-
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!
Western Materialism
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It probably gravitates that way as it has allowed us to learn far more about us, the world we live in and the Cosmos we are hurtling through than what religion has.
Although I don't think it's that materialistic. Such as, in Carl Sagan's book Contact, everyone but the Russian brings some object of cultural relevance, and this character remarks that he's the only materialist among them as the rest of the crew is bringing more than just an object but rather symbols of human culture that have trancnded being mere object, such as the Chinese character who brought a grain of rice, or the American who brought a palm leaf.
Although I don't think it's that materialistic. Such as, in Carl Sagan's book Contact, everyone but the Russian brings some object of cultural relevance, and this character remarks that he's the only materialist among them as the rest of the crew is bringing more than just an object but rather symbols of human culture that have trancnded being mere object, such as the Chinese character who brought a grain of rice, or the American who brought a palm leaf.
I'm not sure most Western cultures are materialist, if by "materialist" we specifically mean a rejection of the ephemeral or spiritual. I haven't been keeping track of demography trends like those published by PEW as much lately, but when I did look at them there really wasn't any indication of a materialistic outlook dominating America or Europe.
I mean the 'Gods don't exist because I can't see them', 'People who believe in ghosts are stupid' types. Very common in the UK.
Yeah, they're not exactly uncommon in the states either, but still very far from being any sort of majority. Plus, interestingly, rejection of God (or similar) doesn't necessarily mean adherence to a substance materialist worldview. PEW has tracked that too... a fraction of the "no religion" crowd in their surveys is actively atheist and I think they did something recently looking at "spiritual" ideas being part of these demographics too? I dunno if I can find it again...
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
First, I would need clarification. By "Western cultures", do you mean "European cultures"? Secondly, could you define "materialist"? Don't scientists in every country adopt methodological naturalism in their work? Finally, why do you call methodological naturalism a "fallacy"? I assume that you mean it is a mistaken belief of some kind, but people of any religion can employ methodological naturalism to solving a scientific problem. That doesn't preclude them from believing in gods, spirits, and miracles. They just exclude such non-material entities as factors in explaining a natural phenomenon. Note that there is a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism assumes that non-material explanations are simply wrong. Methodological naturalism is just a constraint on a system of methods in some area of study or activity, not a philosophical position.
This can be misleading, though.
There are those that are culturally [insert religion here] that attend services and will tick said religion in a PEW poll, but are materialists. I hail from a family of them.
I mean Western Europe and the Anglosphere.
It may just be a UK thing but most white people here are methodological naturalists, which they seem to believe is some kind of default position, and say things like, 'I DON'T BELEIVE IN GOD BECAUSE I BELEIVE IN SCIENCE' and that seems to be the majority of people I encounter.
MN indicates no supernatural beliefs; no ghosts, souls, reincarnation etc.
It confuses the mess out of me that so many folks feel that God and Science are incompatible.
I once started a thread asking why are so many atheists materialists (in the philosophical sense), but then I realised it's the other way around; people are atheists because they are materialists. So they automatically exclude any kind of non-material phenomena. It's why they don't understand theistic arguments, because, to them, God would also have to be material. It's bizarre to me. Some Gods may be material to some, but many god concepts are immaterial and transcendent. So the problem is people believing matter is the only thing that exists, and I want to know why so many people believe that when this has never in history been a majority view anywhere in the world.
How is rejecting it as some kind of baseline not a fallacy?
Because we can't prove methodological naturalism is true. It's a philosophy.
Sad that I read this four times before I realized you weren’t talking about Minnesota.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I don't follow this. Methodological naturalism is simply part of the scientific method. It has no particular wider philosophical implications. What do you mean by taking it as a baseline? Are you talking about physicalism?
Thanks.
Out of curiosity, where and how would you depart from the following?
First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible….
There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture….[4]
Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. [source]
It cannot be used to prove things outside of the scientific method, so what it has to do with God I have no idea, nor spirits, souls, or any other such thing that is outside its remit. So why are people using what amount to arguments based on MD to disprove things that are outside the purview of this philosophy? It's meaningless. It's the same as saying 'I don't believe in ghosts because this table is made of wood.' It makes no sense at all.
See my response to Exchemist.
I'm mainly talking about reductionism and people using naturalistic approaches to disprove something that, as this definition states, has nothing to do with this philosophy and can be neither proved nor disproved by it. So saying 'I don't believe in God because I believe in science' is absurd, but it's what I come across most often in debates with atheists. The position that material is the only thing that exists cannot be proven, but we can study that material using these methods.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I don't see the comment, much less the response. Help?
Could you give me an example?
Saying you don't believe in God because God cannot be proved by naturalism (in any form I understand it) is a fallacy because naturalism is only made to study the material world, which God, as conventionally understood, is outside of, being immaterial. It's like trying to use a tape measure to weigh an object; you're using the wrong tool and concluding the object doesn't exist because you can't weight it with a tape measure.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
So, you exclude Eastern Europe and Latin America? Why? They have scientists. Come to think of it, so do all of the Eastern cultures, too. In fact, historically, India had schools of materialism, same as in Europe. In fact, science seems to have spread well beyond Western Europe and what you call "the Anglosphere" (presumably just those countries that were once part of the British Empire).
The majority of people you encounter are not the majority of people you have known well enough to establish what their "default position" is. You are jumping to a rather wild conclusion here. A lot of people in the UK, especially urban areas of the UK, are openly atheistic, but I've discovered on my visits there that it isn't a good idea to assume that that is what the majority of people are. I've come across a few atheists that think science disproves the existence of gods, but I wouldn't claim that the majority take that position. I would agree that most atheists seem to be philosophical naturalists, because there appears to be no good evidence that natural phenomena have non-physical causes. We know that physical reality exists, but it is a stretch to claim that a spiritual realm exists that can interact with physical reality to cause what we call "miracles"--events that have no physical cause.
That's just dead wrong, for the reasons I gave. Methodological naturalism is not a philosophical belief. It is a constraint on a system of methods one uses when investigating a subject. Scientists can still believe in ghosts, souls, reincarnation, etc. Science doesn't rule them out, but perhaps Occam's Razor does.