Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[Bunyip]

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.

I don't see the logic there I'm sorry. That is a 'god of the gaps style argument, not a logical conclusion.

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.

What is the 'problem'of materialism?

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.

Why would anyone need to come to terms with a logical fallacy like a ' god of the gaps' argument?

 

[Bunyip]

Unless this supernatural you accept is made of physical matter then you are not a materialist.

No, not at all. The conceptual can still exist within materialism. Materialism does not exclude the abstract and conceptual.

 

[Gambit]

I thought that 'spiritualist' was a specific religion. I even went to one of their Churches a couple of times.

The term "spiritualism," like most terms including "materialism," have multiple definitions depending on context. I have specifically defined these terms in the OP. So, there should be no confusion.

I also believe that there is an immaterial reality that is beyond pure materialism - the conceptual, the imagination, the spiritual.

Then you have a spiritual worldview.

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.

Then I suggest you reread the definitions I supplied in the OP.

 

[Gambit]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Gambit]

Methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism is a worldview. Methodological naturalism is the methodology employed by science.

 

[Gambit]

Epistemological pluralism.

Do you also subscribe to ontological pluralism?

 

[George-ananda]

No, not at all. The conceptual can still exist within materialism. Materialism does not exclude the abstract and conceptual.

I would hardly call the conceptual 'supernatural' as the poster did.. He was obviously referring to something more..

 

[Bunyip]

The term "spiritualism," like most terms including "materialism," have multiple definitions depending on context. I have specifically defined these terms in the OP. So, there should be no confusion.

If you read my responses you will see that I addressed your definitions specifically.
[/QUOTE]


Then you have a spiritual worldview.[/quote] Yes, and a materialist one according to your definitions.

Then I suggest you reread the definitions I supplied in the OP.

By your, definitions both worldviews are compatible. That is where your distinction becomes muddied.

 

[Bunyip]

I would hardly call the conceptual 'supernatural' as the poster did.. He was obviously referring to something more..

Yes, but what that 'more' is, or why there must be more has never been explained or evidenced. If it is something more - what is it? What is the difference between conceptual and spiritual existence?

 

[Gambit]

Nobody really uses it to mean spirituality in general, in a philosophical sense.

That's how I am using it. And I am using the term correctly.

Merriam-Webster defines "spiritualism" as "the view that spirit is a prime element of reality."

 

[Gambit]

While I sympathize, I think this ignores the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

Agreed. Methodological naturalism (science) is not a worldview. But metaphysical naturalism (a.k.a "scientific materialism") is.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, but what that 'more' is, or why there must be more has never been explained or evidenced. If it is something more - what is it? What is the difference between conceptual and spiritual existence?

I can't speak for the poster who mentioned the 'supernatural'.

As for me, I believe in planes/realms beyond the physical and Consciousness/Brahman which is fundamental and the creator of all material things.

'Conceptual' as you mention sounds like something that is reducible to nothing more than physical activity of a physical brain.

 

[Gambit]

I believe the fundamental divide is between idealism and materialism.

There is also dualism.

 

[Bunyip]

I can't speak for the poster who mentioned the 'supernatural'.

As for me, I believe in planes/realms beyond the physical and Consciousness/Brahman which is fundamental and the creator of all material things.

'Conceptual' as you mention sounds like something that is reducible to nothing more than physical activity of a physical brain.

Correct. It exists and is immaterial - just as you describe Brahman. How is Brahman not conceptual?

 

[George-ananda]

Correct. It exists and is immaterial - just as you describe Brahman. How is Brahman not conceptual?

Brahman is pure infinite consciousness; sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). He exists without any finite beings existing to conceptualize him.

 

[Bunyip]

Brahman is pure infinite consciousness; sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). He exists without any finite beings existing to conceptualize him.

Consciousness is conceptual. I was asking you what is the DIFFERENCE between Brahman and the conceptual? How are they distinguished?

As to consciousness existing without beings to conceptualise them - that is the distinction between idealism and materialism, not between spiritualism and materialism.

 

[Laika]

Simply, our thoughts?

Yep. The sensation of thought is the same, even if we seek a different explanation for it.

I don't see the logic there I'm sorry. That is a 'god of the gaps style argument, not a logical conclusion. What is the 'problem'of materialism?
Why would anyone need to come to terms with a logical fallacy like a ' god of the gaps' argument?

The God of the gaps is crucial in that is marks the line between not believing in god and believing there is no god. The first is a subjective claim rejecting the lack of experience and evidence for gods existence, the latter is that such a claim has objective validity and is 'true'. By rejecting the god of the gaps from a philosophical point of view, a materialist can dismiss the existence of god and the supernatural. As long as there is still room to claim there is a "god of the gaps", atheism and therefore materialism is only ever speculative and hypothetical. The god of the gaps is not simply a logical fallacy, but represents a view in which something in the universe are unknowable- and therefore not material, objectively existing with physical properties and therefore subject to scientific or rational claims regarding knowledge. To accept the god of the gaps is to accept that there exists something which we cannot see, feel, touch, smell and to believe based purely on logic and reason in seeking for an explanation of cause rather than proof that such a cause does exist.

The problem of materialism is it's inconsistency as it remains largely dualistic. we are still overwhelmingly idealists in believing that consciousness comes before matter. Whilst this is obvious with regards religious beliefs in terms of the soul, god, creationism/intelligent design etc, it is less obvious when we think about individual consciousness. e.g. "free will" means that will can only be "free" from the constraints of the physical realm (and not simply free from social constraints)- that consciousness is independent and separate from matter. it is therefore idealist and often leads to spiritualist claims regarding the soul or in secular cases a vaguely defined "human nature".
Marxists go a step further, and would throw out the belief in the social contract and government by consent because it implies that consciousness causes social relations; with it, goes a fair number of political concepts about representation in a democracy, and possibly "human rights" (which are derived from a concept of human nature and consciousness, not a material or economic basis). Our conception of freedom is inextricably linked with theological conceptions of free will and the soul/human nature. The potential dangers for a reductive materialism is that a man with no soul has no human rights nor individuality. Without free will, most of our conceptions of ethics disappear and the "godless commies" are not bound by any recognizable ethical system because it is revolutionary. This is why materialism can be a problem if not worked out properly as this has some pretty obvious totalitarian implications and problems of determining what kind of society is legitimate. If legitimacy is a product of the mind, and mind is determined, consent can be assumed. I'd hesitate to go that far even though I can understand their reasoning as diabolical as it is.
A materialist is a determinist as the mind is determined by matter, the body, society/environment etc. Instead of seeing probability of outcomes and human behavior that arise from free will, a materialist must seek causality- but this comes with a hefty dose of uncertainty because of the low level of our scientific knowledge of man. With it, comes a claim that people's behavior can be predicted. If you can predict human behavior- you can plan the development of society. But if you get it wrong... it gets ugly very quickly.

 

[Windwalker]

That's how I am using it. And I am using the term correctly.

Merriam-Webster defines "spiritualism" as "the view that spirit is a prime element of reality."

Very well. What's interesting is that there is only two choices, that which says spirit is the prime element of reality, and that which says matter is the prime element. Why does it have to be one or the other? Personally, I think that's a false dichotomy. I would answer yes to that either or question.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I struggle with the semantics here, I'm somewhere between materialism and dualism I think.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I struggle with the semantics here, I'm somewhere between materialism and dualism I think.

It is easier to first distinguish between matters of fact, and matters of opinion, then put everything which is fact in the material category, and everything which is opinion in the spiritual category.

Goodness...obviously it belongs the spiritual category, because the existence of it is a matter of opinion.
Oxygen.....obviously it belongs to the material category, because the existence of it is a matter of fact.

An idea....it is a matter of fact what the idea is, therefore ideas also belong to the material category.
A leprechaun....if a leprechaun physically exists, then the existence of it would be fact, but if the leprechaun were a fantasyfigure only then still it would be a fact that it is in fantasy, therefore it would be in the material category as well.
The goodness of a leprechaun.... same goodness as before, still a matter of opinion whether or not the goodness is real or not, therefore spiritual.

And finally if you keep on categorizing this way, in the end you will see that all what is put in the opinion category applies to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. The function of the goodnes is to choose. All what is in the fact category, you will see the existence of it is conditional, it is chosen. There exists oxygen, the oxygen may be gone, the existence is conditional, it is chosen.

So we can see creationism works efficienty on a practical level, without any problems, and trying to fit everything into the spiritual, or the material category is just nonsense. A hopeless and bizarre intellectual effort to conflate what is good and evil, with size and weight.