Are all sceptics materialists?

[Joey McGee]

Well, you're wrong and you're living an in imaginary nightmare, that must suck, sorry.

 

[fuelair]

I've been arguing that I think that modern physical theories are moving towards absurdity. Computer Simulation or Multiverse is no
better than religion; Religion even trumps those theories in evidence!
Islam, for example, did stabilize a society for a very long time and even ushered in a Golden Age. And isn't it at least a little bit odd
that one man was able to conquer the entire Middle East within his lifetime? That's evidence. I doesn't trump Quantum Mechanics or
Relativity in evidence but it does trump Multiverse theory.
When I mention this a lot of times I get the response that it's a straw man to think that all sceptics believe in such theories. After all, they
are nothing but unproven hypothesises, right? The point I'm making however is that they are preferred by sceptics over religious theories
because present day sceptics are almost without exception Materialists. And that it is essentially the Materialistic world view that is in trouble
when I state that Islam has more evidence going for it than Magical Computer Programmers. So I'm accusing the present day scientists or sceptics
of being dogmatic Materialists. Otherwise, they should take Islam way more seriously than Multiverses since that's what the evidence says.

My question is if someone can provide me an example of a person considered a sceptic, yet who isn't a Materialist. Are there any sceptics that
aren't Materialists? Or is such a position considered to be implicitly contrary to scepticism?

Religion is a kerfluffle. Computers often work well -and when they do not, there is usually a discernable reason why they don't. Religion works on the rules of probability for whatever you want religion to do/not do. Mohammed sucked-as did his followers and as did all the religious leaders who allowed their religion to promulgate evil and hatred (that would be a **** load of xtian ones and a **** load of the others)!!!

 

[Craig4]

I wrote this physics simulation/game engine from scratch in C++. It's one of my hobbies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ75ojwwMD8

Currently, I'm working on this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnHb3rItuQ

I'm basically an expert on 3D Graphics and Physics Simulation. I've worked in the game industry for a couple of years and I have one actually published
xbox360/PS3 game on my name, but it wasn't very well received. (It sucked.) I currently work in computer security.

You games look kind of dated and simulation doesn't seem to relate anything you're commenting on.

What books or researchers have you read or do you follow note topic of a multiverse? What is the state of research and experimentation on the topic?

 

[abaddon]

I wrote this physics simulation/game engine from scratch in C++. It's one of my hobbies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ75ojwwMD8

Currently, I'm working on this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnHb3rItuQ

I'm basically an expert on 3D Graphics and Physics Simulation. I've worked in the game industry for a couple of years and I have one actually published
xbox360/PS3 game on my name, but it wasn't very well received. (It sucked.) I currently work in computer security.

Oh. Flash games. Right.

You know flash is soon to be deprecated, right?

 

[Kid Eager]

I've been debating these issues for about a year now on an international board that's filled with academics, sceptics and scientifically-minded people.
Just to be as sure as I possibly can be. Science isn't perfect, you know, but it's at least as rigorous if not more so than most experiments done
in sociology that are accepted by the community at large.



When the materialistic delusions become absurd enough, you can do that, yes. I've also said that you're almost, but not quite, able to proof that Lord Xenu
exists, already. It's logical trivialism you're running into, absurdity.

I appreciate you've been thrashing that strawman of the scientific method that you so carefully constructed. Alas, it again fails through yet another use of false equivalence - a common factor in your arguments in this and other threads.

Still waiting for the honesty to arrive. All this arguing from behind a curtain is becoming a bit obvious. Islam, Crowley, whatever.

What's your real beef and why?

 

[Joey McGee]

It's simple, he's a relativist, and he talks nonsense like it's some kind of zen koan that will lead us to enlightenment.

 

[devnull]

I think I have Fairytale Fights here somewhere.

It's not great.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I think it's pointless to debate you any further. The only thing you seem to be interested in is spreading confusion. Not because you want to get to the
bottom of things, but purely for the sake of confusion.

That's hilarious, coming from a guy who intentionally types like an ass-hat and refuses to change it.

 

[AdamSK]

...one man, Mohammed, conquered and stabilized a society all by himself.

Still not true.

You can't expect to properly account for the facts if you won't represent the facts themselves honestly.

 

[Cat Not Included]

I've already posted this on what I think the scientific theory of Islam is. It was a delight to me that it turned out to be the Shahada,
the fundamental Oath of Islam. The observation is that Mohammed apparently thought it best to choose the most evidence-based assertion for this.

Ok, to make it clear : I know they're unproven hypothesises. And so is 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger'.
Both are unproven. I know this.
But ... they're not equal in evidence due to the fact that Mohammed really did something extraordinary.And so, ... even though the evidence for Islam is not as strong as that for QM, it's still evidence. More than that for the other 'unproven' hypothesises.
And evidence is _never_ certain, not even that for QM. So the argument is valid, unless you require _absolute_ certainty but that's beyond the scope
of the Scientific Method.

J.K. Rowling created a fictional world with a series of books that were incredibly popular across several different continents, uniting people from entirely different cultures in their appreciation of a fictional world. These people have been so devoted that they've created numerous ways to experience this fiction world. Among other things, this has resulted in real people playing a sport that requires non-existent fictional equipment, which despite having absurd scoring rules is better known than some real-world sports.

Let that sink in; people around the world play a sport requiring gear that science says doesn't exist. Could they all really be deluded? Perhaps they know things science doesn't? Or maybe there is transcendent truth there in the superposition of the real and the impossible. What could be more extraordinary and proof of something amazing and supernatural going on than that?

Now, I'm not saying that proves that waving wands around really works, but that is a lot of evidence. Sure, the evidence isn't as strong as for quantum mechanics, but surely the evidence is stronger than for many other views of reality. Especially since all these amazing things were accomplished without killing anyone.

 

[Jodie]

The question is " Are all skeptics materialists?" The definition of materialism as it pertains to a philosophical outlook on life is a form of monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions. Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.

This is why skeptics get irritated when you bring up theories of quantum physics as a potential explanation for what would otherwise be some type of inexplicable phenomena. This is where the philosophy of skepticism is abused IMO. Rather than state something has no obvious explanation they will fall back on some kind of reasonable cause that doesn't logically fit the situation. I've only met a tiny percentage of skeptics that were willing to say " I don't know".

To answer your question, yes, they are materialists, but true skepticism doesn't mean that the answer to everything is readily available in the physical world. The physical world does include a quantum level that isn't directly observable or understood by most people, even those claiming expertise in the field.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My question is if someone can provide me an example of a person considered a sceptic, yet who isn't a Materialist. Are there any sceptics that
aren't Materialists? Or is such a position considered to be implicitly contrary to scepticism?

Several skeptic members here are not materialists. In fact, what exactly is a materialist?

Hans

 

[fagin]

Someone who prefers silk to polyester?

 

[Minoosh]

Read first 3 pages of thread, stopped. The OP is really not such a bad question, although the example of Islam is a non sequitur. There is a core of current and past posters whose conception of reality does pretty much eliminate free will, and boils all human thought and action into a series of chemical reactions. "Thought" may change action, but the "thought" itself is a chemical reaction; at no time does something non-material (say, willpower) actually change material outcomes. Frankly, I think logic is on that side, yet it clashes with a concept of dualism that many of us hold firmly in our materialistic "minds."

Why did dualism become a go-to coping mechanism?

IMO, one reason is that dualism is required to believe in an afterlife. As far as I know, no experiment ever devised yields evidence of an afterlife. Yet, at some point in human evolution this became almost a defining feature of modern man. When a vibrant human being dies, leaving a corpse, it's normal (in my experience) to perceive that the person is "gone." When did humans start to feel so strongly that the person must have gone somewhere?? Maybe somewhere immaterial; somewhere in a hidden dimension; joining the collective consciousness of the ancestors ... if there is no physical presence then believers tend to either imagine unseen physical worlds or hypothesize that the knowledge is beyond human understanding/measurement/detectability. My question is, why does the species seem to have such an atavistic need to act as if there is a non-material world, and when did this start? Animals pine, animals mourn - they can certainly miss someone; and also they are installed with survival instincts, but do they fear death? Their own, or anyone else's?

I'm messing around on the Internet but if I "put my mind to it" I can get up and do some chores. At least it will feel that way. It may just be that the discomfort of stress hormones due to unfinished tasks will become so severe I will have to get up and take certain actions that I've learned will help me feel more in control.

I don't identify as an atheist. Maybe there is some force we haven't captured, measured, contained or explained. But there's no evidence, or at least no evidence with predictive power. The fact that cultural memes seem to be contagious, and can grow exponentially (or die out) is intriguing, though. People do have "ideas," ideas do seem to change individuals/groups and I don't have enough of a biology background to posit a physical (materialist) mechanism to account for this. Maybe histones have something to do with it. I just don't know.

 

[Minoosh]

Is there a materialist explanation for the fact that people can sometimes (apparently) "will" their dying body to stay alive, or, conversely, die on demand?

This is a timely example: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 4th of July 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Now, IMO that is a hell of a coincidence. Neither knew of the other's death (which is a weird way to put it, but Yogi Berra would know what I mean).

This case is also kind of creepy:
The Silent Twins

ETA: First time I've ever posted in the "paranormal" thread - thought this was "religion and philosophy." I might philosophize about a non-material underpinning to the visible universe but I can't stand arguments where freaky anecdotes are presented as "proof" of anything. I consider myself a skeptic, though, including being skeptical that the pinnacle unified theory of everything will be tied up with a red bow exactly in my lifetime. How many generations have thought they had reached the pinnacle of knowledge?

 

[steenkh]

I've only met a tiny percentage of skeptics that were willing to say " I don't know".

In my experience, skeptics are just as likely to accept an explanation of "we don't know", but in a debate situation like on this forum we are expected to come up with an explanation, and if we don't, it is taken as evidence for the supernatural.

In our view any explanation is better than a supernatural one, so we tend to stick with an unlikely explanation rather than an extremely unlikely explanation, which is the supernatural one.

 

[steenkh]

Is there a materialist explanation for the fact that people can sometimes (apparently) "will" their dying body to stay alive, or, conversely, die on demand?

Why not? Stress hormones can degrade the body and cause death, and a lack of stress can presumably prolong the functioning of vital organs. It seems that we can influence our time of death in a minor way, which is why men tend to die before big events like anniversaries, whereas women apparently look more forward to the events because they tend to die just after.

How many generations have thought they had reached the pinnacle of knowledge?

It is just an expression of speech: no scientist in their right mind will claim that we shall ever know all there is to know.

But we certainly know more than any generation before us.

 

[Minoosh]

Why not? Stress hormones can degrade the body and cause death, and a lack of stress can presumably prolong the functioning of vital organs. It seems that we can influence our time of death in a minor way, which is why men tend to die before big events like anniversaries, whereas women apparently look more forward to the events because they tend to die just after.

Hmm ... men dread anniversaries, women crave them. Interesting.

 

[Marasmusine]

This is a timely example: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on the 4th of July 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Now, IMO that is a hell of a coincidence. Neither knew of the other's death (which is a weird way to put it, but Yogi Berra would know what I mean).

Given the near-uncountable number of historical events and number of people associated with them, it is quite unremarkable that we find coincidental dates among a few of them.

 

[dlorde]

Given the near-uncountable number of historical events and number of people associated with them, it is quite unremarkable that we find coincidental dates among a few of them.

Quite; it would be even more weird if there were no coincidences...