Ask the materialist...

[ateista]

Based upon many posts I concluded that there is a lot of misunderstanding floating around about materialism. In quite a few threads there are posts, which do not belong to the topics over there, they keep questioning materialism.

I welcome your questions. I will try my best to clarify some issues.

 

[OTavern]

Based upon many posts I concluded that there is a lot of misunderstanding floating around about materialism. In quite a few threads there are posts, which do not belong to the topics over there, they keep questioning materialism.

I welcome your questions. I will try my best to clarify some issues.

Okay, I’ll bite.

How can a materialist find support for ethical judgements in non-thinking, non-planning, non-judging matter?

Stated otherwise, matter doesn’t have preferences for the forms it takes, so how can a materialist form any kind of justification for ethical beliefs in a strictly material universe?

As I stated in another forum topic:

A mass murderer could legitimately hold, “I am just rearranging molecules when I shoot these hundred people. Whether molecules form a human being or a corpse or humus really makes no difference to the ground of our physical being - matter. Nothing in matter compels me to act in a certain way because nothing in matter gives a reason for preferring one form over another.”

Matter can have no ultimate plan because it doesn’t think, isn’t alive and has no preferences.

I will restate another part of that post because you really had no answer to this point, either:

Even if you impose some kind of “survival of the fittest” schema on matter, matter provides no justification for preferring survival or life over some other form it might take. Life is pretty tenuous and it is merely just another form that matter has taken. Why should life, a centipede or a diamond be preferred by matter itself over coal, for example?

There can be no ethical reason for valuing one form over another that is grounded in the material universe. On earth, human beings value some forms over others for decidedly trivial reasons, but separated from these merely human preferences, matter makes no such distinctions of value. Even if all life on Earth went extinct, it wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the universe – if matter is all there is.

If you then resort to being parochial and anthropocentric about ethical matters and we, for the sake of argument, might grant you that humans have some inconsequential “right” to value life. Okay, survival is important to us as human beings. Let that be the basis for ethical behaviour!

We would then have to admit all kinds of bizarre behaviours including “nazi” dreams of ideal races that are “fittest” to continue the human species.

If one arrangement of molecules over here, let’s call it “Hitler” wishes to change other arrangements of molecules, say in gas chambers, matter itself cannot sanction him. It can make no claims on human behaviour and neither can we use it to “justify” ourselves in opposing Hitler. We could, in response to Hitler, act in whatever way we “wish” just because we desire it, but our response cannot have claim to be qualitatively better than Hitler’s if you use materialism as the ground of metaphysics, knowledge and ethics.

If survival of life is important to us in our little human community, then Hitler could legitimately say, “Let’s clean the gene pool of everything weak and unfit because we desire survival of humanity.” He would – if strict survival of the fittest becomes our goal – seem to have been endowed with great foresight, because “persons” are, after all, merely chemical clouds of brain processes after all. Once materially rearranged, these unfit ones simply dissipate into the cosmos, no harm done – and they leave room for others who are more fit to survive. Hitler would have a point about keeping humanity fit for survival.

It seems to me that materialism as the ground of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics allows for some pretty messy and contemptible ideas. Once the human “person” becomes a shadowy non-entity and matter, i.e., molecular and chemical processes takes precedence, ethical behaviour has lost all substantive ground of meaning – a radical relativism is the result.

 

[bogeydogg]

what is materialism?

what is empiricism?

what is the substantial difference?

Is materialism derivative of empiricism?

 

[crowonsnow]

Okay, I’ll bite.

How can a materialist find support for ethical judgements in non-thinking, non-planning, non-judging matter?

Stated otherwise, matter doesn’t have preferences for the forms it takes, so how can a materialist form any kind of justification for ethical beliefs in a strictly material universe?

As I stated in another forum topic:

A mass murderer could legitimately hold, “I am just rearranging molecules when I shoot these hundred people. Whether molecules form a human being or a corpse or humus really makes no difference to the ground of our physical being - matter. Nothing in matter compels me to act in a certain way because nothing in matter gives a reason for preferring one form over another.”

Matter can have no ultimate plan because it doesn’t think, isn’t alive and has no preferences.

I will restate another part of that post because you really had no answer to this point, either:

Even if you impose some kind of “survival of the fittest” schema on matter, matter provides no justification for preferring survival or life over some other form it might take. Life is pretty tenuous and it is merely just another form that matter has taken. Why should life, a centipede or a diamond be preferred by matter itself over coal, for example?

There can be no ethical reason for valuing one form over another that is grounded in the material universe. On earth, human beings value some forms over others for decidedly trivial reasons, but separated from these merely human preferences, matter makes no such distinctions of value. Even if all life on Earth went extinct, it wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the universe – if matter is all there is.

If you then resort to being parochial and anthropocentric about ethical matters and we, for the sake of argument, might grant you that humans have some inconsequential “right” to value life. Okay, survival is important to us as human beings. Let that be the basis for ethical behaviour!

We would then have to admit all kinds of bizarre behaviours including “nazi” dreams of ideal races that are “fittest” to continue the human species.

If one arrangement of molecules over here, let’s call it “Hitler” wishes to change other arrangements of molecules, say in gas chambers, matter itself cannot sanction him. It can make no claims on human behaviour and neither can we use it to “justify” ourselves in opposing Hitler. We could, in response to Hitler, act in whatever way we “wish” just because we desire it, but our response cannot have claim to be qualitatively better than Hitler’s if you use materialism as the ground of metaphysics, knowledge and ethics.

If survival of life is important to us in our little human community, then Hitler could legitimately say, “Let’s clean the gene pool of everything weak and unfit because we desire survival of humanity.” He would – if strict survival of the fittest becomes our goal – seem to have been endowed with great foresight, because “persons” are, after all, merely chemical clouds of brain processes after all. Once materially rearranged, these unfit ones simply dissipate into the cosmos, no harm done – and they leave room for others who are more fit to survive. Hitler would have a point about keeping humanity fit for survival.

It seems to me that materialism as the ground of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics allows for some pretty messy and contemptible ideas. Once the human “person” becomes a shadowy non-entity and matter, i.e., molecular and chemical processes takes precedence, ethical behaviour has lost all substantive ground of meaning – a radical relativism is the result.

Well, if we say a materialist is someone who holds that everything is physical, that it can be prodded, poked, manipulated, quantified, measured, etc., are you saying that there really is no such thing as a materialist?

 

[ateista]

what is materialism?

what is empiricism?

what is the substantial difference?

Is materialism derivative of empiricism?

Good questions, going to the heart of the matter.

Materialism is the view that matter (space, time, energy, matter let’s call it STEM) has a primary existence. Let’s call this P-existence or physical existence. STEM simply exists. Whatever we observe is explainable in principle by these categories, even if currently our existing knowledge is not enough to give adequate explanation.

Explanation is: to reduce a phenomenon to simpler, already understood laws of nature.

Materialism does not deny the existence of concepts and ideas. These entities “exist” is a fundamentally different way than P-existence, let’s call it C-existence (conceptual existence). Concepts exist as mental states, which are mutually agreed upon. The C-existence is dependent on P-existence. Materialism holds that in the lack of sufficiently complex brains (which are able to understand these concepts) it is nonsensical to speak of conceptual existence.

Conceptual existence may or may not adequately reflect P-existence. If it does, we call the concept accurate, if it does not, we can call it a delusion, or a mistake. A concept can be totally wrong, can contain a logical self-contradiction - like the concept of a “married bachelor”.

Empiricism is a method to discover laws of nature, to discover the regularities of P-existence.

It is composed of observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation to check if the hypothesis’ prediction conforms with the observed results, and if necessary - abandoning or re-forming the hypothesis to explain the discrepances (if any). If enough experiments “support” the hypothesis, it is tentatively considered correct, subject to modifications if necessary. Empiricism is an open-ended method.

Knowledge: information, which allows to explain or reproduce something. It is nonsensical to have information about something that does not exist (P-exist). One can form opinions, views, ideas about non-existing objects or events, but that is not knowledge.

So the connection between materialism and epiricism is very strong: materialism is the metaphysical view, and emiricism is the supporting epistemological method.

Materialism accepts that concepts of gods, demons, angels, souls, honest lawyers, non-crooked politicians (), etc. exist, and does not accept that these categories have actual, physical existence.

Materialism does not a-priori discard the possibility of yet another type of existence (let’s call it X-existence) which is neither physical nor conceptual, which cannot be discovered or understood by empiricism, which cannot be influenced by any physical ways and means, which however can influence physical reality in some “magical” way. Materialism does not see any need for postulating an existence of this type.

That should do as a short summary, subject to further elaboration if necessary.

 

[ateista]

Okay, I’ll bite.

How can a materialist find support for ethical judgements in non-thinking, non-planning, non-judging matter?

Stated otherwise, matter doesn’t have preferences for the forms it takes, so how can a materialist form any kind of justification for ethical beliefs in a strictly material universe?

By understanding that reality is not a quantitative “summary” of the underlying physical particles, by understanding that emergent attributes exist, by accepting that the whole is sometimes greater than the composing elements. This is the foundation, which must be expounded upon.

As I stated in another forum topic:

A mass murderer could legitimately hold, “I am just rearranging molecules when I shoot these hundred people. Whether molecules form a human being or a corpse or humus really makes no difference to the ground of our physical being - matter. Nothing in matter compels me to act in a certain way because nothing in matter gives a reason for preferring one form over another.”

That mass murderer is guilty of oversimplification by asserting that emerging attributes do not exist. You may call this person seriously delusional, and you will be right - but you cannot posit this person as a rational materialist - because if you do - then you are delusional. Fair enough?

Matter can have no ultimate plan because it doesn’t think, isn’t alive and has no preferences.

What is alive? A question for biologists, whose answer is: a living material gives complex resposes to complex stimuli.

I will restate another part of that post because you really had no answer to this point, either:

Even if you impose some kind of “survival of the fittest” schema on matter, matter provides no justification for preferring survival or life over some other form it might take. Life is pretty tenuous and it is merely just another form that matter has taken. Why should life, a centipede or a diamond be preferred by matter itself over coal, for example?

For inanimate matter, there is no difference.

There can be no ethical reason for valuing one form over another that is grounded in the material universe. On earth, human beings value some forms over others for decidedly trivial reasons, but separated from these merely human preferences, matter makes no such distinctions of value. Even if all life on Earth went extinct, it wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the universe – if matter is all there is.

It would not. So what?

If you then resort to being parochial and anthropocentric about ethical matters and we, for the sake of argument, might grant you that humans have some inconsequential “right” to value life. Okay, survival is important to us as human beings. Let that be the basis for ethical behaviour!

We would then have to admit all kinds of bizarre behaviours including “nazi” dreams of ideal races that are “fittest” to continue the human species.

If one arrangement of molecules over here, let’s call it “Hitler” wishes to change other arrangements of molecules, say in gas chambers, matter itself cannot sanction him. It can make no claims on human behaviour and neither can we use it to “justify” ourselves in opposing Hitler. We could, in response to Hitler, act in whatever way we “wish” just because we desire it, but our response cannot have claim to be qualitatively better than Hitler’s if you use materialism as the ground of metaphysics, knowledge and ethics.

If survival of life is important to us in our little human community, then Hitler could legitimately say, “Let’s clean the gene pool of everything weak and unfit because we desire survival of humanity.” He would – if strict survival of the fittest becomes our goal – seem to have been endowed with great foresight, because “persons” are, after all, merely chemical clouds of brain processes after all. Once materially rearranged, these unfit ones simply dissipate into the cosmos, no harm done – and they leave room for others who are more fit to survive. Hitler would have a point about keeping humanity fit for survival.

Very serious oversimplfication. We can get back this to later on. I hope you will see by yourself how ridicuous and incorrect this oversimplification is.

It seems to me that materialism as the ground of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics allows for some pretty messy and contemptible ideas.

Since so far your critique was so far off the mark, let me just say that this observation is of no consequence.

Once the human “person” becomes a shadowy non-entity and matter, i.e., molecular and chemical processes takes precedence, ethical behaviour has lost all substantive ground of meaning – a radical relativism is the result.

Let me see: “radical relativism”, like asserting that “intentional murder of innocents is always immoral” while “praising God for his mercy by doing the same in the flood”? Or looking at the genocide in Darfour and properly describing it as immoral, while praising God for his “justice” when he ordered the Jews to kill all the Amelekites - while keeping the virgins for their sexual gratification as sex-slaves?

Is that the “radical relativism” you speak of? Just so I know what your categories are.

 

[OTavern]

That mass murderer is guilty of oversimplification by asserting that emerging attributes do not exist. You may call this person seriously delusional, and you will be right - but you cannot posit this person as a rational materialist - because if you do - then you are delusional. Fair enough?

Actually, you haven’t addressed the central issue. The mass murderer would simply assert that humans have emerging attributes – so what? Emerging attributes is simply a way of saying “more complex;” but there is nothing in the material universe that makes emerging attributes any more or less valuable than simple attributes. Matter, as the ground of knowledge could provide no reason for valuing emerging attributes any more than simple ones. You missed the point entirely, here.

Just because you value emerging attributes, there is nothing in the “ground of your knowledge,” i.e., matter, that makes them inherently more valuable.

Since so far your critique was so far off the mark, let me just say that this observation is of no consequence.

You haven’t even provided a single counter argument except to say I am off the mark. Talk about simplistic. :whacky:

Let me see: “radical relativism”, like asserting that “intentional murder of innocents is always immoral” while “praising God for his mercy by doing the same in the flood”? Or looking at the genocide in Darfour and properly describing it as immoral, while praising God for his “justice” when he ordered the Jews to kill all the Amelekites - while keeping the virgins for their sexual gratification as sex-slaves?

Is that the “radical relativism” you speak of? Just so I know what your categories are.

I am sure God will provide the reasons for His actions when you see Him. Suffice it to say, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent Being could have reasons for His actions which are incomprehensible to us little folk. Can a slug make judgements about the correctness of Einstein’s theories? Perhaps there was absolutely no hope of rehabilitation for the Amalekites, perhaps God knew in advance the hearts of all the Amalekites and knew they were completely depraved. Who are you to know better than an all-knowing Being? Do you know all the particulars in any of these cases?

It is pretty arrogant of you to claim better judgement than God in these examples when you know so little about them, being at least several thousand years removed and having only, at best, second hand information. Can you look into the ‘souls’ of all these past humans and know their state of ‘innocence’ as you claim? An Eternal Being with infinite knowledge would have better qualifications to do that, than you do, I would surmise.

This might just be a personal preference, but as far as qualities of a competent jurist go, I would much prefer having my case presented before a Being with omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence than before ateista, one who can’t even give one reason why emerging attributes are more valuable than simple ones, given his reliance upon purely “material” support.

A reminder: you still haven’t answered how materialism can get beyond a radical relativism. It is materialism that is in question here. Thought you could weasel out of this one, did you?

 

[ateista]

Actually, you haven’t addressed the central issue. The mass murderer would simply assert that humans have emerging attributes – so what? Emerging attributes is simply a way of saying “more complex;” but there is nothing in the material universe that makes emerging attributes any more or less valuable than simple attributes. Matter, as the ground of knowledge could provide no reason for valuing emerging attributes any more than simple ones. You missed the point entirely, here.

Just because you value emerging attributes, there is nothing in the “ground of your knowledge,” i.e., matter, that makes them inherently more valuable.

More valuable? That is not the issue here. Correct is… reality is the issue. To argue that complex issues are irrelevant because they cannot be reduced to simple causes is delusional.

I am sure God will provide the reasons for His actions when you see Him. Suffice it to say, an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent Being could have reasons for His actions which are incomprehensible to us little folk.

He is more than welcome to do it right now and here… guess what? He declines the invitation… as usual. Your “argument” is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” … a common fallacy.

 

[ateista]

A reminder: you still haven’t answered how materialism can get beyond a radical relativism. It is materialism that is in question here. Thought you could weasel out of this one, did you?

I don’t know about “radical”, but of course relativism is correct. Actions are not “good” or “evil” in and by themselves (that would be Calvinism if I recall it correctly); the actions and the intents behind them is what makes them moral or immoral. What is you point?

My little examples were designed to show you that your allegedly “absolute” morality is just as relative as mine… which you admitted by stipulating that God could explain why his actions of wholscale genocide (flood) and sexual slavery (Amelekites) is somehow “justified”. I can hardly wait for his explanation, especally because the apologists are woefully lacking in any arguments, let alone convincing arguments.

 

[Woodstock]

Materialism is the view that matter (space, time, energy, matter let’s call it STEM) has a primary existence. Let’s call this P-existence or physical existence. STEM simply exists. Whatever we observe is explainable in principle by these categories, even if currently our existing knowledge is not enough to give adequate explanation.

Materialism relies on the same faith that religion does, then?

Christianity is the view that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let’s call it GOD) has a primary existence. Let’s call this P-existence or physical existence. GOD simply exists. Whatever we observe is explainable in principle by these categories, even if currently our existing knowledge is not enough to give adequate explanation.

 

[crowonsnow]

Materialism relies on the same faith that religion does, then?

Christianity is the view that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let’s call it GOD) has a primary existence. Let’s call this P-existence or physical existence. GOD simply exists. Whatever we observe is explainable in principle by these categories, even if currently our existing knowledge is not enough to give adequate explanation.

But isn’t materialism still primary? Don’t people first observe a material universe and from these observations create their stories about their gods? The universe certainly seems **in fact **to come first.

 

[Woodstock]

But isn’t materialism still primary? Don’t people first observe a material universe and from these observations create their stories about their gods? The universe certainly seems **in fact **to come first.

People first encountered God and from those encounters told their stories about Him. The universe points to God, but people have directly experienced God, including in the flesh.

The martyrdoms suffered in the 1st Century either indicate mass hallucinations or a historical reality. Whether or not you believe Jesus is God, a historical view of history cannot denounce His existence. It was only after touching the wounds in His side that Thomas believed.

Was he a Christian materialist?

 

[crowonsnow]

People first encountered God and from those encounters told their stories about Him.

People are made of material, the same material that makes the rest of the universe. How could they encounter a god before encountering themselves? They couldn’t have been people to do that.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Ateista,

Let me ax some more questions.

Between the “time” right before the Big Bang, when there just the Singularity, and the present, has any stuff been added (i.e. New Stuff which didn’t exist at the beginning)?

What is determinism and why aren’t materialists necessarily determinists?

cordially,

Da Schnahbster

 

[ateista]

Materialism relies on the same faith that religion does, then?

Does it now? We don’t need any faith to experience matter, energy, space and time, do we? They are there for everyone to discover.

Christianity is the view that the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let’s call it GOD) has a primary existence. Let’s call this P-existence or physical existence. GOD simply exists. Whatever we observe is explainable in principle by these categories, even if currently our existing knowledge is not enough to give adequate explanation.

I seriously doubt that God can be experienced by our senses or our instruments. So your little “conversion” is inaccurate. Whatever God is his existence is not assumed to be physical, it is assumed to be supernatural.

I am not sure what you intended to do with this “conversion”? Did you want to establish that Christianity (or religion in general) is just as rational and down-to-earth as materialism?

 

[ateista]

Between the “time” right before the Big Bang, when there just the Singularity, and the present, has any stuff been added (i.e. New Stuff which didn’t exist at the beginning)?

Sure has, a lot. Humans, for example.

What is determinism and why aren’t materialists necessarily determinists?

Determinism is the idea that every event is fully determined by the antecedent events. It denies randomness in nature, which is inaccurate in the light of what we know about reality. In Newton’s time the universe was viewed as a giant “clockwork” which follows an unalterable path from the past to the future. That picture was found inaccurate when quantum physics was discovered.

Putting it into another way: determinism holds that having full information about the present and having full knowledge about the laws of nature one can precisely predict the future. Well, that concept was defeated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the reality in any given time cannot be known “completely”.

Since most materialists accept science, they are not determinists.

One more reason. Pretty much everyone agrees that humans have free will. Theists allege that this free will is a gift from God. Materialists simply say that humans are primary causative agents, and there is no need to look any further.

 

[Woodstock]

So your little “conversion” is inaccurate.

I am not sure what you intended to do with this “conversion”?

I had hoped to have a conversation and healthy exchange of ideas. Your sarcasm and condescension show me the futility in trying further,

 

[ateista]

I had hoped to have a conversation and healthy exchange of ideas. Your sarcasm and condescension show me the futility in trying further,

Come on buddy, get real. My questions were neither sarcastic nor condescending. I was curious how do you claim that the supernatural has physical existence? By definition it does not.

 

[crowonsnow]

Between the “time” right before the Big Bang, when there just the Singularity, and the present, has any stuff been added (i.e. New Stuff which didn’t exist at the beginning)?

The arrangement of the matter and energy has changed, at least in terms of how humans define, observe and measure same. But nothing new has appeared abracadabra, if that is what you mean.

 

[OTavern]

Putting it into another way: determinism holds that having full information about the present and having full knowledge about the laws of nature one can precisely predict the future. Well, that concept was defeated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the reality in any given time cannot be known “completely”.

You claim that reality “cannot be known” so therefore it isn’t determined. That is quite a logical step! Trying to slip another of your dogmatic 'truths" under the door? Why shouldn’t it be determined even if it isn’t known, that is, if your STEM (space, time, energy, matter) system is true?

If matter (okay STEM) is all there is, then what else can possibly ‘determine’ reality besides STEM causation – that is, if STEM is all that exists? Stretch this materialism to the limit and see where it snaps. If matter is all, then it would seem to me that you are stuck with the claim that “everything is determined by STEM causes but we just don’t understand all the causes.” You try to slip “non-STEM causative agents” into the mix to explain uncertainty, thinking we wouldn’t catch your ploy. Sneaky!

Since most materialists accept science, they are not determinists.

Certainly, you can try to postulate some kind of ‘indeterminate existent causative agents’ and continue to subscribe to materialism, but in the end how is your statement that some agency is not determined by STEM, hence uncertain, and a theist’s position that the ultimate unknown causative Agent is God much different?

The only difference I see is that you simply want to categorically deny God’s existence and merely claim, for quite an unscientific reason - your faith in the assumption that everything is matter – that some qualities of STEM will ultimately be found to be the unknown causative agents. Have faith baby! :tsktsk:

One more reason. Pretty much everyone agrees that humans have free will. Theists allege that this free will is a gift from God. Materialists simply say that humans are primary causative agents, and there is no need to look any further.

This is a silly statement. Materialists simply make a “claim” that humans are “primary causative agents” because human behaviour cannot be explained by simple STEM factors. What does that mean except humans can bring into play “non-STEM” causation? How is that different than a traditional definition of “spirit?” Just make up a new term for the same ‘unknown’ so we can continue to pretend to be scientists.

Well just as you admit free will to be the ‘causative agent’ where human individuals are involved, why could there not be a Divine causative agent to explain the uncertainty in Heisenberg’s universe? You allow one but deny even the possibility of the other - seems inconsistent to me.

Perhaps God freely manipulates individual subatomic particles and therefore creates the uncertainty and guides the structure and “unfolding” of the universe. This ‘causative agency’ would go a long way to explaining how entropy, ectropy and extropy are guided by this Agent as creative cosmic forces towards complexity, order and structure in the universe and nature.

This kind of explanation is one that your brand of materialism would be forced to leave to some mysterious “causative agency” in the universe which you refuse to identify because it leads to all kinds of “theological” complications for you. How convenient!

Just as you can allow ‘free will’ in human behaviour, admitting ‘free cosmic causative agency,’ i.e., Divine free will, to explain uncertainty in the universe is not such a difficult bolus to swallow. No let’s stick to dogmatic materialism, shall we.:bowdown: