This is not surprising because materialists reject immaterial reality on principle no matter how much evidence is produced, saying that scientists need more time to find an explanation.
Your presuppositions are influencing your comments right from the start. Materialists don’t “reject immaterial reality on principle no matter how much evidence is produced” - they reject it because
no evidence has been produced for an immaterial (supernatural) reality.
Consciousness is the prime example of this. So is free will even though it is the basis of every legal system throughout the world.
You are assuming that consciousness and free will are
evidence of supernatural reality, but the fact is that there is
no evidence that these phenomena are not caused by bio-chemical interactions in the brain. It is your presuppositions, not the evidence or lack thereof, that are leading you to deride materialism. As I said in my previous post, a theist must, by definition, reject materialism. You are being true to type in creating reasons to justify your rejection. But your reasons are based on your personal incredulity and on your incentive to debunk the thing that conflicts with your arbitrary belief, not on fact or logic.
It is mumbo-jumbo simply because it claims to explain the whole of reality in terms of matter. How can anyone possibly know this?
Wrong again. Materialism just claims that only matter exists - not to be able to
explain everything. This is what I meant in my previous post about theists misrepresenting the thing they seek to attack. You have given a prime example.
So does any religion worth its salt. Catholicism regards the development of doctrine as a necessity. It takes psychological discoveries and social advances into account in its moral teaching.
Social advances such as same-sex partnerships? The equality of men and women?
Tolerance of other cultures? If Catholicism is representative of modern morals, I fail to see how it can hold up the bible, with all its mysogyny, homophobia, genocide, torture and social repression, as its reference book.
That is to be expected because the universe is a material phenomenon. Even so scientific theories have been abandoned or revised in the light of new insights, calculations, experiments and discoveries. What is more significant is that moral, social, legal and political principles have remained immune to the ravages of materialism.
What do you mean, “remained immune?” I think this is just another example of your assumed conclusion colouring your process logic - you’re painting a picture of the “evil materialism” attempting to destroy human morals etc. But it’s not like that at all. The two are not in opposition. Indeed, if you believe that human morals are an emergent property of evolution, you can see that they absolutely depend on the material. It’s just a different point of view. BUT we have abundant evidence of the material, the natural… and none whatsoever of the supernatural. So to assume, without evidence, a supernatural explanation for something you just don’t understand is irrational and uneconomical.
In daily life human beings are still regarded as responsible persons with free will and the right to life, freedom and happiness - not as naked apes which have emerged for no reason whatsoever…
In fact, they’re considered by most rational, educated people, as both. Once again, you are assuming that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Human beings ARE related to apes - that is incontrovertible. The evidence that we have evolved from a common ancestor is comprehensive and overwhelming - only a fool would try and deny it. However that
fact has no bearing on our free will or our human rights.
