Atheism and Materialsm

[blü 2]

While the reference to God as a He may be characteristic of Abrahamic religions, I would argue that the message expressed here is more universal than that, and certainly compatible with Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism.

I don't see any message being expressed in the Tanakh beyond obedience to the God of Abraham. Rather I see the history of a culture across the first millennium BCE, which makes it a remarkable book. Nor do I find any deep message in the NT. If you do, how would you phrase it?

If you have read the Bhagavad Gita, for example, you will recall Krishna revealing to Arjuna that all phenomena emanate from him. Similarly, the concept of a unified divine being manifesting itself as a fragmented multiplicity, is compatible with most schools of Buddhism, including those where the concept of God is most alien.

I can't claim to have read much about Hinduism, though I've witnessed it first hand at certain times (quite a different thing).

The concept of a unified divine being manifested as a fragmented multiplicity is certainly different to Abrahamic views, though.

surrender to a power greater than oneself, leading to transcendental experience of divine love, is a phenomenon common to many religions.

But surely it's more credibly explained as a psychological phenomenon rather than requiring us to devise a supernatural explanation which won't really explain much.

For example my Buddhist friend tells me he has two friends whose long practice of Buddhist meditation allows them to put their minds into what he calls ecstatic states almost at will (though this is exceptional, he says). And he tells me that they, like him, are not Buddhists of any supernatural school. (That conversation began when I was describing a brief ecstatic state that hit me the first time I heard Murray Perahia playing the gigue movement in Bach's English Suite No. 6 though on better sound gear than most computers have.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see any message being expressed in the Tanakh beyond obedience to the God of Abraham. Rather I see the history of a culture across the first millennium BCE, which makes it a remarkable book. Nor do I find any deep message in the NT. If you do, how would you phrase it?
I can't claim to have read much about Hinduism, though I've witnessed it first hand at certain times (quite a different thing).

The concept of a unified divine being manifested as a fragmented multiplicity is certainly different to Abrahamic views, though.
But surely it's more credibly explained as a psychological phenomenon rather than requiring us to devise a supernatural explanation which won't really explain much.

For example my Buddhist friend tells me he has two friends whose long practice of Buddhist meditation allows them to put their minds into what he calls ecstatic states almost at will (though this is exceptional, he says). And he tells me that they, like him, are not Buddhists of any supernatural school. (That conversation began when I was describing a brief ecstatic state that hit me the first time I heard Murray Perahia playing the gigue movement in Bach's English Suite No. 6 though on better sound gear than most computers have.)

Whether one chooses to define profound alterations in consciousness akin to awakenings, as psychological or spiritual is immaterial really. The transformative or revelatory impact of the experience on the the life of the individual will depend on his or her personal response, rather than on the specific terms used to describe it.

Regarding the spiritual, as opposed to moral, message of the Gospels;

Luke 17:20-21

John 14:20

John 13:34

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist?

No.

So many of the atheists one encounters today seem not only to reject God, but the idea of the 'other' as a whole.

What do you mean by "other"?

Anything that cannot be discovered by one of any scientific methods is rejected. It is a very modern view, I think.

I don't think that's modern at all. But it doesn't matter either way if it is or isn't.

In any case... consider that the most common reason for people to not believe in gods is that there simply is not independently verifiable evidence for it, it stands to reason that most things - if not all things - that have insufficient independently verifiable evidence in support of it, will be just as rejected.

So sure, that would include any claims of supernatural shenanigans.

HOWEVER, and this is important imo: to me at least, materialism is the dogmatic position that there is "nothing beyond the physical". So not only is it a rejection of the claims of theism / the supernatural, it is an active acceptance of the negative claims as well. So not only will they say "I don't believe gods exist", they"ll also say "I believe NO GODS exist".

I don't know many atheists who would say that. Most wouldn't.

I would say that I am a "practical materialist". Meaning that I can't prove that the material / physical is all there is. It could be that there is more then that. It's just so far, no evidence has been forthcoming in support of such. And all the evidence we DO have, only support physical things existing.

So, when trying to explain some phenomenon, my brain will always go exclusively to the physical. Not because of any dogmatic materialist position... but rather because of it currently being the only game in town.

Show me evidence in support of immaterial things and then my mind will be open to accepting such things as explanations of related phenomenon. But until then.... why would I?

Why has atheism so embraced materialism?

It hasn't.
At best, there is a pragmatic / practical overlap for sound reasons. Those reasons being best summed up by "the immaterial has the same kind of evidence going for it as gods do: none"

Would you say anyone in Antiquity or pre-Enlightenment who claimed to be an atheist would fit our modern definition of 'atheist'?

If what they meant by "atheist" was that they didn't believe theistic god claims: yes.

There also seems to be a disdain for Philosophy (see Stephen Hawking for 'Philosophy is dead').

The disdain for philosophy has nothing to do with atheism and everything with the progress of the natural sciences, which has shown that philosophy alone is no longer a viable route to learn about the world.

1 million philosophers locked up in a room "thinking" about reality, are not going to come up with relativity or quantum mechanics for example.

Philosophy is great at navigating knowledge and asking interesting questions.
Science is great at coming up with knowledge and answering those questions.

Why is this?

Results.

 

[blü 2]

Whether one chooses to define profound alterations in consciousness akin to awakenings, as psychological or spiritual is immaterial really.

My own view is that such phenomena are to be understood in terms of psychology and brain function, and on that basis explored so that their causes and their nature are understood. It seems to me that a spiritual account of such things would be necessarily be fanciful.

The transformative or revelatory impact of the experience on the the life of the individual will depend on his or her personal response, rather than on the specific terms used to describe it.

But for me the purpose of describing it is to give a base for explaining it.

Regarding the spiritual, as opposed to moral, message of the Gospels;

Luke 17:20-21

The NT uses the 'Kingdom of God' in three ways ─ to describe the early Christian community, to describe a future state when the Son of Man shall establish God's kingdom on earth, and ambiguously so that it could be either. In this case it's the first one. To illustrate the same ambiguity even within Luke's usage, we have eg
Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
Luke 13:28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Luke 22:16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

John 14:20

Yes, the same idea is in John 17, the gnostic concept that God is so remote that you need an intermediary to have access to [him]. Paul is also gnostic, but the synoptics are not, and with them, just as with Judaism, you may pray to God directly.

John 13:34

Well, be excellent to one another, anyway. I like the idea that we should treat others with decency. respect and inclusion. (As you know, some Christians / some people are good at inclusion and some Christians / some people seem have rather fervently rejected the idea.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

My own view is that such phenomena are to be understood in terms of psychology and brain function, and on that basis explored so that their causes and their nature are understood. It seems to me that a spiritual account of such things would be necessarily be fanciful.
But for me the purpose of describing it is to give a base for explaining it.

Regarding the spiritual, as opposed to moral, message of the Gospels;
The NT uses the 'Kingdom of God' in three ways ─ to describe the early Christian community, to describe a future state when the Son of Man shall establish God's kingdom on earth, and ambiguously so that it could be either. In this case it's the first one. To illustrate the same ambiguity even within Luke's usage, we have eg
Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
Luke 13:28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
Luke 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Luke 22:16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."
Yes, the same idea is in John 17, the gnostic concept that God is so remote that you need an intermediary to have access to [him]. Paul is also gnostic, but the synoptics are not, and with them, just as with Judaism, you may pray to God directly.
Well, be excellent to one another, anyway. I like the idea that we should treat others with decency. respect and inclusion. (As you know, some Christians / some people are good at inclusion and some Christians / some people seem have rather fervently rejected the idea.)

Okay, but has understanding the epiphany you had when listening to Bach in terms of psychology and brain function, added anything to the experience? Does understanding the material effect music has on the functions of the brain (if such an understanding is possible), deepen your connection to the music? I'm guessing the effect the music had on you was not intellectual in nature. So what part of you was moved, could it not have been your spirit?

I had a similar response the first time I heard a recording of Jimi Hendrix playing live btw. Couldn't tell you which specific recording, it was in a movie theatre watching the 1973 film about his life. That was about 45 years ago, and I have felt very close to Jimi ever since. I am tempted to visit his old apartment in London which is open to the public (Handel lived in the same building 200 years previously) but I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Anyway, I digress. Sometimes, imo, there is little to no value in trying to analyse to paralysis, personal experiences of a seemingly mystical character.

 

[Yerda]

Not sure I follow you here. You may find reason and perception difficult to define and explain, I suppose. But that is largely a matter of understanding the neurology involved.

Perception, particularly, is definitely a thing however you understand materialism. There are physical and chemical reactions to the presence of various stimuli such as light, heat and touch. They are known and demonstrated to cause effects in human brains.

Maybe. A thermometer responds to the temperature in its immediate environment. I wouldn't say it was percieving. Perception, as I understand it, is a process involving sensory information and is a subjective qualitative process.

Reason is probably a bit trickier, but so what? At one time we did not understand magnetism either. It turns out to be very much physical in nature.

Of course. Maybe we'll have a properly physical account of all of these types of things at some stage.

In any case, I take it that no one here believes that materialism, however you define it, implies denial of the existence of reason and perception.

I hope not, that's definitely not what I'm suggesting. Would be more accurate to say that these things exist and I reckon are a problem for a materialist account of the world.

 

[KWED]

Would be more accurate to say that these things exist and I reckon are a problem for a materialist account of the world.

In what way are they a problem?

 

[Yerda]

In what way are they a problem?

In the way that there's a challenge in starting with field, particles etc and producing perceptions etc.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Once again, it is not irrational or ill-informed to see design in a finely-tuned universe

Yet we can’t even live in 100% of our planet of origin.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't see why you think inferring a designer is irrational at this point, though; this is where you lose me.

It only seems rational to certain religions. Not all of them started with such a premise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist? So many of the atheists one encounters today seem not only to reject God, but the idea of the 'other' as a whole. Anything that cannot be discovered by one of any scientific methods is rejected. It is a very modern view, I think.

Why has atheism so embraced materialism? Would you say anyone in Antiquity or pre-Enlightenment who claimed to be an atheist would fit our modern definition of 'atheist'? Would they concur with materialism and reductionism? There also seems to be a disdain for Philosophy (see Stephen Hawking for 'Philosophy is dead').

Why is this?

To be an atheist requires just one thing, disbelief in existence of God or Goddesses. Being a materialist or not, or being a spiritual or not, is besides the point. I am a strong atheist, a strong materialist as also strongly spiritual. I am sure there are others too like me. Whether duality or nonduality again is a personal choice. Atheism comes with search for truth. The other things also are result of this search for truth. Oh, atheism is very old in India, at least three thousand years. It starts in RigVeda Nasadiya Sukta, which I have quoted many times. Some will fit instantly in the modern time, the Charvaks, Buddha, Kanada of the Vaisheshika philosophy, the Hindu atomic theory, and Samkhya.
Hindu atheism - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

HOWEVER, and this is important imo: to me at least, materialism is the dogmatic position that there is "nothing beyond the physical". So not only is it a rejection of the claims of theism / the supernatural, it is an active acceptance of the negative claims as well. So not only will they say "I don't believe gods exist", they"ll also say "I believe NO GODS exist".

I don't know many atheists who would say that. Most wouldn't.

I would say that I am a "practical materialist". Meaning that I can't prove that the material / physical is all there is. It could be that there is more then that. It's just so far, no evidence has been forthcoming in support of such. And all the evidence we DO have, only support physical things existing.

I've reached the point where I'm fine with saying "I believe no gods exist." In fact, I think it's misleading to couch statements about the non-existence of gods in uncertainty.

Yes, all knowledge is tentative, and yes, inductive reasoning can never be perfectly reliable, but we're generally comfortable making absolutist claims about all sorts of other knowledge that we can recognize isn't perfectly certain (e.g. how many siblings do you have? Do you know for sure? Do you put "error bars" on your estimate of the number when people ask?).

If we only talk about uncertainty when talking about gods, then this creates the misleading impression that gods have special uncertainty beyond the regular uncertainty inherent in any knowledge claim.

If I can say "I know there are no live penguins in my house" without being challenged, I'm going to apply the same standard and say "I know that no gods exist."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've reached the point where I'm fine with saying "I believe no gods exist." In fact, I think it's misleading to couch statements about the non-existence of gods in uncertainty.

Yes, all knowledge is tentative, and yes, inductive reasoning can never be perfectly reliable, but we're generally comfortable making absolutist claims about all sorts of other knowledge that we can recognize isn't perfectly certain (e.g. how many siblings do you have? Do you know for sure? Do you put "error bars" on your estimate of the number when people ask?).

If we only talk about uncertainty when talking about gods, then this creates the misleading impression that gods have special uncertainty beyond the regular uncertainty inherent in any knowledge claim.

If I can say "I know there are no live penguins in my house" without being challenged, I'm going to apply the same standard and say "I know that no gods exist."

I agree.

In fact, among my atheist friends, we talk as if it is as factual as it gets that there are no gods.
However, on forums such as these, with creationists etc, I tend to be careful with the word "believe".

When I converse with you for example on these matters, it is pretty much implied that all knowledge is tentative - even when things are expressed factually. We understand this and it needs not to be mentioned and repeated every other sentence.

Fundamentalists and creationists however.... they don't understand this. They use the word "believe" very differently. So I am careful about how I phrase things to make it super-exact. Just to make sure I give them as little ammunition as possible to go off on a strawmanning tangent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree.

In fact, among my atheist friends, we talk as if it is as factual as it gets that there are no gods.
However, on forums such as these, with creationists etc, I tend to be careful with the word "believe".

When I converse with you for example on these matters, it is pretty much implied that all knowledge is tentative - even when things are expressed factually. We understand this and it needs not to be mentioned and repeated every other sentence.

Fundamentalists and creationists however.... they don't understand this. They use the word "believe" very differently. So I am careful about how I phrase things to make it super-exact. Just to make sure I give them as little ammunition as possible to go off on a strawmanning tangent.

Fair enough.

My approach lately here,, is to use absolutist language, and if challenged on it, point out that it's completely in line with other absolutist language that doesn't get challenged.

 

[Koldo]

But I think I have my answer: a basic belief in materialism a priori.

As for me, and I am both an atheist and a materialist, both of those are a posteriori. A material and godless universe simply makes much more sense to me than any other alternative I have been presented.

 

[Pudding]

I'm tiring of religion and theism being called 'irrational' or 'superstition' or such.

I'm also tired to hear some theists keeps criticizing atheists, cursing atheists to get eternal BBQ treatment, accuse atheists have no morals, accuse atheists are spiritually blind blind, demand atheists to obey whatever they say whatever a book says whatever a God says whatever atheists must obey, demand atheists to join their respective religion and donate/give money to their respective religion's representative.

There are many philosophers and theologians out there making rationally sound arguments for the existence of God.

Oh, i see, that's what you believe. I don't believe you, but thanks for sharing your opinion.

Oh, by the way, which religion or denomination's version of God are you referring to? Are you talking about Flying Spaghetti God? Hmm...

I am starting to believe that when atheists claim these arguments aren't 'rational' they're not referring to the content of the argument. For instance, I fail to see how seeing design and order in nature and coming to the conclusion that there is a designer is in any way irrational

I think it's irrational, because it makes unconvincing claim that nature's pattern and order are design by a designer. Then some theists further make bold empty claim that the designer is not design by another different designer. Is there pattern and order in their propose designer? Or is it a disorder designer without any pattern?

If there are pattern and order in their propose designer, then why don't they think that such pattern and order is design by another different designer?

Why nature's pattern and order must be design by a designer while the designer's pattern and order must not be design by a different designer? I know why, it can be because a religion's book says so. Or perhaps you have other answer, if you do please share your answer thanks.

or that, with majority scientific consensus, believing that the universe had a beginning and believing that God is the ultimate cause of the beginning of the universe is irrational.

Some people believe it's irrational, probably because they think the statement "God is the ultimate cause" is not supported by good evidence.

How are these beliefs in any way irrational?

Please see above's explanation.

They're based on perfectly logical argument and conclusion.

Please prove it, thanks.

I fail to see how this is superstition or otherwise.

Okay, i understand, you believe you fail to see, thanks for sharing that.

You can disagree with the argument, but calling the argument irrational is far-fetched.

This is the definition of "irrational": not logical or reasonable.

If an argument is indeed not logical or reasonable, then i don't think it's far-fetched to calling the argument irrational.

But obviously you don't think the specific argument is irrational, so you would think it's far-fetched to calling it irrational.

And some people have different opinion than you, they believe the specific argument is irrational, so they don't think it's far-fetched to calling it irrational.

Philosophers and theologians have been making and perfecting these arguments for thousands of years now, and who are you to say they are irrational garbage? Do you think you're a better mind than Augustine, Anselm or Aquinas?

It's baffling.

I think it's rude to call the argument garbage. If someone think the argument is irrational, then they should simply call it irrational. There's no need to call it garbage, that's very uncivilized to say it's garbage.

And obviously your question is for the people who call the specific argument garbage, but i'm not one of them. I'll let them answer your question. Hope you get your answer.