Why aren't all atheists materialists?

[Christian]

Okay. There are some claims which are logically inconsistent, but that depends on the assumptions you make, do you agree?

In mathematics, it is possible to construct different logically consistent sets of claims based on different assumptions. Then whether a statement belongs to the "true" set of claims would depend on which assumptions you made. The classic example is non-euclidean geometry. Again, I don't know what you really understand and don't understand, so forgive me if I am telling you something you already know.

The reason we argue over definitions is because these are our assumptions. It is always possible to claim a given statement is "true" (logically consistent) if we choose our assumptions or definitions correctly. Most people aren't going to argue over the definition of "car", but as you saw in the last thread we can argue endlessly over the definition of "atheist".

Similarly, I can posit a definition of "deity" by which there are supernatural entities which are not deities. I suspect that Buddhists use this definition.

Yes, I understand.

What can be logically inconsistent about a definition?

A lot. If the definition includes premises that contradict other premises (within the same definition) or were conclusions don't follow from these premises, we create inconsistencies.

In the atheist definition posed, all was well and dandy until a logical inconistency appeared.

It is logically inconsistent to state no beliefs in gods, and affirm no mental process is required to state that.

 

[ideogram]

A lot. If the definition includes premises that contradict other premises (within the same definition) or were conclusions don't follow from these premises, we create inconsistencies.

In the atheist definition posed, all was well and dandy until a logical inconistency appeared.

It is logically inconsistent to state no beliefs in gods, and affirm no mental process is required to state that.

I believe the heart of the argument was over whether a two-year-old could be an atheist. I don't see anything logically inconsistent about defining "atheist" in such a way that a two-year-old could be an atheist, do you think you can dismiss this definition via logical reasoning alone?

Similarly, I don't see how it is logically inconsistent to define a category of supernatural entities that does not include deities.

 

[Christian]

I believe the heart of the argument was over whether a two-year-old could be an atheist. I don't see anything logically inconsistent about defining "atheist" in such a way that a two-year-old could be an atheist, do you think you can dismiss this definition via logical reasoning alone?

No, I don't find that logically inconsistent. I do find the defintion meaningless. I don't think the word was "created" to be used that way. But that is my opinion.

Similarly, I don't see how it is logically inconsistent to define a category of supernatural entities that does not include deities.

That would depend on the definition of deity. If we define deity like (premise):

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred

then, yes there would be an inconsistency. If we define it like this:

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god."

There is no inconsistency of definition. But there is an inconsistency of criteria.

 

[Robin]

Complicated way to word it. To me it would be matter and all matter can be.

It is not that complicated once you understand the jargon. A reductionist materialist would say that there are ways of relating all scientific theories to each other. An eliminative says that once there is the ideal theory then all others can be eliminated in favour of that one. There are also a number of half way positions in between.

But "matter" is a problematic term since it means a specific thing within science and not everything is matter.

If you ask me, anything that can be observed.

Which is how the first modern Materialist d'Holbach described it, adding that we cannot know what it actually is only how it impacts our senses.

However, if you define "matter" as everything that can be observed then Materialism and Empiricism are pretty much identical.

This is above my head.

Or more likely I am not explaining it well.

I don't get it. How else would a materialist observe and test?

You misunderstand. A materialist regards the scientific method as the only reliable source of information (besides mathematical truths).

But that does not imply that everybody who regards the scientific method as the only reliable source of information is a Materialist.

A Catholic regards Jesus Christ as the Saviour. That doesn't mean that everybody who regards Jesus Christ as the Saviour is a Catholic.

 

[Tricky]

I would say there is probably a fairly high degree of correlation between atheism and materialism, but really, few of of us atheists are able to completely shake our non-materialism. Lots of atheists believe in "luck" and other non-materialist concepts, though maybe not as many as theists. But as others have indicated, there is a lot of variation between atheists.

Funny, I was just looking at the thread over in politics that wonders why some gays will vote for gay-hating candidates. The reasons for such anomalies are similar; Humans are very complex.

 

[Robin]

I would say there is probably a fairly high degree of correlation between atheism and materialism, but really, few of of us atheists are able to completely shake our non-materialism. Lots of atheists believe in "luck" and other non-materialist concepts, though maybe not as many as theists. But as others have indicated, there is a lot of variation between atheists.

Funny, I was just looking at the thread over in politics that wonders why some gays will vote for gay-hating candidates. The reasons for such anomalies are similar; Humans are very complex.

But you are assuming that anyone who rejects Materialism must be a supernaturalist of some sort, even if it is just having a habit of supernatural thinking like "luck".

But there are many atheist philosophers who reject Materialism as a matter of considered principle, for example Rudolf Carnap, A.J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick and many others.

For example:

The Materialists say: "All that is, is in its essence material," but the Spiritualists say: "All that is, is spiritual." To metaphysics (in our sence of the wold) belong the principal doctrines of Spinoza, Schelling, Hegel, and - to give at least one name of present time - Bergson.

Now let us examine this kind of proposition: from the point of view of verifiability. It is easy to realise that such propositions are not verifiable.

Rudolf Carnap Philosophy and Logical Syntax
​

 

[slingblade]

Why do you keep trying to put all atheists into a single box? It's quite annoying of you, and you should try not to do that anymore.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?

No and the reason is because your underlying premise is baloney.

Our values come from nature and nurture, not some belief system.

 

[Christian]

No and the reason is because your underlying premise is baloney.

Our values come from nature and nurture, not some belief system.

A belief system comes from?

 

[the PC apeman]

The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?

Theism and materialism are both ontological stances. One who regards ontology as incoherent wankery would be a non-materialist non-theist, like me.

 

[Robin]

Theism and materialism are both ontological stances. One who regards ontology as incoherent wankery would be a non-materialist non-theist, like me.

Exactly

You put it so much better than I did.

 

[llwyd]

Theism and materialism are both ontological stances. One who regards ontology as incoherent wankery would be a non-materialist non-theist, like me.

This sounds good to me too! Though maybe I would not in hopeful sceptism totally prediscard the possibility of ontology to be meaningful. For once.

 

[Sledge]

Excellent. Part 3 in what I predict will be a long-running series I have provisionally titled "Christian refuses to understand what atheism is."

By the way, Christian, when you ask about atheists in this thread, are you referring to atheists as everyone else understands the term or just your personal definition?

Finally, to provisionally answer the question: because "I do not believe in a god" does not equal "therefore telepathy does not exist."

 

[fromdownunder]

A belief system comes from?

Culture mostly. Do a google search on Australian Aboriginals and the Dreamtime. Enjoy, and learn something.

Norm

 

[Dave Rogers]

The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?

Because not all atheists are logically consistent, and not all atheists have arrived at their position by exactly the same process of reasoning. Since there is no single belief system common to atheists other than a lack of belief in gods, as everyone has been trying to tell you for several days now, this is an expected result. And, of course, it is an observation that runs counter to your hypothesis that there is a single belief system or set of characteristics common to all atheists other than a lack of belief in gods.

Dave

 

[brenn]

The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?

The only conclusion that leads to atheism is the conclusion that there is no evidence that gods exist. Not sure how that leads to materialism, but I assume it is because you made up your own definition of atheism to suit your argument.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Numbers don't exist except as Human ideas? And ideas are the same thing as the hardware than generates them?

That's an interesting philosophical question, and we've had some interesting discussions on it in the past. If you're interested, I recommend you start a new thread on it; it's a bit too off-topic here, in my opinion.

 

[Seismosaurus]

That's an interesting philosophical question, and we've had some interesting discussions on it in the past. If you're interested, I recommend you start a new thread on it; it's a bit too off-topic here, in my opinion.

Fair enough. It seems to me like a central question for materialists; it's why I've always hesitated to label myself one. But I don't mean to derail the thread or anything.

 

[drkitten]

But ONE supernatural thing would completely undo the laws of nature as we know them, yes? So if there's one, there quite well be more. So if you believe in one, you should believe there are more than one. God and the angels for example.

Not at all. If you believe in ghosts because you've seen one, that doesn't mean that you have seen God. And if you disbelieve in the Christian omni-God because he's logically impossible, that doesn't mean there's anything illogical about ghosts.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not at all. If you believe in ghosts because you've seen one, that doesn't mean that you have seen God. And if you disbelieve in the Christian omni-God because he's logically impossible, that doesn't mean there's anything illogical about ghosts.

You miss my point, I think. To have ANY supernatural beings at all is to allow ALL supernatural beings. Unless you can think of a good reason why one group would be allowable and another not?