Why the bias against materialism?

Another God

Honestly, I think I am a materialist simply because when I present my views, people call me a materialist. My views are those that have been described by Zero though.

How about this angle on it? I believe in an entirely objective universe, which is fundamental to everything, include our subjectivity. If the objective universe can be called material, then I am a materialist (but Objectivist would be a more accurate description).

Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

heusdens

Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.


I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.

Fliption

That's good Heusdens. I have a question for you. I am assuming that when we say "materialism" we are talking about a view based on the philosophical definition you have provided. If I got that right, then how do you reconcile the statement that science is based on materialism when the physical definition (that I presume science would be using)of matter is different from the definition in the philosophical view of materialism?

Also, your philosphical definition above is much better than the ones that have been presented so far. But another question is this... Does a materialist believe that matter DOES exists? Or do they believe that ONLY matter exists? I assume Zero and AG consider themselves the 2nd one. But then according to your definition, they do not believe that conscious creations(emotions, thoughts) exists. This sounds strange.

Thanks for any answers.

Les Sleeth

After reading all the posts in this thread, I can tell you a few reasons why I get irritated with SOME materialists (by the way, you don't honestly think that at a physics forum materialists can be biased against do you?).

1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off.

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.

That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief.

3. Half-assed education.

Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity!

Another God

I love it when a thread appears to progress in understanding on all sides. Thanks for the great post Heusdens, I had all that somewhere inside my head, I just failed to put it all together when I needed it.

Fliption: Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which is based on the Materialistic philosophy. Just because we have another meaning of the word material doesn't mean that Science can't also be philosophically materialistic.

As for the two options, I would actually consider myself the first one. Matter DOES exist. I most certainly do not believe that ONLY matter exists. As I said before : Gravity, all forces, energy etc all appear to be immaterial, and yet all fall under 1. my belief system 2. Under the philosophical doctrine of materialism.

As I have already said: You could call my belief Objectivism. I simply believe that there is an objective world first and foremost, and everything is a consequence of that objective reality. The scientific assumption from this premise is that our individual subjective realities are representative of this objective reality, and so through concession, our understanding of subjective experience may be aligned with objective reality.

And for this sort of belief, materialists get accused of all sorts of crazy things.

Zero

No one asked you to leave...but, if you actually had a viewpoint of some sort, maybe I would know how to phrase things so you could understand them?

Another God

Grrrr..using public computers sucks. I retyped the whole last post, I am not retyping this whole post out!!!! (until I get home)

Don't worry sleeth..your turn is coming [;)]

Zero

It may sound strange, but that does seem to be what we believe, doesn't it? *grins* And we ROCK because of it! Emotions and thoughts, like I said earlier(for the non-reading crowd), are manefestations of the physical, in a similar way to how pictures on a TV screen are manefestations of the physical realm.

I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

Another God

LOL, yep.[:D]

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I am still to figure out how this relationship works though. it is quite tricky. but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

And yet you go to that "Philosophy of Love" thread...and OMG...do some people just not get it?????

Zero

Right off, you show yourself to be awfully biased against me with absolutely no cause...no surprise from you, actually. How do you think AG and Heusden decide what is material and what is not? Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard. If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk. That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief.

Awwww...what standard would you like us to use? What standard CAN there be, besides showing evidence? Please, show me anything that exists, without showing it to me. Just one thing!!

3. Half-assed education. Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity!

Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly belive in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

Zero

What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

Another God

Maybe its some sort of karma thing. I have copped a lot of crap in the past for expressing my views. Maybe now its my rest time, and your turn to cop the crap???

Or maybe not.

Ummm...more likely, it has something to do with the way you assert yourself, and the way I claim that "I believe this, I think this is the truth, and these are my reasons..but if you can show me why I am wrong, then please tell me". (And maybe my signature helps lighten the blow too? [:)]

Seriously though, i have copped so much **** over the years for expressing my views, and it is only thanks to this site that I have gradually taught myself to be able to express my opinions without insulting people (too much) and without causing too much raucus.

i could be wrong though.

[:)]

TENYEARS

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

Yes AG, but since you still have not experienced this very passage you wrote, you will argue the way you do. When you understand the nature of what you say above you will have to reword it slighty and then you will know what the trinity is. Not until.


Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly belive in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

Zero, books? You have to read books to give you a qasi understanding of what you are to lazy to figure out yourself. The mind will lead you everywhere but where you don't want to go. Only when you want to go nowhere will you begin to understand. You are afraid it will take to long, that you will waste your life and no answers will come because there aren't any. If that is the case why to you waste your time reading books for answers to people who seem to profess and understanding of their experiences?

I had some visions come true and some people I work with knew about them. In a conversation which was going on as I was about to leave the building from five different people from differnt parts of the world with different views came five turning heads all with the same words on their lips in a conversation I was barely in. The words were in unison "we were afraid it would take to long".

Truth is not a magic thing. It exists in accordance with the materialistic view because it is pure materalism and is based on the law of conservation of matter and energy. Do you know what that is?

rocket art

Hi. This is in catching up with the question on page 2. Your patience will be appreciated.

I was addressing the concept straight to the point and exposing the mask. It is inevitable that in every philosophical perspective, they had been subjectively approached(not subjectively defined) by individual/s. Materialism however attempts to scheme the concept of reality by manipulating objectivity and subjectively defining (rather than subjectively approaching)it, which will eventually fall into the primitive wiles of human folly, i.e. selfishness, greed; not surprisingly for it limits the human capacity for another's subjective control. Materialism, due to subjective manipulation, refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality for in so doing it may manipulate its version of "reality". Rather than seeking answer or being in harmony or balance, or being holistic in perspective, materialism refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality but rather pretends to claim to know reality only by what is seen, then subjugates and imprisons it by setting limits and boundaries, rendering it manipulated for, materialistically speaking (because it can't understand the abstract notion of selflessness), selfish purposes. We exist beyond lightspeed, this is not the only dimension. Matter, in its certain dimension, cannot exceed lightspeed.


I tend to consider materialism, for its subjective bias as proven thru history, not as a science but a modern day occult. Rather than using such as tool, it had been made into manipulative institution. There was this saying "There is a Lie that tell of nothing but truth."
I guess that describes materialism.

heusdens

Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not claim that matter only exists in visible form, and the exploration of nature through science is proof of that.
Nobody has "seen" electrons or protons or magnetic fields and such.

What mystery and essence are you speaking of here, please reveal us that mystic concept of your thought so we can explore that "truth".

Les Sleeth

That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity."

Royce

I, for one, don't hate you Zero. Though you style makes it difficult to love you. At times it comes across as insultingly arrogant, condecendingly superior and lacking respect. Thats your style and I am learning to live with it and not take it personal. In our discussion in the other thread I saw none of this and enjoyed mentally sparing with you tremendously.

AG and T-Y have the idea in mind if they don't actually state it.
It is not that we disagree that only the material or objective can be shown to exist by science. It is the conclusion that therefore only the material can and does exist. It is the exclusivity of the statement the bothers us. As if you were saying that you and only you have the truth and the rest of us are childish fools believing in fairy tales for disagreeing with you. Sound familiar?

For one thing the conclusion does not follow. is not obvious and is logically invalid. The absence of evidence or proof can not and does not disprove anything or that something does not exist or that is true or false

You may be a materialist or an objectivist or a material objectivist and have truth and science on your side supporting everything you say and no one can disagree with you or you position. It is when you step beyound materialism and objectivism and say that nothing else such as subjectivity can not and does not exist, that you are attacked for you logical blunder and unsupported unscientific overstatement.
Then in your endearing way defy anyone to prove you wrong and insult them when they try.

See this is why we hate you but love AG.[<:)] [s(] [:)] [:D]