Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Yrth]

In your mind - when you say that the word "universe" reflects "All is one".... do you include the inner living experience .. consciousness, etc... as being part of the "universe". I ask that question because, curiously enough, the clockwork universe seems to exclude it (or boil it down to a side-effect of material causes). That is why so many people find strict reductionism so unsatisfying.

 

When you include consciousness/the-experience-of-experience/what-have-you as 'part of the universe,' are you suggesting that it is a material 'part'? I'm wondering what you mean by 'part of the universe.'

 

Unless someone could point to a part of the thread I missed, has anyone defined reductionism and materialism for this thread? Its my understanding that reductionism corresponds to the idea of the 'clockwork universe,' but that materialism is simply the idea that the material is all there is, or at least that the material is the only thing on which we may make rational claims.

 

There was something else from earlier that I wanted to bring up too.. I'll get it soon.

 

Btw, hello :]

[Shyone]

In your mind - when you say that the word "universe" reflects "All is one".... do you include the inner living experience .. consciousness, etc... as being part of the "universe". I ask that question because, curiously enough, the clockwork universe seems to exclude it (or boil it down to a side-effect of material causes). That is why so many people find strict reductionism so unsatisfying.

 

When you include consciousness/the-experience-of-experience/what-have-you as 'part of the universe,' are you suggesting that it is a material 'part'? I'm wondering what you mean by 'part of the universe.'

 

Unless someone could point to a part of the thread I missed, has anyone defined reductionism and materialism for this thread? Its my understanding that reductionism corresponds to the idea of the 'clockwork universe,' but that materialism is simply the idea that the material is all there is, or at least that the material is the only thing on which we may make rational claims.

 

There was something else from earlier that I wanted to bring up too.. I'll get it soon.

 

Btw, hello :]

You will probably get more than one definition of each of those, but the best definition of reductionism was given by AntlerMan (I think). I can't figure out how to tell you which post, but basically he defined the term with two definitions - one "scientific" and one philosophical.

 

Materialism is easier for me because it is my impression that at the level which we experience things (as opposed to quantum or subatomic), there are demonstrable and detectable materials (matter and energy basically) that comprise the universe. Everything else is dependent on those for its existence.

 

There are, therefore, no spirits, ghosts, souls, gods, demons, angels or other immaterial intelligent beings, because intelligence, in every thing we have ever observed and in everything we know, depends upon specific organizations of matter and energy.

 

The question of a material based intelligence on a scale that we cannot appreciate or understand with our present means of detection remains open for many, but on the basis of probability and observation of large and small scale matter, so extremely unlikely as to be not worth considering (similar to how many of us view god).

 

Definitions of things like "alive" and "intelligent" become important, because if you say the Earth is "alive" in a sense different from having living things or dumb geologic processses then you must be able to define and/or demonstrate that this intelligence is meaningful and not just mindless spiritual blather.

[Open_Minded]

Well maybe, just maybe, the machine metaphor in biology is a disaster.

 

How’s that for a segue way back to the topic?

 

You know Legion ...

 

I'm lucky enough to be a part of a community that regularly gathers around a campfire. Every Saturday night, as long as the weather allows, we gather. We bring our lawn chairs and the makings for s'mores. If we're not too busy during the day we may even bake some goodies for the gathering. And... we gather to connect. We talk about all kinds of things. Ocassionally conversation winds down a little bit - but we don't want to leave as the night is still young. So... someone gets up and finds a few good logs that will burn well and throws them on the fire. That one act always seems to get the conversation going again.

 

You may have found a great log to throw in the fire. I think you're right. The machine metaphor in biology IS a disaster. That got me thinking..... about a lot of things...

 

Firstly it got me thinking about other metaphors and so I went searching for just the right log and found a piece about David Bohm. Bohm is : http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

 

The death of David Bohm on 27 October 1992 is a great loss not only for the physics community but for all those interested in the philosophical implications of modern science. David Bohm was one of the most distinguished theoretical physicists of his generation, and a fearless challenger of scientific orthodoxy. His interests and influence extended far beyond physics and embraced biology, psychology, philosophy, religion, art, and the future of society. Underlying his innovative approach to many different issues was the fundamental idea that beyond the visible, tangible world there lies a deeper, implicate order of undivided wholeness.

 

Bohm used some metaphors himself ... they follow:

 

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances.

We must learn to view everything as part of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement." (Ibid., p. 11.)

 

Another metaphor Bohm uses to illustrate the implicate order is that of the hologram. To make a hologram a laser light is split into two beams, one of which is reflected off an object onto a photographic plate where it interferes with the second beam. The complex swirls of the interference pattern recorded on the photographic plate appear meaningless and disordered to the naked eye. But like the ink drop dispersed in the glycerin, the pattern possesses a hidden or enfolded order, for when illuminated with laser light it produces a three-dimensional image of the original object, which can be viewed from any angle. A remarkable feature of a hologram is that if a holographic film is cut into pieces, each piece produces an image of the whole object, though the smaller the piece the hazier the image. Clearly the form and structure of the entire object are encoded within each region of the photographic record.

 

Bohm suggests that the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. The explicate order is a projection from higher dimensional levels of reality, and the apparent stability and solidity of the objects and entities composing it are generated and sustained by a ceaseless process of enfoldment and unfoldment, for subatomic particles are constantly dissolving into the implicate order and then recrystallizing.

 

And there is more...

Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter

, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain "could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one...

 

I also went searching for another log and found the following. I hope you all enjoy it... I won't be able to be on board very much this weekend as I will be traveling. But... I trust that all of you will keep the home fires burning until I get back.

 

Have fun digesting this piece. I look foward to everyone's thoughts...: http://www.heartsongproject.org/_articles/S11_Sahtouris_SevenReasonsWhyIRemainAnOptimist_lr.pdf

Internationally renowned evolution biologist Elisabet Sahtouris has spent the better part of her life observing intelligence at play in the biological world. As an author, professor, and consultant, she advocates for a shift in the Western scientific worldview that would acknowledge the centrality of consciousness in an evolving cosmos. We invited Dr. Sahtouris to share what she thinks the future holds for us in the face of a growing number of global crises. Her response may surprise you.

 

In Peace - O_M

[Deva]

Here is a good Bohm quote:

 

In considering the relationship between the finite and the infinite, we are let to observe that the whole field of the finite is inherently limited, in that it has no independent existence. It has the appearance of independent existence, but that appearance is merely the result of an abstraction of our thought. We can see this dependent nature of the finite from the fact that every finite thing is transient.

 

Our ordinary view holds that the field of the finite is all that there is. But if the finite has no independent existence, it cannot be all that is. We are in this way led to propose that the true ground of all being is the infinite, the unlimited; and that the infinite includes and contains the finite. In this view, the finite, with its transient nature, can only be understood as held suspended, as it were, beyond time and space, within the infinite.

 

The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is “wind, or breath”. This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit, and this is never born and never dies.

 

David Bohm - 1987

[Rev R]

And I agree with the "All is One."

I favour "not one, not two" as being more accurate.

 

That has been my mindset for quite some time, but I don't think the label "God" is accurate for what All That Is. God is an overused cliche, with too many meanings, and too few right ones. It's better to not use it at all.

Agreed. There is a lot of baggage associated with the word "God" through the misuse of the spirit of what the word is trying to express, or at least the spirit of what is trying to be expressed when in the hands of certain folks. Knowing my own mind, I can see the resistance when the word is used. Part of my brain shuts off.

 

A while back we had a rather passionate discussion in which AM expressed that we should "take it back". Even now that I've had more time to reflect on that statement, I still feel the word is too weighted in the wrong direction. Those who get it don't need the word "God". For those who would benefit from it, it's a case of too much finger and not enough moon.

[Antlerman]

Unless someone could point to a part of the thread I missed, has anyone defined reductionism and materialism for this thread? Its my understanding that reductionism corresponds to the idea of the 'clockwork universe,' but that materialism is simply the idea that the material is all there is, or at least that the material is the only thing on which we may make rational claims.

 

There was something else from earlier that I wanted to bring up too.. I'll get it soon.

 

Btw, hello :]

You will probably get more than one definition of each of those, but the best definition of reductionism was given by AntlerMan (I think). I can't figure out how to tell you which post, but basically he defined the term with two definitions - one "scientific" and one philosophical.

Yes, the link is here

 

Materialism is easier for me because it is my impression that at the level which we experience things (as opposed to quantum or subatomic), there are demonstrable and detectable materials (matter and energy basically) that comprise the universe. Everything else is dependent on those for its existence.

It was interesting to hear your word choice saying 'materialism is easier for me.' I say that because it registered for me with how I used to think. Easier was the operative word. It was easier for me because it really help me to set aside all that superstitious, mythological, god stuff that always tried to inject itself into our understanding, not allowing me the freedom to come to my own conclusions. This is where reductionism is a positive. It puts everything on the table so we can advance in understanding and consequently grow, rather than getting stuck somewhere because of not wanting to touch our sacred cows.

 

But because we are human, we create sacred cows and replace one for another. To adhere to materialism in such a way as nothing is allowed to step outside that, is no different than the mythic-system not allowing itself to see the natural world outside that worldview. Evidence in both systems was used, and influenced in ways that changed its ability to communicate outside that worldview. The language creates the boundaries. Just as it did in myth systems.

 

There are, therefore, no spirits, ghosts, souls, gods, demons, angels or other immaterial intelligent beings, because intelligence, in every thing we have ever observed and in everything we know, depends upon specific organizations of matter and energy.

Or, intelligence in everything we have been able to observe exhibits itself, or manifests itself, in measurable ways within specific organizations of matter and energy. For one thing, the fact that what we look at is the material aspects of it, this self-reinforcing conclusion should be of hardly any surprise. The tools don't look into the interior, until you step over into the world of the 'soft sciences', like psychology, sociology, and the like.

 

That you can see intelligence in matter is hardly a violation of it not being a result of matter. What are you measuring, but matter?

 

It occurred to me this morning as I read this, that what materialism really is, is reverse Solipsism, that mind is all, that the material world outside cannot be known and therefore may not or doesn't exist. Materialism says, the material world is all that can be known, and so therefore no spirit world can exist. Neither of these can rightly be called a conclusion of science.

 

Non-duality. Both of the above start with a dualistic viewpoint. Non-duality would say that all is one. That the spiritual and material are parts of the whole. The interior and exterior of it. The problem with the more holistic systems, such as dynamic systems theory, etc is that even though they see the universe as interconnected wholes (each whole is a part of another whole, which is part of another whole, and all form a web) is that this is all surfaces, taking the interior and flattening it to the exterior in order to talk about it as an objective thing. The subjective becomes the objective, and becomes the whole - flattened.

 

So in non-duality, then interior and the exterior become fused into a complete, each aspect being a world of reality in itself and parts of each other. And each of this interior/exterior wholes are part of other interior/exterior wholes, and so on forming an infinite web of interconnect interior/exterior wholes. And what is at the ground of this? Where is the singularity of the interior? And what is the interior of the Big Bang itself?

 

The question of a material based intelligence on a scale that we cannot appreciate or understand with our present means of detection remains open for many, but on the basis of probability and observation of large and small scale matter, so extremely unlikely as to be not worth considering (similar to how many of us view god).

There is a commonality of experience of this interior world that has been/is observed by many, each independently confirming others observations through individual experimentation. There are observed, and measurable states of consciousness which EEG can measure the exterior responses of, but not say anything of the internal reality of. That commonality of experience and result occurs among those of various cultures, it would be interesting to say that that doesn't count because it is subjectively experienced. That that isn't not real science, and therefore doesn't count. I see that conclusion leading to an interesting discussion.

 

Definitions of things like "alive" and "intelligent" become important, because if you say the Earth is "alive" in a sense different from having living things or dumb geologic processses then you must be able to define and/or demonstrate that this intelligence is meaningful and not just mindless spiritual blather.

Now we a getting to something. Indeed, language defining the boundaries, the limits of perception and understanding. Saying consciousness only means human-like self awareness, of course will set you up to exclude anything that doesn't look like it, and therefore your evidence will confirm you were right.

 

The concept of Earth as Gaia is a valid concept. But no one would suggest it thinks like a person thinks. What is the next step for science?

[Ouroboros]

A while back we had a rather passionate discussion in which AM expressed that we should "take it back". Even now that I've had more time to reflect on that statement, I still feel the word is too weighted in the wrong direction.

Yes, it has too much baggage basically. It means too much and too little, and if we say "God" people immediately jump to their internal image of what they mean, instead of trying to find out what you mean.

 

Those who get it don't need the word "God".

Exactly. I think that's the point I've come to too. It's not about God or not-God anymore to understand the world. Everything that exists is God, and our experience and awareness of the world is the Spirit, and we are the Sons and Daughters of God. That's the trinity.

[Legion]

The tools don't look into the interior, until you step over into the world of the 'soft sciences', like psychology, sociology, and the like.

I have become much more open to the soft sciences as I’ve matured. In my youth I may have been more likely to proclaim that physics is everything. But now sociology, for instance, would hold a greater interest for me because I think it is inherently richer. Softer but richer. I’ve heard someone assert that the tensions between soft and hard sciences finds its roots in disagreements about the nature of entailment itself. Maybe there has been a shift in my notion of entailment.

 

Non-duality.

Sorry to repeat myself, but again let me stress something here. I think science is built on a number of dualities in its underlying philosophy. The first one asserts that there is a subjective self and an objective ambience. The second one asserts that in our ambience we can discern natural systems and their environments. I think even soft sciences adhere to this. If I asked a sociologist what natural systems she studies, I would fully expect her to offer me some means for distinguishing societies.

 

Problems may begin to enter when attempt to describe natural systems in terms of states however. I doubt that most sociologists would attempt assign a state space to a society.

 

There is a commonality of experience of this interior world that has been/is observed by many,...

I think this is great. And I fully agree with it. But again it’s not science in my opinion. I see science as one means of trying to understand the natural world, one method for bridging the self with non-self. I think there is tremendous value in self-reflection and exploration, but when we do it we’re not doing science. And that’s fine. There’s lots of cool things to do besides science.

[Antlerman]

A while back we had a rather passionate discussion in which AM expressed that we should "take it back". Even now that I've had more time to reflect on that statement, I still feel the word is too weighted in the wrong direction.

Yes, it has too much baggage basically. It means too much and too little, and if we say "God" people immediately jump to their internal image of what they mean, instead of trying to find out what you mean.

It's a matter of context. When I spoke of reclaiming the language I meant for yourself, not to take it from them so they can't use it anymore. If it works for you to use it to express something on that high of a level, then it should be fine to use the term and not mean it in the mythic-god sense which understands it simplistically, like a teenager would speak of love and have no range or experience of life to understand that word on a far deeper level. I think to let the teenager's use of love, being that of shallow infatuation, deny an adult the use of the word because of its 'cliche' overuse, is to give way too much power to the teens.

 

In a certain community of adults, I can speak of God and there be no confusion whatsoever as to what that means. But to speak of "God" to an Evangelical in those terms and that level without extensive qualification (which would still not communicate anyway because of their lack of depth yet), is probably preferable to avoid if it creates communication problems. But I see no problem using it with a community who has more awareness of its more subtle, philosophical, and spiritual meanings. Philosophers speak of God quite often and do not mean the mythic-deities who rule from the clouds demanding blood sacrifices.

 

But to qualify that statement as well, not all within those mythic-religious systems think in literal terms, but a few pursue the mystic traditions of many religions which transcend the literal meanings. There use of the symbols is not literal, and "God" to them means something far more existential than anything else. I respect OM as one of those who transcend the norm to the level that ingrates All within the ONE without being overcome by the system itself.

 

Those who get it don't need the word "God".

Exactly. I think that's the point I've come to too. It's not about God or not-God anymore to understand the world. Everything that exists is God, and our experience and awareness of the world is the Spirit, and we are the Sons and Daughters of God. That's the trinity.

I've come to the place that I feel that some other word besides Nature or Universe is needed. I would not say that "Everything that exists is God." That a straight ahead pantheism, or animism. It would say that the tree is God, that God exists in the Tree. Rather, I would say that the tree is the tree, the rock is the rock, and each is an individual whole, interconnected within a greater whole to the point of infinity, and that each of these are manifest expressions of "God".

 

As such, the Expression of God speaks to its nature, but it is not tree, rock, or the material universe itself. This is looking at, perceiving, and experiencing the external, material universe through the internal world. Expression of X. It is holding the expression and the expressed as One. Not simply a unified chain of external material oneness, but a unity of matter and spirit in the Source.

[Antlerman]

I think even soft sciences adhere to this. If I asked a sociologist what natural systems she studies, I would fully expect her to offer me some means for distinguishing societies.

OMG, this is too funny! You shifted your gender use of the 3rd person "he" to the feminine "she" in referring to the a hypothetical person of the soft sciences!

 

God, we are such products of our culture.

 

(Of course the preferable way is to say 'they', but that you jumped to 'she' instead seemed interesting).

[Legion]

I think even soft sciences adhere to this. If I asked a sociologist what natural systems she studies, I would fully expect her to offer me some means for distinguishing societies.

OMG, this is too funny! You shifted your gender use of the 3rd person "he" to the feminine "she" in referring to the a hypothetical person of the soft sciences!

 

God, we are such products of our culture.

Is that all you have to say about my last post?

[Antlerman]

I think even soft sciences adhere to this. If I asked a sociologist what natural systems she studies, I would fully expect her to offer me some means for distinguishing societies.

OMG, this is too funny! You shifted your gender use of the 3rd person "he" to the feminine "she" in referring to the a hypothetical person of the soft sciences!

 

God, we are such products of our culture.

Is that all you have to say about my last post?

No. It's all I had time for. I am planning to talk to the finer points. That's was just too funny to not comment on. I'll respond later. I am at work, you know...

[Guest Davka]

This is an absolutely fascinating point, and one I had completely forgotten about while reading speculation that the Universe is "holographic" in nature:

 

A remarkable feature of a hologram is that if a holographic film is cut into pieces, each piece produces an image of the whole object, though the smaller the piece the hazier the image. Clearly the form and structure of the entire object are encoded within each region of the photographic record.

 

As I understand it, the holographic Universe concept can be summarized thusly:

 

- Just as energy cannot be created or destroyed, so information cannot be created or destroyed. The information about a chair is contained in that chair, and although it can change form, it will always exist in one form or another.

 

- The information about any 3D object can be said to be contained in that object. But it would appear that a 3D object is not the smallest possible "container" for that information, because

 

- When matter reaches the surface of a black hole, it is compacted so tightly that the very subatomic particles cease to exist as subatomic particles. For all intents and purposes, we can say that is it completely "flattened" to a 2D representation of itself. Therefore,

 

- Since all of the information about the Universe can apparently be contained in a 2D "allegory" of the Universe, it is quite possible that we we perceive as the 3D Universe is, in reality, a "projection" of sorts - a holographic picture of an underlying 2D reality.

 

This is mind-blowing all by itself. But if it is true - if the Universe really is analogous to a holographic projection - then it should also be true that every single part of the underlying 2D holographic "film" contains an image of the whole.

 

This would explain the fact that existential contemplative experiences tend to have a common thread running through them at what I would call the level of the Tao. The ONE-ness experienced by contemplatives of all faiths sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.

 

Just for fun, I will add this tidbit: When I used to take lots of LSD, I saw a whole lot of interesting hallucinations. But common to every trip was the following: a "holographic" projection of a complex multicolored pattern on the surface of every object. If the object was metal, then the irregularities in the metal's surface would conform to this pattern. Ditto for concrete, brick, or any other rough surface. Smooth surface simply had the pattern projected on the surface - or, rather, in the surface.

 

The pattern looked like a very complicated maze - lots of right angles, and fractal in nature. A couple of times I tried tracing these patterns on a piece of paper, and the people who were tripping with me reported that I was tracing what they saw as well. They would then take the pencil and trace the patterns too - the same patterns I was seeing.

 

Hmm...

[Legion]

No. It's all I had time for. I am planning to talk to the finer points. That's was just too funny to not comment on. I'll respond later. I am at work, you know...

Oh okay cool. I hope your day is going smoothly.

[NotBlinded]

The answer is very simple. The ONE.

 

or.. God's God. Godhead. Self. Ocean. Source. Summit. Ground. I-I.

 

"God" would work for the manifestation of the ONE. Of course that what John's Logos was, before the Church turned it into some baby pablum, that was more a pray to some god-on-a-stick figure than anything inspiring. But the essential concept, borrowed from the Greeks, was that of manifesting godhead. I'm actually surprised they kept John in the Bible... but I'm sidetracking now.

Exactly my point. Metaphors are good!

 

It may go back even farther to the Egyptians and Heraclitus:

 

Taking account the Egyptian hermetic writings, "probably the earliest antecedent to the idea of the Logos came from...Hericlitus." His conceptual universe was one that constantly changed, a universe in constant motion propelled by all-pervading Reason, which Heraclitus likened to divine fire or energy.

 

...

 

Sanford stresses that the concept of the Logos was most fully expressed by the Stoic philosophers. Stoicism believed the Universe to consist of two kinds of matter: a gross or coarse matter; and an extremely fine matter, which is virtually indistinguishable from the idea of spirit. The material, created order is thus pervaded with the spiritual substance, but it is also pervaded with a vital element--like the energetic fire of Heraclitus--that shaped, harmonized, and interpenetrated all things.

The Logos Continuum: Ancient Meaning

 

I think it's on topic, but as O_M knows, I'm in a hurry to get to the ocean! I'll try to put my flip-flops down and wait awhile.

[Legion]

Metaphors are good!

Gracious NotBlinded, I find myself disagreeing with the reductionists and mystics alike. I feel like a beleaguered minority of one.

 

I believe some metaphors can be extremely illuminating and some of them can be very deceptive.

[Rev R]

 

I'd like to give this a think over and get back with you on it, but I don't know if it will stray too far off topic. A spin off perhaps?

[NotBlinded]

Metaphors are good!

Gracious NotBlinded, I find myself disagreeing with the reductionists and mystics alike. I feel like a beleaguered minority of one.

 

I believe some metaphors can be extremely illuminating and some of them can be very deceptive.

Legion, heaven knows (well, you know what I mean ) there are some uses of metaphors that can be very deceptive when in the wrong hands or taken literally.

 

A very damaging one that I know is "Son of God". That one was used deceptively and literally, yet it wasn't what was meant intially. It was like saying, "Son of a bitch" or "Son of a donkey" or "Son of Satan". This only has to do with the nature of the individual. Jesus was of the nature of God. That's all it meant...that's all he meant or he would have never made the reference to Isaiah to where others were called "Sons of God".

 

This is where it's hard to place blame on anyone because the ordinary people may have understood that, but the ones that had a certain mindset thought to take it literally.

 

I understand that they can be used in a horrible manner and they can be misunderstood. You are not alone Legion and I'm sorry that it appeared as if I was saying they were good all the time. I like your insights.

[NotBlinded]

 

I'd like to give this a think over and get back with you on it, but I don't know if it will stray too far off topic. A spin off perhaps?

(psssttt...it's nice to see you posting!)

 

Shhh...no one will notice I stuck this in here (it's a little off-topic) .

[Antlerman]

 

I'd like to give this a think over and get back with you on it, but I don't know if it will stray too far off topic. A spin off perhaps?

Sure, I appreciate it. I don't see a problem it being a couple brief, related sub discussion points, but anything that seems it would get pretty involved in a lot of back and forths, we may consider a separate topic. It's better to keep the focus on the main point.

[Yrth]

It was interesting to hear your word choice saying 'materialism is easier for me.' I say that because it registered for me with how I used to think. Easier was the operative word. It was easier for me because it really help me to set aside all that superstitious, mythological, god stuff that always tried to inject itself into our understanding, not allowing me the freedom to come to my own conclusions. This is where reductionism is a positive. It puts everything on the table so we can advance in understanding and consequently grow, rather than getting stuck somewhere because of not wanting to touch our sacred cows.

 

But because we are human, we create sacred cows and replace one for another. To adhere to materialism in such a way as nothing is allowed to step outside that, is no different than the mythic-system not allowing itself to see the natural world outside that worldview. Evidence in both systems was used, and influenced in ways that changed its ability to communicate outside that worldview. The language creates the boundaries. Just as it did in myth systems.

 

I have the feeling I'm getting lost here, so please bear with me if it looks like I'm not getting it. :/

 

"we create sacred cows and replace one for another." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that people may hold to materialism in a pseudo-religious way, where evidence or theories that deviate from the paradigm are ruled out on principle rather than on the merits. And, more, that it is in error to think that way because the boundaries it creates bar it from possible progress (that is, truth) outside the worldview.

 

But I believe Kuhn wrote that it is impossible to operate within a paradigm in any other way, that one can't just go around doing the work of the paradigm while challenging the paradigm's structure. This is another reason why its difficult to think your way out of a religion within a short period of time. Someone may point out that the God of Hell is a horrible moral character, and the normal response is to attempt to square that with the paradigm or to shelve it until you are able to do it later, perhaps with more study or newly discovered old text or something. So I don't see this way of thinking as something inherently religious, but just as something inherent to a view. What is the alternative?

 

And what is the problem with the current paradigm that people are allegedly shelving or ignoring? 'The spiritual world' is an exhausted idea with fundamental problems. I don't see that materialism excludes things as much as it includes everything. And while materialist worldview is not a necessary conclusion of science, it is the philosophical fabric of empiricism. They may not take it home, but they definitely wear it to work.

[NotBlinded]

But I believe Kuhn wrote that it is impossible to operate within a paradigm in any other way, that one can't just go around doing the work of the paradigm while challenging the paradigm's structure. This is another reason why its difficult to think your way out of a religion within a short period of time. Someone may point out that the God of Hell is a horrible moral character, and the normal response is to attempt to square that with the paradigm or to shelve it until you are able to do it later, perhaps with more study or newly discovered old text or something. So I don't see this way of thinking as something inherently religious, but just as something inherent to a view. What is the alternative?

 

And what is the problem with the current paradigm that people are allegedly shelving or ignoring? 'The spiritual world' is an exhausted idea with fundamental problems. I don't see that materialism excludes things as much as it includes everything. And while materialist worldview is not a necessary conclusion of science, it is the philosophical fabric of empiricism. They may not take it home, but they definitely wear it to work.

I'm butting in here a litte just to say that I don't as much disagree with you as I want to say the paradigm itself needs to shift. Kuhn himself understood this:

 

... each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent .. no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines .. (T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962)

 

The problem is getting locked into this paradigm and not allowing any shifts or information that may be helpful to enter.

 

Here Kuhn mentions the problem:

 

All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. .. Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance. (Kuhn, 1962)

 

It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers. (Kuhn, 1962)

 

I think the more we realize that materialism itself isn't going to solve the entire problem other philosohpies can be brought in to understand it better. This isn't a rejection of the material, it's just something else needs to be added to it even if it is unseen.

[Open_Minded]

'The spiritual world' is an exhausted idea with fundamental problems.

Hmmm.....

The spiritual world (as so many have pointed out) has different meanings to different people. It is subjective, and by definition, it can only be "known" internally. So... it may be an "exhausted idea" for you. But, clearly, the "spiritual world" still carries a lot of weight with a lot of people.

 

I don't see that materialism excludes things as much as it includes everything.

If it truly did "include everything", then no one would have a problem with materialism. The fact that so many folks repell at rigid materialism, is that in their gut they don't feel that it includes everything. They feel that it leaves much to be desired, quite frankly, or they wouldn't reject it.

 

To be clear hear, I am not talking about valid scientific approaches that come out of materialism, I am talking about a rigid and unforgiving materialism that says there is no answer outside of, or in addition to materialism.

 

And while materialist worldview is not a necessary conclusion of science, it is the philosophical fabric of empiricism. They may not take it home, but they definitely wear it to work.

As they should, but when empirical evidence shows kind of results such as were found in the study which this thread grew from, then we have reason to review our current paradigm. Isn't that what science is all about, when evidence shows us something contrary to our current paradigm, we rethink the paradigm. The empirical evidence carries the day, it pushes us out of our comfort zones????

 

And what is the problem with the current paradigm that people are allegedly shelving or ignoring?

 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the whole of materialism, reductionism, etc... be shelved. That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is possible to discover much about nature by using reductionist methods. But... we shouldn't get caught up in the trap that reductionism tells the whole story.

 

But to your question... There are many problems with the current paradigm

 

• It is a paradigm embraced by the west, not the whole world. Eastern cultures have a more holistic view of reality than western cultures.
  
• Even in the west, rigid materialism leaves hundreds of thousands of people feeling a void or emptiness in their lives. I really believe the reason we see so much religious fundamentalism in Christianity (the religion of western cultures) is because people use it to feel a void left by fundamentalist materialism.
  
• A fundamentalist materialist view of evolution is a recipe for conflict and war (survival of the fittest taken to extremes.
  
• A fundamentalist materialist view of the world is a recipe for raping the world's resources - again "survival of the fittest taken to extremes".
  

 

As I've said before, in this thread, there is fundamentalism and extremism on both sides. You don't have to convince me that extremism in religion is responsible for leaving people feeling a void or emptiness in their lives, I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware of all the wars and violence in the name of religion. And it isn't beyond me that extremists within the religious circle are quite happy to ignore scientific data in regards to the earth's health.

 

That is my point, extremism - black/white views of reality - are unhealthy. And rigid, fundamentalist, extremist materialism is just as damaging to humanity and this earth as rigid, fundamentalist, extremist religion.

 

What I've enjoyed so much about this conversation is that we've done the work of finding common ground, and the reason we've been able to find this common ground is that we have all been willing to get outside our current paradigms. That is a good thing. The day any human gets so caught up in their own world view that they cannot - or will not - give any other point of view validity is the day that person becomes dangerous.

 

As I've said from the beginning, many sincere, talented and well qualified scientists are questioning the 300 year-old clock-work paradigm. Last night I posted a link to an article written by just such a scientist. She had much to say about what is wrong with the current paradigm. I'll quote it below. http://www.heartsongproject.org/_articles/S11_Sahtouris_SevenReasonsWhyIRemainAnOptimist_lr.pdf

 

Elisabet Sahtouris has spent the better part of her life observing intelligence at play in the biological world. As an author, professor, and consultant, she advocates for a shift in the Western scientific worldview that would acknowledge the centrality of consciousness in an evolving cosmos. We invited Dr. Sahtouris to share what she thinks the future holds for us in the face of a growing number of global crises. Her response may surprise you.

 

The scientific creation story we’ve known,at its simplest, has come from physics and biology. Physics gave us a nonliving, accidental, purposeless, and meaningless universe, running down to its heat death by entropy, and biology doomed us to endless struggle in scarcity as nature’s way of evolution—and thus our own human nature. This soulless materialist science scenario must be the most depressing creation story ever told. Yet our culture has created our reality from it, practicing scientific opposition to religion, believing we must get what we can while we can (usually at someone else’s expense), building a now worldwide win/lose capitalist economy of cutthroat competition, and making material consumption the dominant lifestyle people have or aspire to have. What made us believe this story would lead to the glorious golden age envisioned by the founding fathers of science for more than a handful of people? It suggested exactly what we got: things running down, ravaged environments, failure to eliminate grinding poverty, the continued terror of warfare, and amazing technological things that blind most

of us to this overall picture.

 

I am in complete agreement with her. ... But... that's just me....

 

I think the more we realize that materialism itself isn't going to solve the entire problem other philosohpies can be brought in to understand it better. This isn't a rejection of the material, it's just something else needs to be added to it even if it is unseen.

 

NotBlinded.... ILTWYT (Do you remember what that means)

 

Well.... it's late.... I'm in a hotel room and exhausted from a 5 hour drive (where in the world is O_M ) So... I'm going to bed. You all have a good night and a wonderful weekend. Vacation will keep me away from the computer for long stretches, but I'll try to hop in here and there when I can.

 

In Peace: O_M

[Shyone]

 

But to your question... There are many problems with the current paradigm

 

• It is a paradigm embraced by the west, not the whole world. Eastern cultures have a more holistic view of reality than western cultures.
  
• Even in the west, rigid materialism leaves hundreds of thousands of people feeling a void or emptiness in their lives. I really believe the reason we see so much religious fundamentalism in Christianity (the religion of western cultures) is because people use it to feel a void left by fundamentalist materialism.
  
• A fundamentalist materialist view of evolution is a recipe for conflict and war (survival of the fittest taken to extremes.
  
• A fundamentalist materialist view of the world is a recipe for raping the world's resources - again "survival of the fittest taken to extremes".
  

In Peace: O_M

There is a problem with your list.

 

Granted #1, but that doesn't mean one is right or wrong.

I do not grant #2 which makes an emotional claim that I don't think is true or verifiable. It sounds like projection and reeks of "Atheists are materialists, and atheists are miserable. Only Christians are fulfilled and happy happy happy!!!!!"

I do not grant #3 which again is projection. Social Darwinism is NOT evolution and has been discredited and is now only used by Christians opposed to evolution to show that materialist atheists are incapable of morality. Give us a friggin' break.

I do not grant #4. Atheists/materialists have every reason to conserve, and most ecologists are liberal. Those who believe that Man has dominion over the earth's resources and that the world is coming to and end "soon" with the Rapture have no regard for the environment. Likewise, those who think everything is spiritual, and there is no reality, are less likely to give a flip about what is real - the earth and our environment.

[Open_Minded]

Granted #1, but that doesn't mean one is right or wrong.

Nope - it's not right or wrong - but it should give us westerns reason to review our own world view. If our own world view were so valid, it would be universally embraced.

 

 

I do not grant #2 which makes an emotional claim that I don't think is true or verifiable. It sounds like projection and reeks of "Atheists are materialists, and atheists are miserable. Only Christians are fulfilled and happy happy happy!!!!!"

Did you read my WHOLE post where I acknowledged that extremist religion also leaves people feeling a void in their lives???? My statement had nothing to do with "Only Christians are fulfilled and happy"... So please don't read into it. My statement may be a subjective point of view, but I stand by it. If rigid materialism was a valid world-view, it would be embraced universally. The simple fact that so many people reject should give those who abide by fundamentalist materialism pause.... if they were right it would be self-evident and the rest of us would be hopping on board.

 

 

I do not grant #3 which again is projection. Social Darwinism is NOT evolution and has been discredited and is now only used by Christians opposed to evolution to show that materialist atheists are incapable of morality. Give us a friggin' break.

You don't grant that the materialistic world-view leads to war????... then please explain the wars faught over natural resources - like oil? You don't think that boils down to greed and survival of the fittest? I'm not talking about the way you view it. I'm talking about our western "winner take all" culture. Where do you think that attitude comes from? Sure humans are greedy - on a universal nature. We've been fighting over natural resources for the entirety of our history. But - don't you suppose it's just a tiny bit possible - that the reason materialism (fundamentalist, rigid materialism) is so popular in the West is because it's a convenient excuse for our own greed? And just to be clear, I'm not singling out Atheists and Agnostics here... I know many materialists who are also Christian. This is about materialsim taken to extreme. In the west, we invented the materialistic culture, we are consumerists and we are consuming the earth - very literally we are consuming the earth. It doesn't matter if we're Christian, or non-Christian, we're all part of the consumption, of the materialism. And our motto is "survival of the fittest". We have phrases like "it's a jungle out there", or "winner take all". Here in the U.S. we treat capitalism like it is a religion - it doesn't matter that the gap between the richest and poorist in this country is growing and the largest it's been in decades, it's capitalism, it's winner take all and survival of the fittest, and if you're on the bottom of the pile - well that's your problem. Where in any of that is there a statement about Atheists vs. Christians. We're all doing it - we all share the materialist world-view - that's the problem......

 

I do not grant #4. Atheists/materialists have every reason to conserve, and most ecologists are liberal. Those who believe that Man has dominion over the earth's resources and that the world is coming to and end "soon" with the Rapture have no regard for the environment. Likewise, those who think everything is spiritual, and there is no reality, are less likely to give a flip about what is real - the earth and our environment.

Again, you're reading into what I said. Did I ever say that (in my mind) materialism was equal to Atheists???? Show me a place I said that.

 

We are all part of the materialistic culture, all of us. And our country - is responsibile for a huge amount of the global weather crisis. Western industrialized and materialist nations can claim the lion's share of the responsibility in this area. And it boils down to a winner take all - survival of the fittest approach to life. We live in a rich nation, we can use the resources as we want... damn the consequences for the planet and for the rest of the people on this planet. We're the winners, they're the loosers.

 

Once again - you don't have to convince me that religion has contributed to all of this. I am bloody well aware of that. But.... it's high time that we acknowledged the role an unbending materialism plays in the whole damned mess as well.

 

___________________________

 

Please understand, I acknowledge there are valid scientific methods of research, and then there is projecting what is valid in the science laboratory into our social consciousness. For the last 300 years the western social consciousness has been infused "clock-work" view of the universe, in which the "fittest" are the survivors and the rest are left to their own resources. These are the failed analogies of science. You all spend so much time talking about the failed anologies of religion, when will you honestly look at the failed analogies of science??????

 

Legion hit the nail on the head when he said the "Clock-work universe" was a failed analogy - that is the whole point of this thread. Science is not without fault in the messes we humans find ourselves in and it's high-time we westerns - enthralled with the scientific paradigm - owned up to this. And please notice I said we westerners and NOT Atheists.