Materialism

[Wertbag]

Materialism, that is the belief that the universe as we see it is all there is, is where I find myself leaning these days.  In the past I would have said I'm agnostic to the ideas due to the many unknowns, but I think my credulity tank has completely run dry.  You can caveat the position as "functional materialist", that is agreeing that if sufficient evidence was provided that your worldview would change, and you will run your life as though materialism is true until such an event occurs.  I find that hair splitting, as any worldview should change under such circumstances, so I see no need to call out such things separately.

 

The problem with supernatural claims isn't just that they can't prove God exists, but that they can't prove any of the claims at all, from heaven, hell, miracles, angels, demons, magic...  there is no one able to teleport, move items with their mind, speak to the dead, start fires with a click of their fingers, read tarot cards, tea leaves or bones to tell the future.  There are no good claims of healing hands, healing crystals, or homeopathic junk.  Prayer doesn't work, and the religious are just as likely to suffer from accidents, disease and disaster.

There have been hundreds of TV shows from all around the world; ghost hunters using modern tech in the most haunted places and psychics being asked to solve murders.  From these hundreds of shows there has been zero ghosts recorded and zero murders solved.  It's definitely not a lack of trying that's holding them back...

 

We have ancient peoples attributing everything to supernatural agents, from disease, natural disasters, lightning, pregnancy, tides, the celestial objects and their movements, droughts and famines.  Thousands upon thousands of such claims and 100% of the time these things have been found to have natural causes.  If you were a gambler and someone tells you out of a thousand tests 100% have been natural, where would you bet your money on the next series of claims?  As the old saying goes "insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results".

 

Sure, I could be wrong, in fact I hope I am.  I would love for heaven to exist, for superpowers to be real and magic allows us to protect those we love.  But the USS Credulity has sunk with all hands lost, so now I'm forced to view all future claims from the perspective that they are bollocks until proven otherwise.  The religious have had thousands of years to come up with any solid evidence, they've been given ample opportunity to prove their case, and other than vague "Look at the trees" or secondhand inference, we have nothing that is convincing of any of the numerous claims.  This is in stark contrast to the claims of the bible, where many of God's prophets were able to perform magic on demand, and in the case of Elijah's test even call fire from the sky for the sole purpose of proving God's existence.  Yet no one, regardless of which religion or how devout they are, has ever been able to replicate such tests.

 

So, there are still things we don't know, and it is into these gaps that God is commonly pushed.  Where did the universe come from?  How did life come from non-life?  These fringes of our knowledge are the current refuge of the forever shrinking God.  Looking at the history of such claims, I can say I'm betting the answer is a natural cause.  We may not know what that cause currently is, but we will invariably travel this same road again back to the same answer it always is.   

[TABA]

Wertbag, there was a discussion of Materialism in a recent thread, mainly between @Joshpantera and @walterpthefirst  While it was very interesting and informative, it sadly ended with Josh stating he was leaving this community.  I persuaded him to not delete his account, because of all he has contributed to our cause over the years.  
 

The disagreement between two ex-christians, both self-described atheists, makes clear that it’s not necessarily a choice between embracing materialism or theism.  I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting.  We can effectively rule out theism while remaining agnostic about the nature of a godless universe.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I guess I've started to look at things from two different perspectives over the last couple of years.  On the one hand, materialism satisfactorily covers the things that we can definitely support with testable and repeatable evidence.  These are universal; and the testability and repeatability demonstrate their universality.  Their universality is what makes them "true."

 

But, on the other hand, there are things that we, as individuals may know to be "true", but that are not necessarily testable, repeatable, or universal.  I know that Ms. Professor loves me; but the evidence of her affections are exclusive to me.  I could test her; but I'd be a fool to do so repeatedly.  No one else can "know" her love in the same way I do; but that doesn't make it any less real or "true".

 

For both sides, a fair amount of skepticism is warranted, as is a high threshold for evidence.  A claim that Ms. Professor loves me, without the supporting evidence, is no different than the same claim concerning jesus.  Both can be considered as potential, or possible, pending evidence; but both should be treated as false until demonstrated otherwise.

 

That's just the way I see it.  Take it for what it's worth. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

Wertbag, there was a discussion of Materialism in a recent thread, mainly between @Joshpantera and @walterpthefirst  While it was very interesting and informative, it sadly ended with Josh stating he was leaving this community.  I persuaded him to not delete his account, because of all he has contributed to our cause over the years.  
 

The disagreement between two ex-christians, both self-described atheists, makes clear that it’s not necessarily a choice between embracing materialism or theism.  I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting.  We can effectively rule out theism while remaining agnostic about the nature of a godless universe.  

 

Yes, this was an unfortunate and an unlooked for outcome, TABA.

 

However, if one looks through that thread you'll see that Josh claimed that the only thing that is self-evidently true is our awareness of our own existence.  I did not dispute this.  But Josh went on to make other claims.  Since he declared that only our awareness of our own existence is self-evidently true, these other claims could therefore not be self-evidently true.  And when I called upon him to provide evidence for these other claims he refused to do so, claiming that my position was incoherent.

 

And then he left.  Very sad.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, TABA said:

Wertbag, there was a discussion of Materialism in a recent thread, mainly between @Joshpantera and @walterpthefirst  While it was very interesting and informative, it sadly ended with Josh stating he was leaving this community.  I persuaded him to not delete his account, because of all he has contributed to our cause over the years.  
 

The disagreement between two ex-christians, both self-described atheists, makes clear that it’s not necessarily a choice between embracing materialism or theism.  I don’t know if that’s what you are suggesting.  We can effectively rule out theism while remaining agnostic about the nature of a godless universe.  

Sad to hear Josh came to that conclusion, hes been a long term and well respected member of this community. Disagreements occur but shouldn't be enough by themselves to drive people away. Maybe more to it than I'm aware.

[Wertbag]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, on the other hand, there are things that we, as individuals may know to be "true", but that are not necessarily testable, repeatable, or universal.  I know that Ms. Professor loves me; but the evidence of her affections are exclusive to me.  I could test her; but I'd be a fool to do so repeatedly.  No one else can "know" her love in the same way I do; but that doesn't make it any less real or "true"

You do test that love every day in various ways, from her willingness to stay, the acts of affection, the long term commitment, the sharing of personal feelings and ideas. The shared life experience is a fair indication of love.

But more than that, love is a common and mundane claim. I can see a million people in love and compare experiences between them. Because of this i can say your claim is immediately plausible and of course can experience love first hand and compare your relationship to my own. Miracles are one time events, never seen before or after. There is nothing to compare to and no experience that any of us can have now that will parallel the claim. 

 

There is also the impact of such a claim. If i believe you have a loving relationship and am wrong, then i shrug my shoulders and move on. If I'm wrong about a supernatural claim then the entire universe as we know it changes, and all sorts of questions that demand answers are raised. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

You do test that love every day in various ways, from her willingness to stay, the acts of affection, the long term commitment, the sharing of personal feelings and ideas. The shared life experience is a fair indication of love.

But more than that, love is a common and mundane claim. I can see a million people in love and compare experiences between them. Because of this i can say your claim is immediately plausible and of course can experience love first hand and compare your relationship to my own. Miracles are one time events, never seen before or after. There is nothing to compare to and no experience that any of us can have now that will parallel the claim. 

 

There is also the impact of such a claim. If i believe you have a loving relationship and am wrong, then i shrug my shoulders and move on. If I'm wrong about a supernatural claim then the entire universe as we know it changes, and all sorts of questions that demand answers are raised. 

I suppose the distinction I was trying to make is that there is no physical evidence for her love like there is for more material things.  In fact the evidence for the claim is much the same as the claim that jesus loves me, with the major difference that her existence can be demonstrated. Sure, you and I might experience love and compare notes; but how would that be any different from two christians "experiencing" the love of jesus?  Same with millions of people who have experienced love.  Yet, somehow I know she loves me, even if I can't put it under the microscope or run it through a flow cytometer.  There are types of evidence; but the threshold simply can't be met in the more traditional, scientific way.

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yet, somehow I know she loves me, even if I can't put it under the microscope or run it through a flow cytometer. 

Exactly. And any "evidence" you present (acts of kindness, affection, fidelity, declarations, etc.) are subjective and cannot guarantee what she actually feels (thanks to the human ability to lie/deceive). Yet you just know.

I think Christians use the same line of thinking in "just knowing" their God is real. I would have no problem with that, if it weren't for the Bibliolatry that goes along with that line of thinking. Its one thing to "somehow know" there is a higher power, quite another to attribute the incoherent Bible as authored by that higher power.

[midniterider]

What I'm reading in the thread is if something coincides with my personal preference then "I just know it". 

 

But if it conflicts with my personal preference then I require rigorous peer-reviewed, replicated, consensus scientific research conclusions before I will accept it.

 

Edit: /sarcasm

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

That's not what I'm trying to say at all.  I'm simply saying that there are certain things that are "true" but that cannot be supported with empirical, scientific evidence.  It may or may not have anything to do with personal preferences; and there are evidences that allow one to "know".

[Wertbag]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

What I'm reading in the thread is if something coincides with my personal preference then "I just know it". 

 

But if it conflicts with my personal preference then I require rigorous peer-reviewed, replicated, consensus scientific research conclusions before I will accept it.

 

Possibly the least charitable interpretation you could pick...  "Preference" would be an arbitrary choice based on feelings alone, which no one has suggested.  The point is to consider all of history against claims, rather than to take each claim as a separate island.  If you are willing to accept that historically the evidence has always pointed one way, and you start from that position as the starting point when looking at future claims, then there is already a massive hurdle to overcome.

 

Also no one is suggesting that natural explanations do not need to be proven to be true before acceptance.  A great example being the beginning of the universe hypothesises, where there are dozens of potential options.  They are all more or less plausible based on the supporting evidence provided for the claim, but they still need to be proven.  They simply remain plausible until such a time as they can be confirmed one way or the other.

 

One example would be the famous Indian Guru Sai Baba.  It is claimed Sai was born of a virgin, could teleport, perform telekinesis and heal by touch.  He convinced tens of thousands of his supernatural powers, either that he was supernatural or that supernatural beings granted him such powers.  Hearing that is your first thought "That's plausible, it's 50/50 whether this is true or false, therefore I completely reserve judgement", or would you think "We know scam artists exist, we know people are gullible, we know motivations to lie include fame, power and wealth which he would have gained, we have thousands of examples of people pulling similar scams but zero of anyone being able to do any such things.  I think it's most likely bollocks"?

We have a natural explanation, which matches history and all understandings of such things, and we have the supernatural explanation, which breaks everything we've ever known and matches numerous other examples of such false claims.   I therefore give no credence to such a claim, as its yet another in a long line of such things, always found to be false.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's not what I'm trying to say at all.  I'm simply saying that there are certain things that are "true" but that cannot be supported with empirical, scientific evidence.  It may or may not have anything to do with personal preferences; and there are evidences that allow one to "know".

Sorry, I should have put a /s on the last post. 

 

I understand and agree, regarding knowing certain things without scientific evidence. People apply different levels and kinds of evidence to different things for different reasons. 

 

It seems that knowing is subject to change, though. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Sorry, I should have put a /s on the last post. 

 

I understand and agree, regarding knowing certain things without scientific evidence. People apply different levels and kinds of evidence to different things for different reasons. 

 

It seems that knowing is subject to change, though. 

 

Since you have presented further evidence in the form of  "Edit: /sarcasm" I will accept your claim as true.  

[midniterider]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Since you have presented further evidence in the form of  "Edit: /sarcasm" I will accept your claim as true.  

 

I am fully on-board with the simple knowing that my wife loves me and that it is a similar way to how Christians know Jesus loves them.

 

It cannot be measured by an instrument. It's like the taste of chocolate. 

 

So what does this say about how materialists or anyone else decides what is true, false, or somewhere in between? When do we use a particular yardstick vs some other yardstick?

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I am fully on-board with the simple knowing that my wife loves me and that it is a similar way to how Christians know Jesus loves them.

 

It cannot be measured by an instrument. It's like the taste of chocolate. 

 

So what does this say about how materialists or anyone else decides what is true, false, or somewhere in between? When do we use a particular yardstick vs some other yardstick?

 

I suppose the case in point is a pretty good place to start.  If measuring a yard, then a yardstick is an appropriate tool.  Alternatively, one might use a meter stick and extrapolate, or a 1ft. ruler and do the math.  The point being that there is a means of gathering physical, material evidence.  When such instrumentation exists, it can and should be used.  When it doesn't, I suppose we just have to use our best reasoning and objectivity.  Logic helps out here; as well as certain cognitive tools, such as Occam's Razor. 

[midniterider]

59 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Possibly the least charitable interpretation you could pick...  "Preference" would be an arbitrary choice based on feelings alone, which no one has suggested.  The point is to consider all of history against claims, rather than to take each claim as a separate island.  If you are willing to accept that historically the evidence has always pointed one way, and you start from that position as the starting point when looking at future claims, then there is already a massive hurdle to overcome.

 

Also no one is suggesting that natural explanations do not need to be proven to be true before acceptance.  A great example being the beginning of the universe hypothesises, where there are dozens of potential options.  They are all more or less plausible based on the supporting evidence provided for the claim, but they still need to be proven.  They simply remain plausible until such a time as they can be confirmed one way or the other.

 

One example would be the famous Indian Guru Sai Baba.  It is claimed Sai was born of a virgin, could teleport, perform telekinesis and heal by touch.  He convinced tens of thousands of his supernatural powers, either that he was supernatural or that supernatural beings granted him such powers.  Hearing that is your first thought "That's plausible, it's 50/50 whether this is true or false, therefore I completely reserve judgement", or would you think "We know scam artists exist, we know people are gullible, we know motivations to lie include fame, power and wealth which he would have gained, we have thousands of examples of people pulling similar scams but zero of anyone being able to do any such things.  I think it's most likely bollocks"?

We have a natural explanation, which matches history and all understandings of such things, and we have the supernatural explanation, which breaks everything we've ever known and matches numerous other examples of such false claims.   I therefore give no credence to such a claim, as its yet another in a long line of such things, always found to be false.

 

No claim is an island. Ok. So by your last sentence you summarily dismissed all similar claims? Does that include supernatural as well as paranormal? 

 

I usually post some psi links from the Noetic institute or the government research on remote viewing at this point but if the evidence is going to be ignored then why bother. 

 

I don't know if your original post states that there is absolutely zero evidence of supernatural or paranormal stuff, but if it does then I find that claim suspect. Even without the documented evidence that does exist, there are always anomalies in reality that will counter absolute claims. Imo.

 

 

[Wertbag]

42 minutes ago, midniterider said:

So by your last sentence you summarily dismissed all similar claims?

Based on the mountains of evidence we already have, yes, 100% of the time it has been shown to be bunk.

 

43 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Does that include supernatural as well as paranormal?

You'd have to clarify how you differentiate those two terms.  In the case of physics breaking claims, they do blend together.  We do have centuries of research into ESP, telekinesis, ghosts and similar claims, which seem to fall into one of two categories, either proven false or untested to the level required.  Would you give credence to a paranormal claim but less so to a supernatural one?  

 

47 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I usually post some psi links from the Noetic institute

All I have heard about them has been fairly negative.  Articles such as: Problems with the Institute Of Noetic Sciences - NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)

Listed on Quack Watch and Rational Wiki as a pseudo-science group.  I've not dug into their claims and know little of them, but there are certainly numerous groups making such claims.

 

My earlier examples of the TV shows "ghost hunters" and "sensing murder" reflect on this too.  Run in dozens of countries, using hundreds of teams, under conditions made as favourable as they could, in locations that should be prime locations, and nothing.  No murders solved, no ghosts recorded, no evidence that the hundreds of mediums are anything but scam artists.  Now looking at that abject failure to prove their claims, I would hope you can understand why many are saying it is reasonable to say there is nothing to such claims.

 

[midniterider]

 

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

 

You'd have to clarify how you differentiate those two terms.  In the case of physics breaking claims, they do blend together.  We do have centuries of research into ESP, telekinesis, ghosts and similar claims, which seem to fall into one of two categories, either proven false or untested to the level required.  Would you give credence to a paranormal claim but less so to a supernatural one?  

 

Yeah, possibly. The paranormal is less "extraordinary" than a supernatural god claim, imo. Whatever is less extraordinary is more likely. 

 

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

 

All I have heard about them has been fairly negative.  Articles such as: Problems with the Institute Of Noetic Sciences - NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)

Listed on Quack Watch and Rational Wiki as a pseudo-science group.  I've not dug into their claims and know little of them, but there are certainly numerous groups making such claims.

 

Depending on where you visit, you will get negative information or positive information. Google will give you whatever you're looking for. I've read some of the research that Radin has done, and while yes, the psi results are small, but they have been measured above randomness.

 

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

 

My earlier examples of the TV shows "ghost hunters" and "sensing murder" reflect on this too.  Run in dozens of countries, using hundreds of teams, under conditions made as favourable as they could, in locations that should be prime locations, and nothing.  No murders solved, no ghosts recorded, no evidence that the hundreds of mediums are anything but scam artists.  Now looking at that abject failure to prove their claims, I would hope you can understand why many are saying it is reasonable to say there is nothing to such claims.

 

 

Well, I've seen ghost hunter shows and they appear as BS to me. But the television can only capture two senses, the visual and the audible. When people are running and screaming, it looks hilarious from the TV, but there may be other senses at work. Touch, smell, ESP, whatever. 

 

Where can I access the mountains of evidence against the paranormal, psi, supernatural? 

 

Here's my rather small list of evidence in favor of psi. https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references

 

Anyway, you've drawn your conclusions, I've drawn mine. It's been fun. 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I wrestled with these issues for decades and even joined IONS and attended a national conference one year.  Did not renew my membership.  Basically decided there was not enough there to justify the dues.

 

My logical mind tells me there is something "out there" we don't understand regarding the universe, but why keep on chasing down alleys that lead to nowhere? (similar to ghost busters)  I decided to focus on what to do with what we know we have (like life) and how we can make it better for everyone. 

 

 

[midniterider]

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

I wrestled with these issues for decades and even joined IONS and attended a national conference one year.  Did not renew my membership.  Basically decided there was not enough there to justify the dues.

 

My logical mind tells me there is something "out there" we don't understand regarding the universe, but why keep on chasing down alleys that lead to nowhere? (similar to ghost busters)  I decided to focus on what to do with what we know we have (like life) and how we can make it better for everyone. 

 

 

 

If you feel like it's a waste of money then dump it. I was a paying member of Eckankar for a short while in my 20s. It had little substance imo.

 

I have a mild interest in the paranormal and supernatural...not enough to spend much money on though. I've done some mild Astral projection and lucid dreaming which can make someone question waking reality. A bit interested in remote viewing now.

 

I used to be much more closed off to psychics and ESP but have opened up to it more in my old age. 

 

None of these things are part of some search for truth, more just enjoying a particular genre of life.

 

[Wertbag]

19 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Anyway, you've drawn your conclusions, I've drawn mine. It's been fun.

See this is what I expect in conversations around here, polite questions and a discussion of viewpoints without flame.  I understand others may have different education, life experiences and priorities, so I don't expect anything of anyone (I put this subject in Rants purely because I expect nothing other than hearing myself vent).

That is why I'm so surprised to hear Josh left after a discussion/debate on here.  It happens constantly and rarely gets heated enough to be concerning.

I remember having a debate with Josh over whether being a gnostic atheist was even possible.  It was a good discussion and while neither of us changed our view, it did allow us to consider all the facets of the argument and was a good intellectual conversation.  That's what I've always seen here, so am surprised that he hasn't found it the same.

[walterpthefirst]

Would it help the discussion if I were to make this suggestion?

 

That materialism should be seen as a tool to help us understand some aspects of reality rather than a way to live or something to live by?

 

There are a hundred one different things that I think and feel and experience on any given day that materialism can't describe or explain.

 

But there are also a hundred and one things that materialism could describe and explain, should I choose to use that tool correctly.

 

I'd suggest that problems arise when people select the wrong tool for the wrong job and then get confused over the result.

 

If we use materialism to do the job it's best suited to, then we should get useful results.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

See this is what I expect in conversations around here, polite questions and a discussion of viewpoints without flame.  I understand others may have different education, life experiences and priorities, so I don't expect anything of anyone (I put this subject in Rants purely because I expect nothing other than hearing myself vent).

That is why I'm so surprised to hear Josh left after a discussion/debate on here.  It happens constantly and rarely gets heated enough to be concerning.

I remember having a debate with Josh over whether being a gnostic atheist was even possible.  It was a good discussion and while neither of us changed our view, it did allow us to consider all the facets of the argument and was a good intellectual conversation.  That's what I've always seen here, so am surprised that he hasn't found it the same.

 

Josh can speak for Josh.  

 

I am interested in the paranormal, psi, supernatural, occult, and metaphysical idealism as my preferred philosophy. My interests conflict with materialism and atheism which seems prevalent on this site and some reddit places I frequent. Sorry about barging in on your thread. It would be better to put my two cents in where I can 'progress' in exploration of (what I find to be) interesting things. 

 

Anyway, enjoy.  

 

 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Would it help the discussion if I were to make this suggestion?

 

That materialism should be seen as a tool to help us understand some aspects of reality rather than a way to live or something to live by?

 

There are a hundred one different things that I think and feel and experience on any given day that materialism can't describe or explain.

 

But there are also a hundred and one things that materialism could describe and explain, should I choose to use that tool correctly.

 

I'd suggest that problems arise when people select the wrong tool for the wrong job and then get confused over the result.

 

If we use materialism to do the job it's best suited to, then we should get useful results.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Physical laws are useful when I need to change my spark plugs in the car. But I dont need to make physical laws my life philosophy. Doesn't seem fun.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

If you feel like it's a waste of money then dump it.

 

I dumped it about 25 years ago.

 

I can't speak for Josh, but if he is like myself, when you are on any forum for a long period of time it gets to be the same old attitudes and discussion styles, and sometimes the same arguments over and over.   Some people enjoy that, but some don't, and find it easy to leave.