Why the bias against materialism?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
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.

I didn't say it couldn't. I was just asking for a reconciliation.

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.

Well this seems consistent with Heusdens philosophical definition I think. Except that you are saying that you believe both material and non material exists but one depends on the other for existence. Whereas Heusdens definition didn't go into this kind of detail and that's why I asked him the questions I did.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by 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.

But the TV screen is not "conscious," and does not talk back in that regard.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
LOL, yep.

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 do not believe that the definition of "material" that Zero has used is correct. It doesn't appear that you are using it in your philsophy either. I don't see how you and Zero line up at all. So I don't think you can agree that some people actually believe that "things that don't exists, do exists." No one believes that is a true statement. That's just a byproduct of a poor definition.

but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

Oh well then it MUST be true!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well Zero, I don't hate you, or anyone. I do get mad or turned off by things people do, and your last response to me was a definite turn off. As far as I can tell, not bit of appreciation of another's perspective, not an iota of comprehension, not a speck of understanding of anything outside your own narrow views. In terms of a philosophical discussion, nothing is less fun to me than a self centered philosopher, and nothing more boring than a dead-end philosophy.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
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!;))

Actually, I'll point this out again. I don't see how what AG is saying lines up to your view at all. Perhaps AG is just being cordial or maybe HE is the one a little guilty of focusing on who the mentor is?

Also, Zero if you're truly wondering why you might be singled out for any reason as opposed to AG or anyone else then perhaps you should read the content and tone of their responses and compare it to yours. An honest attempt at this will be enlightening.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well this seems consistent with Heusdens philosophical definition I think. Except that you are saying that you believe both material and non material exists but one depends on the other for existence. Whereas Heusdens definition didn't go into this kind of detail and that's why I asked him the questions I did.

I think I have clarified that many times, only perhaps not explicitly in this thread.

First of, how does materialism define the term matter?
Matter in philosophical materialism is defined as that what exists outside, independend and apart from the mind, which can bne projected directly or indirectly in the mind.

There is a clear distinction between the philosophical term matter and the physical term matter. In physics matter denotes some physical entity that have the common property of mass.

The philosophical term matter is much more broader in that it not only includes all physical entities, which can be observed directly and indirectly, but also contains all real-life entities, which have an existence onto themselves that is not dependend of the individual mind.

For instance the state, a human society, a school, an institution all denote material entities, even though they do not denote something physical in the direct sense.

It is clear of course that for instance a school (the institution school) denotes something that exists independend of the mind, it is a material reality, but this should not be understood as a physical reality. When the school building is burnt down this does not imply the school itself would no longer exist. The teaching could continue in another building, or even in open air. Also a plane crash causing all teacher and staff of a school to be killed, would not necessarily mean the end of the school, as new teachers and staff could be employed. The school would of course change due to those catastrophic circumstances, but not cease to exist. The same kind of lessons and study programs would be performed, and the same clases would exist.

For the same reason, a religion or religious institution would also denote something material, as it is an objective reality,

The fact that physics uses the term matter with a different meaning is of course confusing, and the main cause for people claiming that they think something immaterial can also exist, which is often based on things that have no direct physical existence.

I don't know exactly in what way materialism differs and corresponds to for instance objectivism or physicalism.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by 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?

I gave you the clue above. You are NOT saying the same things. Nor with the same attitude.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
It is true then that I have been misreading you especially in other threads. (This is why I thought you may have been widening or changing your stance in this thread earlier.) I presumed too much myself and I apologize for that and for lumping you in with the other exclusive materialist. (Did I just coin a new phrase?)
We still disagree in that you will only accept scientific proof where none can exist. Science is only a tool and not the only tool for acquiring and expanding knowledge. Nor is science perfect even in the limited field that it was designed for. It is the best we have been able to come up with so far for the purpose of studying the physical world. It has been wrong before, is and will undoubtedly be wrong again. It should not be the sole criteria or tool we use to study the entire realm of reality.
It is like looking at the world through an old black and white TV instead of looking at it in 3D and full color. This of course is my opinion only.

I don't see any other tool to use, and I would love it if someone were to show me an effective one...and as far as science being often wrong, well, I would counter that by saying that science is self-correcting as well. Name me anything else that corrects its own mistakes, and then talk to me about things like being open minded.;)

And, as far as the TV, I see your view as similar to wondering what the characters(not the actors) do between episodes.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think I have clarified that many times, only perhaps not explicitly in this thread.

Good response but there are some questions you left out. Does a materialists believe that philosophical matter DOES exists or does he believe that ONLY matter exists? What is the distinction of a materialists and a non-materialists?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see any other tool to use, and I would love it if someone were to show me an effective one...and as far as science being often wrong, well, I would counter that by saying that science is self-correcting as well. Name me anything else that corrects its own mistakes, and then talk to me about things like being open minded.;)

And, as far as the TV, I see your view as similar to wondering what the characters(not the actors) do between episodes.

LOL,LOL, Your hopless; but I am beginning to appreciate your humor. That was humor wasn't it?

As for another tool, try using that electro-chemical gland located between you ears. Scientist don't have a monopoly on the truth.

Yes, Science does correct itself after 10 or 20 years of denying the truth and ruining the careers of fellow scientist who have the audacity to prove the books and them wrong. I hardly call that self correcting. Science only corrects itself after it has no other choice.

I will be glad to give examples if you wish. It is still going on today and will continue going as long as humans are the way that we are. Science is very much a human endevore as I said before and has it's feet very much mired in the mud to the point that it takes a crowbar or dynomite to move it.

 

[Zero]

Your spelling is slipping...

I can use my brain...but what am I supposed to use it on? How can I apply my intelligence towards things that cannot be shown to exist, without slipping into pure conjecture and even fantasy?

 

[Royce]

Yeah, I know, its been a long day. I did go back and tried to edit my last post but you beat me to it.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture or fantasy. Try contemplation or meditation.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, I know, its been a long day. I did go back and tried to edit my last post but you beat me to it.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture or fantasy. Try contemplation or meditation.

But aren't those predicated on observation of the world? Don't we have to have something to comtemplate, generally?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
But aren't those predicated on observation of the world? Don't we have to have something to comtemplate, generally?

Yeah, they are and observing ourselves and other people but not necessarily in a scientific way. Just observing and appreciating. Smelling the roses.

To the second part of your question, no. Don't contemplate anything. Just sit quietly and listen and look. It is amazing what we can here and see when we listen and look with a quiet mind.
Sit on a material rock under a material tree and explore the immaterial subjective world of you mind. If nothing else you give yourself and you too scientific material mind a break. "Try it. You' like it."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Good response but there are some questions you left out. Does a materialists believe that philosophical matter DOES exists or does he believe that ONLY matter exists? What is the distinction of a materialists and a non-materialists?

I would not qualify materialism in any way with matters of belief.
There is no "scripture" of materialism, that tells what matter is or not is. Materialism itself is a philosophical viewpoint that has been developed in centuries, and started with the philosophies of the Greeks (Heroditus and Democritus) that philosophized about some form of elementary matter in the form of atoms.

You must notify that matter in the philosophical sense denotes an abstract category of thought. In the same way womanhood denotes also an abstract category. You can not make love to womanhood, you can only make love to a specific woman.

The main thing that materialism states is the way in which it answers the basic question in philosophy, which is the question as to what is the primary substance without which the world would not exist.
The answer materialism gives is matter.

In that sense it opposes idealims, which states that consciousness forms the primary substance of all being. Theism has made this primary and necessary consciouss being into a God.

Theism and idealism agree on this, in that they state that the material world itself originated from a consciouss entity (in idealism this sometimes also is characterized as a fundamental principle or absolute idea).

According to materialism, such can't have been the case. The reason for that is that without the existence of an objective material reality, something consciousness can not exist.

Perhaps this text of Marx explains and clarifies this fact, that a Deity which created the material world, can not have any objective existence.

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.

I don't think us 'Materialists' really care what The definition of materialism is, nor do we particularly care what any other individuals claim of the definition of materialism is, because no one really goes around trying to keep their opinions within the bounds of doctrine. I have my beliefs, and I never deny those beliefs. I assume Zero is the same. I see no point in denying my beliefs, because I aim to learn, not avoid the hard questions, and if I represent my views skewered, then how will people be able to show me where I am wrong?

If my views do not match your definition of Materialism, then I am either not a materialist, or your definition is wrong.

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.

Now this, this is a great criticism. It is just unfortunate that I haven't spent enough time rationalising more indepth why it is that I don't like it . But I do have an immediate response which for the time being, for me, is good enough.

Materialists accept material evidence, because it is the one method used throughout all of human history which has ever produced any sort of consistent, practical, useful results. The ONLY one. We have seen Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form...and not one of them has produced anything practical, nor shown anything consistent. In fact, many of them are founded on the very Materialism which they oppose: Astrology only exists because of the 'scientific like' nature that the early astronomers took to observe the movements of the stars.

Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does.

So let's go back to your example. This time, you find yourself in the same situation, but this time you are a Historian and know of the results of earlier shipwrecks that have ended in this situation.
1st sailor tried to explain in English and science, and was killed.
2nd sailor tried to explain in English and Religion, and was killed.
3rd sailor tried to explain in English and Philosophical ethics, and was killed.
4th sailor tried to explain in English and common law, and was killed.
5th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Science, and was killed.
6th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Scripture, and survived.
7th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Scripture, and survived.
8th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and scripture, and survived.
9th sailor tried to explain in English and science, and was killed.
10th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and scripture, and survived.

Now, there you stand...what method are you going to try?

Antibiootics, interplanetary travel, internal combustion engines, electricity, gene therapy, cloning, nuclear power. VS If you have ailment x, place precious stone Y on chest and lay down.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
See this is why we hate you but love AG.

Gues who's ,y favourite PF member now?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, Science does correct itself after 10 or 20 years of denying the truth and ruining the careers of fellow scientist who have the audacity to prove the books and them wrong. I hardly call that self correcting. Science only corrects itself after it has no other choice.

I will be glad to give examples if you wish. It is still going on today and will continue going as long as humans are the way that we are. Science is very much a human endevore as I said before and has it's feet very much mired in the mud to the point that it takes a crowbar or dynomite to move it.

True. Science is not a magical entity which knows the truth, and it is definitely dependend on the ability of humans to be able to let go of their overarching metaphysical and paradigmatical views. But what makes science better than all other methods of enquiry, is that it still allows it. No matter how crap the people in science are, no one can say 'OK, new Scientific law: Evolution is true, and can never be challenged.

That is unscientific. Many philosophers of Science don't believe popperism is the best description of how science works now, but I don't think anyone would deny that the concept still applies at some fundamental level. You make a conjecture, and it may be accepted, but it is never certainly true, but it may one day be shown to be certainly false.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Actually, I'll point this out again. I don't see how what AG is saying lines up to your view at all. Perhaps AG is just being cordial or maybe HE is the one a little guilty of focusing on who the mentor is?

Also, Zero if you're truly wondering why you might be singled out for any reason as opposed to AG or anyone else then perhaps you should read the content and tone of their responses and compare it to yours. An honest attempt at this will be enlightening.

Dude, you've disliked me for years...maybe it is your fault?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, they are and observing ourselves and other people but not necessarily in a scientific way. Just observing and appreciating. Smelling the roses.

To the second part of your question, no. Don't contemplate anything. Just sit quietly and listen and look. It is amazing what we can here and see when we listen and look with a quiet mind.
Sit on a material rock under a material tree and explore the immaterial subjective world of you mind. If nothing else you give yourself and you too scientific material mind a break. "Try it. You' like it."

Uh huh... Funny, I look inside my mind, and all I find is me! It is deep and meaning ful to me, but I don't see what it would have to do with things outside of me.

I'm reminded of a discussion of narcissism...people with that problem see everything outside of themselves as nothing but a reflection of themselves.(I wouldn't take it too seriously; it was Stephen King talking about a scary book)

 

[Royce]

AG, don't take it to seriously. I was merely replying in kind and was speaking relatively.

Philosophy and religion changes over time too just as science does. It may take longer but just as human thought changes over the years so does our philosophy religion and science.

Zero, if you can look inside your mind and see yourself we are not so far apart in our philosophy as I first thought. Is the why we have quit calling each other names? Damn, next thing I know I'll be accused of fratenizing with the enemy, materialist and expelled from the ranks of idealist, a idealistic Galileo.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Dude, you've disliked me for years...maybe it is your fault?

mm hmm and maybe it is the fault of Santa Claus, too.

I don't understand this. If it really was the case that I was the one with a problem, then it seems you would still need to analyze why it is only directed at you. I know I would be wondering. Doesn't matter though. I suspected you weren't asking the question because you really wanted to know the answer. I know it was just a venting tool or a debating ploy. The same goes for the question in the title of this thread as well.

But I will go on record and say that If value is added in a post then I will acknowledge it. I'm not on this forum to vent, improve my self esteem or any other self absorbed goal. I am honestly trying to learn. I actually agreed with you in the thread about the guy who will pay $1M to anyone who proves they can do something supernatural.(can't remember his name) So if I agree with you, I'll say so. I just don't generally agree with unthoughtful, unproductive, 2 sentence responses.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
mm hmm and maybe it is the fault of Santa Claus, too.

I don't understand this. If it really was the case that I was the one with a problem, then it seems you would still need to analyze why it is only directed at you. I know I would be wondering. Doesn't matter though. I suspected you weren't asking the question because you really wanted to know the answer. I know it was just a venting tool or a debating ploy. The same goes for the question in the title of this thread as well.

But I will go on record and say that If value is added in a post then I will acknowledge it. I'm not on this forum to vent, improve my self esteem or any other self absorbed goal. I am honestly trying to learn. I actually agreed with you in the thread about the guy who will pay $1M to anyone who proves they can do something supernatural.(can't remember his name) So if I agree with you, I'll say so. I just don't generally agree with unthoughtful, unproductive, 2 sentence responses.

James Randi.

Oh, and we've had this conversation about you not liking my style, or my choice of topics...have you ever thought of trying my new technique, which is asking people to elaborate in a non-confrontive way?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
James Randi.

Oh, and we've had this conversation about you not liking my style, or my choice of topics...have you ever thought of trying my new technique, which is asking people to elaborate in a non-confrontive way?

Well saying that I ask people to elaborate in a confrontative way is one thing. I don't think I do that but if someone said I did I would be more careful. But then when you claim that this is yourtechnique, I can no longer take this post seriously. But you do say it is your "new" technique. I can vouch for the "new" part if you're actually doing it.

I couldn't care less what topics you post in. That's your business. If I make an observation, it is just that. But I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Style is different. I don't care for a style that dis-respects everyones opinion but it's own and then consistently displays no understanding of the view it is insulting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well saying that I ask people to elaborate in a confrontative way is one thing. I don't think I do that but if someone said I did I would be more careful. But then when you claim that this is yourtechnique, I can no longer take this post seriously. But you do say it is your "new" technique. I can vouch for the "new" part if you're actually doing it.

I couldn't care less what topics you post in. That's your business. If I make an observation, it is just that. But I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Style is different. I don't care for a style that dis-respects everyones opinion but it's own and then consistently displays no understanding of the view it is insulting.

Oh, I understand other views just fine...I just cannotaccept most of them. Alot of people see that as a flaw; I see it as the only logical way to be. All viewpoints are not equal. I weigh viewpoints by their logic, and by how much the agree with the evidence. I don't take into consideration how it makes people feel, or whether society will suffer, or base my life on 'what if' questions that have answers created by my psychological needs.
If that sometimes comes off as insulting, I am sorry.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
AG, don't take it to seriously. I was merely replying in kind and was speaking relatively.

Philosophy and religion changes over time too just as science does. It may take longer but just as human thought changes over the years so does our philosophy religion and science.

Zero, if you can look inside your mind and see yourself we are not so far apart in our philosophy as I first thought. Is the why we have quit calling each other names? Damn, next thing I know I'll be accused of fratenizing with the enemy, materialist and expelled from the ranks of idealist, a idealistic Galileo.

I think part of the problem I have with philosophy in general, is that i think it is a wonderful tool, applied to the wrong problems. I think all the meditation and introspection can tell you a lot about who you are, and about people in general, but I don't think it can tell you about physics or biology.
Also, I see some of the issues brought up in this thread(mostly the existence of 'something else', that explains away lingering questions)as showing a lot about the way the human mind works. I think unanswered questions act as sort of a 'cut that would heal, if you would stop messing with it'. Those sorts of things are annoying, and it is often a relief to have an answer, even if that answer is completely wrong.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
Materialists accept material evidence, because it is the one method used throughout all of human history which has ever produced any sort of consistent, practical, useful results. The ONLY one. We have seen Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form...and not one of them has produced anything practical, nor shown anything consistent . . .
Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does.

I see you didn't quite make it to my third objection "half -assed education."

I have NEVER in any post at this or the old PF even slightly suggested "Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form" are qualified to represent those who've seriously undertaken the inward search. I have, in fact, consistantly stated I do not believe anything supernatural is possible, including whatever it is people have referred to as "God." Based on how the universe seems to work, either it is natural or it isn't real.

But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people. Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about.

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . .

I know for a fact there is something more. Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you?

You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does."

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, I understand other views just fine...I just cannotaccept most of them. Alot of people see that as a flaw; I see it as the only logical way to be. All viewpoints are not equal. I weigh viewpoints by their logic, and by how much the agree with the evidence. I don't take into consideration how it makes people feel, or whether society will suffer, or base my life on 'what if' questions that have answers created by my psychological needs.
If that sometimes comes off as insulting, I am sorry.

Yes I understand that is your position. I have nothing against it. What I meant was that many times when good points are made you either completely ignore them or you misunderstand them and respond with the same general refutations. This is my biggest beef. I cannot tell you how many times you have responded to me when it was obvious that you didn't understand what my point was. I can take some fault for that but sometimes it isn't all that difficult. It just seems as if you aren't taking the time or the care to be sure you understand before you're whipping out your general 2 sentence response.

 

[Zero]

Ok, here's something else I have a problem with: claims that only some sort of special experience can lead to 'truth'. That is something us materialists like about empirical data; EVERYONE can share in it, and it can be displayed whether you believe in it or not. The flaw, at least for some IMO, is that empirical data doesn't make anyone special. The only work you have to do is library work, and you can know about the material universe. You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces. Actually, science is the opposite of special experience, something that I'm sure bothers the priests and gurus.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see you didn't quite make it to my third objection "half -assed education."

Which is a rude objection, and probably should be ignored.

I have NEVER in any post at this or the old PF even slightly suggested "Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form" are qualified to represent those who've seriously undertaken the inward search. I have, in fact, consistantly stated I do not believe anything supernatural is possible, including whatever it is people have referred to as "God." Based on how the universe seems to work, either it is natural or it isn't real.

I say that your mindset is the same as the 'psychics, soothsayers, etc'.

But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more.

Inner contentment, happiness, and wisdom have to come from somewhere besides human psychology, based on biological evolution? Could you explain further, especially since all of those things are subjective, and therefore cannot be said to have a single source for everyone.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people.

Again, understanding human psychology takes care of this nicely.

Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about.

And that would be a correct statement, of course. 'Useful' being a word used in place of 'practical', I'm sure.

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . .

That is you projecting your bias on us, buddy! The point of materialism is that we accept what can be observed empirically, and leave the rest alone. It is the non-materialists who 'look inside. look deep', and then claim to have special knowledge of the universe. Now, if you claimed to have special knowledge of yourself, I would believe it 150%, since that is the only think you can really study though meditation.

I know for a fact there is something more.

This statement seems to be the exact opposite of what you mean, isn't it? You know for a 'fact'?? I think you mean you have an emotional certainty, don't you?

Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you?

Yep, an inner effort yields inner knowledge.

[/quote]You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.[/quote] They experienced themselves, and lots of it.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does."

How can looking at your belly button give you any knowledge besides the geography of your navel?

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations.

I'll bet you say that to all the guys...