Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

Of all the ideas bandied around theboard, the only onesI know of that is practical, that can be shown to have any supporting evidence, and can be repeated, or predict anything, are materialistic views or reality. So why are they almost universally blasted in threads on Physics Forums? It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...(This is separate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real...if I was attacked for believing in things, the offender would be blasted for religious discrimination. Being rude to nonbelievers is apparently ok, though...that makes no sense either)

 

[quartodeciman]

1. Materialism vs. idealism has been going on for a long time, at least since the time of Demokritos of Abdera (you know, nothing but atoms and empty space underlie all phenomena). The particular theaters for debate and rancor have been about the uniqueness of life and of mind. That is why it is called "idealism", namely, ideation preceding any material conception. There is a sense of "Is that all there is?" held against materialism. And the scientific enterprise is guaranteed to never arrive at final answers. If someone proclaims A, B, C cause X, Y, Z , then someone else can always ask "Why". Some idealist conceptions, such as an eternal God, contain a built-in stopper for the "why" question: "God is the ultimate existent being; all chains of questions end with God".

2. A lot of anti-materialists are, frankly, preachers. It is in the nature of preachers to lambast the hearers. In seventeenth century New England, they would fire a preacher that failed to scorch the congregation sufficiently for hours on Sunday mornings with visions of hellfire and to excoriate the people for their daily wickedness. Preachers were expected to do this to earn their keep. So, preachers must preach.

3. It is human to disagree about matters.

 

[Zantra]

Because otherwise this forum would BORING

 

[TENYEARS]

This is separate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real.

Where is the logic here? You are no different than the people who lambasted the first people that said the world could be round instead of flat. That was socalled science at the time. It also exists now this I do not believe I know, but that is me.

If tomarrow headlines read yet there is more scientifically proven, would you know that it is real? No you would say wow ok it is real I believe because science said it is real. Does that make it real? Will it be an experience to you? What has changed.

Life is about people and band wagons. It does not matter where you are or what arena. They are all band wagons. Sometimes they when not in a detrimental way they are good because they give groups of people a sense of community or being a part of an idea, but they will never lead to truth because the truth must come from one place and it is in a place where the seeker has yet to look.

When I was a child I knew all people had the capacity to understand, it is just that some don't but not because they cannot but because their lives to this point and time have not led them to a set of circumstances that would knock the lid off into the connection.

 

[Royce]

I, for one, am not anti-materistic, just the opposite. I am a materialist philosophically but not a srict or exclusive materist.
As I have said before I think that there is more to the world, universe than the physical material realm. There is also more than the subjective or idealistic realm.

I do not deny physics, chemistry or any other science is real. I do not deny that science itself is an extremely valuable tool and at this time the only method that we have to come to know the physical universe.

The point is, Science is a tool and has limited scope and usefulness. Science and materialism is not the be all and end all of the universe we live in or of us humans. There is more to this life and world than science and more that science can or should address or study.

Religion or spiritually aside, there is life, consciousness and thought itself to question and discuss and so far to date science has not yet be able to define much less determine what it is how it works and why it works the way it does. We only know that it is, but we don't even know what knowing is nor what knowledge is, when we try to get down to the actual workings of the human mind/brain.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I, for one, am not anti-materistic, just the opposite. I am a materialist philosophically but not a srict or exclusive materist.
As I have said before I think that there is more to the world, universe than the physical material realm. There is also more than the subjective or idealistic realm.

I do not deny physics, chemistry or any other science is real. I do not deny that science itself is an extremely valuable tool and at this time the only method that we have to come to know the physical universe.

The point is, Science is a tool and has limited scope and usefulness. Science and materialism is not the be all and end all of the universe we live in or of us humans. There is more to this life and world than science and more that science can or should address or study.

Religion or spiritually aside, there is life, consciousness and thought itself to question and discuss and so far to date science has not yet be able to define much less determine what it is how it works and why it works the way it does. We only know that it is, but we don't even know what knowing is nor what knowledge is, when we try to get down to the actual workings of the human mind/brain.

But, on the other hand, since only science has produced any concrete answers to most questions so far, why is it that when we hit a (likely temporary) wall, we turn back to mysticism?

 

[Royce]

The collective 'we' are still too soon out of the trees or caves? We ain't vulcans yet and our DNA still contains that or worms and one celled animals. When we feel threatened we always go back to where we feel most comfortable.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
The collective 'we' are still too soon out of the trees or caves? We ain't vulcans yet and our DNA still contains that or worms and one celled animals. When we feel threatened we always go back to where we feel most comfortable.

Well, I understand that...that is sort of my POINT! There are psychological reasons for us to want to embrace things that aren't real, and knowing this should make it easier to avoid in the future, shouldn't it?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
This is separate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real.

Where is the logic here? You are no different than the people who lambasted the first people that said the world could be round instead of flat. That was socalled science at the time. It also exists now this I do not believe I know, but that is me.

If tomarrow headlines read yet there is more scientifically proven, would you know that it is real? No you would say wow ok it is real I believe because science said it is real. Does that make it real? Will it be an experience to you? What has changed.

Life is about people and band wagons. It does not matter where you are or what arena. They are all band wagons. Sometimes they when not in a detrimental way they are good because they give groups of people a sense of community or being a part of an idea, but they will never lead to truth because the truth must come from one place and it is in a place where the seeker has yet to look.

When I was a child I knew all people had the capacity to understand, it is just that some don't but not because they cannot but because their lives to this point and time have not led them to a set of circumstances that would knock the lid off into the connection.

See that's the difference between science and religion. Religion IS a bandwagon and everyone's just along for the ride. Science, at least from my viewpoint, isn't about a bandwagon.

If science tomorrow said the Earth was flat, I would need to see it for myself to believe it. I would start walking round the world, because I'm not buying it. The bottom line is that Science is a methodology, not necessarily a belief on the same level as religion. Science has the ability to question itsself. To doubt it's rules when it is necessary to do so. Religion lacks the ability to question itsself, because it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Religion is the intangible, Science the tangible.

When we are children we believe in Santa Claus. I did. Then as I grew older I realized that it was a myth. I also realized it was a based in part, in fact. Nicholas was an actual person in Germany in the 1600's who went around leaving presents at the doors of houses for children. Thus the myth was born. I also realized the need for this myth, and the magic and mysticism that it feeds to the imaginations of children throughout the world. It makes us happy to see the kids bubbling with joy each christmas in anticipation of Santa Claus's visit. It fills a need, a void that children badly need to fill. The same parallel is found in religion. There is a need, a fullfillment that people receive from following religion. It gives them guidance in life, and hope, and for many, a purpose. I may not believe in religion, but I definitely realize the need. And if it gives a sense of purpose and meaning to some people, who am I to disparage their needs? But for me, I see religion for what it truly is, not what I would wish it to be.

 

[Iacchus32]

We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?

That is a philospohical argument that doesn't change physical reality. The reality isn't what we want, just because we don't like the alternative.
Also, materialists don't seem to be committing suicide in droves, so obviously we have figured out 'meaning', don't you think?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
That is a philospohical argument that doesn't change physical reality. The reality isn't what we want, just because we don't like the alternative.

If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism.

Also, materialists don't seem to be committing suicide in droves, so obviously we have figured out 'meaning', don't you think?

Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism.

I don't understand what this means, or what point you are trying to make. A meterialistic worldview has nothing to do with hedonism. Plus, actually, it is the materialists who are all for conservation of the world.

Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide.

I don't see how this is relevant either, frankly. Can you elaborate?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?

You know when I first got here, I was chastized for giving a subjective explanation as to why we are here. And love's been broken down into chemical reations and nerve impusles. So I don't want to hear anything about subjective this and that. We are here because the infinite causal law has brought us to this point and time as a result of an combination of genetics, evolution, and various other external factors. That is why we are here... hmmph!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
You know when I first got here, I was chastized for giving a subjective explanation as to why we are here. And love's been broken down into chemical reations and nerve impusles. So I don't want to hear anything about subjective this and that. We are here because the infinite causal law has brought us to this point and time as a result of an combination of genetics, evolution, and various other external factors. That is why we are here... hmmph!

What? And it can actually communicate too? How novel!

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? And it can actually communicate too? How novel!

If only we could say the same of God

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't understand what this means, or what point you are trying to make. A meterialistic worldview has nothing to do with hedonism. Plus, actually, it is the materialists who are all for conservation of the world.

What would you say about mass consumerism, and the fact that by the time we're ready to buy something -- new and off the shelf -- that it's already considered obsolete? So here we are already looking to replace what we just bought! I see a lot of junk going into the landfills and a lot of resources being wasted. Why can't people be satisifed with what they've got? And why is it so important that "we" only settle for "the best?" Could it be because it's an ego or vanity problem?

I don't see how this is relevant either, frankly. Can you elaborate?

I see a lot of young people today (in fact even when I was growing up) without any sense of values.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
If only we could say the same of God

What should a little speck of protoplasm care anyway for?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Of all the ideas bandied around theboard, the only onesI know of that is practical, that can be shown to have any supporting evidence, and can be repeated, or predict anything, are materialistic views or reality. So why are they almost universally blasted in threads on Physics Forums? It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...(This is separate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real...if I was attacked for believing in things, the offender would be blasted for religious discrimination. Being rude to nonbelievers is apparently ok, though...that makes no sense either)

It's interesting to see how different people perceive things differently. I would have never claimed that there was bias in this forum "AGAINST" materialism. I would say it is for materialism. I'm not questioning whether that bias is justified or not. I'm just stating that I perceived the majority voting in on the materialism side. Now there are a few very vocal individuals who would tend to disagree with the majority view on most things and one of those has admitted that even he is a materialist. Anyway...

My struggle with this materialism/Idealism topic is that no one ever really defines it before they start talking about it. Except for Heusdens maybe and his definitions are 30 page long textbook excerpts and well... who wants to read all that?

Is Materialism the belief that only material things exists? Or is it the believe that material things do exists? Is Idealism the idea that non-material things exists? Or is it the idea that ONLY non-material things exist i.e. the material world is not real? And how can anyone know which to believe when no one ever defines what it means to be "material". How is material defined? I have seen several threads debating on what is and what isn't considered material (ex. energy) so it seems there isn't even a common understanding of this.

So with this void of definition, one side just assumes that there has to be more than what science tells us, therefore there are non-material things that exists and the other side claims that everything is material because nothing non-material has ever been found. This is because apparently the definition of material=everything that exists. So it tells us nothing. The conclusion is built into the definition.

So what's the definition of material?

 

[rocket art]

Why the bias against materialism?

because materialism is a bias in itself. It is an attempt to manipulate objectivity for subjective motive, which is most often, selfish and materialistic.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Is Materialism the belief that only material things exists? Or is it the believe that material things do exists?

Great point Fliption. I think we would need to consider both definitions (and both for idealism), because I am sure all four versions would have a representative somewhere within the forum.

Personally, I consider myself a "Only material things exist" person, but by that I mean that "Only Objective things exist", and those Objective things are not necessarily anything like the matter we have around us, but rather a much more fundamental unit which gives rise to the matter. But it is the existence of these fundamental 'units' which is real, they are the only real things, and they cause everything that is, and are solely responsible for the creation of the subjective phenomenon (which, while being different to Objective reality, only exists as a consequence of Objective reality, and not vice versa).

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism.

Umm..excuse me, but back in "The good old days" when many of the questions hadn't been answered, and nothing was understood about our world people cut down trees without consideration of the effects. Species of animals were wiped out without a second of atherthought, and often without people even noticing that it had even happened.

Back when "Man was created in Gods image" and All the creatures and plants of the land were here specifically for mans use...people ABUSED them. Wasted, threw away, didn't care, partook in hedonistic whatever they wanted.

You can't blame science, materialism, progress, consumerism or modernity for the behaviours of man. We do what we want when we want how we want, and often at the expense of others and other things.

It's just cute how periodically someone sits back and comments "Oh, how terrible we are" as if they are superior to everyone else for having noticed.

Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide.

And you think u can just assume this is a consequence of materialistic philosophy? Perhaps (and that's a big perhaps) you have noticed a correlation, but that doesn't link the two objects up as a cause and effect relation... (this is logic I am using by the way. Logic comes from philosophy. Science is a 'denomination' (thats how i think of it) of Philosophy.)

My theory on the suicide rate increase is actually that our lives are too damn easy these days, and so people find themselves creating internal problems for themselves, and then find they can't deal with them.

See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.

Now is science to blame for this?

Probably. It's only thanks to science that our lives have become so easy.

 

[TENYEARS]

The american indians where materialistic and spiritual at the same time becuase they are not different. They are one. They lived in a balance according to nature and took only what they needed. They were not mad as most of western society devouring all in its path regardless of the future devoid of spirt(Words of oh yes I believe or yes virgina there is a god is not quite good enough, it must be represented by action - responsiblity for ones actions in accordance with nature it's affects upon it. That would be the totality of all life when I say nature, and I consider all things alive.)

Dam, fools materialistic, idealisistic communistic whatever your idiotic ism or ic. For any idiot that says materialistic, I say this you are no different than a puddle, I prefer the puddle because the puddle reflects truth properly you do not because have not taken down the very thing you call "materialism" to it's absolute root. Gravity. You don't know what it is and yet you have the audacity to speak of materialism. This I call a band wagon.

I would have far more respect for an individual who walked around in the realization that one knew nothing and yet accepted nothing that was not understood instead of living in a false notions of what is real. Before you build a sand castle, I suggest you understand the nature of sand to it's finite parts.

 

[Another God]

That sounds very close minded to me...but maybe i haven't given it enough thought.

 

[TENYEARS]

So, you austrailians still kidnapping aboriginy kids to convert them so they leave their roots so you can more easily access the land and resources? I would have of course have to have belived this, but since I know that nature of the human beings I would say with little effort that the probability would be high.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
So, you austrailians still kidnapping aboriginy kids to convert them so they leave their roots so you can more easily access the land and resources? I would have of course have to have belived this, but since I know that nature of the human beings I would say with little effort that the probability would be high.

No, instead we have now given Aboriginals more rights than everyone else and created a fight for the government, which the government wants to win, but for some reason won't do anything to make it easier on themselves. Strange, but I didn't do it.

You know, what you wrote made no sense whatsoever. Didn't make a point. ANd has only worked to injure your credibility as someone who might be able to say something meaningful.

Do you want to fix that for me?

 

[TENYEARS]

No, I edit nothing. It supposedly really happened and not so far in the past according to different sources, but it also happened everywhere else in the world. My point was to get you fired up. Do you really think I give a dam who views me as credible or not? I have witnessed the truth, etc... It does not matter to me.

I can do little to change the world, but I can react in a clear manner and that in itself will be my contribution to the world because that is all I can do.

 

[Another God]

But reacting in a clear manner was the exact opposite of what you did. And I fear any truth you profess to have witnessed.

I don't get fired up much anymore. It ruins my concentration.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by rocket art
Why the bias against materialism?

because materialism is a bias in itself. It is an attempt to manipulate objectivity for subjective motive, which is most often, selfish and materialistic.

Can you support that with a little elaboration?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
The american indians where materialistic and spiritual at the same time becuase they are not different. They are one. They lived in a balance according to nature and took only what they needed. They were not mad as most of western society devouring all in its path regardless of the future devoid of spirt(Words of oh yes I believe or yes virgina there is a god is not quite good enough, it must be represented by action - responsiblity for ones actions in accordance with nature it's affects upon it. That would be the totality of all life when I say nature, and I consider all things alive.)

Dam, fools materialistic, idealisistic communistic whatever your idiotic ism or ic. For any idiot that says materialistic, I say this you are no different than a puddle, I prefer the puddle because the puddle reflects truth properly you do not because have not taken down the very thing you call "materialism" to it's absolute root. Gravity. You don't know what it is and yet you have the audacity to speak of materialism. This I call a band wagon.

I would have far more respect for an individual who walked around in the realization that one knew nothing and yet accepted nothing that was not understood instead of living in a false notions of what is real. Before you build a sand castle, I suggest you understand the nature of sand to it's finite parts.

See, this is another one of those completely emotional responses that doesn't address anything like evidence for or against a materialistic worldview.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
So, you austrailians still kidnapping aboriginy kids to convert them so they leave their roots so you can more easily access the land and resources? I would have of course have to have belived this, but since I know that nature of the human beings I would say with little effort that the probability would be high.

Jeez, and a personal attack just shows how deep your bias against materialism goes, proving the very point this thread was making.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Great point Fliption. I think we would need to consider both definitions (and both for idealism), because I am sure all four versions would have a representative somewhere within the forum.

Personally, I consider myself a "Only material things exist" person, but by that I mean that "Only Objective things exist", and those Objective things are not necessarily anything like the matter we have around us, but rather a much more fundamental unit which gives rise to the matter. But it is the existence of these fundamental 'units' which is real, they are the only real things, and they cause everything that is, and are solely responsible for the creation of the subjective phenomenon (which, while being different to Objective reality, only exists as a consequence of Objective reality, and not vice versa).

OK all that is clear. I'm positive you are correct that all 4 views are held by people here. But what is your definitional line that you use to call something "material"?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
OK all that is clear. I'm positive you are correct that all 4 views are held by people here. But what is your definitional line that you use to call something "material"?

I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existence. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existence completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.

This kinda reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As long as the highest need of society is in process of being met then everything is fine. So I could make the argument that now that our society is at it's highest level of need; a spiritual need, that a materialistic culture hampers progress in fulfilling this need and causes problems. You would get the same things in time of war if there was nothing to fight with. But this has never actually happened so the stats would be scewed.

So I don't see it so much as "man is designed for hardship" as I do "man is designed to fulfill all needs throughout the hierarchy."
It could just be that the highest need is the most difficult to reach.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
This kinda reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As long as the highest need of society is in process of being met then everything is fine. So I could make the argument that now that our society is at it's highest level of need; a spiritual need, that a materialistic culture hampers progress in fulfilling this need and causes problems. You would get the same things in time of war if there was nothing to fight with. But this has never actually happened so the stats would be scewed.

So I don't see it so much as "man is designed for hardship" as I do "man is designed to fulfill all needs throughout the hierarchy."
It could just be that the highest need is the most difficult to reach.

Nevertheless, this post, while not foolish by any means, doesn't address the truth or falsehood of the meterialistic worldview.