Is Materialism Faith Based?

I wanted to place this quote on its own tread because I think Imanginist has some important points, and this was burried at the bottom of the Materialism thread receiving no attention at all.

Love,
Socrates

Quote:

Originally posted by Imaginist
My thesis is that materialism is a faith-based worldview.

Now 'scuse me while I ramble!

The whole problem of materialism boils down to the assumption that if it can't be sensed with the five senses, then it doesn't exist. That is simply a statement of faith, and it too easily bleeds over into the assumption that if we haven't sensed it *yet*, then it doesn't exist. Certainly this faith is based in part upon experience, but it is nonetheless a faith.

There was a time when people were closed to the idea of subatomic particles, like quarks and neutrinos, only because we didn't yet recognize any physical evidence that showed they might actually exist. There were yet others who acknowledged the mathematical possibility or probablity, and adjusted their theories accordingly. In either case, that means that there were people walking around consciously choosing to form worldviews based upon incomplete evidence. Almost sounds like religion, doesn't it?

Taking a different tangent, saying that if you alter or destroy the gray meat in a person's head you also alter or destroy the person seems to be a good point on the surface. It certainly appears that way, but we also know that appearances can be deceiving. How many great scientific "truths," accepted for centuries, turned out to be false constructions based upon appearances combined with insufficient knowledge? This argument is just as weak as someone who knows nothing about how a TV really works concluding that the person they see on the screen has died when the TV is unplugged. I can manipulate the image and sound in many ways, but that doesn't have any effect at all on the actual transmission.

Of course, nearly all of these materialists offhandedly dismiss any paranormal phenomena like telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, past-life memories, and so on. Rather than admit there are unsettled questions in this regard, they'll say that there hasn't been sufficient scientifically valid documentation, and that all the anecdotal accounts are misperceptions, delusions, or lies of one form or another. This also reveals that materialism is a
position based on faith.

Ultimately, materialists are convinced that the senses and logic are the ultimate tools for discerning truth. In one way this seems to have some validity. If all you are concerned about is analyzing, qualifying, and quatifying sensory perceptions, then what other tools do you need? Unfortunately, even here the phenomenology of perception plays a role.

We are not merely sensors and analyzers with complete conscious control of all our faculties. Plenty of research has shown that we unconsciously respond to our sensations in countless ways - prioritizing, filtering, forming associations with latent memories from other experiences, and so on. There is also plenty of research that shows that we aren't perfectly consistent in qualifying or quantifying what should be the same sensations from the same stimulus. This is not only true from one individual to the next, but within the same individual over repeated trials.

So, I continue to think of materialism as a faith, but that in itself isn't a bad thing in my book. Life pretty much forces us to respond to it with something other than a simple "I don't really know." We have to form assumptions and working theories just to get us through an ordinary day, much less deal with the big questions about reality and existence! My only gripe with some materialists is their attitude that they really have a lock on the actual, undeniable, and ultimate truth. Sorry, I'm just not a convert.

Well, that's my rambling for today!

The Imaginist

[UnrepentantSinner]

No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

[BobM]

All logic systems are at their lowest level based on "faith." I throw that word in quotes because it's not the same definition used when referring to faith in a spirtual sense.

I simply mean "belief in something that cannot be proved."

[Mercutio]

US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

Mercutio, you have stomped on my personal pet peeve with the use of "faith" in debates concerning all things ephemeral or "metaphysical" in nature.

I agree completely that "faith" can be twisted semantically to mean the same thing as "reasonable conclusion based on the evidence" but only if certain evidences and logical exercises are thrown out the window.

Quote:

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

Well, let's get this out of the way now - I am not using "materialist" as a perjorative. I disagree with materialists, but I don't hate them, and I don't think they're stupid just because they are materialists. If I gave any other impression, I apologize and ask you to forget about it.

Now, your basic argument brings with it some problems. Let's just highlight three very basic ones:

1. That your evidence is sufficiently comprehensive to impart absolute certainty with no need for any assumptions.

2. That your perception and interpertation of the evidence isn't questionable.

3. That there is only one explanation that works with the given evidence.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

I understand the misgivings that you and others have about the word "faith". I understand that many good and well-meaning people have been verbally beaten with this word. Both the religious and the irreligious use it as a stick. But I'm using the word in its broader and yet still perfectly proper and common meaning, which signifies something more like trust in a certain person, thing, concept, feeling, or behavior. You know what I mean: I have "faith" in my wife. I have "faith" that I'm right about something. I have "faith" in my ability to do something. I have "faith" in my intuition.

It should be clear that one of the objectives of my thesis is to demonstrate that both religious believers and the believers in materialism are operating on such faith, and that both groups contain people at various extremes with regard to their consideration of evidence of different sorts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
...but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

Although it is a tanget that diverges somewhat from the thesis of this thread, I want to briefly reflect on Mercutio's point here, which is pretty good. The problem with utility, however, is in how one defines it to begin with, and the domain of experience within which that definition is limited. In other words, is utility for you, or me, or someone else, limited to those things that we deal with via the five physical senses, or does it also include the realm of thought and emotion?

If it does include the latter, then we are now dealing with entire categories of experience and human activity that elude direct observation with the senses, even if there is such a thing that kind of observation anyway.

[Dancing David]

Imaginist:
I know that you didn't start this thread but I am glad it is going. I agree there may be things that are in the universe that you can't bump into.

How for example can I be a scientific nihilist and a practising pagan?

My daughter is an ultimate rationalist and I have tried to discuss this with her, my explanation goes like this:
There are many parts to me:
Part of me believes that all there is is the gush and whoosh of wavicles: when I die I am dead, there is no magic or spirit.
Other parts of me use other terms to experience the Universe: they are dream and soul based and generaly mythological in natute and character. I have my intuition and emotions and they are very useful to me.

So I exist between the two worlds , my mind and souls dance with each other and useful communication occurs.

However I have yet to see any proof that spiritual experineces occur in any frame outside of my personal experience. Soul/spirit experineces are real but I have yet to see anything that says they are not products of my biological consiousness.

You can use science to approach the inner world of the spirit.

Si I believe in the none materail reality but I belive that it is a product of my bilogical self.

Peace
dancing David

[Dancing David]

Oook:
I didn't proof that post.

So I believe in spiritual reality but I believe that it is a product of my biology.

Peace
dancing david

[Mercutio]

Imaginist:"Although it is a tanget that diverges somewhat from the thesis of this thread, I want to briefly reflect on Mercutio's point here, which is pretty good. The problem with utility, however, is in how one defines it to begin with, and the domain of experience within which that definition is limited. In other words, is utility for you, or me, or someone else, limited to those things that we deal with via the five physical senses, or does it also include the realm of thought and emotion?"

How one defines utility is a bit like how one defines "fittest" in natural selection. We can make all the a priori definitions we want to, but what turns out to have been useful (in hindsight) may not have been predicted, or even predictable.

quote:"Now, your basic argument brings with it some problems. Let's just highlight three very basic ones:
1. That your evidence is sufficiently comprehensive to impart absolute certainty with no need for any assumptions.
2. That your perception and interpertation of the evidence isn't questionable.
3. That there is only one explanation that works with the given evidence."

This is what I don't like about philosophy. As certain as I am of many things, I never reach "absolute certainty" of anything. My interpretation of the evidence will amost always differ, in part or in whole, from another reasonable person--doesn't bother me. And if only one explanation worked sith the given evidence, science would be a whole lot easier. Does materialism really imply these things?

[c4ts]

What is faith?

[Aoidoi]

I would say materialism is assumption based.

We assume that the world is understandable, we assume that we're not being deceived... there's probably a couple more at the base of it that I can't think of at the moment.

The difference between faith and assumptions is that if assumptions are shown to be wrong they are removed, while faith (at least in the religious sense) precludes that.

(apologies if this has been brought up before... I've avoided the materialism thread)

I'm not certain what you mean by "biological conscience," so I probably don't understand your statement. But, I am assuming "biological conscience" is: A state of consciousness arising from biochemical processes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
So I believe in spiritual reality but I believe that it is a product of my biology.

Yes, the notion that thought and perception (this would include spiritual perception) arise from biochemical processes is fundamental to the Naturalist worldview. I think the very point here is that your *belief* that the spiritual is a product of biology is faith-based.

You stated:

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
but I have yet to see anything that says they are not products of my biological consiousness.

Have you seen any empirical data that demonstrates that they are products of your "biological consiousness?" How does a mindless biochemical process create Mind or Spiritual experience? Is it the number of chemical reactions, or is it the complexity of the chemical reactions?

You are willing to believe that Mind and Spiritual experiences arises from mindless and spiritless chemical processes without an inkling of empirical evidence for the process.

I’m curious. Why would the idea, “The Universe has Mind, and that Mind is manifest in your being through your brain rather than by your brain,” be less acceptable to you than the idea “Mind arises from mindless chemical processes” when they are both equally speculative and faith-based?

With both ideas lacking scientific proof, why would you embrace the notion, “Mind arises from the mindless” over the idea, “The Universe is Intelligent and imparts a portion of this intelligence to you as your mind, just as it imparts a portions of its matter to you as your body?

Love,
Socrates

Quote:

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

"Washing machine" materialism (as some philosopher contemptuously called it) has nowt to do with proper materialism. And I don't see anything wrong with using materialism in a pejorative sense since it is so idiotic and repugnant.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

And I don't see anything wrong with using materialism in a pejorative sense since it is so idiotic and repugnant.

Oh you are so pugnacious! I just think it's fabulous when you are being butch!

[Dancing David]

Socrates:
Ah, you are so right.
I can't know any of it.
However I do know that for every spiritual experience that I have had there is a rational explanation for it.

I have yet to have an OOBE (out of body experience) where I learn information that I could state definitively was gootten from the OOBE.

I think that it is a 'faith' of sorts and agree with the basic premise. And yes I believe that consiuosness comes of of the complex reverberations of biochemicals in our heads.

But all your assertions are correct. I have yet to have a 'ghost' tell me something that was only known to the 'ghost' or somesuch which would prove to me that consiuosness is not biologicaly based. (In fact I tend to avoid the dead, they are very boring)

Peace
dancing David

[Fade]

Quote:

I would say materialism is assumption based.

That is the whole of it. The assumption, in this instance, is rational.


Show me something that exists outside the material realm.

Nobody, at any time, has been able to do this. Sure they can give some specious arguments. However, words mean exactly nothing when it comes to discovering the truth of a matter. All the discussion in the world can't make take an untrue thing and turn it into a true thing. All the discussion in the world can't change the way the universe works.


So, show me something that doesn't fit exactly into the materialist viewpoint, and I will change my views.


Also, it is irrational (not to mention completely wrong) to bring up the fact that 'scientists' in the past were wrong sometimes, and thus the ones today are.

The things we know now are fundamentally different from the things 'known' hundreds of years ago. We research and error check. We correct mistakes in a reasonable amount of time. We're learning more about the universe, and not making assumptions, except for the single assumption that the universe exists in some rational way.

And, if you -don't- make this assumption, nothing you say CAN be coherent, ever.


This is why people who don't profess materialism, to me, ought to simply be discounted out of hand. Why? Well, if their position is true, then nothing they say matters because knowledge isn't identifiable, because we lack the ability to sense things outside the material. Dualism and idealism are inherently irrational, and therefore wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fade



Show me something that exists outside the material realm.

Everything.

Now you show me something that exists outside the mental realm.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
Socrates:
Ah, you are so right.
I can't know any of it.
However I do know that for every spiritual experience that I have had there is a rational explanation for it.

I have yet to have an OOBE (out of body experience) where I learn information that I could state definitively was gootten from the OOBE.

I think that it is a 'faith' of sorts and agree with the basic premise. And yes I believe that consiuosness comes of of the complex reverberations of biochemicals in our heads.

But all your assertions are correct. I have yet to have a 'ghost' tell me something that was only known to the 'ghost' or somesuch which would prove to me that consiuosness is not biologicaly based. (In fact I tend to avoid the dead, they are very boring)

Peace
dancing David

So, we all have reasons for our Faith. Naturalists, Christians, and really mixed-up Theistic-Existentialists like myself all have reasons for our faith in a particular belief system.

But, the question at hand is:

Is Naturalism Faith Based?

Skepticism is the pinnacle of reason. It can only maintain that status if the Skeptic Virtue of Intellectual Honesty is observed even when the Skeptical Process challenges the taboos preserved by the Citadel of Science.

So, what say ye my brother?

Is Materialism Faith Based?

Love,
Socrates

Quote:

Originally posted by Fade

The assumption, in this instance, is rational.

Assumptions are expressions of faith regardless of the usefullness one finds in the particular rational used.

Love,
Socrates

[Fade]

Quote:

Assumptions are expressions of faith regardless of the usefullness one finds in the particular rational used.

Language has this thing called "connotation."

The way we use language, or better stated, the way language is used, a concept that means one thing can end up meaning something entirely different.

Yes, I know that's a little twisted sounding.

When a person says faith, they -mean- "Believe in something despite no evidence." That is what we were taught faith means. That is usage. However, depending on which dictionary you use, that isn't the entire meaning. It can also mean:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.



Do I have a "confident belief in the truth, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing?"

Yes.

Do I have a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence?"

No. Materialism isn't only obvious given the evidence, we've never encountered any sort of evidence that isn't materialistic, and goodness knows we've tried.

Wouldn't we have found something outside the material realm, ANYTHING outside the material realm, after searching for literally thousands of years? Why does the universe perform in the same plodding way all the time, everywhere, in regards to everything, without exception?

Answer. Because the universe is materialistic.

Quote:

Originally posted by Socrates


So, we all have reasons for our Faith.

Yes, I think this is undeniably true, but one person's reasons are another's delusions. One point that materialists sometimes fail to miss is that much of the "objective evidence" that supports their faith is critically dependent upon consensus about measurement and perception. If they're happy with that, then I'm happy for them!

Those that take things too far are the ones that automatically deny anything as real, or even possible, that doesn't fit with the current consensus. I happen to find myself in cahoots with many of the consensus perspectives on things, but I am also one of those weird characters that is firmly convinced that he has experienced things that aren't neatly accounted for by consensus views. Of course, consensus ideologies can offer convenient ways of explaining away my experiences to the satisfaction of those who believe those ideologies, but if they don't satisfy me better than some other explanation, that doesn't necessarily make me an idiot or psychotic. To me that's the same kind of prejudice and intolerance that one finds in religious condemnation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fade


Language has this thing called "connotation."

The way we use language, or better stated, the way language is used, a concept that means one thing can end up meaning something entirely different.

Yes, I know that's a little twisted sounding.

When a person says faith, they -mean- "Believe in something despite no evidence." That is what we were taught faith means. That is usage. However, depending on which dictionary you use, that isn't the entire meaning. It can also mean:

Yes, of course. I'm sorry you felt the need to state the obvious. Imaginist stated from the beginning of this thread what he meant by faith.

Sometimes these threads get long, and it is difficult to know what has already been established in the discussion because it becomes impractical to read all the previous posts.

It is Imaginist’s question, so he gets to define the words. So, for the benefit of us all, I have quoted Imanginist’s comments on faith below.

Love,
Socrates

Quote:

Originally posted by Imaginist


I understand the misgivings that you and others have about the word "faith". I understand that many good and well-meaning people have been verbally beaten with this word. Both the religious and the irreligious use it as a stick. But I'm using the word in its broader and yet still perfectly proper and common meaning, which signifies something more like trust in a certain person, thing, concept, feeling, or behavior. You know what I mean: I have "faith" in my wife. I have "faith" that I'm right about something. I have "faith" in my ability to do something. I have "faith" in my intuition.

It should be clear that one of the objectives of my thesis is to demonstrate that both religious believers and the believers in materialism are operating on such faith, and that both groups contain people at various extremes with regard to their consideration of evidence of different sorts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fade

No. Materialism isn't only obvious given the evidence, we've never encountered any sort of evidence that isn't materialistic, and goodness knows we've tried.

How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Love,
Socrates

[Aoidoi]

Oh, are we already into the semantics part of the debate? Usually that takes at least a page!
(I suppose I'm partially at fault. Sorry.)

Quote:

How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Ah, more's the joy... once you find evidence for it that by definition means it's materialist. The joy of materialism is that the more you discover the bigger the world becomes.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Socrates


How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Love,
Socrates

The only way you could know it was non-materialist is if you knew the only possible explanations ruled out materialism, in a sort of reductio. How you could come to such a conclusion through reason and understanding, once you actually found the event, is beyond me, since the denial of materialism can include the denial of the universe in which you found the anomaly, or the senses by which you percieved it.

[justsaygnosis]

I prefer to think of it as practical reasoning.
Postulants have their basis in the known rather than what is desired but only achievable via superstition and magical wishcraft.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Ah, more's the joy... once you find evidence for it that by definition means it's materialist. The joy of materialism is that the more you discover the bigger the world becomes.

Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accept in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

Love,
Socrates

[Aoidoi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Socrates
Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accepted in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning, but you can make of it what you will.

I had this thought a while back, and it seems fairly simple... if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena... anything that is observable is natural. There might be unexplained events, possibly even unexplainable events, but they're still part of reality and thus natural.

Kind of like math... it's all in your definitions. Mind you, this is an engineer discussing philosophy, and you get what you pay for.

And btw, I have no particular stake in materialism nor do I feel there is anything that must be accepted to be a materialist... it's not a social club (or if it is, nobody's told me the rules yet). You don't get kicked out for having heretical ideas.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aoidoi said:

Quote:

Kind of like math... it's all in your definitions. Mind you, this is an engineer discussing philosophy, and you get what you pay for.

That's okay, because that's pretty much what we get from professional philosophers, too. For millennia. I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

~~ Paul

Quote:

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning

Willful distortions of reality are often referred to as neurotic self-delustion, I don't know if it applies here, but you are free substantiate this assertion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aoidoi
if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena...

This is simply a definition of convenience--unsubstantiated and faith based. This is not sufficient to accept what follows in your reasoning at face value.

This seems to re-enforce the notion that Materialism is Faith Based.


Love,
Socrates

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

~~ Paul

And, we wonder if Naturalists think that if they ignore the problems long enough that they will magically go away?

Love,
Socrates

[Aoidoi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Socrates
Willful distortions of reality are often referred to as neurotic self-delustion, I don't know if it applies here, but you are free substantiate this assertion.

Odd, the last person to accuse me of insanity was Franko. (Assuming I'm parsing your sentence right... it's a bit unclear to which assertion you refer, mine or yours).

Quote:

This is simply a definition of convenience--

Yup. Why make things harder than they are?

Quote:

unsubstantiated and faith based. This is not sufficient to accept what follows in your reasoning at face value.

An unsubstantiated and faith based definition? Methinks that an odd assertion... arguing it's circular logic is supportable, but I fail to see how a circular argument could possible be unsubstantiated or faith based. Irrelevant, pointless, many other things, but unsubstantiated or faith based? That seems just odd.

Quote:

This seems to re-enforce the notion that Materialism is Faith Based.

chuckle As you wish it. I have faith that nothing will change your mind.

Quote:

That's okay, because that's pretty much what we get from professional philosophers, too. For millennia. I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

I rather suspect it's the play that's the thing. "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett had some wonderful images of philosophers (and gods, for that matter). I happily recommend it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aoidoi
[b]I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning, but you can make of it what you will.

I had this thought a while back, and it seems fairly simple... if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena

What about what we cannot see of reality?

Quote:

... anything that is observable is natural. There might be unexplained events, possibly even unexplainable events, but they're still part of reality and thus natural.

No, not ncessarily. Suppose we perceive events which cannot be described by physical laws? These would surely be "supernatural" by definition.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Odd, the last person to accuse me of insanity was Franko. (Assuming I'm parsing your sentence right... it's a bit unclear to which assertion you refer, mine or yours).


Yup. Why make things harder than they are?
An unsubstantiated and faith based definition? Methinks that an odd assertion... arguing it's circular logic is supportable, but I fail to see how a circular argument could possible be unsubstantiated or faith based. Irrelevant, pointless, many other things, but unsubstantiated or faith based? That seems just odd.

That is quite a magic computer you have there. With it, you can write one gratuitous assertion after the other and then pretent that you've said something meaningful.

Love,
Socrates

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Socrates


Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accepted in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

Love,
Socrates

It's even better than that.

That is, if anything effects, or affects, the physical world it's also physical. Ergo, dualism of any sort is logically impossible; hi, welcome to idealism!

[Aoidoi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What about what we cannot see of reality?

I dunno, I have no experience with that.

Quote:

No, not ncessarily. Suppose we perceive events which cannot be described by physical laws? These would surely be "supernatural" by definition.

Well, putting aside my definition for a moment (it is a bit of tautology, after all), how would an observer know whether what he perceives is explainable by physical laws? Without a thorough grasp of aeronautical design it is rather counterintuitive that something as massive as a 747 would fly, yet we see that all the time. How can you differentiate between the supernatural and a natural but not yet understood physical law?

Quote:

That is quite a magic computer you have there. With it, you can write one gratuitous assertion after the other and then pretent that you've said something meaningful.

The joy of computers is that they give every idiot who has one access to an audience.

Quote:

It's even better than that.

That is, if anything effects, or affects, the physical world it's also physical. Ergo, dualism of any sort is logically impossible; hi, welcome to idealism!

I'm not sure how you got to idealism, but if one confines discussion to only the physical world and that which interacts with it then you're rather confined to materialism by default. If we can only observe the physical, all else is speculation.

I'm perfectly willing to be shown the errors of this philosophy, but I haven't seen much in the way of a counterargument here. Perhaps I am unable to observe it...

[Yahzi]

Imaginist
Materialism is not based on faith, unless you first define faith to mean something other than faith.

Materialism is based on Reason. Reason is based on Logic. Logic is hard wired into our brains in such a way that we cannot function without it, let alone doubt it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi
Imaginist
Materialism is not based on faith, unless you first define faith to mean something other than faith.

Materialism is based on Reason. Reason is based on Logic. Logic is hard wired into our brains in such a way that we cannot function without it, let alone doubt it.

Yahzi,

We've already been over the definition of faith. I'm using it in a perfectly legitimate way; check the dictionary if you must. If you and others want to confine the word to connotations about beliefs in a deity, that's a personal issue that has nothing to do with my thesis. However, if you are arguing as a materialist, then you are helping to demonstrate that the same kinds of inflexibility and systems of denial are practiced among some materialists as those observed among some religious people.

As for logic being beyond doubt, that's problematic. One's logic can be perfect, but if it is based upon false premises, then the outcome is false.

I would counter that reason and logic are not themselves the source of our knowledge, but rather means by which we derive understandings from our experiences, thus experience itself has a more primary role in knowledge. It follows, logically, that our assumptions about what and how we experience anything are the keys to our understandings.

My materialist friends are showing that materialism begins with the assumption that the only things that are real are things that (a) can be experienced with the five senses, and (b) for which there is some consensus among others that they too can sense them in *approximately* the same way.

I would think that a rational and logical person would see that this raises all sorts of problems. Here are two:

1. You observe something that nobody else did. According to the materialist assumptions (as I have observed them), whatever you experienced has no validity to anyone but you (unless, of course, they have faith in your perceptions as an individual).

2. Your internal experiences - like thoughts and feelings - must fall into the category of observations in the previous point.

That's enough for now.