Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[ADigitalArtist]

I know that not all atheists are materialists, but i thought we were talking about the material kind because of this post:





If an argument that you use to "debunk" other people beliefs can also "debunk" your beliefs, it is either a bad argument or the position that you are using the argument from is inappropriate for the argument. Materialistic atheists that believe in ghosts are in a very bad position since when it comes to evidence, God and ghosts are in the same boat, well almost.

Also lets not forget that "where is your evidence?" is perhaps the most important atheistic argument.

I keep pointing out that atheists have vastly different beliefs, opinions, and ways of approaching arguments because you keep making over generalizing statements about atheists and what they say.
'Where is the Evidence' is an important question when you're trying to convince someone else of a claim. Not everyone, atheist or otherwise, who has a belief is going to try and convince others. Nor is it reasonable to expect everyone to be able to.

If someone said 'I believe in ghosts,' I won't ask 'where's the evidence' because stating their belief is not asking me to believe it. If they say 'I believe in ghosts and you should too,' then I'll ask for their evidence. But I've met materialists (atheistic or otherwise) who just say 'my personal experience leads me to believe ghosts are part of the natural world, not apart from it, but I don't think it's something we have the means of demonstrating yet.' And my reply is: 'okay. I have my doubts about that position but I understand your belief.'

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And atheists that don't believe in ghosts?

We were specifically discussing atheists who do believe in ghosts in relation to a previous post about how not everyone who believes in ghosts believes they are supernatural, just a less well understood part of nature.

 

[idav]

Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes. Not in any way to the extent of Islamic extremism, fascism, or other rising positions in the world, but dangerous nonetheless. Why?

1. The death of skepticism: even the slightest skeptical questioning casts doubt on materialism, for how can we reduce the mind to matter when we know the mind directly and matter through it? Can we trust our senses that there's a physical world out there? Is there really no other valid possibility in the world? Skepticism is about doubt whereas materialism is a position of certainty. There's very little questioning of it and that questioning is dogmatically brushed off rather than addressed. With the increasing popularity of materialism this is very dangerous.

2. Neglect of the mind and its role in health and happiness is dangerous. Even just the simple way we perceive our situation has an effect on us, such as whether we believe we are happy or not. To have any hope of treating the mentally ill we need to address both mind and brain, not simply the latter. We have to address subjective symptoms, not simply what physical ailments are immediately noticable.

3. The rejection of all immaterial things completely destroys concepts such as math and logic. In materialism these things must be mind dependent, where they exist as concepts, at least according to materialism. But the idea that things like math and logic, which lead us to objective truth and intelligent thought, are mind dependent is extremely dangerous. It basically allows for whatever one wants to be true to be treated as true, because logical and mathematical truths are more or less subjective and fabricated. Any group that teaches things like logic to be relative posses a threat to knowledge and growth. An ignorant community is one ripe for the plucking!

4. Life-Fields are another thing rejected by materialists. Despite being confirmed by thousands of experiments, and leading to massive break throughs in medicine like predicting ovulation, materialists reject the idea of L-Fields, and in fact likely never have heard of them due to them being ignored in mainstream science specifically for not fitting with materialism (see #1). Life-Fields can help us predict things like ovulation, cancer, birth defects in a developing egg, highs and lows of mental stability, even things like when would be the best time for someone to learn something. The benefits to human life could be so numerous, but alas since L-Fields bring questions like Teleology and design to the table, they are simply ignored by materialists who care neither for scientific truth nor human life.

5. Materialism greatly implies a belief in hard predeterminism, as there is nothing to stand against the every flowing onslaught of nature. If this this the case there's simply no hope in ever changing or improving upon any situation. Why would we go to a doctor or see a counselor if nothing we do can actually change anything? Of course some realize, almost self evidently for many of us, that we can indeed go against the flow of material nature. We can manipulate it such as to make medications in this example, or use the strength of our mind to recondition the way we act and think. These being only two small examples!

Now sure, materialists are not going around killing people, I'd never pretend they're as bad as extremist groups like ISIL. But materialism is dangerous in a much longer run, it's taking over culture far more quickly than ISIL could ever hope to, and it's ingrained in us for most of our lives, stuck as part of our education systems, dominating the way we view and treat human life. There may not be genocide, but it's still dangerous nonetheless. It's led to a death of doubt and questioning, led to a rejection of the power and independent existence of the mind, it is forced to push a view of logic and mathematics (which sciences like physics rely on) as mind dependent and therefore not objective or real, it ignores hard science that can benefit humanity simply so that it's authority as leading philosophy cannot be questioned, and it leads to a point of nihilism where we may as well wallow in our problems because nothing can stand up to the flow of the material world.

Specifically I can find fault in a deterministic mindset which would allow the weight of the word to be in control. However it can fall under theistic or atheistic, materialistic or spiritual views.

 

[Indagator]

1. Why would consciousness give free will?
2. Why would free will automatically give you control 'above' natural law (as opposed to being one aspect of natural law)?

1. Consciousness would make you aware of you determinism and by that it would give you ability change your perspective and because of it act differently, in other words it would make you self-determined.

2. Free will gives you control of yourself. Once you can control your own nature, you can start to adjust nature around you, make it work for you, etc etc... That is exactly what humans did throughout our history.

(potentially)

Hmmm...making sounds without vibration is simply a contradiction. If a sound is picked up by a microphone, it is because of a vibration. In any case, they would be interacting quite strongly with natural objects, including a strong violation of the conservation of energy unless they are counted as physical. That seems to be good reason to classify them as physical.

There is no contradiction here. If they are making sound without vibration then it is pretty clear that they operate beyond natural law. Besides we are talking about a hypothetical scenario here, so maybe microphones cant pick them up but only cats can, possibilities are only bound by our imagination when we are talking about physical ghosts. lol

And atheists that don't believe in ghosts?

They are alright, and have a more logical position.

I keep pointing out that atheists have vastly different beliefs, opinions, and ways of approaching arguments because you keep making over generalizing statements about atheists and what they say.
'Where is the Evidence' is an important question when you're trying to convince someone else of a claim. Not everyone, atheist or otherwise, who has a belief is going to try and convince others. Nor is it reasonable to expect everyone to be able to.

If someone said 'I believe in ghosts,' I won't ask 'where's the evidence' because stating their belief is not asking me to believe it. If they say 'I believe in ghosts and you should too,' then I'll ask for their evidence. But I've met materialists (atheistic or otherwise) who just say 'my personal experience leads me to believe ghosts are part of the natural world, not apart from it, but I don't think it's something we have the means of demonstrating yet.' And my reply is: 'okay. I have my doubts about that position but I understand your belief.'

I am afraid you lost track of what we were discussing here.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Consciousness would make you aware of you determinism and by that it would give you ability change your perspective and because of it act differently, in other words it would make you self-determined.

2. Free will gives you control of yourself. Once you can control your own nature, you can start to adjust nature around you, make it work for you, etc etc... That is exactly what humans did throughout our history.

(potentially)

Are you assuming the natural world must be deterministic?

I certainly do not. But then, I consider quantum mechanics to be part of physics and hence natural.

You are also, it appears, assuming that humans have free will in that sense. I am not sure they do.

There is no contradiction here. If they are making sound without vibration then it is pretty clear that they operate beyond natural law. Besides we are talking about a hypothetical scenario here, so maybe microphones cant pick them up but only cats can, possibilities are only bound by our imagination when we are talking about physical ghosts. lol

Since sound *is* a vibration, we have some definitional problems here.

They are alright, and have a more logical position.

OK, how about this? Suppose we discover a new type of particle in our particle accelerators and we then find that ghosts exist and are made from such particles? Would you consider ghosts to be physical/natural in such a case?

BTW, I don't believe in ghosts, but allow that if they did exist, they might well be considered to be physical.

 

[idav]

1. Consciousness would make you aware of you determinism and by that it would give you ability change your perspective and because of it act differently, in other words it would make you self-determined.

2. Free will gives you control of yourself. Once you can control your own nature, you can start to adjust nature around you, make it work for you, etc etc... That is exactly what humans did throughout our history.

(potentially)

Your saying knowledge of determinism can beat determinism, which I tend to agree, it can but knowledge isn't always enough.

 

[Nous]

Are you good with this definition:


2.the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

the definition of materialism

?

Yes. Though it was something I posted in reply to the original post.

I take it you recognize that the findings and theories of modern physics unequivocally prove the thesis stated by that definition to be false.

 

[Nous]

Energy exists, and energy is not an object that has mass and volume.

Even electrons have mass.

I didn't see where anyone here suggested that electrons do not have mass. My point was that energy is not an object that has mass and volume (i.e., matter).

 

[Nous]

Define your terms and deduce your claim.

Pretty much anything that can be studied by physics is material. The certainly includes energy, momentum, torque, spin, force, etc.

More specifically, anything that interacts with anything material i(and hence that can be measured) s material.

Maybe you didn't understand what I said. Define your term "material," and deduce your metaphysical thesis.

 

[Nous]

It is interesting how many people who identify themselves as “materialists” or who espouse the thesis of materialism at least implicitly recognize the need to divorce the thesis from a claim about “matter”. The definition of “materialism” commonly found in dictionaries refers to “all phenomena” being “matter”. We know that isn't true. Rarely do self-identifying materialists acknowledge that the standard definition of metaphysical materialism is unequivocally false.

It's also interesting how a large portion of people who identify themselves as “materialists” or who espouse the thesis of materialism brandish the pretense of science--as though the thesis of materialism is somehow confirmed by or at least consistent with the findings of some science. It isn't. The scientific method does not and cannot test hypotheses about the nature of everything that exists. One cannot deduce the nature of everything that exists from findings obtained by use of the scientific method. Materialism, like all other metaphysical theses that are believed to be true, is mere religion--the bad kind of religion.

 

[sayak83]

It is interesting how many people who identify themselves as “materialists” or who espouse the thesis of materialism at least implicitly recognize the need to divorce the thesis from a claim about “matter”. The definition of “materialism” commonly found in dictionaries refers to “all phenomena” being “matter”. We know that isn't true. Rarely do self-identifying materialists acknowledge that the standard definition of metaphysical materialism is unequivocally false.

It's also interesting how a large portion of people who identify themselves as “materialists” or who espouse the thesis of materialism brandish the pretense of science--as though the thesis of materialism is somehow confirmed by or at least consistent with the findings of some science. It isn't. The scientific method does not and cannot test hypotheses about the nature of everything that exists. One cannot deduce the nature of everything that exists from findings obtained by use of the scientific method. Materialism, like all other metaphysical theses that are believed to be true, is mere religion--the bad kind of religion.

The correct term nowadays is "naturalism" which is the ontological claim that all phenomena are or supervene on entities that are discoverable by and explainable through the methods of the natural sciences.

 

[Nous]

The correct term nowadays is "naturalism" . . .

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers.​

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

. . . which is the ontological claim that all phenomena are or supervene on entities that are discoverable by and explainable through the methods of the natural sciences.

That isn't a hypothesis that has ever been or can be tested by use of the scientific method. Right?

 

[sayak83]

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers.​

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
That isn't a hypothesis that has ever been or can be tested by use of the scientific method. Right?

Philosophers have a habit of defining terms differently. So no two philosopher will ever agree on what any "ism" actually is.
The definition is used is based on my own impression on how atheist scientists and a few new atheist and secular humanist philosophers use the term from their books.

It is a metaphysical claim. Science is not in the business of proof. What these philosophers and scientists will claim though is that all currently available evidence available to us supports this metaphysical claim.

Just to emphasize the definition of naturalism I find most informative.

Naturalism is the ontological claim that all phenomena are or supervene on entities that are discoverable by and explainable through the methods of the natural sciences.

 

[Jumi]

I take it you recognize that the findings and theories of modern physics unequivocally prove the thesis stated by that definition to be false.

No and I would like it if you would explain what exactly conflicts with materialism or monism in general?

 

[Nous]

What these philosophers and scientists will claim though is that all currently available evidence available to us supports this metaphysical claim.

I think all the dead philosophers named in the article eventually realized that it's a vacuous thesis--they couldn't define what "natural" means, and certainly there has never been any scientific experiment to test the hypothesis that all things that exist are "natural".

Just to emphasize the definition of naturalism I find most informative.

Naturalism is the ontological claim that all phenomena are or supervene on entities that are discoverable by and explainable through the methods of the natural sciences.

Obviously that isn't a thesis that can be deduced from any findings obtained by way of any scientific method. Right?

 

[Nous]

No and I would like it if you would explain what exactly conflicts with materialism or monism in general?

Energy is not an object that has mass and volume ("matter"). Energy exists. Therefore, everything that exists is not matter.

 

[Jumi]

Energy is not an object that has mass and volume ("matter"). Energy exists. Therefore, everything that exists is not matter.

In materialism energy is not seen as outside of the material world, but as an integral part of it. It's also viewed differently in physical sciences then other uses of the word energy. It is measurable and predictions can be formed by using equations including it.

 

[sayak83]

I think all the dead philosophers named in the article eventually realized that it's a vacuous thesis--they couldn't define what "natural" means, and certainly there has never been any scientific experiment to test the hypothesis that all things that exist are "natural".

On the contrary, 50% of Western philosophers are naturalists. The problem is more general in philosophy, where there is rarely anything approaching a consensus on what a term is supposed to mean.

Obviously that isn't a thesis that can be deduced from any findings obtained by way of any scientific method. Right?

Science can only provide evidential support (or not) for any given metaphysical thesis. No metaphysical thesis whatsoever can ever be deduced from science, or for that matter any mode of enquiry whatsoever.

 

[Nous]

In materialism energy is not seen as outside of the material world, but as an integral part of it. It's also viewed differently in physical sciences then other uses of the word energy. It is measurable and predictions can be formed by using equations including it.

Let me know when you can respond to these fact: Energy is not an object that has mass and volume ("matter"). Energy exists. Therefore, everything that exists is not matter.

 

[Nous]

On the contrary, 50% of Western philosophers are naturalists.

Where did you get that idea?

The problem is more general in philosophy, where there is rarely anything approaching a consensus on what a term is supposed to mean.

So these thousands of Western philosophers who identify themselves as "naturalists" can't define "natural"? It's only for self-identification purposes--fulfilling a need to belong to a group?

Science can only provide evidential support (or not) for any given metaphysical thesis.

You can't cite any "evidential support" for any hypothesis where everything that exists was determined, and that everything is "natural," can you?