Is Materialism Faith Based?

[Socrates]

I wanted to place this quote on its own tread because I think Imanginist has some important points, and this was burried at the bottom of the Materialism thread receiving no attention at all.

Love,
Socrates

My thesis is that materialism is a faith-based worldview.

Now 'scuse me while I ramble!

The whole problem of materialism boils down to the assumption that if it can't be sensed with the five senses, then it doesn't exist. That is simply a statement of faith, and it too easily bleeds over into the assumption that if we haven't sensed it *yet*, then it doesn't exist. Certainly this faith is based in part upon experience, but it is nonetheless a faith.

There was a time when people were closed to the idea of subatomic particles, like quarks and neutrinos, only because we didn't yet recognize any physical evidence that showed they might actually exist. There were yet others who acknowledged the mathematical possibility or probablity, and adjusted their theories accordingly. In either case, that means that there were people walking around consciously choosing to form worldviews based upon incomplete evidence. Almost sounds like religion, doesn't it?

Taking a different tangent, saying that if you alter or destroy the gray meat in a person's head you also alter or destroy the person seems to be a good point on the surface. It certainly appears that way, but we also know that appearances can be deceiving. How many great scientific "truths," accepted for centuries, turned out to be false constructions based upon appearances combined with insufficient knowledge? This argument is just as weak as someone who knows nothing about how a TV really works concluding that the person they see on the screen has died when the TV is unplugged. I can manipulate the image and sound in many ways, but that doesn't have any effect at all on the actual transmission.

Of course, nearly all of these materialists offhandedly dismiss any paranormal phenomena like telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, past-life memories, and so on. Rather than admit there are unsettled questions in this regard, they'll say that there hasn't been sufficient scientifically valid documentation, and that all the anecdotal accounts are misperceptions, delusions, or lies of one form or another. This also reveals that materialism is a
position based on faith.

Ultimately, materialists are convinced that the senses and logic are the ultimate tools for discerning truth. In one way this seems to have some validity. If all you are concerned about is analyzing, qualifying, and quatifying sensory perceptions, then what other tools do you need? Unfortunately, even here the phenomenology of perception plays a role.

We are not merely sensors and analyzers with complete conscious control of all our faculties. Plenty of research has shown that we unconsciously respond to our sensations in countless ways - prioritizing, filtering, forming associations with latent memories from other experiences, and so on. There is also plenty of research that shows that we aren't perfectly consistent in qualifying or quantifying what should be the same sensations from the same stimulus. This is not only true from one individual to the next, but within the same individual over repeated trials.

So, I continue to think of materialism as a faith, but that in itself isn't a bad thing in my book. Life pretty much forces us to respond to it with something other than a simple "I don't really know." We have to form assumptions and working theories just to get us through an ordinary day, much less deal with the big questions about reality and existence! My only gripe with some materialists is their attitude that they really have a lock on the actual, undeniable, and ultimate truth. Sorry, I'm just not a convert.

Well, that's my rambling for today!

The Imaginist

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

 

[BobM]

All logic systems are at their lowest level based on "faith." I throw that word in quotes because it's not the same definition used when referring to faith in a spirtual sense.

I simply mean "belief in something that cannot be proved."

 

[Mercutio]

US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

Mercutio, you have stomped on my personal pet peeve with the use of "faith" in debates concerning all things ephemeral or "metaphysical" in nature.

I agree completely that "faith" can be twisted semantically to mean the same thing as "reasonable conclusion based on the evidence" but only if certain evidences and logical exercises are thrown out the window.

 

[Imaginist]

No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

Well, let's get this out of the way now - I am not using "materialist" as a perjorative. I disagree with materialists, but I don't hate them, and I don't think they're stupid just because they are materialists. If I gave any other impression, I apologize and ask you to forget about it.

Now, your basic argument brings with it some problems. Let's just highlight three very basic ones:

1. That your evidence is sufficiently comprehensive to impart absolute certainty with no need for any assumptions.

2. That your perception and interpertation of the evidence isn't questionable.

3. That there is only one explanation that works with the given evidence.

 

[Imaginist]

US:"No, it's not.
It's clearly based on the evidence."

and the faith that the evidence won't lie to you, at least in the long run.

I honestly don't think it is faith, at least not in any normal use of the word. It's not really faith in evidence, but acknowledgment that looking at the evidence has been practical so far. I suppose you could include "and faith that it will remain practical", but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

I understand the misgivings that you and others have about the word "faith". I understand that many good and well-meaning people have been verbally beaten with this word. Both the religious and the irreligious use it as a stick. But I'm using the word in its broader and yet still perfectly proper and common meaning, which signifies something more like trust in a certain person, thing, concept, feeling, or behavior. You know what I mean: I have "faith" in my wife. I have "faith" that I'm right about something. I have "faith" in my ability to do something. I have "faith" in my intuition.

It should be clear that one of the objectives of my thesis is to demonstrate that both religious believers and the believers in materialism are operating on such faith, and that both groups contain people at various extremes with regard to their consideration of evidence of different sorts.

 

[Imaginist]

...but if looking at the evidence did not have practical utility, we'd stop doing it.

Although it is a tanget that diverges somewhat from the thesis of this thread, I want to briefly reflect on Mercutio's point here, which is pretty good. The problem with utility, however, is in how one defines it to begin with, and the domain of experience within which that definition is limited. In other words, is utility for you, or me, or someone else, limited to those things that we deal with via the five physical senses, or does it also include the realm of thought and emotion?

If it does include the latter, then we are now dealing with entire categories of experience and human activity that elude direct observation with the senses, even if there is such a thing that kind of observation anyway.

 

[Dancing David]

Imaginist:
I know that you didn't start this thread but I am glad it is going. I agree there may be things that are in the universe that you can't bump into.

How for example can I be a scientific nihilist and a practising pagan?

My daughter is an ultimate rationalist and I have tried to discuss this with her, my explanation goes like this:
There are many parts to me:
Part of me believes that all there is is the gush and whoosh of wavicles: when I die I am dead, there is no magic or spirit.
Other parts of me use other terms to experience the Universe: they are dream and soul based and generaly mythological in natute and character. I have my intuition and emotions and they are very useful to me.

So I exist between the two worlds , my mind and souls dance with each other and useful communication occurs.

However I have yet to see any proof that spiritual experineces occur in any frame outside of my personal experience. Soul/spirit experineces are real but I have yet to see anything that says they are not products of my biological consiousness.

You can use science to approach the inner world of the spirit.

Si I believe in the none materail reality but I belive that it is a product of my bilogical self.

Peace
dancing David

 

[Dancing David]

Oook:
I didn't proof that post.

So I believe in spiritual reality but I believe that it is a product of my biology.

Peace
dancing david

 

[Mercutio]

Imaginist:"Although it is a tanget that diverges somewhat from the thesis of this thread, I want to briefly reflect on Mercutio's point here, which is pretty good. The problem with utility, however, is in how one defines it to begin with, and the domain of experience within which that definition is limited. In other words, is utility for you, or me, or someone else, limited to those things that we deal with via the five physical senses, or does it also include the realm of thought and emotion?"

How one defines utility is a bit like how one defines "fittest" in natural selection. We can make all the a priori definitions we want to, but what turns out to have been useful (in hindsight) may not have been predicted, or even predictable.

quote:"Now, your basic argument brings with it some problems. Let's just highlight three very basic ones:
1. That your evidence is sufficiently comprehensive to impart absolute certainty with no need for any assumptions.
2. That your perception and interpertation of the evidence isn't questionable.
3. That there is only one explanation that works with the given evidence."

This is what I don't like about philosophy. As certain as I am of many things, I never reach "absolute certainty" of anything. My interpretation of the evidence will amost always differ, in part or in whole, from another reasonable person--doesn't bother me. And if only one explanation worked sith the given evidence, science would be a whole lot easier. Does materialism really imply these things?

 

[c4ts]

What is faith?

 

[Aoidoi]

I would say materialism is assumption based.

We assume that the world is understandable, we assume that we're not being deceived... there's probably a couple more at the base of it that I can't think of at the moment.

The difference between faith and assumptions is that if assumptions are shown to be wrong they are removed, while faith (at least in the religious sense) precludes that.

(apologies if this has been brought up before... I've avoided the materialism thread)

 

[Socrates]

I'm not certain what you mean by "biological conscience," so I probably don't understand your statement. But, I am assuming "biological conscience" is: A state of consciousness arising from biochemical processes.

So I believe in spiritual reality but I believe that it is a product of my biology.

Yes, the notion that thought and perception (this would include spiritual perception) arise from biochemical processes is fundamental to the Naturalist worldview. I think the very point here is that your *belief* that the spiritual is a product of biology is faith-based.

You stated:

but I have yet to see anything that says they are not products of my biological consiousness.

Have you seen any empirical data that demonstrates that they are products of your "biological consiousness?" How does a mindless biochemical process create Mind or Spiritual experience? Is it the number of chemical reactions, or is it the complexity of the chemical reactions?

You are willing to believe that Mind and Spiritual experiences arises from mindless and spiritless chemical processes without an inkling of empirical evidence for the process.

I’m curious. Why would the idea, “The Universe has Mind, and that Mind is manifest in your being through your brain rather than by your brain,” be less acceptable to you than the idea “Mind arises from mindless chemical processes” when they are both equally speculative and faith-based?

With both ideas lacking scientific proof, why would you embrace the notion, “Mind arises from the mindless” over the idea, “The Universe is Intelligent and imparts a portion of this intelligence to you as your mind, just as it imparts a portions of its matter to you as your body?

Love,
Socrates

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, it's not.

It's clearly based on the evidence.

And I object to the use of "materialist" as a pejorative unless referring to someone who obsesses over material wealth.

"Washing machine" materialism (as some philosopher contemptuously called it) has nowt to do with proper materialism. And I don't see anything wrong with using materialism in a pejorative sense since it is so idiotic and repugnant.

 

[Tricky]

And I don't see anything wrong with using materialism in a pejorative sense since it is so idiotic and repugnant.

Oh you are so pugnacious! I just think it's fabulous when you are being butch!

 

[Dancing David]

Socrates:
Ah, you are so right.
I can't know any of it.
However I do know that for every spiritual experience that I have had there is a rational explanation for it.

I have yet to have an OOBE (out of body experience) where I learn information that I could state definitively was gootten from the OOBE.

I think that it is a 'faith' of sorts and agree with the basic premise. And yes I believe that consiuosness comes of of the complex reverberations of biochemicals in our heads.

But all your assertions are correct. I have yet to have a 'ghost' tell me something that was only known to the 'ghost' or somesuch which would prove to me that consiuosness is not biologicaly based. (In fact I tend to avoid the dead, they are very boring)

Peace
dancing David

 

[Fade]

I would say materialism is assumption based.

That is the whole of it. The assumption, in this instance, is rational.


Show me something that exists outside the material realm.

Nobody, at any time, has been able to do this. Sure they can give some specious arguments. However, words mean exactly nothing when it comes to discovering the truth of a matter. All the discussion in the world can't make take an untrue thing and turn it into a true thing. All the discussion in the world can't change the way the universe works.


So, show me something that doesn't fit exactly into the materialist viewpoint, and I will change my views.


Also, it is irrational (not to mention completely wrong) to bring up the fact that 'scientists' in the past were wrong sometimes, and thus the ones today are.

The things we know now are fundamentally different from the things 'known' hundreds of years ago. We research and error check. We correct mistakes in a reasonable amount of time. We're learning more about the universe, and not making assumptions, except for the single assumption that the universe exists in some rational way.

And, if you -don't- make this assumption, nothing you say CAN be coherent, ever.


This is why people who don't profess materialism, to me, ought to simply be discounted out of hand. Why? Well, if their position is true, then nothing they say matters because knowledge isn't identifiable, because we lack the ability to sense things outside the material. Dualism and idealism are inherently irrational, and therefore wrong.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Show me something that exists outside the material realm.

Everything.

Now you show me something that exists outside the mental realm.

 

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Ah, you are so right.
I can't know any of it.
However I do know that for every spiritual experience that I have had there is a rational explanation for it.

I have yet to have an OOBE (out of body experience) where I learn information that I could state definitively was gootten from the OOBE.

I think that it is a 'faith' of sorts and agree with the basic premise. And yes I believe that consiuosness comes of of the complex reverberations of biochemicals in our heads.

But all your assertions are correct. I have yet to have a 'ghost' tell me something that was only known to the 'ghost' or somesuch which would prove to me that consiuosness is not biologicaly based. (In fact I tend to avoid the dead, they are very boring)

Peace
dancing David

So, we all have reasons for our Faith. Naturalists, Christians, and really mixed-up Theistic-Existentialists like myself all have reasons for our faith in a particular belief system.

But, the question at hand is:

Is Naturalism Faith Based?

Skepticism is the pinnacle of reason. It can only maintain that status if the Skeptic Virtue of Intellectual Honesty is observed even when the Skeptical Process challenges the taboos preserved by the Citadel of Science.

So, what say ye my brother?

Is Materialism Faith Based?

Love,
Socrates