Faith: belief that is not based on proof
What proof is there for materialism? Keep in mind, any such proof can ONLY be logical because any attempt at empirical proof would make that logic inherently circular. The same is true of empiricism.
Reality
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
What proof is there for materialism? Keep in mind, any such proof can ONLY be logical because any attempt at empirical proof would make that logic inherently circular. The same is true of empiricism.
We live in a material world.
Materials have known quantities.
This is logical.
I don't see how faith is involved here,
What further proof do you require.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
You are wrong there my friend.when you say these questions can't be answered beyond supposition.
I would strongly suggest you either go to a book store, or Amazon .com online, and get a book titled, "The Spirits' Book".
There you will find the answers to all your question regarding re-incarnation, and the afterlife.
This book was authored by world renown Allan Kardec, and much of the book was written with direct contact with the spirit world.
For the most part it is in a question and answer format.
If you want to learn about this fascinating field, there is no better place to start.
To find more about the author, and his research in the field, just google his name.
Bob.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
The book has long been in the public domain, no need to buy it. You can find the entire book here:
http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritstoc.html
I want to be clear that I'm not endorsing this stuff in any way, but it is fun to read, even if I don't believe a word of it. I used to love reading books by Elliott O'Donnell, who wrote dozens of supposedly true ghost books around the turn of the 20th century. Very entertaining.
Not so much with philosophy for me. That's not meant as a jab. I just find it mind-numbingly dull, as there can never be an agreement on what constitutes objective truth, so all arguments are purely academic and never ending. I've seen things in my life that I couldn't personally explain, but looking back, none of those things require me to abandon the belief that they could be explained by a proper application of the scientific method. If you want to call that faith, fine. I'm not afraid of the word.
http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritstoc.html
I want to be clear that I'm not endorsing this stuff in any way, but it is fun to read, even if I don't believe a word of it. I used to love reading books by Elliott O'Donnell, who wrote dozens of supposedly true ghost books around the turn of the 20th century. Very entertaining.
Not so much with philosophy for me. That's not meant as a jab. I just find it mind-numbingly dull, as there can never be an agreement on what constitutes objective truth, so all arguments are purely academic and never ending. I've seen things in my life that I couldn't personally explain, but looking back, none of those things require me to abandon the belief that they could be explained by a proper application of the scientific method. If you want to call that faith, fine. I'm not afraid of the word.
I am not sure that is the materialism I am talking about...
In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter
***
Contrasting philosophies include idealism, other forms of monism, dualism and pluralism.
The metaphysical assumptions behind materialism are at the core of Atheism but, as hrmwrm consistently demonstrates on this forum, most Atheists actively avoid discussing that assumption; as if the whole notion of metaphysics and any reality beyond material reality is simply an absurd contrivance.***
Contrasting philosophies include idealism, other forms of monism, dualism and pluralism.
Without logical proof for materialism, Atheism is based in faith and any claim to the superiority of their view because of it's reliance on reason is boastful and false.
For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
-Robert Jastrow
-Robert Jastrow
There is matter and energy as constants in the universe but the flaw in materialism then by your description is that matter is inert or "dead" but then there is life which is scentient and self aware and not subject to the rules of constancy.
Materialism does not explain WHY there is life in material form only that it is.
A theory but life still remains a mystery because of death.
Materialism is not inconsistent with explaining why life exists (as far as purpose), it is simply not the purpose of materialism itself. However explanations for why life exists can assume materialism.
I am not attempting to argue that materialism is right or wrong. Simply that it is taken on faith by many who boast of a lack of faith in their viewpoint.
I am not attempting to argue that materialism is right or wrong. Simply that it is taken on faith by many who boast of a lack of faith in their viewpoint.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
I haven't read it, although I saw the movie years ago. Interesting take on things.
there is nothing in faith about it. you can't prove anything but. so, whats left?shagdrum said:
if there is anything beyond the material, i yet again await your proof.
and bob, as for life after death, read
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=82437
especially, this part.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
When the brain 'dies' your 'essence' is simply going to God (or the devil). Not to nothingness.
KS
KS
I don't have to prove anything for materialism to be false. However, anyone who assumes materialism to be true has to prove it to be so or they are taking it on faith.
Or are you attempting to assert that the absence of proof is the proof of absence?
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Anyway, I have pointed to different things that are not material in nature in this forum numerous times. You know this. To deny it is to engage in myth-making.The mind, sensations (like pain), ideas, emotions, etc all counter the notion of materialism. I know you want to dismiss this fact and bury your head in the sand on this, but in doing so you are engaging in the same simple thinking you like to claim people of faith do.
Either side in this debate relies on suppositions and assertions.
However in life here on earth at this time Republicans are disgustingly trying to put their despicableness off limits by further wrapping it with twisted "Christian" religion and calling it's criticism "bigotry".
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/03/the_flip_out_over_dan_savage_is_part_of_a_larger_agenda_to_silence_pro_gay_discourse_.html[/URL]
Accurately Describing the Bible Is Not Oppression
The manufactured outrage over Dan Savage's remarks about the Bible that inspired what appears to be a staged walkout at a high school journalism conference may appear on its surface mostly to be a last stand of the anti-gay movement to regain ground by attacking one of the most compelling pro-gay activists in the country. And it is, but winning the immediate battle is really only the tip of the iceberg of what the right is trying to accomplish with this feigned outrage and claims that Savage is a "bully" because he accurately recounted what is in the Bible. It's an attempt to redefine acceptable discourse so that statement of uncomfortable facts is considered off-limits, and, in fact, is redefined as "bigotry." Unfortunately, some people are taking the bait, such as Jay Michaelson writing for the Daily Beast, in a tone that made it clear he would prefer to write from a prone position on his fainting couch, smelling salts strapped to his laptop. See, Michaelson is incredibly concerned that criticizing Christian teachings on homosexuality is bad for the gays.
Michaelson would be easy to write off as a concern troll, but to make things worse, he speaks a falsehood about Savage's remarks. He says Savage's remarks "represented a notable gay leader affirming that one must choose between sexuality and religion, between God and gay." This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, if you actually read Savage's remarks, he said the opposite:
What Savage was clearly saying was that it's homophobes who are presenting a false dilemma with their claims that you have to denounce homosexuality to be a Christian. He was pointing out that it's easy to reconcile pro-gay sentiment and Christianity by just doing what Christians are already doing when it comes to shellfish and slavery, which is preferring their own moral judgment over the Bible. So either Michaelson is lying about what Savage said, or he didn't bother to read the comments he's denouncing, or he has poor reading comprehension.
He does try to suggest that it's the last one when he claims that the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality "can be understood literally, narrowly, and with virtually no application to loving, same-sex relationships." Well, no, not if you have basic reading comprehension skills. Leviticus is straightforward on this: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Unless Michaelson believes that sexual penetration between a man and a woman can't be loving, then this is straightforward: Gay sex is like straight sex, and therefore it's an abomination by Biblical standards. (Plus, is Michaelson suggesting that it's okay to be anti-gay in those cases where gay sex, as straight sex often is, isn't in the context of committed, loving relationships?) Savage is closer to the truth of how Christians (and Jews, too) handle these kind of Biblical verses they don't agree with: They ignore them. His advice is how religious people actually reconcile their faith to reality; Michaelson taking umbrage is, at best, nonsensical, and at worst, some kind of weird ax-grinding that has no respect for the truth.
Which is basically what this entire Savage dust-up is about. The American right is undertaking a huge project of trying to put right-wing politics beyond criticism by shouting "religious bigotry" any time someone gets in the way of their political agenda. If they can create a consensus that it's somehow off-limits to criticize teaching that gay people are subhuman as long as you wrap it up in religion, that gives them a huge political advantage. Taken far enough, merely stating out loud in public that you don't believe gay people are evil could be cause for the fainting couches to be pulled out and accusations that Christians are being oppressed. Sounds ludicrous? Well, consider that we're currently debating whether or not it's oppressing Christians to accurately state what's in the Bible. Anyone who is actually supportive of gay rights shouldn't be playing along with this feigned umbrage. It won't stop until opposing anti-gay actions is considered completely off-bounds on the grounds that it's an attack on religion.
However in life here on earth at this time Republicans are disgustingly trying to put their despicableness off limits by further wrapping it with twisted "Christian" religion and calling it's criticism "bigotry".
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/05/03/the_flip_out_over_dan_savage_is_part_of_a_larger_agenda_to_silence_pro_gay_discourse_.html[/URL]
Accurately Describing the Bible Is Not Oppression
The manufactured outrage over Dan Savage's remarks about the Bible that inspired what appears to be a staged walkout at a high school journalism conference may appear on its surface mostly to be a last stand of the anti-gay movement to regain ground by attacking one of the most compelling pro-gay activists in the country. And it is, but winning the immediate battle is really only the tip of the iceberg of what the right is trying to accomplish with this feigned outrage and claims that Savage is a "bully" because he accurately recounted what is in the Bible. It's an attempt to redefine acceptable discourse so that statement of uncomfortable facts is considered off-limits, and, in fact, is redefined as "bigotry." Unfortunately, some people are taking the bait, such as Jay Michaelson writing for the Daily Beast, in a tone that made it clear he would prefer to write from a prone position on his fainting couch, smelling salts strapped to his laptop. See, Michaelson is incredibly concerned that criticizing Christian teachings on homosexuality is bad for the gays.
Michaelson would be easy to write off as a concern troll, but to make things worse, he speaks a falsehood about Savage's remarks. He says Savage's remarks "represented a notable gay leader affirming that one must choose between sexuality and religion, between God and gay." This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, if you actually read Savage's remarks, he said the opposite:
We can learn to ignore the bull:q:q:q:q in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bull:q:q:q:q in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bull:q:q:q:q in the Bible about all sorts of things.
What Savage was clearly saying was that it's homophobes who are presenting a false dilemma with their claims that you have to denounce homosexuality to be a Christian. He was pointing out that it's easy to reconcile pro-gay sentiment and Christianity by just doing what Christians are already doing when it comes to shellfish and slavery, which is preferring their own moral judgment over the Bible. So either Michaelson is lying about what Savage said, or he didn't bother to read the comments he's denouncing, or he has poor reading comprehension.
He does try to suggest that it's the last one when he claims that the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality "can be understood literally, narrowly, and with virtually no application to loving, same-sex relationships." Well, no, not if you have basic reading comprehension skills. Leviticus is straightforward on this: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Unless Michaelson believes that sexual penetration between a man and a woman can't be loving, then this is straightforward: Gay sex is like straight sex, and therefore it's an abomination by Biblical standards. (Plus, is Michaelson suggesting that it's okay to be anti-gay in those cases where gay sex, as straight sex often is, isn't in the context of committed, loving relationships?) Savage is closer to the truth of how Christians (and Jews, too) handle these kind of Biblical verses they don't agree with: They ignore them. His advice is how religious people actually reconcile their faith to reality; Michaelson taking umbrage is, at best, nonsensical, and at worst, some kind of weird ax-grinding that has no respect for the truth.
Which is basically what this entire Savage dust-up is about. The American right is undertaking a huge project of trying to put right-wing politics beyond criticism by shouting "religious bigotry" any time someone gets in the way of their political agenda. If they can create a consensus that it's somehow off-limits to criticize teaching that gay people are subhuman as long as you wrap it up in religion, that gives them a huge political advantage. Taken far enough, merely stating out loud in public that you don't believe gay people are evil could be cause for the fainting couches to be pulled out and accusations that Christians are being oppressed. Sounds ludicrous? Well, consider that we're currently debating whether or not it's oppressing Christians to accurately state what's in the Bible. Anyone who is actually supportive of gay rights shouldn't be playing along with this feigned umbrage. It won't stop until opposing anti-gay actions is considered completely off-bounds on the grounds that it's an attack on religion.
Sorry, the christian rights does not have enough cultural influence to, "redefine acceptable discourse". Not when secular leftists dominate academia, hollywood, the media and all the main avenues of propaganda. Hence, aggressive atheist revisionism is considered "fact".
It is pathetic of the author of that slate piece to turn reaction to a blatant attempt to bully a viewpoint into submission into an attempt to stifle dissent itself. Kinda reminds me of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance".
How can there be any civil discourse when the athiest left engages in hyperbole and personal attacks against all who oppose them.
The slate piece is nothing more than and projection. There is not some "ulterior motive" when pointing out genuine religious bigotry...unless you support some sort of double standard where one side can engage in lies and demagogoury but the other can't push back and defend itself. That slate piece is guilty of what they accuse the right of doing; attempting to stifle dissent (in this case, ostrasizing claims of religious bigotry).
'04, I am rather shocked you would repeat such blatant and hateful spin as that.
It is pathetic of the author of that slate piece to turn reaction to a blatant attempt to bully a viewpoint into submission into an attempt to stifle dissent itself. Kinda reminds me of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance".
How can there be any civil discourse when the athiest left engages in hyperbole and personal attacks against all who oppose them.
The slate piece is nothing more than and projection. There is not some "ulterior motive" when pointing out genuine religious bigotry...unless you support some sort of double standard where one side can engage in lies and demagogoury but the other can't push back and defend itself. That slate piece is guilty of what they accuse the right of doing; attempting to stifle dissent (in this case, ostrasizing claims of religious bigotry).
'04, I am rather shocked you would repeat such blatant and hateful spin as that.
The piece states that they are attempting this as a major push not that they have succeeded.
It's all part of trying to reverse a social revolution that has already been lost.
Criticising so called "Christians" for twistedly using an "innocent" religion (if such a thing could be found) for their made up extreme contradicted cognitivelly dissonant assertions as justification for their interferences and condemnations of naturally born life here on earth is fair game.
Ridicule is a powerful tool.
The diabolical argument being put forth on the right about "Religious Bigotry" would make Goebbels and Orwell proud
It's all part of trying to reverse a social revolution that has already been lost.
Criticising so called "Christians" for twistedly using an "innocent" religion (if such a thing could be found) for their made up extreme contradicted cognitivelly dissonant assertions as justification for their interferences and condemnations of naturally born life here on earth is fair game.
Ridicule is a powerful tool.
The diabolical argument being put forth on the right about "Religious Bigotry" would make Goebbels and Orwell proud
Shocked SHOCKED!!
Shag you know my opinion of religion commandeering public policy.(And fondness of writing in superlatives
)People want religion to be a private matter in the place where it belongs
not have it running public policy.
I'm of the strong opinion that religion which is meant to bring reason and comfort for death and the afterlife is an evil force (because of human contradiction and the Ethical Trinity term I coined that we spoke about previously) when used in politics to address the circumstances of the living.
Denying the natural order of life and the naturally born is not a virtue but a shameful vice.
This is what makes it twisted and evil.
People are easily manipulated and as Madison said:
"People are not angels and it is foolish to expect them to willingly suspend their avarice"
I'm refering to religious avarice here for the social conservative argument.
Look at Islam and the Taliban as a comparative to the extreme rightwing social conservatives.
It's only a matter of degree.
IMO people who put religion first have no business running for public office
especially in the United States of America, a country founded by thinkers with ideas and not religious dogma, and should go run their church group picnics where they belong!
It clearly can't simply be a push back and hope for mutually respectful dialog in light of the relatively new strain of aggressive atheists like Bill Maher. Lies like the false dichotomy of religion vs science notwithstanding.
I have yet to see ANY evidence (or logical proof) of some "diabolical" argument meant to "redefine acceptable discourse" under the false guise of religious bigotry. ALL I have seen is spin and repetition of assertions that are simply assumed to be true (like this slate hack piece). However, I have personally known aggressively atheist philosophy professors who not only distort Christian teachings and history but actually claim they can make a moral argument for slaughtering Christians.
The fact is that devout Christians may suffer from a lot of character flaws (moralizing and self-righteous, etc), but they are not generally devious (if anything, they can be said to be honest to a fault). However deviousness would be required for the baseless narrative of this slate piece to be true.
Most of the people I have encountered who would assume them to be devious have little to no experience with devout Christians, instead buying into false stereotypes created by the secular establishment. This article is nothing more than myth-making aimed at ignoring what, in any other context, would be a clear case of inappropriate and shameful behavior.
To defend it is to defend the indefensible.
To try and turn the argument on the victim (as the slate piece does) is shameful and dishonest.
I have yet to see ANY evidence (or logical proof) of some "diabolical" argument meant to "redefine acceptable discourse" under the false guise of religious bigotry. ALL I have seen is spin and repetition of assertions that are simply assumed to be true (like this slate hack piece). However, I have personally known aggressively atheist philosophy professors who not only distort Christian teachings and history but actually claim they can make a moral argument for slaughtering Christians.
The fact is that devout Christians may suffer from a lot of character flaws (moralizing and self-righteous, etc), but they are not generally devious (if anything, they can be said to be honest to a fault). However deviousness would be required for the baseless narrative of this slate piece to be true.
Most of the people I have encountered who would assume them to be devious have little to no experience with devout Christians, instead buying into false stereotypes created by the secular establishment. This article is nothing more than myth-making aimed at ignoring what, in any other context, would be a clear case of inappropriate and shameful behavior.
To defend it is to defend the indefensible.
To try and turn the argument on the victim (as the slate piece does) is shameful and dishonest.
I understand your opinion. But what happened to mutually respectful dialog?
Attempting to shame a point of view out of the public square is A) a sign of a weak argument, and B) childishness. I would hope discourse could rise above the level of high school popularity contests. If you have to beat opposing points of view into submission, it is most likely that your own view is the one no one should take seriously.
Frankly, your quick Nazi reference is entirely backwards in this. In this instance the ONLY side repressing anything as been the secular left.
Attempting to shame a point of view out of the public square is A) a sign of a weak argument, and B) childishness. I would hope discourse could rise above the level of high school popularity contests. If you have to beat opposing points of view into submission, it is most likely that your own view is the one no one should take seriously.
Frankly, your quick Nazi reference is entirely backwards in this. In this instance the ONLY side repressing anything as been the secular left.
I think it's shameful to deny the natural order of things on a religious pretext and expect to be taken seriously instead of mockingly.
What about stuff like female genital mutilation for religious purposes.
It's all part of the sick religious demonization and fear of female sexuality as the home of the devil which is used as justification for evil.
It's only a matter of degree.
The problem is keeping the demagogues in check.
It seems the social concervatives are trying to outdo each other as to who can pony up and be the most extreme, take it to 11, like a bet.
Well Hitler's propaganda minister was the father of the big lie repeated over and over again until significant numbers of people believed it.
that was the reference.
In this case the lie is that homosexuality is a sin.
It's equivalent to picking on the disabled or differently abled which could describe homosexuals because of "religious" justification.
Attacking the disabled would generally be considered despicable even criminal douche behaviour.
Don't you see the glaring contradiction.
I don't agree with Bill Maher on everything but am entertained by what he may say.
Athiests may not be able to prove materialism is not based on a "faith" in the natural order but religion is even weaker by comparison childish noble stories and wishful thinking as Einstein opined with man at the center of the Universe and it doesn't even attempt to prove anything either, merely makes assertions.
George Carlin was pretty hard on religion too.
Maher has some interesting guests I enjoy watching banter.
I think it was weak and crass on the level of high school for him to refer to Palin as a stupid c unt.
It's so banal.
Brilliantly Proudly Dangerously Ignorant is more descriptive and fitting but America prefers a schoolyard taunt over intellect.
We're appalled and tittilated at the same time lamenting over and over in great tabloid like detail and analysis of the horrible incorrect thing that has been said.
The philosophy of the 100 year old man when asked about the secret of his longetivity was don't take life too seriously so among other things I take in stride commentators and entertainers.
Much better was his quip that Palin and Bachmann were 2 bimbos who belonged on Gilligan's Island but he didn't run with that one in his club act.
Well Hitler's propaganda minister was the father of the big lie repeated over and over again until significant numbers of people believed it.
that was the reference.
In this case the lie is that homosexuality is a sin.
A difference of opinion is not a "lie". Your claim hinges on confusing the two.
The Nazi regime was also build on the identity politics of blaming one ethnicity for all the problems of another ethnicity. It is not much of a jump to go from ethnicity to metaphysical viewpoints (nor is it historically atypical).
Considering the rather obvious attempts to stifle the Christian viewpoint and remove it from the public sphere (you have pretty much admitted your preference for the latter) it is not surprising to see a tendency toward hypocrisy and blindness to cruelty.
The thing is, there have been attempted logical proofs of materialism (the idea has been around for a very long time) but most every Athiest I bring it up to makes it clear they have never heard of the idea and engage in intellectual contortions to dismiss it or shift the burden of proof.
For a point of view that prides it self on being more intellectually curious and superior in the area of reason, their quick denial of the idea is very damning.
Frankly, in my experience people of faith are more likely to be intellectually curious and honest that Atheists. That is not to say that most people of faith are intellectually curious, but they don't presume themselves to be intellectually superior either.
For all it's flaws, religion is a lot more intellectually rigorous and defensible than you give it credit.
People are contradictory and cognitively dissonant when confronted with facts and ideas that don't fit their beliefs
The big difference between Materialism and Religious Faith is that Materialism doesn't believe in an afterlife which is the the antithesis of what a religion is for.
So Materialism does not meet the definition of a religion or "faith" in the usual sense.
Faith in the Universe is not the same as faith in a Spiritual Afterlife.