Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[Gambit]

Definitions

In philosophy, spiritualism is the notion, shared by a wide variety of systems of thought, that there is an immaterial reality that cannot be perceived by the senses.[1] This includes philosophies that postulate a personal God, the immortality of the soul, or the immortality of the intellect or will, as well as any systems of thought that assume a universal mind or cosmic forces lying beyond the reach of purely materialistic interpretations.[1]

(source: Wikipedia: Spiritualism (philosophy))

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 the result of material interactions.

(source: Wikipedia: Materialism)

Comment:

Generally speaking, I believe there are two fundamental worldviews: spiritualism or materialism. (The "spiritualism vs. materialism" debate is more fundamental than the "theism vs. atheism" debate.)

Question:

Do you have a spiritual worldview or a materialistic worldview?

 

[Bunyip]

I thought that 'spiritualist' was a specific religion. I even went to one of their Churches a couple of times. Ialso believe that there is an immaterial reality that is beyond pure materialism - the conceptual, the imagination, the spiritual. But I'm having trouble seeing in what way exactly the world of the imagination/dreamtime/the conceptual is different from this spiritual dimension. And hence how its existence and reality conflict with materialism.

 

[Laika]

Voted Materialism. Marxists recognize that their is a conflict between Idealism and Materialism in philosophy of Mind; Materialism sees matter as primary, whereas Idealism sees consciousness as primary (in terms of God, creationism, free will etc.) In so far as they are logically inconsistent, they are opposed to one another. Ultimately they are opposed, but it's rare you find them totally (or perhaps the better word is 'deliberately') separated from one another.

 

[Bunyip]

Voted Materialism. Marxists recognize that their is a conflict between Idealism and Materialism in philosophy of Mind; Materialism sees matter as primary, whereas Idealism sees consciousness as primary (in terms of God, creationism, free will etc.) In so far as they are logically inconsistent, they are opposed to one another. Ultimately they are opposed, but it's rare you find them totally (or perhaps the better word is 'deliberately') separated from one another.

That makes sense to me. I can see how idealism and materialism could be incompatible, but not spiritualism and materialism as defined above.

 

[Laika]

That makes sense to me. I can see how idealism and materialism could be incompatible, but not spiritualism and materialism as defined above.

Spiritualism will be derivative of idealism in so far as it will look for the cause of phenomena in terms of consciousness, in the realm of ideas or spirit. Hence consciousness, in the form of a personal god, the soul or some invisible cosmic force will act as an explanation for the cause of phenomena. The problem with materialism is that it does not offer a theory of the universe as self-sustaining and therefore has to draw on idealist explanations, and so it is hard to dismiss idealism/spiritualism in it's entirety. Marxists tried to solve the problems of materialism with 'dialectical materialism' by understanding the universe in terms of internal contradictions and inner motion rather than needing an external cause to 'create' the universe.
Every Atheist has to come to terms with the god of the gaps and Marxists assumed a materialist explanation in all cases and that idealism or spiritualism, making such a god unnecessary. It was argued that this really a projection of man's own sense of himself by turning natural phenomena into something intelligible and driven by a form of consciousness rather than the real (or physical) explanation- which would be materialist.

 

[Sunstone]

Methodological naturalism.

 

[Windwalker]

Epistemological pluralism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I researched spiritualism and materialism more, and I found this:

Spiritualism is a religion that embodies the main ideas of all religions, that there is a life after death, immortality and the existence of a God. [It also encompasses the view] that the spirit is the prime element of reality. A belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living usually through a medium.

"The aim of Spiritualism is to effect an at-one-ment and unison of Humanity with God until every action and thought of Humanity is in perfect harmony with the Divine Will." (Adapted from the Spiritualists' Lyceum Manual)

The Religion of Spiritualism
Spiritualism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
--
While Materialism is more:

1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling,mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3. Concern for possessions or material wealth and physical comfort, especially to the exclusion of spiritual or intellectual pursuits.

materialism - definition of materialism by The Free Dictionary

Going by these definitions and the ones you provided, on a sliding scale, 1 being materialist and 10 being spiritualist, I'd be 9. That 1 left: I believe that the natural world and the spiritual world go hand in hand. So, to explain the spiritual world, we should be able to use natural language (not just "science") to describe the spiritual and visa versa.

Comment: Generally speaking, I believe there are two fundamental worldviews: spiritualism or materialism. (The "spiritualism vs. materialism" debate is more fundamental than the "theism vs. atheism" debate.)

Question: Do you have a spiritual worldview or a materialistic worldview?

Also:

In philosophy, spiritualism is the notion, shared by a wide variety of systems of thought, that there is an immaterial reality that cannot be perceived by the senses. [1] This includes philosophies that postulate a personal God, the immortality of the soul, or the immortality of the intellect or will, as well as any systems of thought that assume a universal mind or cosmic forces lying beyond the reach of purely materialistic interpretations.[1]"​

Most websites and dictionaries I looked up does not say spiritualism has a personal God (and not like Abrahamic faiths but a combination of religious views of "God"). It combines a lot of belief systems and is somewhat "new age" look at the spiritual world. The unique exception from this religion and others is the communication with the dead (or spirits who are alive and passed on).

--
I actually relate to many of the beliefs here without the new agism terminology... go figure.

Resources
-https://NSAC

 

[Windwalker]

I've always had an issue when people saying spiritualism to mean a spiritual worldview. It really is more specific to a belief of communing with the dead, believing in a supernatural realm of spirits, etc. Nobody really uses it to mean spirituality in general, in a philosophical sense. I've always heard it used inappropriately to refer to spirituality like someone will say "irregardless", instead of the correct word 'irrespective', or another sort of Bushism, like 'misunderestimated'. Spiritualism is what Houdini went after debunking seances and whatnot. I would never self-identify with "spiritualism", though I do say I have a spiritual nature and life. I see the former as very much a certain set of beliefs, ones which I don't share.

Here's Rational Wiki's definition, which is what I said the majority of people mean when they say spiritualism. Spiritualism - RationalWiki

Can't we just say spiritual, if that's what we mean? And then get specific from there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, communicating with the dead or people living who have passed on is a spiritual practice that is engraved in many ethnic religions. That fact that you can communicate with loved ones and ancestors who are not physically here to many who are not spiritualist find normal. For example, my friend whose from the Philipines is a devout Roman Catholic. (Take away the talking to saints please) She prays to her grandmother and her family (who are not all Catholic, mind you), set flowers and food on remembrance days like birthdays, and such. Its cultural for her even if she was, Buddhist. Which, I think Buddhists also give reverence to their deceased.

As for the actual spiritualist religion, I don't know if it's modern or just not part of the norm. It takes on many different faiths and put it until its own, so EDIT: In my opinion it is Universal Unitarian views but with specific focus on spirit communication.

I've always had an issue when people saying spiritualism to mean a spiritual worldview. It really is more specific to a belief of communing with the dead, believing in a supernatural realm of spirits, etc. Nobody really uses it to mean spirituality in general, in a philosophical sense. I've always heard it used inappropriately to refer to spirituality like someone will say "irregardless", instead of the correct word 'irrespective', or another sort of Bushism, like 'misunderestimated'. Spiritualism is what Houdini went after debunking seances and whatnot. I would never self-identify with "spiritualism", though I do say I have a spiritual nature and life. I see the former as very much a certain set of beliefs, ones which I don't share.

Here's Rational Wiki's definition, which is what I said the majority of people mean when they say spiritualism. Spiritualism - RationalWiki

Can't we just say spiritual, if that's what we mean? And then get specific from there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was argued that this really a projection of man's own sense of himself by turning natural phenomena into something intelligible and driven by a form of consciousness rather than the real (or physical) explanation- which would be materialist.

That's a really nice observation. Would you say in theory, given your morals, that natural phenomena is, in itself, spiritual. The ways we interact with the natural world dictate our connection with the spiritual world? Both go hand in hand.

 

[Laika]

That's a really nice observation. Would you say in theory, given your morals, that natural phenomena is, in itself, spiritual. The ways we interact with the natural world dictate our connection with the spiritual world? Both go hand in hand.

I would say that spirituality is a quality possessed by human beings and we project it on to the natural and social world. Our sense of awe, wonder and beauty and angst are functions of human beings trying to find a kind of equilibrium with there environment. I agree in a way, but it's inverted; the natural world isn't spiritual, rather its' man.
Whilst it is subjectively felt- the ingredients of it are universal and come in different forms across all societies. If people find themselves with considerable inner conflict, it will usually manifest in social conflict sooner or later- so what we feel in our inner space has real consequences. being radical is usually not rational at all but deeply emotional and that shapes my morals more than I'd like to admit.
I object to using the word 'spiritual' because it makes these experiences alien, intangible and beyond the realm of rational knowledge, but I spend a lot of time looking inward at what I feel and why with a heavy interest in psychology, so I may be deeply spiritual in a way.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Definitions





Comment:

Generally speaking, I believe there are two fundamental worldviews: spiritualism or materialism. (The "spiritualism vs. materialism" debate is more fundamental than the "theism vs. atheism" debate.)

Question:

Do you have a spiritual worldview or a materialistic worldview?

Creationism is the correct fundamental worldview. There is the domain of the creator, and the domain of the creation. There are matters of opinion, and there are matters of fact. Spiritualism and materialism are subsets to creationism, from which they derive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can see why you'd sat that. Using the word spiritual is misconceiving because where I live it implies you have some sort of believe in a Creator rather than you have and/or finding a balance between yourself, people, and your environment with or without a Creator.

We are part of the natural world, though. Actually, now that I think about this, everything is part of the natural world because everything has come from the earth in one form or another. You can separate the two. Its what people use material for and how people view it in relation to their life priority, makes one side "spiritual" and the other "material".

Unless, like in materialism, someone dismisses the supernatural (spirits, creator, etc) for his source of spiritual grounding for that of the natural world as described earlier.

I object to using the word 'spiritual' because it makes these experiences alien, intangible and beyond the realm of rational knowledge, but I spend a lot of time looking inward at what I feel and why with a heavy interest in psychology, so I may be deeply spiritual in a way.

 

[Laika]

I can see why you'd sat that. Using the word spiritual is misconceiving because where I live it implies you have some sort of believe in a Creator rather than you have and/or finding a balance between yourself, people, and your environment with or without a Creator.

We are part of the natural world, though. Actually, now that I think about this, everything is part of the natural world because everything has come from the earth in one form or another. You can separate the two. Its what people use material for and how people view it in relation to their life priority, makes one side "spiritual" and the other "material".

Unless, like in materialism, someone dismisses the supernatural (spirits, creator, etc) for his source of spiritual grounding for that of the natural world as described earlier.

As materialism is monistic (there is only matter; consciousness is a property of matter) rather than dualistic (mind and matter) its a bit complicated, as only really crude and reductive forms of materialism would dismiss the supernatural. The more sophisticated would accept that the supernatural is merely an illusion rather than false and therefore still have to explain it in materialist terms. This is something of a problem for Atheism as it not necessarily anti-religious, merely anti-theist; religion still says something about the human race. The problem is learning to think about human consciousness as part of the material and natural world; this can blur the distinction between the natural and social world. I'm still getting to grips with it, so you make a valid point as man is part of the natural world.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Unless, like in materialism, someone dismisses the supernatural (spirits, creator, etc) for his source of spiritual grounding for that of the natural world as described earlier.

You can make the statement "the earth does in fact exist" with materialism, but the statement "the earth is beautiful", or "the earth is ugly" does not really fit with materialism. You can try and try to contort beauty into a material substance, by equating it with brainchemistry for instance, but it never really works. And in the meantime as that one is trying to contort it to make it work, creationism work efficiently already, without a problem.

Simply, materialism can only deal with matters of fact, and there are obviously matters of opinion for which spiritualism applies.

 

[Laika]

Simply, materialism can only deal with matters of fact, and there are obviously matters of opinion for which spiritualism applies.

This is only true in so far as materialism rejects the role of consciousness, and is reductionist. It's the materialist equivalent of literalistic reading of religious texts whilst discounting everything else. (edit: for materialism to be a practical theory) consciousness has to fit into the theory as consciousness is a property of matter. it's a question of saying the source of our opinions originates from matter (environment/society and physiology) rather than from the mind itself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is only true in so far as materialism rejects the role of consciousness, and is reductionist. It's the materialist equivalent of literalistic reading of religious texts whilst discounting everything else. (edit: for materialism to be a practical theory) consciousness has to fit into the theory as consciousness is a property of matter. it's a question of saying the source of our opinions originates from matter (environment/society and physiology) rather than from the mind itself.

One can also simply discard consciousness and beauty as part of the false view of spiritualism. Simply constrict oneself to normal matter of fact statements, instead of trying to contort what obviously belongs to the spiritual view.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Methodological naturalism.

While I sympathize, I think this ignores the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism. Let me (again) recommend Barbara Forrest's ...

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000)​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you describe the supernatural by materialistic terms? What is conscious in relation to what you're (and other people who use the word here, it seems) talk about?

As materialism is monistic (there is only matter; consciousness is a property of matter) rather than dualistic (mind and matter) its a bit complicated, as only really crude and reductive forms of materialism would dismiss the supernatural. The more sophisticated would accept that the supernatural is merely an illusion rather than false and therefore still have to explain it in materialist terms. This is something of a problem for Atheism as it not necessarily anti-religious, merely anti-theist; religion still says something about the human race. The problem is learning to think about human consciousness as part of the material and natural world; this can blur the distinction between the natural and social world. I'm still getting to grips with it, so you make a valid point as man is part of the natural world.