Western Materialism

[exchemist]

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.

OK fair enough, I understand some people extend it beyond the scientific study of nature, apply it to the whole of human experience and end up with a physicalist worldview. It's a reasonable position to take.

But when you say Western cultures are materialist because of this, that's where you lose me. I'm not sure these cultures are materialist in the philosophical sense. (They can be materialistic in the colloquial sense, but that's different and presumably not what you meant.)

 

[Rival]

OK fair enough, I understand some people extend it beyond the scientific study of nature, apply it to the whole of human experience and end up with a physicalist worldview. It's a reasonable position to take.

But when you say Western cultures are materialist because of this, that's where you lose me. I'm not sure these cultures are materialist in the philosophical sense. (They can be materialistic in the colloquial sense, but that's different and presumably not what you meant.)

I mean, Western societies have much higher rates of atheism and, when asked, these atheists usually respond with something along these lines, 'God can't be proved by science'. Iran and Israel are probably the only non-Western countries with comparable numbers of atheists, but unlikely to be as naturalistic as we seem to be.

 

[Yerda]

The preposterous success of physics?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I mean, Western societies have much higher rates of atheism and, when asked, these atheists usually respond with something along these lines, 'God can't be proved by science'. Iran and Israel are probably the only non-Western countries with comparable numbers of atheists, but unlikely to be as naturalistic as we seem to be.

China, Japan and S Korea all have a pretty high atheist ratio. Though who knows about physicalism.

 

[Rival]

China, Japan and S Korea all have a pretty high atheist ratio. Though who knows about physicalism.

We know the Chinese are actually quite 'spiritual' for lack of a better word, though, as the state decides they are all 'atheists', which is not really the case on the ground.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We know the Chinese are actually quite 'spiritual' for lack of a better word, though, as the state decides they are all 'atheists', which is not really the case on the ground.

Yep. Though both Confucianism and Taoism practiced very little supernatural beliefs as such into early modern history but before the cultural revolution and state mandated atheism.

I actually think China has the longest 'culturally atheist' populations to be had. Though again, regional variation, folkisms, lack of text, etc make those lines blurry.

Modern Japan, S Korea and Veitnam have much more of what I think we're talking about here. Modern atheism where most church attendance is tokenism and actual subscription to spiritual beliefs that incorpate supernatural elements is very low.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why are most Western cultures materialist? They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

How I understand methodological naturalism is that it requires science to be neutral on questions of metaphysics and the supernatural such that it doesn't include them in explanations of natural phenomena, instead requiring any scientific endeavor to provide only natural or observable explanations for any given phenomena.

Why is this a fallacy? It seems to me the core of the scientific achievements that the world has made since at least the 19th century onward. I also find it more tenable than ontological naturalism due to the latter's heavier burden of proof.

As for the question, I don't feel that I have studied Western history enough to answer it reliably, since I'm sure the answer may have to do with events going as far back as medieval times and the subsequent trajectory of religious and philosophical thought in Europe. I also think socioeconomic conditions and trends—such as the inverse relationship between individual religiosity and economic prosperity in some countries—heavily factor into the equation.

 

[Rival]

How I understand methodological naturalism is that it requires science to be neutral on questions of metaphysics and the supernatural such that it doesn't include them in explanations of natural phenomena, instead requiring any scientific endeavor to provide only natural or observable explanations for any given phenomena.

Why is this a fallacy? It seems to me the core of the scientific achievements that the world has made since at least the 19th century onward. I also find it more tenable than ontological naturalism due to the latter's heavier burden of proof.

As for the question, I don't feel that I have studied Western history enough to answer it reliably, since I'm sure the answer may have to do with events going as far back as medieval times and the subsequent trajectory of religious and philosophical thought in Europe. I also think socioeconomic conditions and trends—such as the inverse relationship between individual religiosity and economic prosperity in some countries—heavily factor into the equation.

Many atheists use MD as their defence, but as both you and JS have pointed out, MD is neutral on the question of the supernatural. So it's a fallacious defence of atheism, yet the most common.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We know the Chinese are actually quite 'spiritual' for lack of a better word, though, as the state decides they are all 'atheists', which is not really the case on the ground.

A lot of Asian spirituality is decoupled from belief in deities or organized dogma, which is clearly seen in branches of Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, and Hinduism, among others. I think describing most Chinese people as "atheists" may not be accurate unless they themselves adopt the label, but I would say it's probably a lot closer to the reality than describing them as theists, a word that, in much of the Western world, still evokes a sense of a personal deity.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Many atheists use MD as their defence, but as both you and JS have pointed out, MD is neutral on the question of the supernatural. So it's a fallacious defence of atheism, yet the most common.

I see. I agree that is fallacious. It seems to be a conflation of methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism by some atheists who suggest that nothing beyond nature exists unless science can document or observe it, which is an assertion the latter philosophy includes, not the former.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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, ...

I think we are using words differently. So, for example, the phrase "proved by naturalism" is incoherent to me.

Let me quote Strahler again (with emphasis):

Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism’s lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:​

​

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)…. Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.​

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

I think a more sensible analogy would be "I don't believe in ghosts because all the experiences attributed to ghosts can be explained by natural things." Same with God. It's not so much turning a materialistic eye to non-material things as it is suggesting that non-material things have material basis. "God" exists for humans as a mix of psychology, culture, mythology, and symbolism, all of which have material basis.

 

[blü 2]

Why are most Western cultures materialist? They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

The accidents of history, I'd guess. The success of "natural philosophy" was due to the success of one school of Roman Catholic thought, which takes us back to the dawn of the Renaissance, Paris in the time of the Schoolmen, the exploration of Greek texts that had survived in Arab culture, and Aquinas' daring and influential ideas that it was not enough to read that God exists, it must be shown by reason.

That strain of enquiry continued to exist in the West despite various challenges from various clerics, until it turned into the Enlightenment, whose most famous natural philosopher was Newton, famous as a genius and as a dingbat. Shortly we have the Germans boldly exposing the bible to critical analysis and arguing for Markan priority before 1800. At the same time, discoveries in geology were contradicting biblical accounts of the Creation, the Flood &c, giving rise to the tensions that ran through the 19th century, particularly in western Europe. The acceptance of evolution as the origin of species following Darwin's publication 1859 was also part of the decline of religious and biblical authority among many of the educated, including eg Anglican theologian and bishop John Colenso.

What had happened was the removal of authority from the bible as the explanation of the earth and of its creatures, and the passing of that authority to those who instead drew their conclusions by inspecting and seeking to explain nature directly. Meanwhile inventions, not least the railway, were changing the psychology of city and country and challenging regionality / parochialism as the best and brightest made their way as never before to the centers of business and of learning, Steamships brought Britain closer to Europe, and to the exchange of ideas.

In the 20th century, WW1 thoroughly changed not just the politics, but the nature of politics, in Europe, with women in the workforce, votes for women in the UK, the formation of trade unions and the formalization of them v us, and the rise of primitive socialism. WW2 caused a worldwide breaking and remaking of the world order, in Europe, Asia and the Pacific.

And with the growth of technology, TV arrived, the first nail in the coffin of public assembly for church, Lions, Rotary, and much more. The cell phone hastened that process, since it was no longer necessary to be in someone's physical company to talk to them and know what they were doing. This has much reduced the influence of the old centers of authority ─ the expert, the politician, the newspaper editor, the clergy ─ and replaced it with alternatives, some of them capable of generating chaos.

If you want religion, you can take your pick of a huge variety. But if you don't want religion, these days no stigma attaches, no tithes are involved, you can play golf / stay drunk / go hiking / visit the library / watch movies / party / &c all weekend.

Something along those lines is part of the answer to your question, I think.

 

[Nakosis]

Why are most Western cultures materialist?

Because the more material one has, the more physical freedom they have. Everyone needs to meet a baseline level of physical freedom. If they don't want to seek more than this, that's fine. If they do, that's fine to. Everyone needs to be at some level a materialist.

They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

It's the only view that can be validated to any extent. So if there is a fallacy associated with it, it is the view with the least number of fallacies and actively seeks to root out those fallacies. Hard to say the same of any other view.

 

[1137]

Physicalism is more or less the religion of our culture. Kastrup writes about how even people who think they reject physicalism end up, for instance, fearing death as the end of self when they supposedly don't believe it is. It is ingrained into us the same way other major cultural religions have been.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why are most Western cultures materialist? They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

Becaues it is the philosophy that has given rise to Science, which has provided tech and medicine and all the things which has eased our suffering.

 

[Copernicus]

Wikipedia has a List of countries by irreligion.

According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman, broad estimates of those who have an absence of belief in a god range from 500 to 750 million people worldwide.[6] According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population) with China alone accounting for 200 million of that demographic.[7] Relative to its own populations, Zuckerman ranks the top 5 countries with the highest possible ranges of agnostics and atheists: Sweden (46-85%), Vietnam (81%), Denmark (43-80%), Norway (31-72%), and Japan (64-65%).[8][9] A 2023 Gallup International survey found that Sweden was the country with the highest percentage of citizens that stated they do not believe in God.[10]

Note that Vietnam ranks second only to Sweden, and Japan ranks fifth on the list. It's not really true that Asian cultures are more spiritual than Western ones. There is a more comprehensive matrix on the page that shows China ranking quite high in the percentage of population on lists, which are conducted by objective polling organizations. The Chinese government appears not to be involved in the ranking.

 

[F1fan]

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.

What kind of non-material phenomenon is there?

It's why they don't understand theistic arguments, because, to them, God would also have to be material.

Then how do material beings (like humans) detect non-material anything, including gods? What is the test in reality?

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.

Why assume a non-material when all we can detect is material?

 

[exchemist]

I mean, Western societies have much higher rates of atheism and, when asked, these atheists usually respond with something along these lines, 'God can't be proved by science'. Iran and Israel are probably the only non-Western countries with comparable numbers of atheists, but unlikely to be as naturalistic as we seem to be.

OK I understand better now. I don't think society at large has embraced anything as explicit as "God can't be proved by science". But I do very much agree with the ideas of others here, that since medieval times, the arrival of natural science and Enlightenment, rationalist, thinking have progressively led to a culture that has far more faith in its own power to understand its world and manage its affairs - and a concomitant retreat of the role of mystery, the authority of the church and religion more generally.

If one looks for instance at the French Revolution, it is not my impression that the fiercely secular nature of that was to do with science. It was more to do with challenge to the authority of the church, which was seen as oppressive. I suspect the - in many ways healthy - decline of respect for authority has had as much to do with modern secularisation as the march of science has. As @blü 2 observes, the democratisation of information via better communication, coupled with Enlightenment demands for reasoning things out, may be behind this.

We are now seeing a sort of endgame - by turns grim and hilarious - of that decline of respect for authority, fed by the internet, in which people choose to disbelieve all manner of authority. "We've had enough of experts", as Michael Gove once correctly observed........and we are starting to pay the price for that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wikipedia has a List of countries by irreligion.



Note that Vietnam ranks second only to Sweden, and Japan ranks fifth on the list. It's not really true that Asian cultures are more spiritual than Western ones. There is a more comprehensive matrix on the page that shows China ranking quite high in the percentage of population on lists, which are conducted by objective polling organizations. The Chinese government appears not to be involved in the ranking.

Much of Asian spirituality is non-theistic, though, so I think the reported statistics about atheism in the region don't necessarily mean that Asian cultures aren't more spiritual than Western ones. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Jainism are all examples of the non-theism of Asian spirituality. In most cases, I would classify a deeply practicing Buddhist as "spiritual" in one sense or another even if they didn't believe in any deities.

Unless one defines "spirituality" in a way that necessitates belief in a personal deity, I don't think statistics about theism and non-theism per se tell us much, if anything, about the prevalence of spiritual practices in a given country or region.