The inadequacy of materialism

[tonyrey]

   (i) Adequacy:  Materialism does not explain  how living organisms have become more complex and organized nor how they have  survived in spite of overwhelming odds nor how they have been transformed into persons. 
       
  (ii) Simplicity: Materialism presupposes  a plurality of unrelated factors – persons, values, physical energy and  the laws of nature whereas Design provides a source of unity. "The  supreme being remains a mere ideal, it is yet an ideal without a flaw, a  concept which completes and crowns the whole of human knowledge... This  highest formal unity... is the purposive unity of things." (Kant)

  (iii) Intelligibility: It is incomprehensible how rational beings have  emerged from inanimate particles which lack hindsight, insight and  foresight. The obscurity of materialism stems from the assumption that development  is mechanistic and undirected. Medawar conceded  that "We still seek a theory of Order in its most important form, that  which is represented by the complex functional and structural  integration of genetic messages."   
       
 (iv)  Consistency: It is impossible to reconcile the indeterminism and  determinism of Darwinism ("Chance and Necessity" - Monod) with the power  of self-determination, moral responsibility and the right to life.

  (v) Precision: Materialism is based on generalisations from insufficient  evidence and presupposes the existence of living  organisms and the process of replication. 

  (vi)  Probability: The immense complexity of the human brain ("its chances  were infinitely slender" - Monod, "a feat of fantastic difficulty" -  Medawar, "a monster of improbability"- Dawkins) reveals the extreme improbability  of Darwinism. "Random sequences are the antithesis of prescribed  genetic information... All known metabolism is cybernetic – that is, it  is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled."  (Trevors & Abel) 

  (vii) Verifiability: It is impossible  to verify the materialist's  theory that all physical, intellectual,  aesthetic, moral, social and spiritual  development is due to  random mutations and natural selection whereas Design is confirmed by  personal experience and the evidence of poets, artists, composers,  mystics and saints.

  (viii) Fertility:  Materialism is  infertile because it restricts explanation to physical causes and  excludes holistic, teleological and spiritual explanation.Yet "... to  regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a  supreme reason... opens out to our reason, as applied in the field of  experience, altogether new views as to how the things of the world may  be connected according to teleological laws, and so enables it to arrive  at their greatest systematic unity". (Kant)

What is your opinion?

 

[sealoch]

That many of your presumptions have answers that have already been covered by the scientific community in peer reviewed journals. However, you will not perform the required amount of work to find and vet them yourself, and instead continue to blast potentially outdated views of philosophy. Materialism was a fairly good start at everything actually being explainable by physical reasons but lacked the ability to explain forces such as gravity and most of quantum physics.

Instead of picking on materialism try out Physicalism.

 

[manygift1spirit]

Those critiques are inductive, and so while persuasive, are not convincing.

The big problem with materialism is that it is self-refuting. Some folks avoid the contradiction by (unknowingly) making some metaphysical (non material) postulates, but then it is simply reduced to a contingent worldview, with all the hazards that entails.

 

[tonyrey]

That many of your presumptions have answers that have already been covered by the scientific community in peer reviewed journals. However, you will not perform the required amount of work to find and vet them yourself, and instead continue to blast potentially outdated views of philosophy. Materialism was a fairly good start at everything actually being explainable by physical reasons but lacked the ability to explain forces such as gravity and most of quantum physics.

Instead of picking on materialism try out Physicalism.

Precise references would be more to the point.

 

[tonyrey]

Those critiques are inductive, and so while persuasive, are not convincing.

The big problem with materialism is that it is self-refuting. Some folks avoid the contradiction by (unknowingly) making some metaphysical (non material) postulates, but then it is simply reduced to a contingent worldview, with all the hazards that entails.

Inanimate molecules are supposed to have magically transformed themselves into rational beings!

 

[sealoch]

Precise references would be more to the point.

Right because Google and reading is so hard on large categories of philosophy.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

 

[empther]

If human beings were only material,
then there would be hundreds of species of animals with humanoid type intelligences,
but there is only one.

So something supernatural happened to make man take that “giant leap forward” from animal instinct to human intelligence.

It’s not good enough to say one intelligent species would have exterminated all the rest. Even today there may be some undiscovered tribes of humans in the Amazon, and other places.
Much less could systematic extermination have been done thousands of years ago when men were completely disorganized.

 

[sealoch]

If human beings were only material,
then there would be hundreds of species of animals with humanoid type intelligences,
but there is only one.

So something supernatural happened to make man take that “giant leap forward” from animal instinct to human intelligence.

It’s not good enough to say one intelligent species would have exterminated all the rest. Even today there may be some undiscovered tribes of humans in the Amazon, and other places.
Much less could systematic extermination have been done thousands of years ago when men were completely disorganized.

You could attribute to the supernatural or there is a natural explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There are altogether too many shouldas, couldas, maybes and perhapses in materialism. The one thing that stands out about materialism is its rank dogmatism of ifs and maybes and “You just wait. Someday we’ll find an explanation that proves what seems designed could not possibly have been designed.”

Materialism has atheism at its root and could not survive without atheism. Scratch an atheist and you find a materialist, or scratch a materialist and you find an atheist. I challenge anyone to produce the name of a famous materialist who was not also an atheist. Materialism is as groundless as atheism. Just as you cannot logically prove there is no God, you cannot logically prove there is no spirit. The universe cries out for a voice to explain it. Materialism is purely and simply a dumb answer.

 

[tonyrey]

Right because Google and reading is so hard on large categories of philosophy.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Thank you for conceding the inadequacy of materialism.

 

[tonyrey]

There are altogether too many shouldas, couldas, maybes and perhapses in materialism. The one thing that stands out about materialism is its rank dogmatism of ifs and maybes and “You just wait. Someday we’ll find an explanation that proves what seems designed could not possibly have been designed.”

From one extreme to the other! It amounts to blind faith in the magical power of matter to transform itself into truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.…

 

[Bagheera]

“You just wait. Someday we’ll find an explanation that proves what seems designed could not possibly have been designed.”

You should learn a little so you would not spout such nonsense. Science does not care about “disproving” anything. Just look around yourself. Everything you see is the result of the materialistic approach, the result of science.

One can only “disprove” something in a formal, axiomatic system (do you understand what that means?). Science makes the hypothesis of the supernatural superfluous and unnecessary, and it track record is very good. Just consider the level of ignorance concerning the laws of nature in the biblical times and compare it to the incredible progress we achieved since then. And not once was there a need for the hypotheses of some 'supernatural".

• When Napoleon asked Laplace about his book describing the movements of celestial bodies and asked him why does he never mention God… Laplace answered: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”.
• The hypothesis that mental disorders are caused by demonic possession was never “disproven”, it was made unnecessary.
• The hypothesis that lightning is the flaming sword of God was not “disproven”, it was made obsolete.

Materialism only cares about repeatable, objective explanations. Contrast that to the “explanation” that theism can offer: “an unknowable being, employing unknowable means makes is somehow, magically happen”. Even if it were true, it would not be an explanation.

From one extreme to the other! It amounts to blind faith in the magical power of matter to transform itself into truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.…

It is only “magical” to the ignorant ones. Of course ignorance could be overcome by actually studying

• physics,
• chemistry,
• biology,
• sociology,
• economics,
• computer science,
• information theory,
• mathematics,

and a few more related subjects. But that would require hard work. It is so much easier to say that “goddidit”. Fortunately people did not accept that “explanation”. If they did, we would still sit in those caves.

 

[Bahman]

First, what is matter? I am a physicist and to the best of my knowledge we don’t have any model that it could explain nature in its simple form. There are several models supported with multibillion experiments but non of them is anomaly free and could explain what is nature of matter in its simplest form (a set of elementary particles like electron, quark etc). The question of more complex system would be the subject of more extensive studies.

  (i) Adequacy:  Materialism does not explain  how living organisms have become more complex and organized nor how they have  survived in spite of overwhelming odds nor how they have been transformed into persons.

The odds were not overwhelming otherwise we were not here, they were just enough to discriminate some.

  (ii) Simplicity: Materialism presupposes  a plurality of unrelated factors – persons, values, physical energy and  the laws of nature whereas Design provides a source of unity. "The  supreme being remains a mere ideal, it is yet an ideal without a flaw, a  concept which completes and crowns the whole of human knowledge... This  highest formal unity... is the purposive unity of things." (Kant)

  (iii) Intelligibility: It is incomprehensible how rational beings have  emerged from inanimate particles which lack hindsight, insight and  foresight. The obscurity of materialism stems from the assumption that development  is mechanistic and undirected. Medawar conceded  that "We still seek a theory of Order in its most important form, that  which is represented by the complex functional and structural  integration of genetic messages."

The main problem of materialism/physicalism is the hard problem of consciousness first formulated by David Chalmers, please read : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness. Watching the following video would be insightful: youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

 (iv)  Consistency: It is impossible to reconcile the indeterminism and  determinism of Darwinism ("Chance and Necessity" - Monod) with the power  of self-determination, moral responsibility and the right to life.

I don’t know any system of thought that these two issues are reconciled within.

  (v) Precision: Materialism is based on generalisations from insufficient  evidence and presupposes the existence of living  organisms and the process of replication.

Insufficient evidences? These are things that we observe happening. We just cannot explain these process and how they could sustain and give rise to new beings.

  (vi)  Probability: The immense complexity of the human brain ("its chances  were infinitely slender" - Monod, "a feat of fantastic difficulty" -  Medawar, "a monster of improbability"- Dawkins) reveals the extreme improbability  of Darwinism. "Random sequences are the antithesis of prescribed  genetic information... All known metabolism is cybernetic – that is, it  is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled."  (Trevors & Abel) 

  (vii) Verifiability: It is impossible  to verify the materialist's  theory that all physical, intellectual,  aesthetic, moral, social and spiritual  development is due to  random mutations and natural selection whereas Design is confirmed by  personal experience and the evidence of poets, artists, composers,  mystics and saints.

  (viii) Fertility:  Materialism is  infertile because it restricts explanation to physical causes and  excludes holistic, teleological and spiritual explanation.Yet "... to  regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a  supreme reason... opens out to our reason, as applied in the field of  experience, altogether new views as to how the things of the world may  be connected according to teleological laws, and so enables it to arrive  at their greatest systematic unity". (Kant)

What is your opinion?

My main question from you is what is matter in your opinion?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman
**
Materialism only cares about repeatable, objective explanations. Contrast that to the “explanation” that theism can offer: "**

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

You should learn a little so you would not spout such nonsense. Science does not care about “disproving” anything.

Science may not, but scientism certainly does. People like richard Dawkins can hardly resist any opportunity to disprove Intelligent Design. They cannot do it of course. They even concede the universe and life appear to be designed, but they say that is an illusion. And does saying something is an illusion disprove it?

Perhaps you are another deluded victim of scientism? Think about that, if you dare.

Oh, if only you knew how useless and deluded your empirical science is in other realms of thought!

 

[empther]

My main question from you is what is matter in your opinion?

Matter is a substance with limited potential.

Science fiction has long dreamed about a computer that would equal or surpass man’s intelligence. A few decades ago there was a lot of excitement about artificial intelligence. Was this the Holy Grail of computer intelligence?

There isn’t much talk about artificial intelligence today. We found out that it isn’t very intelligent at all. Something made of matter can’t do very much.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman
**
Materialism only cares about repeatable, objective explanations. Contrast that to the “explanation” that theism can offer: "**

First, what you could conclude from an experience which is not repeatable or sharable?

Second, the repeatability allow us to understand the nature partially if not completely. This allows us to build up our own world which if it does not tell us what exactly absolute truth is tells us how complex absolute truth is (God). Simple, we cannot say what simple matter is in spite of all progress and success we had in all fields of science, most importantly particle physics. Repeatability (scientific point of view) also gives us comfort (better life), better way to communicate, … Can we reject it? No. Is that the right way to understand the absolute truth? No. What is the right way to deal with absolute truth, to my understanding it is quite personal. When we reach to understanding that we can claim we find the truth? Maybe never.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

What type of impression that sentence would give you? It does not tell you about how God perform such an action neither tell you how complex it was. To my understanding
scientist had a great contribution on showing us how complex our universe and process of creation of universe is.

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

You should learn a little so you would not spout such nonsense. Science does not care about “disproving” anything.

Who said that? Who could make such a claim? It sounds to me that he put himself in the position of God judging/giving more importance to theologists than scientist. What type of achievement theologists in last centuries had in explaining what we are, what is soul, what is God, how God create universe…? I don’t believe if we could either find the answers to these question following science unless if we are trapped in a simple stupid machine which eventually could be explicable. I personally don’t have any logical proof
for whether we are trapped inside a simple machine or we are created with an absolute being so called God that its knowledge is beyond imagination.

Science may not, but scientism certainly does. People like richard Dawkins can hardly resist any opportunity to disprove Intelligent Design. They cannot do it of course. They even concede the universe and life appear to be designed, but they say that is an illusion. And does saying something is an illusion disprove it?

Perhaps you are another deluded victim of scientism? Think about that, if you dare.

Oh, if only you knew how useless and deluded your empirical science is in other realms of thought!

I am open to everything which make logical sense. I agree with you that one can neither deny scientism nor intelligent design. Please provide me with a logical argument that scientism is a wrong approach on dealing with the problem of existence if you could. Their claim is simple: The universe is a simple machine that is outcome of a simple accident.

 

[sealoch]

First, what you could conclude from an experience which is not repeatable or sharable?

Second, the repeatability allow us to understand the nature partially if not completely. This allows us to build up our own world which if it does not tell us what exactly absolute truth is tells us how complex absolute truth is (God). Simple, we cannot say what simple matter is in spite of all progress and success we had in all fields of science, most importantly particle physics. Repeatability (scientific point of view) also gives us comfort (better life), better way to communicate, … Can we reject it? No. Is that the right way to understand the absolute truth? No. What is the right way to deal with absolute truth, to my understanding it is quite personal. When we reach to understanding that we can claim we find the truth? Maybe never.

What type of impression that sentence would give you? It does not tell you about how God perform such an action neither tell you how complex it was. To my understanding
scientist had a great contribution on showing us how complex our universe and process of creation of universe is.

Who said that? Who could make such a claim? It sounds to me that he put himself in the position of God judging/giving more importance to theologists than scientist. What type of achievement theologists in last centuries had in explaining what we are, what is soul, what is God, how God create universe…? I don’t believe if we could either find the answers to these question following science unless if we are trapped in a simple stupid machine which eventually could be explicable. I personally don’t have any logical proof
for whether we are trapped inside a simple machine or we are created with an absolute being so called God that its knowledge is beyond imagination.

I am open to everything which make logical sense. I agree with you that one can neither deny scientism nor intelligent design. Please provide me with a logical argument that scientism is a wrong approach on dealing with the problem of existence if you could. Their claim is simple: The universe is a simple machine that is outcome of a simple accident.

The universe was no accident. It just is there is no reason for it to exist it just does. Either accept that or not it still just is, and furthermore will always just be in one form or another.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman
**
Please provide me with a logical argument that scientism is a wrong approach on dealing with the problem of existence if you could. Their claim is simple: The universe is a simple machine that is outcome of a simple accident. **

There are many realms of thought for which a materialistic science is hopelessly inadequate. Politics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, theology, history, etc. If you think materialistic science can address any one of these realms, please show me how.

for example, according to materialistic science, why does Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” produce such a profound effect on the listener, even when they don’t understand the Latin lyrics?

Repeatability (scientific point of view) also gives us comfort (better life), better way to communicate, … Can we reject it?

We certainly can reject the aspects of science that are devoid of morality, such as the willingness of scientists to produce weapons of mass destruction sufficient to wipe out human life on this planet. Neither Christ nor the Vatican endorse nuclear weapons the way scientists do. Nuclear weapons are not a way to give us comfort or a better way of life … more like give us despair and a better (more complete) path to universal death.

What type of achievement theologists in last centuries had in explaining what we are, what is soul, what is God, how God create universe…?

The first great pioneer of modern science, Roger Bacon, was a Catholic priest. Copernicus was a Catholic priest. The founder of the science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest. The father of the Big Bang theory, George LeMaitre, was a Catholic priest. Please learn some history. Religion does not stand in the way of science, and deeply religious men have contributed greatly to the advance of science through the centuries.

Who said that? Who could make such a claim?

I’ve already told you, Robert Jastrow. Among other achievements, he was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee for the Apollo lunar landings.

 

[Bagheera]

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

He used a poetic language. There was no “literal explosion”. The singularity was not the beginning of the universe, it was merely a change from one state to another. Our current physics cannot penetrate the singularity, and does not pretend that it can. When one is ignorant, the only intellectually honest thing is to admit it. And that is precisely what science does.

Science may not, but scientism certainly does.

Whatever “scientism” might be. Just another meaningless buzzword.

They even concede the universe and life appear to be designed, but they say that is an illusion.

No, it does not “appear” to be designed, it is (not just appear to be) ordered. However, order does not require an “orderer”.

Oh, if only you knew how useless and deluded your empirical science is in other realms of thought!

“Useless”? “Deluded”? Well, just look around and give me one example of a real achievement which was not due to critical, scientific thinking. Length of life? Quality of life? Communication? Discoveries? Conquering diseases? Computers, which are the result of that “useless” and “deluded” science. If you had any intellectual honesty, you would foreswear all the results that came from that “useless” and “deluded” empirical science. But I make a bet: you will not do it. You will keep on using those results. But then you are not an intellectually honest person.

When it comes to reality, there is no competitor to “empirical science”. When it comes to wishful thinking and unprovable hypotheses, science refuses to participate in meaningless “race” and leaves it to the snake-oil peddlers, whose only “method” is to say: “trust me”!

 

[Bagheera]

There are many realms of thought for which a materialistic science is hopelessly inadequate. Politics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, theology, history, etc. If you think materialistic science can address any one of these realms, please show me how.

You need to learn much more before you could comprehend it. Of course your list is really just a hodgepodge of unrelated and mostly subjective disciplines.

We certainly can reject the aspects of science that are devoid of morality, such as the willingness of scientists to produce weapons of mass destruction sufficient to wipe out human life on this planet.

Practical usage of science has nothing to do with science. It is impossible to create a hammer, which can only be used on a nail, but not on another head.

The first great pioneer of modern science, Roger Bacon, was a Catholic priest. Copernicus was a Catholic priest. The founder of the science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic priest. The father of the Big Bang theory, George LeMaitre, was a Catholic priest. Please learn some history.

Back then everyone was “catholic”, the opposite being punished by death. And education was only available to the clergy. So, no wonder that the first practitioners of science were priests.

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

Religion does not stand in the way of science, and deeply religious men have contributed greatly to the advance of science through the centuries.

And not religious people made even more contribution. Those people you mentioned made excellent contribution to science, not because they were catholics. Their contribution was despite they were catholics, because they used the rational, physicalist approach, because they did not succumb to the “goddidit” type of "explanation… Just for the fun of it, show me just one verse from the bible which endorses the critical, scientific thinking.