NationStates Jolt Archive

Materialism --the philosophy that suggests that only the physical world is real and that everything can be explained in terms of physical reality --is a perspective that is an inadquate platform from which to argue religion. It is too limiting, and I suggest that it cannot grasp what religion is "about". Whether you are a theist or an atheist, to argue from a materialistic understanding of the universe necessarily means you are arguing some form of literalism.

The human perspective is vital in order to understand religion, and understanding religion is necessary in order to form adequate arguments against it. Without understanding what they are arguing against, literalist atheists don't stand a chance. Theorising religion as a "meme" that propagates itself does not adequately describe it, and propagates a misunderstanding of the opponent. Atheists look at this as banging their heads against the proverbial brick walls of ignorance and superstition... but this does not adequately describe their opponents, either, so again they are misunderstanding, and some not realising it, and for some not even able to grasp what it is they are misunderstanding because they are so mired in materialism. Cultural conditioning.

I'm not suggesting the other extreme, idealism (materialism's opposite), should be held aloft as the answer --it's not, but the only truth of the reality that surrounds us every moment of every day is a blend of both materialism and idealism, which correspond with the objective and subjective perspectives from which man, the human consciousness, perceives the world. Materialism sees the whole world objectively; idealism sees the world from a wholly subjective perspective, that of the individual consciousness. The human being experiences the world both objectively and subjectively at the same time --this is the truth of "being" human.

"Matter and energy are not in themselves phenomena, and do not become phenomena until they are observed." --some Quantum Physics guy. I don't have a source, but he or she has the right idea. Man is a necessary part of any equation his mind conceives. Without man there is no instrument of measure. Without man, there is no one to care.

Materialism states that information is received through the senses and input to the brain like computer data --1's and 0's --via electromagnetic impulses. The brain stores the input in neural nets, combining them into larger bits of "thoughts" and "knowledge". This is lovely, dehumanized, objective description of what happens when we sense things does absolutely nothing to describe what is sensed, how it feels to the individual to perceive this input. Materialism fails when it tries to describe how a thought, a feeling or a complex concept conceived by the mind is also an object, though it has no physical existence. Materialism is only adequate to describe the physical impulses in the brain that accompany the thought. In order to assert that the impulses cause the thought perceived, it would be necessary to prove that the timing of the impulses precedes the thought, and that is impossible to do from an objective viewpoint. There is no way, yet, to time a subjective experience.

More to the point, the subjective evaluation is equally as important as any physical sensations the subject must endure because it humanizes the experience, and, as humans, we are well conditioned to receive non-literal input. Metaphor, the language of poets, is the tool of the mythologist, and of the people who wrote the Bible and other early religious texts. A metaphor can be built upon a wholly subjective idea or feeling, or it can be built upon reality, such as a history, to give it a more "human" depth of understanding. The man who looks up at another and says, "My heart is breaking," is using metaphor to describe how he feels subjectively and objectively --his conscious emotional state and the electro-chemical impulses that cause his chest to heave and his heart to constrict.

Both objective and subjective at the same time. This is reality. And this is the "reality" of what god is about.

I have more to say, but the post is long enough. I'd love to hear any thoughts on this matter.

And yet, religion disregarding materialism and literalism tends to discourage innovation and material advancement. It's all very well to have spiritual advancement, but it shouldn't supercede or replace actuality - which it does, in many cases.

while i understand what you are talking about. i cant agree with it.

after all i AM an atheist literalist and the part about religion not being literally TRUE is a "deal breaker" for me. i can never get past the part where there is not factual basis for any religion.

it doesnt bother most religious people it seems. they are happy with connecting with the greater unknown/spiritual universe in the way that their religion allows them to do. they have a deep feeling about "god" and that is enough to get them past any doubts.

its just not that way for me. i WISH god were real, i WISH that there were some greater being out there for me to have some mystical connection to. but, as far as i can see there isnt and religion would just be a pretense for me.

And yet, religion disragarding materialism and literalism tends to discourage innovation and material advancement. It's all very well to have spiritual advancement, but it shouldn't supercede or replace actualilty - which it does, in many cases.

And yet, Willamena argues for balance, not the extreme you describe. So I don't see how that is relevant. Based on the original post, I think both you and Willamena would agree that a balance is more healthy. Of course, you may disagree over where in the middle that healthy balance lies...

it doesnt bother most religious people it seems. they are happy with connecting with the greater unknown/spiritual universe in the way that their religion allows them to do. they have a deep feeling about "god" and that is enough to get them past any doubts.

I have a deep feeling that my boyfriend loves me. I can't *prove* it scientifically, but I feel it every day.

The option of whether or not to believe in a God is truly an axiomatic one, as any all-powerful creator would necessarily exist outside the known principles of the Universe. It can be neither proven nor disproven and any arguments supporting that decision must invariably come from an initial assumption that one or the other is true. Science certainly can neither prove nor disprove it.

The problem comes in on either side. Someone who cannot admit that there might be a God is ignoring the fact that they simply cannot prove their point. Someone who is very religious will often ignore the world around them, as it doesn't fit in with their view of God. The trick is to realize that the two views can coexist. If you believe in a God, that is great, but you must be willing to change your view of that God. Too many people try to make the world fit their view of God, when it simply does not. The more logical way to do it is to change your view of God when the obvious evidence contradicts it.

I have a deep feeling that my boyfriend loves me. I can't *prove* it scientifically, but I feel it every day.

The option of whether or not to believe in a God is truly an axiomatic one, as any all-powerful creator would necessarily exist outside the known principles of the Universe. It can be neither proven nor disproven and any arguments supporting that decision must invariably come from an initial assumption that one or the other is true. Science certainly can neither prove nor disprove it.

The problem comes in on either side. Someone who cannot admit that there might be a God is ignoring the fact that they simply cannot prove their point. Someone who is very religious will often ignore the world around them, as it doesn't fit in with their view of God. The trick is to realize that the two views can coexist. If you believe in a God, that is great, but you must be willing to change your view of that God. Too many people try to make the world fit their view of God, when it simply does not. The more logical way to do it is to change your view of God when the obvious evidence contradicts it.
many women feel that their boyfriend loves them even when he beats them or turns them out on the street as prostitutes. we CAN be deluded by feelings.

im not saying that i think believers are stupid. im just saying that *I* cant go that way.

at BEST all i can come up with is that this "god" is either dead, busy doing other things, uncaring about us and what we do, or unable to affect this universe he has created. i dont see any difference in believing in such a god or not believing in him. if he doesnt care, why would i?

many women feel that their boyfriend loves them even when he beats them or turns them out on the street as prostitutes. we CAN be deluded by feelings.

And can any logical believer fail to view this as a possiblity for their relationship with God?

Anyone who has not even questioned their belief in God does not really have very strong faith.

im not saying that i think believers are stupid. im just saying that *I* cant go that way.

And I understand that. Believe me, if the man I'm going to marry is an atheist, I'm certainly not going to have a problem with anyone else for sharing his view.

Let me clarify here. *I* believe that there is a God and I have notions of who and what that God is. However, I am well aware that this is all in the realm of faith and that I cannot objectively prove it to others. The scientific side of me requires that I acknowledge that I am most likely wrong on some of it, and very possibly wrong on all of it. This is why I would never purport to force my beliefs on others. For me, faith steps in where science cannot speak.

However, I am well aware that this is all in the realm of faith and that I cannot objectively prove it to others. The scientific side of me requires that I acknowledge that I am most likely wrong on some of it, and very possibly wrong on all of it. This is why I would never purport to force my beliefs on others. For me, faith steps in where science cannot speak.That's so... ideal. It's the ideal balance between rationalizing and faith. I admire you greatly for really believing that... the world would be a much better place if more people agreed with you...

Unfortunately, as good as I agree it sounds, it's hard for me personally to accept that balance - I know I'm being radical - but I really, honestly, truly think there is no God, as much as any religious person believes there is one. And when thinking of all the wrong done in the name of God, wrong done because people followed what they thought was God's word, wrong done because religious leaders have used faith for mere manipulation, wrong done because people don't tend to question their faith... it's very difficult for me to understand that not every person of faith is like this, that there are many good things to come of faith as well.

Anyway, compromise and balance are all very well, but when I think of faith, I think of it as a means to devise an answer that you can't find any other way - which is fine - but then to stop looking for other answers.

I have a deep feeling that my boyfriend loves me. I can't *prove* it scientifically, but I feel it every day.

The option of whether or not to believe in a God is truly an axiomatic one, as any all-powerful creator would necessarily exist outside the known principles of the Universe. It can be neither proven nor disproven and any arguments supporting that decision must invariably come from an initial assumption that one or the other is true. Science certainly can neither prove nor disprove it.

The problem comes in on either side. Someone who cannot admit that there might be a God is ignoring the fact that they simply cannot prove their point. Someone who is very religious will often ignore the world around them, as it doesn't fit in with their view of God. The trick is to realize that the two views can coexist. If you believe in a God, that is great, but you must be willing to change your view of that God. Too many people try to make the world fit their view of God, when it simply does not. The more logical way to do it is to change your view of God when the obvious evidence contradicts it.

But as you said yourself, in order to exist god would have to exist outside the boundries and conventions of the Universe, right? So thus NO amount of evidence could possibly contradict god, since god is beyond evidence itself.

Thus, faith.

An Atheist Literalist faces the fundemental problem of comparing apples with oranges, in general, they take a rational, material universe as their world view. Compare this with most Monotheistic religions, which take a rational, material universe and apply the concept of God to govern, influence, and create it all. Thus all things that can be explained through material literalism can just as easily be ascribed to god's influence or intervention.

Thus when my car broke down at night in the pouring rain, I know that it was my battery going dead...but the timing suggested that someone upstairs was making a point about me staying up to late. It is then up to me and my faith to determine just how much I wish to credit god with the material problem of a dead car on a dark road, miles from home.

That's so... ideal. It's the ideal balance between rationalizing and faith. I admire you greatly for really believing that... the world would be a much better place if more people agreed with you...

*blush* Ah, thanks. =)

Unfortunately, as good as I agree it sounds, it's hard for me personally to accept that balance - I know I'm being radical - but I really, honestly, truly think there is no God, as much as any religious person believes there is one. And when thinking of all the wrong done in the name of God, wrong done because people followed what they thought was God's word, wrong done because religious leaders have used faith for mere manipulation, wrong done because people don't tend to question their faith... it's very difficult for me to understand that not every person of faith is like this, that there are many good things to come of faith as well.

I don't think you are being radical necessarily, as you accept the possibility of others being right. However, you don't see the balance I see as being correct. The fact that you have come to a different conclusion than me doesn't necessarily make you radical. It would be denying that anyone else could ever possibly be right that would do so.

And I understand what you mean as far as people not questioning their faith. I think much of the wrongs done by religious people occurred because they were insecure in their own faith, so they needed to prove it by making sure that God helped them triumph over the "bad people".

How many wars have been fought because people felt the need to prove to themselves and others that their particular version of God was the right one? The realization of this problem, however, has led me down a different path than you. I have come to the conclusion that religion is not the problem, but misuse of it is. I feel no need to prove my religion to others by beating them down. I feel only the need to prove it to myself, and to discuss it with any that seem interested in hearing it.

Anyway, compromise and balance are all very well, but when I think of faith, I think of it as a means to devise an answer that you can't find any other way - which is fine - but then to stop looking for other answers.

Unfortunately, many religious people agree with that version of faith. I, personally, agree with C.S. Lewis on this one - the minute you start claiming you already have all the answers, you are wrong and have lost faith.

Unfortunately, many religious people agree with that version of faith. I, personally, agree with C.S. Lewis on this one - the minute you start claiming you already have all the answers, you are wrong and have lost faith.Oh, CS Lewis was brilliant! Wrong done in the name of God is actually serving the devil, and right done in the name of the devil actually serves God (Aslan, Tash, whatever he called it). Regardless of the fact that I disagree with his conclusion (do good and get to heaven), I think it's a brilliant premise and it's too bad that religions have attacked him as being heretical and unchristian.

Thus when my car broke down at night in the pouring rain, I know that it was my battery going dead...but the timing suggested that someone upstairs was making a point about me staying up to late. It is then up to me and my faith to determine just how much I wish to credit god with the material problem of a dead car on a dark road, miles from home.
you gotta quit watching OPRAH.

one day, few years back, she told a story about the airline losing her luggage and said something about how the universe was trying to teach her a lesson in patience.

i yelled at the screen that the universe isnt out there making airline employees lose your stuff.

you can learn lessons without it being manipulated by god eh?

Metaphor is all around us, every day. Have you ever heard that little voice inside that tells you to "do this, don't do that"? We refer to it as intuition. It's not actually a voice, is it? It's more like a little knowledge or feeling that pops into the mind. It's a small voice, small enough to ignore, sometimes so small we hardly notice it. And when we don't "listen" to it, and it was right, we think, "Oh man! I knew I should have done it the other way." The "little voice" = a metaphor for intuitive knowledge. It's not an objectively real "voice" but when it "speaks" to us, we understand. Our understanding of it is real. It comes from within, but imparts knowledge that we have no way of rationally knowing.

Now imagine that voice not so little, speaking so loud and thunderous that it crashes into your mind filling it with knowledge. That's one of my favourite Bible metaphors, when God speaks to Moses on the mountain. Just like intuition is a "knowledge", God's voice fills Moses' mind with knowledge in such a clear "voice" that he cannot ignore. It's not an objectively real "voice" but he understands completely.

This is one way God can be "real" without being objectively "real".

you gotta quit watching OPRAH.

one day, few years back, she told a story about the airline losing her luggage and said something about how the universe was trying to teach her a lesson in patience.

i yelled at the screen that the universe isnt out there making airline employees lose your stuff.

you can learn lessons without it being manipulated by god eh?

...Considering I have never, in my entire life, watched Oprah...

Besides, I AM one of those Atheist Literalists. Is just fun to blame all my problems on higher authorities. Thus its not my problem, just because I have an old shitty car.

I'd love to hear any thoughts on this matter.Hmmm. The sciences have shown that a materialistic view of the world can be quite powerful. But not even the "pure" sciences are completely objective, there is no such beastie. AnarchyeL wrote an interesting post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7268891&postcount=12) on a related matter.

Atheists look at this as banging their heads against the proverbial brick walls of ignorance and superstition... but this does not adequately describe their opponents, either, so again they are misunderstanding, and some not realising it, and for some not even able to grasp what it is they are misunderstanding because they are so mired in materialism.I find that atheists that do this tend to misunderstand themselves as well, and not see how much subjectivity there is in their view of the world. The misunderstanding does go both ways, I have had Paulian Christians claim some truly bizzare things about me as an atheist. And both parties all too frequently have a very poor understanding of how science works.

I don't know if I believe in a material world. I haven't really seen any hard evidence that there are physical objects behind perceptions.

I don't know if I believe in a material world. I haven't really seen any hard evidence that there are physical objects behind perceptions.
What sort of evidence would convince you?

What sort of evidence would convince you?

I really don't know.

I find that atheists that do this tend to misunderstand themselves as well...

Perhaps it might be useful to make a distinction here between "atheists that do this" and atheists in general-- atheism doesn't nessecarily entail rejection of the possibility of God, all it involves is a decision not to base one's morality on his, her, or its mandates. I for one do not know or care whether God exists, as any cues [gender neutral pronoun] tries to give me are going to be filtered through my (subjective) senses. The same with materialism-- I don't know whether or not there's a world outside my senses, and quite honestly, I'm not sure it's relevent. Whether or not there's a material world, the only thing I have to base my decisions on are my own perceptions. Dempublicents is right, the real problem here is with people who refuse to acknowlege their own fallibility, not with atheists.

Perhaps it might be useful to make a distinction here between "atheists that do this" and atheists in general-- atheism doesn't nessecarily entail rejection of the possibility of God, all it involves is a decision not to base one's morality on his, her, or its mandates. I for one do not know or care whether God exists, as any cues [gender neutral pronoun] tries to give me are going to be filtered through my (subjective) senses. The same with materialism-- I don't know whether or not there's a world outside my senses, and quite honestly, I'm not sure it's relevent. Whether or not there's a material world, the only thing I have to base my decisions on are my own perceptions. Dempublicents is right, the real problem here is with people who refuse to acknowlege their own fallibility, not with atheists.
That distinction has been made. The literalist atheist debater, by definition, puts himself in opposition to the literalist theist --perhaps because it is the easiest argument. He is looking to dispute a god that is real, with a presence in the physical world, using the evidence of the physical world and its science. He dismisses any subjective evidence of god as immaterial fantasy every bit as much as the literalist theist rejects this evidence in favour of "faith" in a material god-image. Neither one is arguing from a position of reality, which necessarily includes understanding god both objectively (as something apart from man that he must put himself in touch with) and subjectively (as the experience of the relationship).

...Considering I have never, in my entire life, watched Oprah...

Besides, I AM one of those Atheist Literalists. Is just fun to blame all my problems on higher authorities. Thus its not my problem, just because I have an old shitty car.

oh i DO know what you mean but i have it "in reverse"
i have to remind myself that inanimate objects dont "get better" but dammit they keep DOING IT

my car battery was misbehaving but i was too busy to get a new one, then it got better, and i havent had any trouble with it.

one time i was replacing my headlights. it was winter and it got cold and dark so i gave up for the night on the new light that wasnt working right
in the morning,and forever after, it worked just fine

what would oprah say to THAT?

oh i DO know what you mean but i have it "in reverse"
i have to remind myself that inanimate objects dont "get better" but dammit they keep DOING IT

my car battery was misbehaving but i was too busy to get a new one, then it got better, and i havent had any trouble with it.

one time i was replacing my headlights. it was winter and it got cold and dark so i gave up for the night on the new light that wasnt working right
in the morning,and forever after, it worked just fine

what would oprah say to THAT?
**laughs** she'd probably tell you to get her luggage.

I had that once (same car), the gas cap cover suddenly stopped working one day, was broken for about a week, then worked like a charm since.