Why materialists are predominantly materialists

[Simon Moon]

Being an atheist and NOT a materialist (and so being a REAL outsider!), I have always had an interest in the relationship between atheism and materialism, on the one hand, and between materialism and science on the other.  Where as most atheists (and non-atheists) conflate materialism and science, I see religion and materialism as BOTH being non-scientific worldviews. 

Before I post my website which is composed of a number of talks where I explain my understanding that the materialist worldview is wrong (which I will do when I reach my quota of 30 posts!) I'd like to ask materialists to explain if and why they believe materialism is either necessary to atheism, or at least an important aspect of the view.

I hope that you are not making the assumption that ALL materialists are philosophical materialists, and not what (I believe) most of are, methodological materialists.

I, for example, do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all there is. I am willing to accept that the a material realm (have you defined what you mean by the 'non material' yet?) exists, as long as I feel the belief is justified.

As far as science and materialism is concerned, science operates on methodological materialism, not philosophical materialism. All scientists are methodological materialists, but not all are philosophical materialists. If they are not methodological materialists, they are not, by definition, scientists.

[Jehanne]

Why don't you try and describe to me a non-material something. Anything at all. I'll wait.

Dan Barker makes the excellent point that a soul, spirit, etc., is always defined in terms of what it is not ("non-material", "immaterial", etc.) as opposed to what it "is".  Consciousness and free will (if the latter even truly exists) are mysterious, but saying that there are non-material things responsible for such is kind of a "soul of the gaps".

[bennyboy]

I'll weigh in here and agree with the OP that there's no evidence for material or anything like it. In fact, given double-slit experiments (quantum eraser) I'd say even a physical monism is on shaky ground, especially when idealism subsumes materialism and physicalism anyway. "Reality" is almost for sure unknowable; what we DO know is only what we experience, and relationships between the things we experience.

I propose we remove the unknown/unknowable from science altogether, and treat it for what it is-- a system of categorization and interaction with EXPERIENCES, with no need to cling to instinctive but unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality.

[bennyboy]

Why don't you try and describe to me a non-material something. Anything at all. I'll wait.

Dan Barker makes the excellent point that a soul, spirit, etc., is always defined in terms of what it is not ("non-material", "immaterial", etc.) as opposed to what it "is".  Consciousness and free will (if the latter even truly exists) are mysterious, but saying that there are non-material things responsible for such is kind of a "soul of the gaps".

Hang on, there.  Define "material" if you're so sure that reality is definable from any perspective.  What is "stuff"?  What is "energy"?  What is gravity, or anything else?  What do we really know?

Given that I know all I know only through my capacity for subjective experience, you're going to have to come up with some pretty sound logic if you're going to demonstrate that ANYTHING at all is more than that, without accepting philosophical assumptions that beg the question.

I'll say right now, and unambiguously-- it cannot be done.  You cannot demonstrate even that the keyboard you're typing on is anything more than a collection of ideas.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Okay. And then what?

[Jesster]

Benny, that's like asking us to prove that no god exists. Of course we can't do that. The rational response is to not accept it until the evidence for it is there, though. I'm not even saying that there isn't more to existence than materialism. I just don't have any reason to believe otherwise yet.

[bennyboy]

Benny, that's like asking us to prove that no god exists. Of course we can't do that. The rational response is to not accept it until the evidence for it is there, though. I'm not even saying that there isn't more to existence than materialism. I just don't have any reason to believe otherwise yet.

Reason to "believe otherwise"?  I think you're skipping an important step-- the reason to believe that there IS a material world at all.  I know everyone feels very confident about the reality of things, but who here has an experience of the material world that is in accord with modern scientific views?  Nobody.

So I'd suggest we explore just HOW we think there's a material world at all, and whether our reasons are sufficient.

I'd also suggest that since all knowledge is collected by way of subjective experience, that experience itself is the only thing we know to be real.  And the world view that best represents this would be an idealistic monism, not a material one.

[Jesster]

Benny, that's like asking us to prove that no god exists. Of course we can't do that. The rational response is to not accept it until the evidence for it is there, though. I'm not even saying that there isn't more to existence than materialism. I just don't have any reason to believe otherwise yet.

Reason to "believe otherwise"?  I think you're skipping an important step-- the reason to believe that there IS a material world at all.  I know everyone feels very confident about the reality of things, but who here has an experience of the material world that is in accord with modern scientific views?  Nobody.

So I'd suggest we explore just HOW we think there's a material world at all, and whether our reasons are sufficient.

I'd also suggest that since all knowledge is collected by way of subjective experience, that experience itself is the only thing we know to be real.  And the world view that best represents this would be an idealistic monism, not a material one.

The reason to believe in more than the material world is that there is a material world? Sorry, benny. You lost me there. Accepting 'X' does not bring me closer to accepting 'not X'. If you want to reference modern scientific views, though, we don't even need an expert to start with the basics of that. Science assumes materialism and nothing more. I'll stick with that for now.

[bennyboy]

Okay. And then what?

. . . and then we let this new view serve as a guide for science-- what avenues we will or will not pursue next.  Science has effectively killed materialism, and "physics" is in essence a set of mathematical relationships in a VIRTUAL space.  It is no longer a tool which can be used to establish our instinctive material world view as correct.

I'd like to humbly suggest for anyone reading this that you MUST google "double slit experiments," "quantum entanglement" and "quantum eraser" before you even attempt to take a materialist position.  It's modern science, and it must be the starting point for any meaningful discussion of reality, IMO.

[KevinM1]

Can this discussion be moved to the philosophy section?