Materialism

[Electric Skeptic]

There has been a great deal of discussion over the last few years of the 'materialism/naturalism' paradigm, particularly in science. In brief, this paradigm states that the natural material world is all that exists. Many theists have complained about this paradigm (and its usage in science), claiming that it is limiting.

However, I would like to contend that we are all at least functional materialists. Even those who believe in something beyond the material do not actually act as if it exists. When we want to talk to distant relatives, we don't try to send them telepathic messages - we pick up the phone. Theists with life-threatening illnesses may well pray for healing, but they also follow their doctor's instructions (at least, the ones who live do - that's why there are laws against parents forgoing medical treatment for their children in favour of prayer). We all at least act, in our daily lives, as if the material is all that there is.

So why the hostility against the materialism paradigm, particularly the opposition to science? The answer is simple - we (I mean people in general, not necessarily all of us) want desparately to believe that there is something beyond the material. We want to believe that there is life after death, that an all-powerful being cares for us, and so forth. The idea that there is nobody out there (apart from other people) who cares, that when you die that's it, is rather bleak and barren, and most simply don't want to accept it. Hence the hostility toward science, which has, if anything, grown in recent years.

Yet science states nothing at all about anything beyond the material - it doesn't state that it doesn't exist, just that it can't study it. So why are so many so angry at science? For several reasons:

- science continues to be extremely successful. It is far and away the best tool that we have ever found for understanding our universe - yet it has never come up with any evidence for anything beyond the material. A tool that is so successful at finding out things about our universe but fails to find out anything about the existence of anything beyond the material at least by implication indicates that there is nothing beyond the material.

- science continues to find material explanations for things that were once thought to have causes in the supernatural. Lightning isn't a sign of anger from the gods; it's due to static electricity in the atmosphere. Diseases aren't caused by demons; they're caused by germs. And so on. Increasingly, supernaturalists/theists are finding that there is no necessity to postulate anything beyond the material to explain what we observe.

This anger against science can be seen in a number of ways apart from the most obvious. One of the clues is the jubilation many theists/supernaturalists exhibit when science is shown to be incorrect about something. After all, if science can be wrong about (for example) the coleocanth being extinct, it can be wrong about the supernatural, as well. I believe this is the reason why so many theists are also believers in other 'weird' phenomena - bigfoot, UFOs, miracles, and so forth. All of these things are dismissed by science as inadequately evidenced - and if they are true then, to that extent, science is wrong. Which means it might well be wrong about the supernatural, as well.

Just some idle thoughts...any comments?

 

[Ed Vidence]

However, I would like to contend that we are all at least functional materialists. Even those who believe in something beyond the material do not actually act as if it exists. When we want to talk to distant relatives, we don't try to send them telepathic messages - we pick up the phone. Theists with life-threatening illnesses may well pray for healing, but they also follow their doctor's instructions (at least, the ones who live do - that's why there are laws against parents forgoing medical treatment for their children in favour of prayer). We all at least act, in our daily lives, as if the material is all that there is.

False dichotomy AND straw man.

Attempt to portray theists as the wacko Fundy type and materialists as normal. IN the examples above there is no disagreement between materialists and theists because the issues stated are common sense and have nothing to do with origins.

So why the hostility against the materialism paradigm, particularly the opposition to science? The answer is simple - we (I mean people in general, not necessarily all of us) want desparately to believe that there is something beyond the material. We want to believe that there is life after death, that an all-powerful being cares for us, and so forth. The idea that there is nobody out there (apart from other people) who cares, that when you die that's it, is rather bleak and barren, and most simply don't want to accept it. Hence the hostility toward science, which has, if anything, grown in recent years.

This is ordinary and predictable atheist philosophy attempting to speak for Science.

The commentary also assumes no God exists because they (the materialist) does not know Him. The same assumes that if God exists then they would know Him.

These are sourceless beliefs about God. The Bible says if you have no inclinations toward God it is because He has not chosen you to have them. This accounts for the single digit percentage of the population that is atheist/materialist.

Yet science states nothing at all about anything beyond the material

Correction: atheist science.

EV

 

[Mocca]

False dichotomy AND straw man.

Attempt to portray theists as the wacko Fundy type and materialists as normal. IN the examples above there is no disagreement between materialists and theists because the issues stated are common sense and have nothing to do with origins.

The original author NEVER stated all theists attempt to telepathically communicate. The author never stated any theists attempt to telepatically communicate. He simply stated that we (as in people) use the telephone, and other functionally materialistic items as opposed to supernatural entities in their daily lives. This is neither false dichotomy nor strawman.

 

[Mocca]

The commentary also assumes no God exists because they (the materialist) does not know Him. The same assumes that if God exists then they would know Him.

The commentary does not assume no god exists. If you disagree, please point out the instance in the quoted text where the author stated or implied no god exists. (By the way, when referring to a god it's god, but when referring to the God, then it's God.)

 

[Mocca]

Correction: atheist science.

Correcetion: conspiracy theory.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

False dichotomy AND straw man.

Attempt to portray theists as the wacko Fundy type and materialists as normal. IN the examples above there is no disagreement between materialists and theists because the issues stated are common sense and have nothing to do with origins.

I nowhere attempted to portray theists as "the wacko Fundy type". Please cite where I did so.

Of course in the examples above there is no disagreement between materialists and theists. That's the whole point.

Of course it has nothing to do with origins. Who said it did?

This is ordinary and predictable atheist philosophy attempting to speak for Science.

No, it's not. Your statement makes me believe you didn't even read the paragraph concerned.

The commentary also assumes no God exists because they (the materialist) does not know Him. The same assumes that if God exists then they would know Him.

No, it doesn't, nor can you cite anywhere it does.

These are sourceless beliefs about God.

Which beliefs are 'sourceless beliefs about God"?

The Bible says if you have no inclinations toward God it is because He has not chosen you to have them. This accounts for the single digit percentage of the population that is atheist/materialist.

That's nice. Hardly relevant, though.

Correction: atheist science.

ALL science is atheist to the extent that it ignores god. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how science works.

 

[Abongil]

There is no science that includes God; the God factor cannot be observed or tested. Therefore they do not use it.

 

[JohnR7]

Yet science states nothing at all about anything beyond the material - it doesn't state that it doesn't exist, just that it can't study it.

That is just not true. Science has shown time and again that attitude and esp. what most people would consider to be a positive attitude is very benificial. People who think they are going to get better and improve have a much greater rate and chance of getting better over the people who do not think they will get better.

Your contention that science "states nothing" in this regard is not really science at all. It is a form of atheism that a very small percentage of the people believe. For good reason, because they tend not to live very long. Even evolutionary theory will tell you that the atheist will not survive as long as the theist because theists have many more tools at their disposal for survival.

 

[JohnR7]

the God factor cannot be observed or tested.

God can be observed and tested if you use faith. People have to take their blindfold off first if they want to see God.

Isaiah 6:10
"Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed."

 

[BigToe]

Correction: atheist science.

EV

I wasn't aware that science addressed the existence of god in their findings. In fact, I am pretty sure science generally ignores that issue as that isn't what is being tested in most cases anyway.

 

[BigToe]

God can be observed and tested if you use faith. People have to take their blindfold off first if they want to see God.

But faith and science are two different spheres of human thought. Because one is a scientist does not mean that they are without faith. Even a scientist that deals with things not directly addressing God's existence or not, isn't necessarily without faith.

Plus, my understanding of materialism is that it is really a theory that fits more into philosophy than anything at this point. Or at least, in schools that's the department that teaches it.

 

[MewtwoX]

That is just not true. Science has shown time and again that attitude and esp. what most people would consider to be a positive attitude is very benificial. People who think they are going to get better and improve have a much greater rate and chance of getting better over the people who do not think they will get better.

Your contention that science "states nothing" in this regard is not really science at all. It is a form of atheism that a very small percentage of the people believe. For good reason, because they tend not to live very long. Even evolutionary theory will tell you that the atheist will not survive as long as the theist because theists have many more tools at their disposal for survival.

A complete strawman of his point.

Science would conclude from the tests above that physical reactions responsible for positive attitude influence the functioning of other systems positively. To throw in the additional claim that it was a product of "spiritual assistance" or "spiritual healing" might be true, but it's untestable from Epirical standards that science is founded on.

You yourself claim that Science can be used as long as it's applied with faith, however this goes against what science is. Science does not use "faith", as it is counter to the methodology of science.

That's also why Science doesn't make faith based claims and works in probabilities instead of absolutes.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That is just not true. Science has shown time and again that attitude and esp. what most people would consider to be a positive attitude is very benificial. People who think they are going to get better and improve have a much greater rate and chance of getting better over the people who do not think they will get better.

Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Your contention that science "states nothing" in this regard is not really science at all. It is a form of atheism that a very small percentage of the people believe.

This is nonsense. ANY scientist will tell you that science states nothing about any gods.

For good reason, because they tend not to live very long.

Please support the claim that atheists "tend not to live very long".

Even evolutionary theory will tell you that the atheist will not survive as long as the theist because theists have many more tools at their disposal for survival.

No, it won't. Please support the claim that atheists do not survive as long as theists.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Excellent post Electric Sceptic! I agree, all persons are materialist. No one will get to work by driving the idea of a car. Essentially, naturalism is even part of language itself, with abstract ideas existing only in the language-game.

God can be observed and tested if you use faith. People have to take their blindfold off first if they want to see God.

Faith is an irrational like all non-justified beliefs. To quote, ironically, Hegel, “the rational is real and the real is rational”.

 

[DavidBomin]

Going to the doctor doesnt show a lack of faith. God can heal you using a doctor or a miracle, its really up to him.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Going to the doctor doesnt show a lack of faith. God can heal you using a doctor or a miracle, its really up to him.

Of course it does. It shows that you rely on materialism when it counts. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother to go to the doctor - you'd just sit at home and pray for your broken leg to heal.

 

[JohnR7]

But faith and science are two different spheres of human thought.

In order for something to be science it has to be repeatable. Two different people doing the same thing need to be able to get the same results.

 

[JohnR7]

Going to the doctor doesnt show a lack of faith. God can heal you using a doctor or a miracle, its really up to him.

God can work through people and that brings Him honor and glory. But it is easier when He does not have to go through people to accomplish His purpose.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

God can work through people and that brings Him honor and glory. But it is easier when He does not have to go through people to accomplish His purpose.

I have to laugh at this. It's "easier" for an omnipotent being when others do the work. That is so funny it's ridiculous.

I can imagine God..."Uh-oh, JohnR7 has just broken his leg! Oh, no, I'm gonna have to heal him! Oh...wait...he's going to the doctor. Wow, that's a relief!"

 

[Micaiah]

Sounds to me like you are sugegsting there is a lack of faith in God in this world. I think you are correct. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that naturalism is a better explanation of origins.

So why are so many so angry at science?

I don't know of any Christians who display this behaviour. It is my belief that science is somthing to be embraced and harnased for good. Many scientists today and in the past are/were YEC's.

We do get annoyed when evolutionists make deceptive claims.