Is Materialism Faith Based?

[Socrates]

The assumption, in this instance, is rational.

Assumptions are expressions of faith regardless of the usefullness one finds in the particular rational used.

Love,
Socrates

 

[Fade]

Assumptions are expressions of faith regardless of the usefullness one finds in the particular rational used.

Language has this thing called "connotation."

The way we use language, or better stated, the way language is used, a concept that means one thing can end up meaning something entirely different.

Yes, I know that's a little twisted sounding.

When a person says faith, they -mean- "Believe in something despite no evidence." That is what we were taught faith means. That is usage. However, depending on which dictionary you use, that isn't the entire meaning. It can also mean:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.



Do I have a "confident belief in the truth, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing?"

Yes.

Do I have a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence?"

No. Materialism isn't only obvious given the evidence, we've never encountered any sort of evidence that isn't materialistic, and goodness knows we've tried.

Wouldn't we have found something outside the material realm, ANYTHING outside the material realm, after searching for literally thousands of years? Why does the universe perform in the same plodding way all the time, everywhere, in regards to everything, without exception?

Answer. Because the universe is materialistic.

 

[Imaginist]

So, we all have reasons for our Faith.

Yes, I think this is undeniably true, but one person's reasons are another's delusions. One point that materialists sometimes fail to miss is that much of the "objective evidence" that supports their faith is critically dependent upon consensus about measurement and perception. If they're happy with that, then I'm happy for them!

Those that take things too far are the ones that automatically deny anything as real, or even possible, that doesn't fit with the current consensus. I happen to find myself in cahoots with many of the consensus perspectives on things, but I am also one of those weird characters that is firmly convinced that he has experienced things that aren't neatly accounted for by consensus views. Of course, consensus ideologies can offer convenient ways of explaining away my experiences to the satisfaction of those who believe those ideologies, but if they don't satisfy me better than some other explanation, that doesn't necessarily make me an idiot or psychotic. To me that's the same kind of prejudice and intolerance that one finds in religious condemnation.

 

[Socrates]

Language has this thing called "connotation."

The way we use language, or better stated, the way language is used, a concept that means one thing can end up meaning something entirely different.

Yes, I know that's a little twisted sounding.

When a person says faith, they -mean- "Believe in something despite no evidence." That is what we were taught faith means. That is usage. However, depending on which dictionary you use, that isn't the entire meaning. It can also mean:

Yes, of course. I'm sorry you felt the need to state the obvious. Imaginist stated from the beginning of this thread what he meant by faith.

Sometimes these threads get long, and it is difficult to know what has already been established in the discussion because it becomes impractical to read all the previous posts.

It is Imaginist’s question, so he gets to define the words. So, for the benefit of us all, I have quoted Imanginist’s comments on faith below.

Love,
Socrates

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.

 

[Socrates]

No. Materialism isn't only obvious given the evidence, we've never encountered any sort of evidence that isn't materialistic, and goodness knows we've tried.

How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Love,
Socrates

 

[Aoidoi]

Oh, are we already into the semantics part of the debate? Usually that takes at least a page!
(I suppose I'm partially at fault. Sorry.)

How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Ah, more's the joy... once you find evidence for it that by definition means it's materialist. The joy of materialism is that the more you discover the bigger the world becomes.

 

[c4ts]

How would you know something was evidence for a non-materialist event in space/time if you found it?

Love,
Socrates

The only way you could know it was non-materialist is if you knew the only possible explanations ruled out materialism, in a sort of reductio. How you could come to such a conclusion through reason and understanding, once you actually found the event, is beyond me, since the denial of materialism can include the denial of the universe in which you found the anomaly, or the senses by which you percieved it.

 

[justsaygnosis]

I prefer to think of it as practical reasoning.
Postulants have their basis in the known rather than what is desired but only achievable via superstition and magical wishcraft.

 

[Socrates]

Ah, more's the joy... once you find evidence for it that by definition means it's materialist. The joy of materialism is that the more you discover the bigger the world becomes.

Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accept in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

Love,
Socrates

 

[Aoidoi]

Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accepted in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning, but you can make of it what you will.

I had this thought a while back, and it seems fairly simple... if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena... anything that is observable is natural. There might be unexplained events, possibly even unexplainable events, but they're still part of reality and thus natural.

Kind of like math... it's all in your definitions. Mind you, this is an engineer discussing philosophy, and you get what you pay for.

And btw, I have no particular stake in materialism nor do I feel there is anything that must be accepted to be a materialist... it's not a social club (or if it is, nobody's told me the rules yet). You don't get kicked out for having heretical ideas.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aoidoi said:

Kind of like math... it's all in your definitions. Mind you, this is an engineer discussing philosophy, and you get what you pay for.

That's okay, because that's pretty much what we get from professional philosophers, too. For millennia. I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

~~ Paul

 

[Socrates]

I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning

Willful distortions of reality are often referred to as neurotic self-delustion, I don't know if it applies here, but you are free substantiate this assertion.

if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena...

This is simply a definition of convenience--unsubstantiated and faith based. This is not sufficient to accept what follows in your reasoning at face value.

This seems to re-enforce the notion that Materialism is Faith Based.


Love,
Socrates

 

[Socrates]

I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

~~ Paul

And, we wonder if Naturalists think that if they ignore the problems long enough that they will magically go away?

Love,
Socrates

 

[Aoidoi]

Willful distortions of reality are often referred to as neurotic self-delustion, I don't know if it applies here, but you are free substantiate this assertion.

Odd, the last person to accuse me of insanity was Franko. (Assuming I'm parsing your sentence right... it's a bit unclear to which assertion you refer, mine or yours).

This is simply a definition of convenience--

Yup. Why make things harder than they are?

unsubstantiated and faith based. This is not sufficient to accept what follows in your reasoning at face value.

An unsubstantiated and faith based definition? Methinks that an odd assertion... arguing it's circular logic is supportable, but I fail to see how a circular argument could possible be unsubstantiated or faith based. Irrelevant, pointless, many other things, but unsubstantiated or faith based? That seems just odd.

This seems to re-enforce the notion that Materialism is Faith Based.

chuckle As you wish it. I have faith that nothing will change your mind.

That's okay, because that's pretty much what we get from professional philosophers, too. For millennia. I wonder whether they think that if they discuss this stuff long enough, they'll reach an agreement?

I rather suspect it's the play that's the thing. "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett had some wonderful images of philosophers (and gods, for that matter). I happily recommend it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I prefer to think of it as an all-inclusive philosophy rather than circular reasoning, but you can make of it what you will.

I had this thought a while back, and it seems fairly simple... if you define nature as what we can see of reality then there is no supernatural phenomena

What about what we cannot see of reality?

... anything that is observable is natural. There might be unexplained events, possibly even unexplainable events, but they're still part of reality and thus natural.

No, not ncessarily. Suppose we perceive events which cannot be described by physical laws? These would surely be "supernatural" by definition.

 

[Socrates]

Odd, the last person to accuse me of insanity was Franko. (Assuming I'm parsing your sentence right... it's a bit unclear to which assertion you refer, mine or yours).


Yup. Why make things harder than they are?
An unsubstantiated and faith based definition? Methinks that an odd assertion... arguing it's circular logic is supportable, but I fail to see how a circular argument could possible be unsubstantiated or faith based. Irrelevant, pointless, many other things, but unsubstantiated or faith based? That seems just odd.

That is quite a magic computer you have there. With it, you can write one gratuitous assertion after the other and then pretent that you've said something meaningful.

Love,
Socrates

 

[hammegk]

Is this the circular reasoning of Materialism that one must accepted in faith to be a Materialist? Emperically, only materialist events in space/time are observable, therefore all space/time events are materialist.

Love,
Socrates

It's even better than that.

That is, if anything effects, or affects, the physical world it's also physical. Ergo, dualism of any sort is logically impossible; hi, welcome to idealism!

 

[Aoidoi]

What about what we cannot see of reality?

I dunno, I have no experience with that.

No, not ncessarily. Suppose we perceive events which cannot be described by physical laws? These would surely be "supernatural" by definition.

Well, putting aside my definition for a moment (it is a bit of tautology, after all), how would an observer know whether what he perceives is explainable by physical laws? Without a thorough grasp of aeronautical design it is rather counterintuitive that something as massive as a 747 would fly, yet we see that all the time. How can you differentiate between the supernatural and a natural but not yet understood physical law?

That is quite a magic computer you have there. With it, you can write one gratuitous assertion after the other and then pretent that you've said something meaningful.

The joy of computers is that they give every idiot who has one access to an audience.

It's even better than that.

That is, if anything effects, or affects, the physical world it's also physical. Ergo, dualism of any sort is logically impossible; hi, welcome to idealism!

I'm not sure how you got to idealism, but if one confines discussion to only the physical world and that which interacts with it then you're rather confined to materialism by default. If we can only observe the physical, all else is speculation.

I'm perfectly willing to be shown the errors of this philosophy, but I haven't seen much in the way of a counterargument here. Perhaps I am unable to observe it...

 

[Yahzi]

Imaginist
Materialism is not based on faith, unless you first define faith to mean something other than faith.

Materialism is based on Reason. Reason is based on Logic. Logic is hard wired into our brains in such a way that we cannot function without it, let alone doubt it.

 

[Imaginist]

Imaginist
Materialism is not based on faith, unless you first define faith to mean something other than faith.

Materialism is based on Reason. Reason is based on Logic. Logic is hard wired into our brains in such a way that we cannot function without it, let alone doubt it.

Yahzi,

We've already been over the definition of faith. I'm using it in a perfectly legitimate way; check the dictionary if you must. If you and others want to confine the word to connotations about beliefs in a deity, that's a personal issue that has nothing to do with my thesis. However, if you are arguing as a materialist, then you are helping to demonstrate that the same kinds of inflexibility and systems of denial are practiced among some materialists as those observed among some religious people.

As for logic being beyond doubt, that's problematic. One's logic can be perfect, but if it is based upon false premises, then the outcome is false.

I would counter that reason and logic are not themselves the source of our knowledge, but rather means by which we derive understandings from our experiences, thus experience itself has a more primary role in knowledge. It follows, logically, that our assumptions about what and how we experience anything are the keys to our understandings.

My materialist friends are showing that materialism begins with the assumption that the only things that are real are things that (a) can be experienced with the five senses, and (b) for which there is some consensus among others that they too can sense them in *approximately* the same way.

I would think that a rational and logical person would see that this raises all sorts of problems. Here are two:

1. You observe something that nobody else did. According to the materialist assumptions (as I have observed them), whatever you experienced has no validity to anyone but you (unless, of course, they have faith in your perceptions as an individual).

2. Your internal experiences - like thoughts and feelings - must fall into the category of observations in the previous point.

That's enough for now.