Does "materialism false" imply "intentional deception"?

[ChuckieR]

I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”

Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?

It is not obvious (to me and many others) that there is some non-material aspect to things, so something must be fooling me into thinking that there is a material world; or, at the very least, not making it obvious that there is something more than the material world. Why isn’t the “real” reality obvious to everyone (or, in the case of Solipsism, why isn’t it obvious to you )? Why this façade? Who’s running the projector, so to speak, and why are they doing it?

Many of the “standard” religions seem to admit outright that there are things in the world that are there to “fool” you (Satan put them there) or that are put there as a “test of your faith” (God put them there). The fossil record vs. the creation story comes to mind, for instance. So, many religions freely admit that "intentional deception" is a part of their belief system.

What about the non-biblical (old/new testament, Koran) religions, or other belief systems that do not always call themselves religions? Don’t they all have to have to accept this intentional deception?

 

[Dancing David]

In buddhism the intentional deception is the belief in the self.

Great question!

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well they can be objectivists but not materialists. Or they can be pluralists, believe in more then one substance.

Like for example I can believe there is a material world AND spiritual world.

 

[ChuckieR]

In buddhism the intentional deception is the belief in the self.

Great question!

...and that the self is separate from the physical body? I guess the self is what gives you your perception of the world? So the belief is that there is some part of the self that you do not easily have access to that is creating your perceptions? So your self is essentially deceiving you?

Sorry for the Buddhism 101 questions!

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Chuckie,
the argument is that there is a body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions, there are established patterens. But no where in these is there any permenent thing which can be called self. So in other words there is the physical body, but it is impermanent and changing, there are thoughts but they are imoarmanent and changing... etc.. Mostly the buddha was trying to counter the Vedic idea of the atman, the 'see-er' behind the eye, the 'hear-er' behind the ear.

And then the buddha's idea is that attachment to the idea of self causes suffering.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

 

[ChuckieR]

Well they can be objectivists but not materialists. Or they can be pluralists, believe in more then one substance.

Like for example I can believe there is a material world AND spiritual world.

...but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

For instance, if the spiritual world can interact with the physical world in any "miraculous" way (ESP, preserving the spirit/self after death, etc.) and break the rules, then we have to accept that "anything goes", anything could happen, and that the "rules" of physics are just a meaningless farce that can be ignored at any time by the "spiritual" world. Then we must believe that we are being intentionally deceived into believing that there are any rules at all.

Does this make sense?

 

[ChuckieR]

Hi Chuckie,
the argument is that there is a body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions, there are established patterens. But no where in these is there any permenent thing which can be called self. So in other words there is the physical body, but it is impermanent and changing, there are thoughts but they are imoarmanent and changing... etc.. Mostly the buddha was trying to counter the Vedic idea of the atman, the 'see-er' behind the eye, the 'hear-er' behind the ear.

And then the buddha's idea is that attachment to the idea of self causes suffering.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

Not a hijack at all, this is just the sort of thing I'd like to understand. And I admit that Buddhism is still a bit beyond my grasp. It doesn't seem to have that simple notion of a single "big guy in the sky" that the other big religions have.

So it's a bit more challenging to figure out how to fit in my notion that there is some intelligent being that is intentionally deceiving you into believing that there is some sort of orderly material world.

 

[Interesting Ian]

For instance, if the spiritual world can interact with the physical world in any "miraculous" way (ESP, preserving the spirit/self after death, etc.) and break the rules,

Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”

Reality appears to be material? What do you mean? What is meant by "material"?

Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?

If we weren't born into the modern western culture, would materialism still obviously be true? I think we become materialists largely through being immersed into the common prevailing wisdom of our culture, and through "education". Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is supposely due to some "material reality". But what is this material reality? Why can't our qualia constitute the external world?

It is not obvious (to me and many others) that there is some non-material aspect to things,

With what reason are you saying that phenomenal consciousness/qualia are material? Can you give any justification for supposing they are? Can you explain what the word "material" means?

 

[ChuckieR]

Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?

I suppose ESP is too general a term. I guess I'd have to observe and study a real case of ESP before I could venture an explanation of exactly what rules are being broken.

Life after death would seem to imply that there is something more to "you" than the physical body. That "something" must interact with the physical body in some way, else there is no point in positing it. That interaction/influence must occur outside the rules of the material world, otherwise it would be "part of" the material world, and hence would die with the physical body.

 

[ChuckieR]

Re: Re: Does "materialism false" imply "intentional deception"?

If we weren't born into the modern western culture, would materialism still obviously be true?

Materialism is either true or it isn't (and of course I can't prove anything either way). It doesn't matter what we believe or how much we know or who wins which arguments. It's either true or false, independant of our judgements.

I think we become materialists largely through being immersed into the common prevailing wisdom of our culture, and through "education". Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is supposely due to some "material reality". But what is this material reality? Why can't our qualia constitute the external world?

Yes, our education absolutely plays a role in our beliefs. And if your belief is that perception creates reality, then I don't think I can prove you wrong.

But that is the point of my question. If you believe that your perceptions are creating reality, then don't you have to believe that there is some deeper layer of "reality" that is hidden from you (or at least hidden from those who don't understand reality in the way you do)? And that this "relam of interaction" where we are having this discussion is a bit of a farce?

With what reason are you saying that phenomenal consciousness/qualia are material? Can you give any justification for supposing they are? Can you explain what the word "material" means?

Well, I surely can't "prove" that consciousness is material, I can only say that I haven't yet seen any reason to believe otherwise. In other words, I can't come up with any strong reason for supposing that it isn't.

The "material" world is what seems to be around us and what appears to follow these inviolate rules. We can do all of these experiments and they always seem to confirm the rules.

 

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?

Originally posted by ChuckieR
I suppose ESP is too general a term. I guess I'd have to observe and study a real case of ESP before I could venture an explanation of exactly what rules are being broken.

I know it's bad form to reply to yourself, but I realized that I didn't give a very good answer here.

I think that it is not really possible to just violate "one rule". The rules of nature are all intertwined. If you violate nature, you violate nature. If you can do it at all, even just a little bit, then the whole set of rules comes crashing down.

For instance, let's say you can "violate gravity", you can float. But then you could use that to generate energy. In fact, you could use it to propel a "perpetual motion" machine and generate infinite energy from nowhere. Then, you see, the whole thing stops making sense and we might as well just give up.

That's why if your belief system allows any violation at all, then you must accept that the whole thing is a deception, a fake set of rules that is put up just for your/our entertainment.

If you reject the belief that you are being intentionally deceived, and that things "are as they appear", then materialism follows, no?

 

[Yahzi]

ChuckieR
I think you are right, which is why all attempts at idealism wind up postulating some reason for the deception.

Our current crop of idealists are basically limiting themselves to the argument that some phenomona cannot yet be explained by materialism, so there is at least the possiblity of idealism. If we were to cave into their argument, and accept idealism as true, then maybe we would start to see the arguments for why, if idealism is true, the world seems so materalistic...

I'm sure they would start talking about things like "closed mindedness" and "fear" and "sin."

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

..but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

No, that's a non sequitur. You could simply say you don't know how they interact, or that they don't interact(Parallelism, Occasionalism).

For example, you could believe in Karma or the Tao for example without saying matter is an illusion. The interaction would just be a mysery.

Perhaps you could call non-materialists, who are educated disingenuine, but intentionally deceptive is too strong an accusation.

 

[Underemployed]

The Buddhist ideal of Nirvana is total one-ness with everything. The deception we are all under is that we are individual beings, which causes strife - the reality is that we are all one and that life and death are illusions.

So Buddhism side-steps the problem of having something else doing the deceiving - you're the one deceiving yourself.

And if that doens't clear it up, it's obviously all your fault.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Buddhists seem very atomistic/postivist.

Notice their reasoning can be taken further,

body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions

There is no body, only cells. No thoughts, only neurons/sensations. No emotions, only "anger"/"like"/"pain" impulse. And no "perceptions" only "red" "flat" "grey" "square" sight. I mean if they really want to break it down, they should go all the way.

 

[Loki]

ChuckieR,

Well said!

The universe certainly appears to be material (for the sake of Ian, lets just say "material = an existence independant of, and not requiring, 'consciousness'").

If this is *not* true, then why do we (consciousnesses) appear to :
(a) have no contact with or information about the "true" reality (whatever it is) that we exist in;
(b) construct such an elaborate illusion?

 

[ehbowen]

I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”

Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?

You speak of "intentional deception." I would agree that there is an element of deception, on Satan's part, but I think that it is less a question of deception for him than it is of desperation: This apparently materialistic world is the only kind of world in which he can avoid judgment and hold on to a modicum of power for the time being.

The best insight into the nature of the war between God and Satan that I am aware of comes in the book of Job. God didn't hate Job, he wasn't out to get Job; he was holding Job up as a living example of everything that was good and right in a human being. Satan responded, in so many words, that if God would withdraw his blessings and his protection that Job would curse God to his face. God allowed Satan to attack Job, but Job withstood Satan's attack and continued to trust God.

What was Satan's reaction? Did he say, "Well, God, I guess you were right and I was wrong!" No; in gambling terms you might say his response was, "Double or nothing!" In so many words, he said, "Do this and he'll curse you for sure!"

I believe the key to understanding the spiritual war is this: This process has never ended! Satan has been, and continues to take the position that, "If only I can have things my way, I would win!" I think that we see a continuation of this process in the humiliation and crucifixion of Jesus. God allowed Satan to do to Jesus everything that God wouldn't allow him to do to Job, and Jesus didn't break.

I know I've gotten a little sidetracked, but I haven't forgotten your question. How does this all tie in? Ever since the resurrection, Jesus Christ has been the rightful ruler and judge of this world. If--when--he openly takes this position, Satan is finished. And Satan knows that. The only way for Satan to remain in power and avoid judgment is to obstruct Christ's return. "Obstruct" as in the legal sense, of course, not the physical; Satan doesn't have the power to block God by force majeur. But the question at stake here--and the reason God doesn't simply roll in and take over anyway--is one of right, not might.

And so Satan continues to withhold his assent; to say, in so many words, "If only I had things my way, I would win!" And God is going along, to a certain extent. Satan, of course, doesn't get everything his way; if he did, Jesus would never have been raised from the dead. But he does, I believe, get whatever he is willing to agree is "fair".

And so I believe that this material world, as we now see it, is the end result of that process; it is a world which both sides are willing to agree upon as fair. It is a world in which atheism and materialism are, for the time being, plausible; at the same time, it is a world in which people of faith can hold to the revealed word of the living God.

It is a world which is, for the present, in a state of stalemate. Or perhaps a better term is "cold war." While there are stories which imply activities "behind the scenes" in both the occult and angelic realms, there have been no open and public uses of what one might refer to as "nuclear weapons." Were Satan to do so, one may safely assume that God would respond immediately in kind; were God to violate the de facto policy of "no first use" then Satan would be able to claim a moral victory.

I believe that God's decision and actions are planned in order to do nothing which would allow Satan to claim a victory, moral or otherwise. I am convinced that he intends to see to it that Satan is defeated while playing by Satan's own rules. And so, for the present, God refrains from open intervention in the affairs of the world and the result is the "materialistic" world which we see. At the same time, I do not believe the stalemate will continue forever; I have seen indications that it is cracking already. But that is a subject for another time and place.

 

[Loki]

ehbowen,

There are between 1.5 and 2 billion 'christians' on the planet at the moment. We have a 2,000 year history of christianity. All up, that's...well... a lot of christians in total! Doesn't it ever worry you that you (and only you) seem to be the one christian to have fully discovered the "reality" in the nature of god, the devil, the universe, and the battle between good and evil? I realise that you believe that god has chosen you to be a "special participant" in his plan, but doesn't it seem just slightly more likely that you've misinterpreted some signal along the way, and are reading a little more into things than might be there?

 

[ChuckieR]

ChuckieR:
..but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No, that's a non sequitur. You could simply say you don't know how they interact, or that they don't interact(Parallelism, Occasionalism).

I looked those two up here (first Google hit - not very deep, I know), since I'm not familiar with them:

occasionalism - A view popularized by Nicolas Malbranche whereby: (1) the mental and the material comprise two different kinds of substance; (2) neither has any direct causal effect on the other and; (3) all seeming interactions between the two are due to the continual intervention by God who brings about a change in one on the occasion of a change in the other. See dualism, doctrine of preestablished harmony, parallelism.

parallelism - The view that mental and physical phenomena occur in but that these simultaneities never involve causal interactions.

I'd need to see more detail on Parallelism. As for Occasionalism, "God" is apparently providing the deception, working us poor physical beings like puppets and forcing us to interact in this seemingly physical universe.

For example, you could believe in Karma or the Tao for example without saying matter is an illusion. The interaction would just be a mysery.

I suppose a belief system could simply not address the specifics directly, but I don't think that would get rid of the problem. I think I can summarize the problem like this: If there is something more to "us" than our physical bodies, then why is that not obvious to everyone, and why are our "real" selves hidden?

For instance, I believe Buddhism has the notion of Rebirth (though I'm not very familiar with the whole religion). Once you have the notion that we consist of something beyond the physical, there must be some mechanism or agent that coordinates the spiritual and the physical (even if the belief system does not give specific details, it must exist). Why doesn't this agent simply choose to let us interact in the "spiritual" realm? Why bother with this "physical" realm?

Again, I'm not trying to say that this disproves any of these spiritual belief systems. All I'm saying is that some sort of intentional deception goes hand in hand with any non-materialist belief system.

Perhaps you could call non-materialists, who are educated disingenuine, but intentionally deceptive is too strong an accusation.

Oh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that people who have these beliefs are trying being decpetive.

Rather, that inherent in any non-materialist belief system, there is some "thing" that is intentionally deceiving us into perceiving this material world, and "hiding" any "spiritual" world from direct observation/perception.