-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are atheists monists?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
More like substance monism.
"Substance monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance."
As with every other issue apart from god beliefs, atheism has no position there, and atheists are free to choose any answer to that question without contradicting their atheism.
This atheist finds the multiverse hypothesis most tenable, although I haven't ruled out any of the alternative hypotheses including god hypotheses. I suppose that my belief are monistic - neutral monism, or the idea that mind and matter are different aspects of a more fundamental substance the way that space and time, electricity and magnetism, steam and ice, or matter and energy are.
Neutral monism is best understood by comparing to its alternatives: material monism, idealistic monism, and dualism. which say, respectively, that matter is the fundamental reality and that mind is one of its epiphenomena, vice versa, and that mind and matter are radically different substances fundamentally irreconcilable as a single thing.
This atheist finds the multiverse hypothesis most tenable, although I haven't ruled out any of the alternative hypotheses including god hypotheses. I suppose that my belief are monistic - neutral monism, or the idea that mind and matter are different aspects of a more fundamental substance the way that space and time, electricity and magnetism, steam and ice, or matter and energy are.
Neutral monism is best understood by comparing to its alternatives: material monism, idealistic monism, and dualism. which say, respectively, that matter is the fundamental reality and that mind is one of its epiphenomena, vice versa, and that mind and matter are radically different substances fundamentally irreconcilable as a single thing.
Materialists are atheists and substance monists. Substance monism feeds into Atheism in that it assumes the "uniformity of nature" and that natural laws apply even to those areas which we don't know yet. Hence a materialist-atheist would say that they know there is no god because everything is governed by material laws. there is nothing beyond, above, behind or outside of "matter".
However, not all Atheists are materialists. In fact most Atheists on RF are "sceptics" who would treat materialism as a dogma and so would not accept "substance monism". They would argue that we cannot know the properties of something we don't know about so arguing for the "uniformity of nature" would be "faith" rather than being based on reason/evidence.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I happen to be a materialist and an atheist. While I understand that at present, materialism is a philosophical position. . . fMRI scans and neuroscience continue to provide evidence to support that position, and if I were a dualist, idealist, etc. . . . I'd find myself feeling more hemmed in by the oodles of contrary research.
In either case, that position has little to do with my atheist position.
In either case, that position has little to do with my atheist position.
No, I guess we are not generally monists, or even interested enough in the question to decide whether we are or should be monists or oppose monism.
It is not a practical question to ask.
I had not even heard of monism until someone told me that he understood Buddhism to be monist. I still wonder why he would think so.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I know I am. Atheist Materialist Monist. In my view, they go hand-in-hand when you're being intellectually honest.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Everything exists will always exist
Everything non existent will always not exist
Nothing disappears
Nothing pops from thin air
Form changes and unchanges
Both eternal and not eternal
Cycle of birth, age, sickness, death
Once understood, the body dies
But the wisdom stays the same
~Carlita
Not believing in god really has nothing to do with what one believes about the origin of everything. Some people feel the origin of everything has to come from something others feel it can come from nothing. I side with the former but I disagree that the origin is "one" thing but many things changing and forming to bring about new things (what we call new) but the same thing just different form and combination. What comes into our awareness does not mean it was suddenly created from one thing. It could have already existed or grew from a combination of things already existing.
Who knows? I disagree with the one-origin theory. If I were a polytheistic (believing in multiple deities), I'd say each deity had a hand in creation just as on earth, creation is dependent on many factors not just one.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Oh that. That's what I term mental masturbation.
Seriously, who can say, but again, what does it really matter?
Neither atheism nor theism requires monism. The question "do I accept some particular god-concept in my life" and "what is/are the fundamental substance(s) underlying reality" are quite different from one another.
I'm not even sure I know how to interpret the question. Existence doesn't 'come from' anything: it simply is.
What does it mean to be a 'substance'? Are electrons a 'substance'? Neutrinos? How about photons?
And can there be two 'realities'? That seems rather unlikely.
I've yet to see a workable definition of 'matter' that works for subatomic particles. Are electrons 'matter'? How about photons?
As for 'material', I tend to prefer the word 'physical', as in anything that can be studied by physics.
Would Lenin's definition of Matter as " the objective reality given to us by sensation" help? It may seem broad but its intended as a basis for arguing about the source of knowledge as being outisde the mind rather than the structure of atoms, the conversion of atomic matter into energy, etc. The reason he chose that definition was specifically to seperate materialism from atomism, so that the conception of matter would not be superceded by scientific advance about the structure of matter.
I don't think you can group all atheists like that.
I wouldn't say I believe, I suspect this universe was created by a prior intelligent universe. Just because it's the only thing that makes sense to me.
What started it all off a zillion universes ago? I don't know other than to think energy has always existed and has simply continued to change form.
'Substance' refers to a foundational somethingness. It's not a technical term, but a common language term.
Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Theres a word for that. 'Magic'.
The magical poofing theory, with everything somehow already in existence.
Pretty far out,
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Non theism needs the 'other' definition.