Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[The Great Hairy One]

I have never said that "materialistic atheism" is a new form of religion. It isn't.

In several of your posts above you ascribe "materialistic atheism" to atheists, an incorrect assignation. So you're now backing down from this?

I have said that it is a faith-based metaphysic - which it is.

That's an opinion you hold. From the posts in this thread, it seems as though several people disagree with you.

For "materialistic atheism" (with the quotes) Google returns 2,230 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q="materialistic+atheism"

A great number of those links are to this book:
http://www.amazon.com/abolition-God-Materialistic-Christian-religion/dp/B0006DC50Y

More are to Yahoo and JREF Forum discussions. Several are links to christian apologetics sites misusing the term "atheist", as you have done in previous posts. It seems to me that you're not the only one confusing the two terms here, and that other people are also incorrectly assuming that "atheism" = "materialism", when they clearly are not equivalent.

For "atheistic materialism" (again, with the quotes) Google returns 16,700 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GIH_en-GBGB215GB216&q="atheistic+materialism"

Well, it looks as though Materialism can be of many forms, including an atheistic style. That does not necessarily imply that Atheism is required to be Materialistic. The two terms (Materialistic Atheism and Atheistic Materialism) seem to mean two completely different things.

I still posit that Materialistic Atheism is an incorrect construct, created by people trying to construct a strawman of the Atheistic viewpoint.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[HypnoPsi]

In several of your posts above you ascribe "materialistic atheism" to atheists, an incorrect assignation. So you're now backing down from this?

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

That's an opinion you hold. From the posts in this thread, it seems as though several people disagree with you.

1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

I still posit that Materialistic Atheism is an incorrect construct, created by people trying to construct a strawman of the Atheistic viewpoint.

Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I have no disagreements with a layman who might not even be even remotely interested in the nature of consciousness and matter.

Neither do I have any "philosophical" disagreements with the scientist who states their thesis (either that they think the Universe did somehow self-generate or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever) even though, unfortunately, it is as untestable as the God/s thesis as of yet.

Nor do I have any "philosophical" disagreements about consciousness with materialists like Dennett when he says he thinks that thermostats have beliefs about the world - even though I strongly disagree with his conclusion. (That's just part of his functionalist tradition and he is at least stating his thesis while - one imagines - not claiming it is a fact (or testable) that thermostats have beliefs.)

What I do disagree with is people thinking they're being more "scientific" without stating a thesis themselves - or just arguing the anti-thesis.

Science is only one half about being "skeptical". When you compare and contrast two (or more) ideas, you have to state which one you support (and why) as well as stating which one you disagree with (and why).

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Phil]

I have said that it is a faith-based metaphysic - which it is.

So you have said.

. . . .
1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. . . . .

So, since there is no testable evidence that matter/energy can self-generate, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

. . . .

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

. . . .

So, since some people are ignorant of the philosophy of science, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

Sorry, but to me, your explanation about how atheistic materialism or materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic is no explanation at all.

In any regard, at the base of it, you are still taking liberties with the word "faith". And I remain certain that you know the difference between religious faith and the initial assumptions of science. Yet for some reason, you keep equating the two.

Why do you continue to do that?

 

[Moochie]

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?





1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.




Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I have no disagreements with a layman who might not even be even remotely interested in the nature of consciousness and matter.

Neither do I have any "philosophical" disagreements with the scientist who states their thesis (either that they think the Universe did somehow self-generate or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever) even though, unfortunately, it is as untestable as the God/s thesis as of yet.

Nor do I have any "philosophical" disagreements about consciousness with materialists like Dennett when he says he thinks that thermostats have beliefs about the world - even though I strongly disagree with his conclusion. (That's just part of his functionalist tradition and he is at least stating his thesis while - one imagines - not claiming it is a fact (or testable) that thermostats have beliefs.)

What I do disagree with is people thinking they're being more "scientific" without stating a thesis themselves - or just arguing the anti-thesis.

Science is only one half about being "skeptical". When you compare and contrast two (or more) ideas, you have to state which one you support (and why) as well as stating which one you disagree with (and why).

_
HypnoPsi

All of which adds up to ... what? I still don't know what you're trying to prove, nor who you're trying to prove it to.

I have a skeptical approach to life. Faith doesn't come into it.

M.

 

[Moochie]

That's "nice", I guess.

I wouldn't put it like that -- it might get me a good reputation.

M.

 

[Ryokan]

Your second question needs to be answered first. One type of atheism that is not materialistic is Buddhism, particularly of the Japanese Zen variety; though other sects would be included as well.

As a Buddhist, I call bullcrap. I'm a Theravada Buddhist, a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Foundation and of Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, and I'm what you call a 'materialistic' atheist. I'm also quite partial to Zen Buddhism, as it's a very 'back to basic' sort of Buddhism.

The Buddha claims that there is no self, no soul (the concept of no-self/anatta), and that what we percieve as the soul is a conglomeration of the five skandhas; they being: matter, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness.

Where is the immaterial in that? Where is the immaterial in Theravada/Zen Buddhism?

I am just an atheist.

You and me both, brother.

 

[HypnoPsi]

So, since there is no testable evidence that matter/energy can self-generate, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

Are you a materialist? If so, are you embarrased by materialistic atheism being simply faith-based? I don't see why - materialists at least have a thesis and can say they're approaching the issue scientifically or are attempting to do so.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

So, since some people are ignorant of the philosophy of science, materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic? How does one follow from the other?

Materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic regardless of whether or not someone is ignorant of the philosophy of science.

Sorry, but to me, your explanation about how atheistic materialism or materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic is no explanation at all.

Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me.

In any regard, at the base of it, you are still taking liberties with the word "faith". And I remain certain that you know the difference between religious faith and the initial assumptions of science. Yet for some reason, you keep equating the two.

Why do you continue to do that?

I do that because I genuinelly do deny your basic assumption completely. Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly.

You're trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is not the case. I, for example, cannot see any real way to decide between western and eastern ideas of the divine and certainly don't have any idea what kind of experiences I'll have in any afterlife.

The spectrum is wide and just as their are fundamentalist Christians in society there are also those who have a total conviction in materialism.

Religion/spirituality is a search of the divine and nobody has more doubts about or less faith in their "God/s" than a committed follower of a path who has reached a difficult stage in their development.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Phil]

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

Are you a materialist? If so, are you embarrased by materialistic atheism being simply faith-based? I don't see why - materialists at least have a thesis and can say they're approaching the issue scientifically or are attempting to do so. . . .

I suppose if you have to have a word to describe me, "Materialist" is as good as any. “Atheist”, “Agnostic”, “Naturalist”, and “Heathen” are just as appropriate. Of course, “Outlander”, “He who walks in shadows”, and “Larry” are just as useful.

I personally like to refer to myself as a “Swashbuckler”. It’s fun to say, and it fits me well, as I often wear tights and frilly pirate shirts.

But to answer your question, no I'm not embarrassed by it at all. I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

. . . Materialistic atheism is a faith-based metaphysic regardless of whether or not someone is ignorant of the philosophy of science. . . . Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me. . . .

Why you think anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief escapes me.

. . . I do that because I genuinelly do deny your basic assumption completely. Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly. . . .

You're not using two different words, or an entirely different language. You're using one word, "faith", and applying it equally to two very different concepts. And I can't understand why you would do that, unless you have no real notion of a religious mindset versus a materialist mindset.

. . . . You're trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. . . .

Yes!! See, I knew you could grasp the idea!!

. . . This is not the case. I, for example, cannot see any real way to decide between western and eastern ideas of the divine and certainly don't have any idea what kind of experiences I'll have in any afterlife. . . . .

Your personal spiritual indecisions and intellectual struggles have no bearing on the fact that religious people blindly maintain total conviction to unsupported ideas. It also has no bearing on the fact that a materialist may make initial assumptions based on the universe around them only to change those assumptions should more information come to light. And as far as I can tell, those are the two things you are placing under the "faith" umbrella.

Is that incorrect?

 

[thaiboxerken]

One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

That's not the reason theism is considered faith-based. It's considered faith-based because it's not based on any scientific evidence at all AND has no basis in reality.

We know the physical world exists, there is no evidence of a non-physical one. Materialism isn't faith-based, it's just a position based on what we know.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?

Here:

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard.

Here:

How do materialistic atheists get such a bad press, I wonder?

Here:

Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

The entirety of post #71 in this thread:

...

Here:

Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

Should I go on? In practically every post you have made in this thread you attack this strawman you constructed of "materialistic atheists". So if you want to back down from those accusations, that's fine.

1) If and when anyone shows me evidence that is testable for falsifiability that matter/energy can self-generate then I'll believe them. The law of conservation states that matter cannot be created by physical processes (or destroyed) so they have a steep hill to climb.

2) If anyone is seriously denying that materialism is an ontology as well as an epistemology then they are simply ignorant of the philosophy of science.

That's Materialism, not your construct "materialistic atheism". That's my fault, sorry, I should have made myself more clear in the previous post.

Posit away - but don't accuse me of it. My only points have been that materialism is a faith based metaphysic and that the scientific study of a subject should end with a thesis (that, strictly speaking, should provide us with a supply of testable hypotheses, at least some of which should resist fair attempts at being falsified).

I am accusing you of constructing a strawman of atheism, and from your other posts in the threat (linked above) we can see that I am right. In post #7 in this thread you say "This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard." where "materialistic atheist" is your own construct!

You are incorrect when you say that your only points have been to try and show Materialism is a faith based metaphysic - you have been erroneously trying to link Materialism to Atheism when the two terms are not linked, and should be discussed independently of each other.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[bignickel]

Gosh, this thread has been fun.

What we have here is is Hypnopai engaging in what seems to be a 4 page Tu Quoque, except: what he's accusing 'atheists' of is incorrect. So, he's doomed in 2 ways right from the start: 1. incorrect accusation, and 2. Tu Quoque, which is a logical fallacy.

I particular love who he accuses those with no 'faith' of having faith. So I'd like to deal with that before jumping back off the thread, since it's doomed to a Tu Quoque fate in the end anyway.

'Confidence' and 'belief' is what people experience when they have used the power of their minds, backed by science, to build things physical and mental, in the universe. It's the reward you get for building a bridge, using the sciences of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc; you can safely drive your car across, knowing the hard work that underlies the structure.

'Faith', on the other hand, is getting the same reward that 'confidence' and 'belief' offer, while skipping all the hard work. There is no foundation: just trust that there's some kind of 'foundation' there, even without building one. It's the bridge across the river, built with no knowledge of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc... just 'trust' that everything will be fine when we start driving our car across. Basically: 'faith' is cheating: rewarding you with with a good feeling with no actual hard work to back it up (unless you want to count sophistry and mental gymnastics).

And so we have people like hypnopai trying to shoehorn 'faith' into the thoughts and beliefs of the very people who find 'faith', in essence, to be truly deplorable. Evidently, to accept what we have detected as a 'default', is to bias ourselves against the infinite amount of things that haven't appeared yet. To say "it isn't there until it get's detected/inferred/revealed" is some horrible scientific "material"-ism (yep, the same kind of horrible -ism's as sexism, racism, etc).

Is this the kind of post-modernist sophistry that they're teaching in universities these days? Hypnopai, you got ripped off dude. I'd ask your school for a refund.

 

[EGarrett]

I edited my bullet points into the Dawkins/O'Reilly video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA66lP2GkiE

 

[HypnoPsi]

I just don't think calling materialism a faith-based metaphysic in the same vein as religion is accurate.

I have never said that materialism and religion are of the same vein.

I am pointing out that, from an ontological position regarding the origin of objective reality, some funky self-generating form of matter and some super consciousness have equal status.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Materialistic atheism is faith-based for the exact same reason that God is a faith based idea - because there is no evidence to support the view or any way to test it. Why you cannot understand this simple logic escapes me. . . .

Why you think anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief escapes me.

I have never suggested that anyone would need evidence to support an absence of belief - nor would I.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Just because two groups of people use different words or, even, and entirely different language does not mean that their minds work differentlly. . . .

You're not using two different words, or an entirely different language. You're using one word, "faith", and applying it equally to two very different concepts. And I can't understand why you would do that, unless you have no real notion of a religious mindset versus a materialist mindset.

If the materialistic ontology is not faith based what is it? Has any materialist provided evidence for the self-generation (or whatever) of objective reality?

Are you a materialist?

Your personal spiritual indecisions and intellectual struggles have no bearing on the fact that religious people blindly maintain total conviction to unsupported ideas.

Yet again, you are trying to suggest that materialists only have 'tentative beliefs' and 'initial assumptions' while theists have an almost total conviction in their views. This is utterly, utterly, false. People simply don't behave that way - whoever they are or whatever they do.

You are also acting as if religion is only about the exoteric and fundamentalists - rather than the esoteric.

It also has no bearing on the fact that a materialist may make initial assumptions based on the universe around them only to change those assumptions should more information come to light. And as far as I can tell, those are the two things you are placing under the "faith" umbrella.

Is that incorrect?

That is incorrect. I am not talking about the epistemological side of materialism - I am talking about the ontological position inherent in materialism being a faith-based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Piggy]

This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard. Considering the amount of time and energy he puts into atheism it is, quite frankly, inexcusable for him not to understand that materialism is a faith based metaphysic.

Whether or not someone believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated or has always existed in one form or another it's still just a belief.

Oh, please!

Why should it be inexcusable for him not to understand an absurdity that isn't true?

Start a thread on this topic and PM me, please. It will be my pleasure to shred.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
One might as well ask why theism is considered faith-based just because there is no testable evidence for that position.

That's not the reason theism is considered faith-based. It's considered faith-based because it's not based on any scientific evidence at all AND has no basis in reality.

We have "consciousness" and we have "matter". Religions almost always begin with someone having a mystical experience or gaining Enlightenment and then everyone else - for some reason - seems to feel the need to construct rituals and myths out of any and metaphor the original teacher used to get their message across. The followers will even go so far as to emulate their dress sense and consider their birthplace 'holy' or whatever...

The basis of religion is in (the nature of) consciousness. One notes it tends to have little to do with what comes after the original teacher is gone.

We know the physical world exists, there is no evidence of a non-physical one. Materialism isn't faith-based, it's just a position based on what we know.

Again, the issue is not really about the mechanics of the objective universe - it is about how the objective universe got there in the first place. As an ontology materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

That said, as soon as you accept that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon from matter, the mechanics of the objective universe do have to be reconsidered. Conscious mate-selection, for example, falsifies a purely mechanistic view of evolution (and all behaviour in general).

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Piggy]

HypnoPsi, what is all this about ontology? Would you please drag yourself out of the 18th century.

As long as you cling to these philosophical phantasms as though they had any relationship to reality, you'll continue to run yourself in circles as you're doing.

If you begin with no assumptions, and move forward from observation and valid deduction, you will find no justification for moving beyond what you call "materialism" (and by using that term you falsely portray it as an impositional philosophy).

You call people who refuse to credit unsupported speculation "materialists" and attempt to lump them with all the other "ists".

The fact is, whenever so-called materialistic interpretations have collided with other interpretations of reality, so-called materialism has won every match.

Every one.

Bar none.

Period.

No other point of view has a leg to stand on.

 

[Piggy]

We have "consciousness" and we have "matter".

Wrong again. The only theory of consciousness which has been validated (and it has been validated repeatedly) is that consciousness = the activity of the brain.

You might as well say "We have 'weather' and we have 'matter'". It would make as much sense -- which is none.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I wrote:

"In what posts have I ascribed "materialistic atheism" to atheists? I think you'll find that I have pointed out several times over that many Buddhist sects are also atheist while hardly being materialists. What evidence do you have to back up this accusation?"

You quoted me saying:

"This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard."

Er... Dawkins is a materialist, so I'm not ascribing anything to him.

"How do materialistic atheists get such a bad press, I wonder?"

Nothing in this quote ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. It's a general statement about materialistic atheists getting a bad press...


"Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact."

Again, nothing in these quotes ascribes materialistic atheism to any atheist who would deny they are a materialist. These quotes about about materialistic atheists.

You wrote "The entirety of post #71 in this thread". In that post, I wrote:

"Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

Thesis defence is the complete opposite of arguing the antithesis. I could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence that, say, the universe spontaneously self-generated; just as the materialistic atheist could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence God/s did it.

And materialistic atheists do that, appearing completely bewildered that people still believe in God, acting as if people should then automatically become materialistic atheists and think physic must ultimately explain the mystery of existence. They think it's all easy and logical when it isn't."

Nowhere at all in this post do I ascribe materialistic atheism to any or all atheists. I have been doing nothing more than discussing materialistic atheism in particular in this thread.

You quoted me as saying "Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is."

Not even this quote ascribes materialism to an atheist who would deny materialsm!!

I am accusing you of constructing a strawman of atheism, and from your other posts in the threat (linked above) we can see that I am right.

I find this statement to be absolutely incredible. When I entered this thread I realised that I would have to specify materialistic atheism specifically as the view I was criticising. I realised this was only right and proper since it would be wrong for me to say "atheists" believe matter self-generated - for the very simple reason that reads as saying "all atheists".

Had I only said "atheists" I would have been heavily criticised - and rightfully so. Yet here I am being criticised for being specific!

In post #7 in this thread you say "This is where I and many others have a hard time respecting materialistic atheists like Richard." where "materialistic atheist" is your own construct!

Look, neither "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" are a construct of mine. I am using the term/s only to specifically make clear which view I am criticising - and I utterly deny ascribing the view to any atheist who would deny materialism.

I've been using the above term to specifically exclude atheists who are not materialists - not as a catch-all for anyone who happens to be an atheist. Sheesh!

You are incorrect when you say that your only points have been to try and show Materialism is a faith based metaphysic - you have been erroneously trying to link Materialism to Atheism when the two terms are not linked, and should be discussed independently of each other.

Horsesh*t! I have quite transparently and openly been doing the exact opposite. I am totally and fully aware that not all atheists are materialists and would never try to equate the two or link them improperly. I have been providing a critique of materialistic atheism and nothing more.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Wrong again. The only theory of consciousness which has been validated (and it has been validated repeatedly) is that consciousness = the activity of the brain.

Nobody has ever shown at any time or anywhere that consciousness = the activity of the brain. All we know is that there is a correlation. Not even the speakers at the "2005 Skeptics Society Annual Conference: Brain, Mind and Consciousness" claimed that it has ever been validated that consciousness = the activity of the brain, even though they think it's true.

Name me one single neuroscientist who claims to have validated causation as well as correlation.

Are you seriously going to try and deny that your belief that neuronal activity causes consciousness (or "is" consciousness) is not just "faith" on your part?

_
HypnoPsi

(The conference is several hours long but you can download the whole thing here: http://www.tsntv.org/Events/2005 Skeptics Society Annual Conference/)

 

[HypnoPsi]

The fact is, whenever so-called materialistic interpretations have collided with other interpretations of reality, so-called materialism has won every match.

Every one.

Bar none.

Period.

No other point of view has a leg to stand on.

Would that include Daniel Dennett's claim that thermostats have beliefs?

(Pssst! The evidence for psi is much stronger!)

_
HypnoPsi