Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[George-ananda]

Consciousness is conceptual.

In advaita (non-dual) thought; Consciousness is the fundamental and the only thing that is real (matter and all its products are temporary illusions; Maya in Hinduism).

You might have to ponder for awhile because advaita sees things the opposite of the way materialists see things.

Advaita: Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness
Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter


So, advaita is saying matter itself and all its products are conceptual. Consciousness is the real that creates the conceptual.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I see no reason why they should conflict as I believe both are necessary and are here for a reason. I don't believe one really surpasses another as I believe that if one embraces one and abandons the other, there is no balance and I believe balance between the two is more important than choosing one or the other.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Advaita: Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness

So how can something non-physical produce something physical?

 

[arthra]

Our human senses by themselves are lamentably limited.. As humans we rate below house cats and dogs in our senses of seeing, hearing and smell.... What we depend on is our logical faculties.. reasoning and language and so on. Our reasoning faculties can be tested but they also lack substance.. in my view the mental and spiritual qualities of humanity constitute our "universe" and affect the material world for better or worse..Spirituality is a dimension of our world as much as our capacities to reason...Einstein describes it well:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

 

[George-ananda]

So how can something non-physical produce something physical?

The physical is an illusion. Just the opposite of what we think when we are entangled in the physical. Before you question my sanity, In Advaita Hinduism it is called Maya (illusion). Here's something from Wikipedia;

in later Vedic texts and modern literature dedicated to Indian traditions, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem".

Brahman places this illusion (Maya; matter and separateness) on Himself as a play/drama. He separates Himself from Himself and then returns Himself to Himself.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you have a spiritual worldview or a materialistic worldview?

As of now I see 'both' is leading in the poll.

I argued in an earlier post that it is logically impossible to be 'both'. If the definitions are fully understood they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying those that choose 'both' are not fully grasping what the definitions are saying and are going off their own interpretation of these much used words.

Do you agree with my assessment.

 

[Gambit]

As of now I see 'both' is leading in the poll.

I argued in an earlier post that it is logically impossible to be 'both'. If the definitions are fully understood they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying those that choose 'both' are not fully grasping what the definitions are saying and are going off their own interpretation of these much used words.

Do you agree with my assessment.

I agree. The definitions are in opposition to each other.

 

[Bunyip]

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



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.

Sure, dismissing a logical fallacy is a good thing right? God of the gaps arguments are worthless.

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.

How did you figure that? Atheism and materialism remain unchallenged by logical fallacies such as the 'God of the Gaps'

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,

What? How did you get from 'unlnowable' to 'therefore not material'? That does not follow.

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.

Yes, to accept something we do not see AND CALL IT GOD - it is fallacious.

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.

Who is 'we'?

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.

Agaon, that just does not follow. I'm sorry I can not see the logic of your arguments.

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.

You seem to be confusing materialism for some kind of psychotic nihilism. I do not know why.

 

[Bunyip]

In advaita (non-dual) thought; Consciousness is the fundamental and the only thing that is real (matter and all its products are temporary illusions; Maya in Hinduism).

You might have to ponder for awhile because advaita sees things the opposite of the way materialists see things.

Advaita: Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness
Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter


So, advaita is saying matter itself and all its products are conceptual. Consciousness is the real that creates the conceptual.

Yes George, that is IDEALISM, not spiritualism. You keep ignoring the question George. I asked what is the difference between concepts and Brahman - how is Brahman not a concept?

 

[Bunyip]

I agree. The definitions are in opposition to each other.

Although the bulk of participants clearly do not see it that way.

 

[Sunstone]

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

Contra your thinking, methodological naturalism can also be the basis for a worldview. Even if it's not yours.

 

[Gambit]

Contra your thinking, methodological naturalism can also be the basis for a worldview. Even if it's not yours.

You're conflating a methodology with a metaphysical position.

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

(source: Wikipedia: Metaphysical naturalism)

 

[Bunyip]

You're conflating a methodology with a metaphysical position.

No offence, but that is what you are doing.

 

[Sunstone]

You're conflating a methodology with a metaphysical position.

No I'm not. I know perfectly well that I am asserting a methodology as a worldview. If that disconcerts you, that's your problem. I'm happy with it.

 

[Gambit]

No I'm not. I know perfectly well that I am asserting a methodology as a worldview. If that disconcerts you, that's your problem. I'm happy with it.

You obviously don't understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

(source: Wikipedia: Metaphysical naturalism)

 

[Gambit]

Although the bulk of participants clearly do not see it that way.

I attribute that to sheer ignorance.

 

[Sunstone]

You obviously don't understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps it doesn't comport with your limited worldview. If so, examine your worldview!

 

[Gambit]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps it doesn't comport with your limited worldview. If so, examine your worldview!

I have provided you with documentation that clearly demonstrates that you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Bunyip]

If you follow the definitions given in the OP, then Australian Aboriginal traditional beliefs would be seen as materialist. The Dreamtime is the conceptual, the abstract - it is the world we see when we dream. It is distinct from the physical universe in that its the conceptual 'dream' universe

I attribute that to sheer ignorance.

Which is unfortunate. Because it is your definitions that are problematic. But sure, you can put your communication failure down to public ignorance if that makes you feel better.

 

[Sunstone]

I have provided you with documentation that clearly demonstrates that you are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Nope. You've provided me with definitions of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism that indicate a distinction between the two of them. Your notion that I am confusing the two, however, is a separate issue. I have no respect for it.