan materialim.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Sometimes, but certainly not always. Just as supernaturalism can be (but is not always) part of theism. On the whole, (a)theism as an identifier tells one next to nothing about anything unless one asks the person what they mean by it with a lengthy conversation of open listening.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

Neither.

 

[George-ananda]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

To me they are almost always part and parcel of the same worldview.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

Neither. But, they generally go together among people who value rationality.

 

[jojom]

It might help to be clear about what's being talked about here. While the definitions of both terms could be debated until the sun goes down, I think those given in Wikipedia are sufficient.

Materialism
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.


.
​

 

[leibowde84]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

Atheism does not require materialism in any way. That is merely a logical fallacy. There are plenty of atheists that are not materialists. Atheism ONLY deals with a lack of "theism" or an absence of belief in the existence of God or gods. This in no way requires the belief that nothing exists outside the material realm.

That being said, materialism does seem to require atheism, as it doesn't allow for deities of any kind outside the physical realm.

 

[MD]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

Many buddhists are non materialist atheists

 

[VitoOFMCap]

I would argue that Materialism necessarily leads to Atheism. Whether you start with Hume's "bundle of perceptions" or Dennett's "Cartesian Theater," Materialism explains consciousness as the function of our highly evolved brains. The fact that I "feel like I'm making a subjective forum reply" is really just another bodily function (although highly advanced). The mind (and the soul, such that it is perceived as a non-corporeal substance) are functions of the brain. From this, the concept of Theism is not so much refuted, rather it's a moot point. Even in Pantheism where everything is divine, the concept of anything as "sacred" or "set apart" exists only as a function of the brain. We are cognitively closed to such things. Ergo, @jojom 's definition of Atheism.

As for second part, It seems like it Atheism would infer Materialism as well just from the contrapositive. Reword the first part as:
"If the mind & soul are corporeal functions, then no deity exists." (Whereas "deity" is defined as "set apart" from the material world. I suppose one could call the Big Bang as a "deity," but then we're just playing language games and in that instance the definition of Atheism doesn't fit, i don't think)

The second part then is:
"If no deity exists, then the mind and soul are corporeal functions."

Contrapositive:
"If the mind and soul are not corporeal functions, then NOT no deity exists. ."

My semantic logic isn't perfect, and I fully expect someone to correct it, but it seems that if one does not assert Materialism as an Atheist, things get really messy and the best one can assert is Agnosticism. I'm not an Atheist, but it seems like without empiricism you have to rationalize atheism around dualism (or Subjectivism), and that's like some Spinoza "perfect substance" stuff or like the corpuscles in Cavendish's natural philosophy. Either way, it just seems like Atheism without Materialism leaves a lot of things unexplained and/or unprovable, ergo Agnosticism.

Nota Bene: I realize this is the "debate" section, so please correct any errors in my logic. =)

Peace.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism does not require materialism in any way. That is merely a logical fallacy. There are plenty of atheists that are not materialists. Atheism ONLY deals with a lack of "theism" or an absence of belief in the existence of God or gods. This in no way requires the belief that nothing exists outside the material realm.

That being said, materialism does seem to require atheism, as it doesn't allow for deities of any kind outside the physical realm.

Yet I see from the posts of some intelligent posters in the forum who subscribe to materialism they differ with the Atheists considerably.
Regards

 

[idav]

Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

They are an answer to different questions and neither need each other to hold true.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Basically the debate there is between monism and dualism. If there is one view I hold to strongly, it is actually usually that of the mind-brain duality, which most atheists seem to fiercely reject. The problem then is that dualism I suppose seems to entail animism, which is what I end up getting accused of I think. Even if the animist spiritual force does not emit from a deity, dualism entails it and it entails at least daulism. So I guess it's time for me to stop pretending to be an agnostic or atheist, and finally admit that I must at least be an animist?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Atheism does not require materialism in any way. That is merely a logical fallacy. There are plenty of atheists that are not materialists. Atheism ONLY deals with a lack of "theism" or an absence of belief in the existence of God or gods. This in no way requires the belief that nothing exists outside the material realm.

Well, see my above post. In the debate between monism and dualism (be it mind/body or whatever else that is to be imagined), there must at least be one or more spiritual force(s) at play. Therefore any atheist who does not subscribe to monism is necessarily replacing their atheism with animism, this new class perhaps having its own diverse subcategories based on what the person believes or claims to know.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, see my above post. In the debate between monism and dualism (be it mind/body or whatever else that is to be imagined), there must at least be one or more spiritual force(s) at play. Therefore any atheist who does not subscribe to monism is necessarily replacing their atheism with animism, this new class perhaps having its own diverse subcategories based on what the person believes or claims to know.

Wouldn't atheism and animism have to be mutually exclusive in order for that to work? In what way are atheism and animism mutually exclusive?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Wouldn't atheism and animism have to be mutually exclusive in order for that to work? In what way are atheism and animism mutually exclusive?

Do you think they are? I seem to remember debating about with you you.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you think they are? I seem to remember debating about with you you.

Well no, I don't even see a relationship between animism and atheism, let alone why they would be mutually exclusive.

 

[George-ananda]

There are plenty of atheists that are not materialists.

I hear that a lot but I don't think the 'plenty' part is true. Can you give me a specific example of some things plenty of atheists believe that are outside of materialism?

 

[Desert Snake]

atheism is configured from 'materialism'. They're both lacking in information, hence 'wrong', no matter how one spreads the bagel. agnosticism without atheism is possible, if we have certain definitions. atheism with very strict definition of 'theism', is viable, but then limited to very specific arguments. plain materialism simply is too problematic to justify.

 

[Bunyip]

I hear that a lot but I don't think the 'plenty' part is true. Can you give me a specific example of some things plenty of atheists believe that are outside of materialism?

Why would that matter? You could hold no belief that is in conflict with materialism, and still not be a materialist. As to your example a great many atheists believe in all manner of things - the only thing that they share in common is that they do not believe in God.