-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Spiritualism vs. Materialism
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, not according to the supplied definitions they are not. There is no substance to the dreamtime, the metaphysical 'substance' you posit is not found within their mythology. Love how you speak of something you know nothing whatsoever about with such confidence and authority. How many Aboriginal ceremonies have you attended? Shall we compare notes?
No they are not. They are not logically incompatible to most of the participants here as the pole indicates. Nor are they incompatible from the perspectiveof a great many cultures and traditions.
That is not the definition given in the OP, you seem confused.
Where did you get that idea from? The dreamtime does exist, it is your dreams - dreams are something that happens in your brain. It is not 'real' in the sense you argue.
The dreamtime is not material, it is dream. It has no substance, it is not the physical - it is the dreaming. If spirit is not material it does not conflict with materialism, in fact you are forced to argue that it is material of some non-physical kind (not that that is coherrant) so that you can make a distinction between materialism and spirituality. Without that incoherrant notion (immaterial material) spiritualism as defined in the OP dissolves into nothing more than a bit of illogical word play.
Australian aboriginal spirituality is all about connection to the land and the belief that all objects are living and share the same soul. There is no concept of spirit as an immaterial 'substance', as you argue. Spirit, soul and spirituality is conceptual - it is about a relationship with the land.
According to the definitions in the OP aboriginal spirituality does not conflict with materialism.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The only way spiritualism and materialism could be seen as mutually exclusive according to the given definitions is if one asserts that the conceptual has some sort of material existence beyond being a product of mind.
Well that seems to be nothing more than a bit of hopeful projection. I keep asking what the difference is between the way that concepts exist and the way that this mysterious non-physical 'substance' exists - but of course there is no answer, other than that any who do not see the Emperor's New Clothes do not understand them.
Frankly the whole idea of non-physical substance is just a contradiction in terms, the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Sure, I am struggling with the idea of insubstantial substance, of non-physical physicality, of immaterial material. Mainly because it is incoherent.
The argument here is that if you deny that the immaterial is in fact material, then you are a materialist. If you agree that the immaterial is material, then you are a spiritualist.
When of course the whole thing can be resolved simply by distinguishing between the physical and the conceptual, and resisting the temptation to posit some sort of incoherent reality to the unreal.
The bottom line:
1. If spirit is immaterial it does not conflict with materialism.
2. If spirit is material - but not physical, then what the heck does that mean?
Well that seems to be nothing more than a bit of hopeful projection. I keep asking what the difference is between the way that concepts exist and the way that this mysterious non-physical 'substance' exists - but of course there is no answer, other than that any who do not see the Emperor's New Clothes do not understand them.
Frankly the whole idea of non-physical substance is just a contradiction in terms, the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Sure, I am struggling with the idea of insubstantial substance, of non-physical physicality, of immaterial material. Mainly because it is incoherent.
The argument here is that if you deny that the immaterial is in fact material, then you are a materialist. If you agree that the immaterial is material, then you are a spiritualist.
When of course the whole thing can be resolved simply by distinguishing between the physical and the conceptual, and resisting the temptation to posit some sort of incoherent reality to the unreal.
The bottom line:
1. If spirit is immaterial it does not conflict with materialism.
2. If spirit is material - but not physical, then what the heck does that mean?
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
George Ananda
Contrary to your assumptions aboriginal spirituality is not theosophical, it is geosophical. It is not idealism or spiritualism as you see it. Everything is a product of the earth, a part of the earth, nothing exists apart form the land. The dreaming is how we connect with it, so spirituality is entirely conceptual within that paradigm. It has no 'substance' it is our connection to the material.
Aboriginal spirituality is entirely about our connection to the land, it is our relationship to the physical. And hence not in conflict with materialism, nor is it aligned with spirituality as defined in the OP.
Contrary to your assumptions aboriginal spirituality is not theosophical, it is geosophical. It is not idealism or spiritualism as you see it. Everything is a product of the earth, a part of the earth, nothing exists apart form the land. The dreaming is how we connect with it, so spirituality is entirely conceptual within that paradigm. It has no 'substance' it is our connection to the material.
Aboriginal spirituality is entirely about our connection to the land, it is our relationship to the physical. And hence not in conflict with materialism, nor is it aligned with spirituality as defined in the OP.
Last edited:
That's all well and good but you are not understanding the definitions and aboriginals are 'spiritualists' and not 'materialists'.
I know a thing or two about them myself. There is quite a lot on the internet about their religion by learned people. here's just an example:
Aborigines believed that when their heroic ancestors died, they went into a spiritual place where they created, through Dreamtime, everything that was: the earth, the land they occupied, every plant, animal, insect, and reptile, and the sky above. It was during Dreamtime that their creators made men and women. Birth was the result of what the creators did; their power was present at every birth, of people and everything else. In addition, some of the tribes believed that spirit children and spirit animals gained life by entering a female's body.
The most important thing to an Aborigine was spiritual heritage. After death, the person's spirit returned to its spirit place. That belief gave rise to burying a corpse facing the direction of its spirit home.
For some of a hundred things about there beliefs that make them incompatible with 'materialism'; beliefs in spirits; spirits returning to spirit places after death, etc., etc. These things can not be part of a materialist culture. They would have to believe everything is physical matter activity ONLY. Of course spiritualists believe in physical matter activity also but do not believe material activity is ALL there is.
irrelevant to this thread topic.
It is spiritualism as defined by the OP. It might have differences with my beliefs but it is still 'spiritualism'. There is a whole gambit of beliefs that fall under 'spiritualism' as defined. Please read the definition slowly and come back and tell me what you think it means.
Last edited:
Materialism begins with the assumption that matter is primary and that mind or consciousness is secondary. As consciousness is secondary, so is 'spirit' and the supernatural are considered the effect of the material world. materialists seek material or physical explanations of spiritual or supernatural phenomena. Therefore a materialist would argue that man created god and the supernatural, rather than god or spirit having a material or physical existence.
the immaterial cannot be material; Materialism also assumes that consciousness is a property of the mind/brain and is therefore a physical or material property. Hence consciousness is material. The confusion is that this specifically deals with human consciousness. The concept of something immaterial in the world is thought to be a projection of our human consciousness onto the world; where we seek an explanation for a phenomena we attribute it as having human properties such as consciousness. This projected consciousness exists in separation of the physical body and of matter (and I think is what you're describing as immaterial). Materialists are monists and therefore seek a single explanation for the world rather than being dualistic and believing the world is divided between mind and body, the spiritual and physical realm, the immaterial and the material. Materialism excludes the possibility that consciousness can exist in separation of matter, because it assumes matter is primary and that consciousness cannot exist separately from a physical form. In a materialist view, God, the supernatural, the spirit or soul do not exist. Hence someone who is consistently a materialist is an Atheist.
Yeah, this is right. In attempting to 'rationalize' the idea that consciousness exists in separation of matter, idealists or spiritualists often attribute objective properties to consciousness itself. Hence spiritualists will claim god exists objectively- but the main confusion is that in materialism, consciousness is secondary and matter primary. hence only what is material can be objective. consciousness is always the product of matter and does not have a physical or objective existence independent of matter.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Not according to the definitions you gave. George, this is a complex and nuanced topic - if all you have is asserting that anyone who disagrees does not understand the definitions, then engaging with you is going to be pretty pointless.
I note that all of th9se usages of the word 'spirit' and 'spiritual' use a very different definition to yours. I also note that you didn't seem to notice.
No. That is false. Materialism does not exclude the conceptual - so no, it is not the belief that everything is physical matter, there is also the conceptual, the dreaming.
Neither do materialists. They believe the conceptual exists. The only way there is a conflict is if you assign to the conceptual some sort of material existence - which is redundant, and not by any means universal.
Please stop playing this pointless game of 'you either understand the definitions and agree, or you did not understand them'. I explained specifically my rationale and objections as I went along. As I said, the conflict only arises when you attribute to the conceptual some sort of material existence, which the Australian aboriginals do not do. Without attributing to the immaterial some sort of substantial existence there is no conflict with materialism.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Agreed.
No, that is where you are going wrong - that consciousness is a property of physical processes does not mean that it is physical. Properties of physical processes can by definition be not physical. Concepts for example.
No. Atheist only refers to the disbelief in god. Not the rest.
Consciousness has a physical or material source: the brain. Whilst concepts have a physical source, that is not the same as them having a physical existence outside of the brain. Concepts are the product of the Brain, but that does not mean they take on objective or material qualities.
e.g. just because I have the concept that I'm am holding a winning lottery ticket, does not mean it is the winning lottery ticket. No matter how much I believe and want it to be true, the lottery ticket exists independently on my concept of it.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Exactly!
Bingo! You got it.e.g. just because I have the concept that I'm am holding a winning lottery ticket, does not mean it is the winning lottery ticket. No matter how much I believe and want it to be true, the lottery ticket exists independently on my concept of it.
Ok, this is interesting. that was the exact opposite of what I thought would happen.
Let me put it this way. God is a concept, but concepts do not automatically reflect objective existing things. I may have a concept of a car, but I can see, touch, feel the metal with my hands, etc. The car exists objectively of me, I can experience that objective existence with sense data.
Now of course, what comes first? the concept of the car or the physical existence of the car and therefore the sense data of it? This is the difference between idealism and materialism; idealism would say the concept comes first whereas materialists would say the object comes first and then we develop a concept of it. What your saying is that because the concept comes first, it must therefore be real which is idealist. A materialist would say that that the car comes first, then by sense-data we develop a concept of it.
The specific problem with religion is that our concepts do not accurately reflect objective properties. Hence we make a mistake by attributing consciousness as the cause of the material world. a materialist would say that consciousness is the effect of matter; that the brain causes thoughts. These thoughts do not perfectly reflect reality and hence these imperfections means we can attribute illusionary properties to the material world.
i.e. I may hold a lottery ticket; but the winning part is an illusion. the lottery ticket is a physical reality, the fact I believe it is winning is just a concept in my mind/brain.
Let me put it this way. God is a concept, but concepts do not automatically reflect objective existing things. I may have a concept of a car, but I can see, touch, feel the metal with my hands, etc. The car exists objectively of me, I can experience that objective existence with sense data.
Now of course, what comes first? the concept of the car or the physical existence of the car and therefore the sense data of it? This is the difference between idealism and materialism; idealism would say the concept comes first whereas materialists would say the object comes first and then we develop a concept of it. What your saying is that because the concept comes first, it must therefore be real which is idealist. A materialist would say that that the car comes first, then by sense-data we develop a concept of it.
The specific problem with religion is that our concepts do not accurately reflect objective properties. Hence we make a mistake by attributing consciousness as the cause of the material world. a materialist would say that consciousness is the effect of matter; that the brain causes thoughts. These thoughts do not perfectly reflect reality and hence these imperfections means we can attribute illusionary properties to the material world.
i.e. I may hold a lottery ticket; but the winning part is an illusion. the lottery ticket is a physical reality, the fact I believe it is winning is just a concept in my mind/brain.
I had another thought since my last post that we may both be materialists but belong to different schools of materialism. I belong to dialectical materialism (i.e. Marxist materialism), but they talk about 'mechanical materialism' to refer to all other materialists.
The difference is that dialectical materialism prioritize internal change and motion by contradiction, whereas mechanical materialists emphasise external motion because they are atomists (but then have to use idealist concepts to explain the original cause or motive force of the universe, i.e. god/the supernatural) as hence is not consistently materialist or monistic.
I was under the impression mechanical materialism was a bit of a "straw man" argument, but it is possible you're a materialist and we're just taking two different positions in the same philosophy.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
This argument fails, because why would one accept the existence of non-physical things, when you otherwise have just objected to the existence of non-physical things in regards to gods and such, for the selfsame reason that they are not physical.
Aside from that, this way of seeing things is not accordance with the structure of common discourse, which is creationist.
Only creationism is in accordance with common discourse, which is why you don't have to be "duplicit" in accepting creationism, say one thing is true in daily life, while saying another thing is true intellectually.
Bingo. That's what I am saying too. But aborigines and George-ananda do believe spirits exist independent of anyone having a concept of them. They are more than concepts. We believe there are other realms (not made of physical matter) that independently exist.
I personally believe these realms to be above our vibratory levels and in dimensions beyond our familiar three (4th?, 5th?, etc.).
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
....see, now the spiritualist turns out to be just an exotic materialist. The way you talk about spirits, is the same way people talk about the physical.
With creationism there is a categorical difference, the existence of the spirit is categorically a matter of opinion. The benefit of organizing this way is that it produces faith. Opinion is the ony way to deal with issues of what makes a decision turn out the way it does, thus faith.
There is no relation to faith in your scheme at all.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It really doesn't make a difference whether a physical process generates consciousness. The question is whether consciousness is physical or not. If it is not, then materialism is not true. (The truth is that there are very few materialists who actually believe everything is material or physical.)
e.g. just because I have the concept that I'm am holding a winning lottery ticket, does not mean it is the winning lottery ticket. No matter how much I believe and want it to be true, the lottery ticket exists independently on my concept of it.
You're making a straw man argument. Whether a particular concept accords with reality is not the issue. The issue is whether a concept as a concept is physical or nonphysical.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yep, with you so far.
Yes, as you say that is idealism vs materialism, as opposed to spiritualism vs materialism.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I think that you and George are making a very significant mistake in seeing materialism as some kind of worldview or belief. It isn't. Nobody is really a materialist in practice, or an idealist a spiritualist etc. These are just philosophical positions - ways to look at the world. I am not any kind of materialist really - it's just a philosophical approach, not a label you can attach to people.
What is the difference between a philosophical view and a worldview? Aren't they both whatever you think is the case?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That makes no sense whatsoever - you keep insulting people's intelligence, but follow with such illogical leaps. Consciousness is CONCEPTUAL within materialism, and thus not physical without that presenting any kind of conflict with materialism. CONCEPTS are non physical and exist within materialism.
Concepts are by definition non physical, they are abstracts.