Why aren't all atheists materialists?

[Seismosaurus]

I don't know much about philosophy, but if one is a materialist then what about things like numbers, or happiness, or patterns? These aren't material things but they do exist...

 

[Third Eye Open]

I don't know much about philosophy, but if one is a materialist then what about things like numbers, or happiness, or patterns? These aren't material things but they do exist...

They are made of the firings of neurons in your brain.

 

[Robin]

Yes, correct. Do you agree with this definition?

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

No. In fact there have been long discussions about this before. I have often challenged people to cite an actual Materialist philosopher who has held this position in the last 200 years.

Today Materialism will be one or other of the claims that any meaningful statement can a) be reduced to a statement about a scientific theory or b) can be eliminated and replaced by a statement about a scientific theory.

I would say that most would find that a rather dogmatic formulation.

In fact I have often argued that if you follow the philosophic heritage of modern Materialism you find it is ultimately an outgrowth of Berkeleyan Idealism.

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them, why would atheism believe any but matter exists?

Why do you think "matter exists" is the default? What is matter?

You lost me here. I don't understand why materialism is a metaphysical claim.

That is a thread on it's own. If Materialism is a claim about what exists then that is a metaphysical claim.

Materialists don't believe the scientific method is the only realiable source to test knowledge?

Yes, but that does not imply that anyone who believes the scientific method is the only reliable source to gain knowledge is necessarily a materialist. A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

So you are saying that to say that only matter exists is an absolute statement of truth, which cannot be compatible with pragmatic empirists?

Well, I wouldn't agree with that definition of Materialism.

I don't know the difference, can you explain Robin?

Well of course you don't know the difference because you haven't read my proposal for what a minimalist Materialism would be. It is not really important because it was only raised as a discussion point.

I can't see the difference between naturalism and materialism. I'm sure there must be.

Again, a thread in itself. Essentially Naturalism boils down to the claim that mechanistic explanations are, in principle, possible for anything and that there is no supernatural intentional force behind things. They are very much related positions, but not identical.

 

[wareagle]

Why must atheists be pigeonholed?

Would it be heretical to suggest that lack of interest in materialism might simply be a personal preference and not HAVE to be part of any belief system?

I'm really didn't know this. This is fascinating. I need to watch more atheist discussions. I thought atheism was simply a choice not to believe in a God. I didn't realize there were rules or implications attached to it. Wouldn't that start make atheism sort of rigid rather than empowering?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them, why would atheism believe any but matter exists?

That is a common reason in Western culture, perhaps the most common. But there are other reasons one could lack belief in deities ranging from blind acceptance of declarations that there are no gods to never having considered it. Someone could lack belief in gods yet believe that immaterial souls evolved as an emergent property of consciousness. I'm not saying that this is a common case, but it is possible.

 

[Nonpareil]

QUESTION: Why are some atheists not materialists?

ANSWER: Because people are stupid.

Atheists do not necessarily come to be atheists through logical enquiry. Even if they are convinced by logical arguments, they do not necessarily understand them.

Atheists are just as likely to believe stupid things as anyone else.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's simple: A person that believes one supernatural thing does not have to believe ALL supernatural things. A person who disbelieves one supernatural thing does not have to disbelieve ALL supernatural things.

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. Multiple supernatural beings. On the other hand, if supernatural beings are impossible, then one or many, neither case is valid.

 

[CurtC]

I think most people on this board decided that their beliefs should follow the evidence, and not other factors (tradition, dogma, authority). For these people, atheism is a result of that decision, and materialism is a result of it also.

There are other reasons that people could arrive at atheism, but most people here are rationalists, which leads to the other two.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think most people on this board decided that their beliefs should follow the evidence, and not other factors (tradition, dogma, authority). For these people, atheism is a result of that decision, and materialism is a result of it also.

There are other reasons that people could arrive at atheism, but most people here are rationalists, which leads to the other two.

As usual, I'm the odd man out there. I can't relate very well with people who have lost their religion because I've never had any. I was thrown out of Sunday School at age seven for asking too many questions.

 

[plumjam]

Why must atheists be pigeonholed?

Cos they walk funny.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cos they walk funny.

Have they applied for a grant to develop their funny walk?

 

[Tormac]

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

I've known a Buddhist who believed in no gods, but still believed in the supernatural laws of karma and dharma.

 

[Resume]

Have they applied for a grant to develop their funny walk?

Yes, but it's not silly enough.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, but it's not silly enough.

Oh well, I have to stay home to wait for the new cooker anyway.

 

[Seismosaurus]

They are made of the firings of neurons in your brain.

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh well, I have to stay home to wait for the new cooker anyway.

Can it cook a piston engine?

 

[Christian]

Very kind Robin.

No. In fact there have been long discussions about this before. I have often challenged people to cite an actual Materialist philosopher who has held this position in the last 200 years.

Today Materialism will be one or other of the claims that any meaningful statement can a) be reduced to a statement about a scientific theory or b) can be eliminated and replaced by a statement about a scientific theory.

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

In fact I have often argued that if you follow the philosophic heritage of modern Materialism you find it is ultimately an outgrowth of Berkeleyan Idealism.

Definitely this is material I need to inmerse myself in, the nitty-gritty of philosophy.

Why do you think "matter exists" is the default? What is matter?

If you ask me, anything that can be observed.

That is a thread on it's own. If Materialism is a claim about what exists then that is a metaphysical claim.

This is above my head.

Yes, but that does not imply that anyone who believes the scientific method is the only reliable source to gain knowledge is necessarily a materialist. A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

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

Well of course you don't know the difference because you haven't read my proposal for what a minimalist Materialism would be. It is not really important because it was only raised as a discussion point.

Again, a thread in itself. Essentially Naturalism boils down to the claim that mechanistic explanations are, in principle, possible for anything and that there is no supernatural intentional force behind things. They are very much related positions, but not identical.

Ok.

 

[Christian]

I've known a Buddhist who believed in no gods, but still believed in the supernatural laws of karma and dharma.

Yes, I undestand. I'm just thinking that it's inconsistent.

 

[ideogram]

Yes, I undestand. I'm just thinking that it's inconsistent.

One can believe the supernatural exists without believing that gods exist, because materialism is not the only possible reason a person might believe that gods don't exist.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One can believe the supernatural exists without believing that gods exist, because materialism is not the only possible reason a person might believe that gods don't exist.

So what's the difference between a supernatural being and a god?