The inadequacy of materialism

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

"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.

My guess is that you think anyone who is religious is not honest … nor capable of great scientific work. So much for your brand of logic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

**Ever heard of Giordano Bruno? **

If that’s the best you can do, you are hopelessly ignorant of science.

Priests who made scientific contributions did not do so in spite of their theology. George LeMaitre was not a priest because that’s all he could be to get educated. He was a brilliant mathematician who could have gotten anywhere in life he wanted to go without having to be a priest. Your reasoning skills need to be honed. Also, you need to stop with the silly stereotypes … science good, religion bad. You sound like all the other scientism parrots.

And not religious people made even more contribution.

do you mean atheists? Oh, please.

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

 

[Bagheera]

My guess is that you think anyone who is religious is not honest … nor capable of great scientific work. So much for your brand of logic.

You just don’t get it. I was not talking about religious people in general. I was talking only about you, in this specific context.

It was you who spouted “useless” and “delusional” when it came to empirical science. And then you praise all those “religious scientists” who also engaged in that “useless” and “delusional” empirical science. You should think before you refute your own assertions. Of course that makes my job simple. All I have to do is quote your own posts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera
**
You just don’t get it. I was not talking about religious people in general. I was talking only about you, in this specific context. **

No you don’t! You made a blanket exaltation of science and a blanket slap at religion.

If the world ever ceases to have religion, you would learn pretty fast how far your science will get you. Science will turn us all into behavior modified robots.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[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.

You are begging the question. How do you know they were “just enough” by Chance?

{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)

No response!

quote 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_pr…_consciousness. Watching the following video would be insightful: youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

The problem remains unsolved by** materialists**.

quote 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.
[/quote]

Design!

(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.

“We just cannot explain” is incorrect. You reject the most obvious explanation: Design!

(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)

No response!

(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.

No response!

(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)

No response!

What is your opinion?

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

Matter is an inadequate explanation because it consists of atomic particles which know nothing!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If we believed in scientific materialism and that alone because that alone allows us to prove or verify anything. then we should be very dull duds indeed! To this day materialists worship David Hume. I keep a copy of one of his books near my bed constantly for when I am restless and can’t sleep. He is such a great sedative!

 

[tonyrey]

If we believed in scientific materialism and that alone because that alone allows us to prove or verify anything. then we should be very dull duds indeed! To this day materialists worship David Hume. I keep a copy of one of his books near my bed constantly for when I am restless and can’t sleep. He is such a great sedative!

Exposing the flaws in his Dialogues stood me in good stead academically!

 

[Bahman]

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.

I asked about an argument about origin of universe which contradict their believes. People could believe different things, the problem is whether that belief could be supported with any evidence. For them they have many evidences that support their idea. Please read: hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

 

[Bahman]

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?

These are basically outcome of mind. What mind is?, how it functions?.. I don’t have answer to them and I don’t think that we could ever understand these aspect of mind whether using theology or science.

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.

I think we should first blame politician. Hand of theologians also are not completely clear form blood considering what happened in history.

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.

I am aware of some of those individuals and their contributions in field of science. My question was about contribution of theology in understanding of universe and God and whether their contribution is as significant of science, at least in understand universe.

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.

Why we should accept that his claim is correct?

 

[Bahman]

You are begging the question. How do you know they were “just enough” by Chance?

We cannot possibly find a proof whether it was the result of chance or intelligent design!

The problem remains unsolved by** materialists**.

Not completely. We are aware of the interaction of drugs with our mind. Why our mind/self/soul should be affected by use of drug, ageing…?

Design!
“We just cannot explain” is incorrect. You reject the most obvious explanation: Design!

Obvious? You mean that you have enough evidence for God intervention.

Matter is an inadequate explanation because it consists of atomic particles which know nothing!

What is matter is as ambiguous of soul if it is not worst. The existence of both mind/self/soul and matter simply is the result of our experience from internal and external world.

 

[tonyrey]

We cannot possibly find a proof whether it was the result of chance or intelligent design!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman
**
I think we should first blame politician. **

No, we should first blame the scientists. They, not the politicians, introduced the idea of the superweapon.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman
**
Why we should accept that his claim is correct? **

Because it is.

Scientists for centuries have believed the universe to be infinite and eternal. Theologians believed it to be created. The Big Bang clearly show creation. How can that be insignificant as a contribution of theology?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman
**
I think we should first blame politician. **

No, we should first blame the scientists. They, not the politicians, introduced the idea of the superweapon.

How about this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades and other wars and bloodshed in the name of God. Who were behind them? Scientist or theologian?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman
**
Why we should accept that his claim is correct? **

Because it is.

Scientists for centuries have believed the universe to be infinite and eternal. Theologians believed it to be created. The Big Bang clearly show creation. How can that be insignificant as a contribution of theology?

The main question is when this idea came from and who really owns it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman

**Who were behind them? Scientist or theologian? **

If not for the Crusades, your alphabet today might be Arabic. Does that cheer you up?

We are still fighting Crusades of a sort, no? Obama’s Crusade.

Whose side are you on, by the way?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bahman

**The main question is when this idea came from and who really owns it? **

Well, Einstein certainly didn’t own it. And it was a Catholic priest who fathered it.

He did so naturally because he had no bias against the creation of the universe as Einstein did.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman

**Who were behind them? Scientist or theologian? **

If not for the Crusades, your alphabet today might be Arabic. Does that cheer you up?

We are still fighting Crusades of a sort, no? Obama’s Crusade.

Whose side are you on, by the way?

I am on side of peace.

 

[tonyrey]

I am on side of peace.

In a Godless universe you have no choice!

 

[Bahman]

In a Godless universe you have no choice!

Why not? What make you think that we have a choice otherwise?