E
Eucharisted
Guest
Discuss.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Materialism cannot be based on scientific grounds because it is a theory about the nature of reality. How can one know that **everything **has a material basis? Certainly not by producing scientific evidence. Even if everything in the universe were explained scientifically it still would not prove that matter itself has a material origin. It would remain to be proved that matter has always existed - and how could it be proved scientifically that matter is eternal?
Even if it were proved that the universe began with the Big Bang and even if there were evidence that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously (without a material cause) materialism still wouldn’t be proved to be true. Why not? For the simple reason that materialism itself is not self-evidently material! Thoughts and theories may be explained as products of electrical impulses in the brain but they are intangible and elusive. There is always the possibility that they exist independently in an intangible mind - which is the general consensus of humanity.
Once materialism is admitted to entail intangible events - and there is no way of avoiding that conclusion - it cannot be founded on scientific grounds. The materialist is attempting to explain everything, including himself and his theory, scientifically, i.e. in terms of that which is tangible. It cannot be done - unless science is redefined as the study of tangible and intangible reality!
Even if it were proved that the universe began with the Big Bang and even if there were evidence that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously (without a material cause) materialism still wouldn’t be proved to be true. Why not? For the simple reason that materialism itself is not self-evidently material! Thoughts and theories may be explained as products of electrical impulses in the brain but they are intangible and elusive. There is always the possibility that they exist independently in an intangible mind - which is the general consensus of humanity.
Once materialism is admitted to entail intangible events - and there is no way of avoiding that conclusion - it cannot be founded on scientific grounds. The materialist is attempting to explain everything, including himself and his theory, scientifically, i.e. in terms of that which is tangible. It cannot be done - unless science is redefined as the study of tangible and intangible reality!
W
wanstronian
Guest
Shall we start with some definitions? From the OED:
Materialism: “The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movement and modifications. Also the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies”
Science: “The state or fact of knowing; knowledge of cognizance of something specified or implied.”
From those definitions, we can see that materialism cannot be debunked merely because we don’t know where the matter originated. The key question is whether matter is the only thing that exists* now*. The question of the origin of matter is a valid one, but not directly relevant to materialism.
We can also see that science is not, in itself, a study of anything, merely the result of such study.
Given that matter is evidently all around us, and that no scientific study or experiment of any kind has ever proved the existence of ‘non-matter,’ then it’s reasonable to adopt a position of materialism based on the scientific evidence.
This is not to say that ‘science proves that materialism is right,’ because this could never be the case until it were positively proved that matter is everything - not just an absence of evidence to the contrary.
Materialism is, however, a rational and scientifically amenable point of view because there is no evidence for any other form of reality.
Furthermore the assertion that “thoughts and theories…exist[ing] independently in an intangible mind” is “general consensus of humanity” is uncited and anyway irrelevant. Concensus does not equate to fact, or even to probability. What’s important is what can be proved, and this assertion cannot. Furthermore, inasfar as we can show anything at all, the evidence points the opposite way. Mess with the brain = mess with the mind.
Claiming that because a thought cannot be held in the hand, it isn’t caused by material interactions is absurd as claiming that the same is true of a beam of light. Intangibility and materialism are not mutually exclusive.
Materialism: “The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movement and modifications. Also the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies”
Science: “The state or fact of knowing; knowledge of cognizance of something specified or implied.”
From those definitions, we can see that materialism cannot be debunked merely because we don’t know where the matter originated. The key question is whether matter is the only thing that exists* now*. The question of the origin of matter is a valid one, but not directly relevant to materialism.
We can also see that science is not, in itself, a study of anything, merely the result of such study.
Given that matter is evidently all around us, and that no scientific study or experiment of any kind has ever proved the existence of ‘non-matter,’ then it’s reasonable to adopt a position of materialism based on the scientific evidence.
This is not to say that ‘science proves that materialism is right,’ because this could never be the case until it were positively proved that matter is everything - not just an absence of evidence to the contrary.
Materialism is, however, a rational and scientifically amenable point of view because there is no evidence for any other form of reality.
Furthermore the assertion that “thoughts and theories…exist[ing] independently in an intangible mind” is “general consensus of humanity” is uncited and anyway irrelevant. Concensus does not equate to fact, or even to probability. What’s important is what can be proved, and this assertion cannot. Furthermore, inasfar as we can show anything at all, the evidence points the opposite way. Mess with the brain = mess with the mind.
Claiming that because a thought cannot be held in the hand, it isn’t caused by material interactions is absurd as claiming that the same is true of a beam of light. Intangibility and materialism are not mutually exclusive.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Precisely. One is only justified in believing in reality that one has evidence for.
We have a lot of evidence that the material world exists and that minds are tied to physical processes. Where is the evidence that a world independent from the material world exists?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s interesting to note that materialism is regarded as a doctrine…
According to this definition science is a mental state which covers all types of knowledge including that which is not usually regarded as scientific!
I beg to disagree. If one believes matter was created by a spiritual Being one is not a materialist - unless one believes that Being has ceased to exist… So the origin of matter is relevant to materialism.
“all **around **us” is the operative phrase. It is not self-evident that “we” are material beings. Nor is it necessary to prove that we are non-material beings because our awareness of ourselves, thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions is intangible. Since matter is associated with that which is tangible and observable it is necessary to explain the existence of that which is intangible and why it is intangible.
So materialism is unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unscientific.
We have direct knowledge of non-material reality in our intangible mental activity and in our intangible state of knowing. It is not rational to exclude that activity from our view of reality.
Most people in the world have a religion and believe in spiritual reality.
That is true but a consensus cannot be totally ignored. (It is the principle of democracy after all. And why do we attach value to “common sense”?) If most people agree that a person has a right to life and happiness the onus is on the sceptic to show why a person has no right to life and happiness.
Interference with the brain shows only that the brain is an instrument used by the mind. A badly damaged guitar cannot be used to play music.
A beam of light is measurable and observable whereas a thought is not.
If that is the case there is no reason for materialism not to accept intangible entities, facts, principles, relations and sources of energy.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Again, tonyrey, you’ve been given plenty of evidence for the existence of the material world, but you have not presented even a shred of evidence that indicates the existence of some other world that is independent from the material.
In the same way, there’s no such thing as thought apart from what brains do.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
To extend your analogy, “music” is simply the word for what guitars (or instruments) do – there’s no such thing as music apart from what instruments do.
In the same way, there’s no such thing as thought apart from what brains do.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Are you denying the reality of your inner world?
“In a famous paper available on-line Thomas Nagel argued that even if one knew everything about the bat’s brain and its physiology there is still something that one would not know: namely, *what it is like to be a bat. *One would not know what it is like to experience the world as a bat experiences it. One would not know, for example, what it is like to navigate the world by sound. Further, if you don’t know what it is like to be a bat, then there are facts about bats that you don’t know. Here is the argument:
**Premise 1 ** If Physicalism is true then if you knew all the physical facts about bats and their brains, you would know all there is to know about bats.
**Premise 2 ** You could know all the physical facts about bats and their brains, and still not know what it is like to be a bat. **Premise 3 ** If you don’t know what it is like to be a bat, there is something about bats that you don’t know.If you add Physicalism to these three premises you get a contradiction…Hence
**Conclusion: **Physicalism is false.”
organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf
“what instruments do”? You are forgetting what the guitarist does! Do you regard yourself as a rational agent or an irrational product?
There is very extensive literature about **qualia **by philosophers who specialise in the Philosophy of Mind which would make you aware of the difficulties confronting a physicalist, i.e. materialist…
J
JDaniel
Guest
The OED is a good place to start, Wanstronian. However, why limit the definition of science to the one you selected? Why not expand it to all of the modern definitions? For example, (1) “Science is any organized body of knowledge.” Thus, science can include almost any subject, such as biology, chemistry, comparative lit, hotel management, coaching of a college sports team, or medicine.
Or, (2) “It can refer to only those subjects that deliberately make measurements or experiments.” In this case, the premier science is probably “physics”.
Tobias Dantzig wrote, “Read your instruments and obey mathematics: for this is the whole duty of the scientist.” This definition of science is so strict that it is mathematical in form. But, if definition (1) (held by people such as Herbert Spencer) is too broad, perhaps definition (2) (held by such as Dantzig, and Newton) may be too narrow.
The association of science with (2) gives rise to “positivism”, which supported mathematical descriptions of the properties of things but did not push on to causes. So, today, science seems to be only applicable to controlled experimentation or measurement, or that which gives positive results.
The word “science” also has another, older meaning. That time period defined “science” as “certain knowledge of things in terms of their proper causes, or principles, or reasons.” (Posterior Analytics, Bk 1, ch. 2, 71b, pgs. 8 - 16)
It seems that you have limited “materialism” to too narrow a definition as well. See the following:
allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm
It would appear that the aforementioned website has done a pretty good job of debunking “materialism”. And, why should we further limit our natural inclination to search for the meanings of things by limiting the search to the present? The question of the origins of matter is much more than merely a “valid one.” It is an essential one, else we shall have a science that results in a large error, because it started with a small error that grew.
Of course, we will conclude that, if we limit our definitions as you have. However, as you can see, by starting out with a seemingly small error, we end up with a conclusion that is a much larger error. The modern definition of “science” is, “biology, physics and chemistry,” and such definition does not dis-include the lesser sciences by any means.
Well, a fellow atheist wrote - only today - that consensus is probability. How do you fellows want it?
jd
A
AntiTheist
Guest
No. A person (or an animal’s) subjectivity is only ever accessible to the person (or animal) in question because said subjectivity appears to be nothing but the particular configuration of neural activity possessed by the person (or animal) in question.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Ok, fair enough. You have pointed out the flaw in your analogy – it assumes the thing you want to prove.
So let’s forget the analogy. Do you have any evidence that the mind is something independent of the brain?
Do you have any evidence at all? Or are you going to continue to point out that we don’t know every last thing, as if that somehow made your belief in magic more likely to be true?
W
wanstronian
Guest
I’m going to duck out at this point - I’ve just finished a long and fruitless discussion with Tony on another thread, and I’m not ready for another round of “correct the misinterpretation!”
T
tonyrey
Guest
As I’m not the only theist responding to you on this thread your reason looks rather tenuous - unless you regard theists in general as misinterpreters!
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
Suppose revelation exists (that is, God lets Himself be known to a person), would you consider that to be evidence-based reality, if only for that particular person?
P
punkforchrist
Guest
Materialism is usually defined as “the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality.” In other words, everything that exists is somehow reducible to material (physical) processes.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=materialism
The problem with using science to come to any conclusion about materialism, whether it be certain or probabilistic, is that science has come to denote the study of anything based on sense perception. Sense perception, of course, is limited to what is material. This means that if our knowledge is limited to sense perception, the only things we can know are material. But, how do we know that knowledge is limited to sense perception?
Ultimately, asking for evidence (when “evidence” is restricted to sense perception) for the immaterial results in question-begging. Moreover, requiring evidence for every rational belief is self-defeating, since there is no evidence that all things must be evidenced. We don’t look outside and see trees, squirrels, and a strong evidential principle!
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=materialism
The problem with using science to come to any conclusion about materialism, whether it be certain or probabilistic, is that science has come to denote the study of anything based on sense perception. Sense perception, of course, is limited to what is material. This means that if our knowledge is limited to sense perception, the only things we can know are material. But, how do we know that knowledge is limited to sense perception?
Ultimately, asking for evidence (when “evidence” is restricted to sense perception) for the immaterial results in question-begging. Moreover, requiring evidence for every rational belief is self-defeating, since there is no evidence that all things must be evidenced. We don’t look outside and see trees, squirrels, and a strong evidential principle!
A
AntiTheist
Guest
No, I don’t regard the inner world as less real than the outer world. I acknowledge that from everything we know about the world, the most rational conclusion is that the inner world is dependent on the outer.
Again, we have a lot of good reasons to think this. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
I don’t start from that assumption. I go by the evidence, and all the evidence that we has suggests that minds are dependent upon matter, so that is my tentative conclusion.
I’d gladly change my position if you presented some convincing evidence. If you have such evidence, please present it.
Yes, I indeed rejected it because your evidence is nothing but questions. You evidence amounts to, “We don’t know everything yet.” That’s not evidence of anything but ignorance.
Let’s watch this sparkling evidence in action as you try to demonstrate that the brain is not an autonomous agent:
Ok, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the answer to all of those questions are “We don’t know” (of course, we do have some interesting answers to those questions, as real scientists, who deal in actual evidence, are making strides towards identifying parts of the brain where self-awareness resides and such). But, for the sake of argument, we’ll pretend that we have no good answers to your questions. Now go on and provide evidence that demonstrates that the brain is not an autonomous agent.
G
grannymh
Guest
However, the potential or ability for thought exists apart from what brains do. There is a big difference between ability/potential and the actual action.
G
grannymh
Guest
Of course, the mind/soul uses our voice mechanism to express verbally its thoughts. The key thing is that the voice mechanism is not the source of the mind/soul.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, to address the title rather than the quotes in the OP, it is obvious that materialism, if we define it as the view that matter-energy is all that exists OR that matter-energy is all that we can know exists, cannot be founded on scientific grounds, because neither view is amenable to demonstration by methodological naturalism. You can’t use a method that is limited to investigating phenomena of matter-energy as the basis for concluding that that is all there is. It’s like a claim that one can disprove the existence of God on scientific grounds - it can’t be done (which is not to deny that some religious claims can be disproven by scientific evidence).
However mounting scientific evidence for the existence of natural explanations for what we observe does weaken the philosophical case for postulating either a non-material domain or a Deity.
Just don’t let people tell you science can disprove God or prove that matter is all that exists.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
I have always thought that materialism was a philosophy which one can choose to follow for any reason or on any grounds.
Pardon me, but I really don’t see how any amount of “scientific evidence for the existence of natural explanations for what we observe” affects anything regarding a non-material realm. Of course, I am assuming that we use natural eyes to observe natural whatevers. In normal circumstances, a non-material realm cannot be observed by natural eyes.
By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. Normally, the immaterial cannot be seen by natural eyes. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is sacred.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Free will infringes the law of conservation of energy.
- Status