Calling all materialists and non-materialists

by willmarite 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  metatron

  It felt like a moment of enlightenment, years ago, when it dawned on me that materialism fails in regard to its own reductionism. Someone says, 'well, chemistry is caused by molecules, which are caused by atoms, which are caused by subatomic particles..........."

  Eventually, you reach the basement of reality. You can't go any further in finding (local) causes. At that point, you say 'it just is'. I noticed this from hard core atheists (Victor Stenger) and Buddhist/Spiritual people as well (Victor Mansfield - astrophysicist as well).

  So, ultimately, the universe 'just is'. That can be a shocking concept.

  I now wonder what 'macroworld' phenomena might 'just be'. Ghosts? Life after death? ESP? All that's left is empiricism - a 'cut and try' attitude towards reality, if such things can be tested.

  metatron
• 

  prologos

  GSK of course it is hard to understand "- you live through your children-" because

  you live through your GRAND CHILDREN.

  That line goes back very far.

  some of it is cast in stone, fossils.

  Your grandchildren are the living fossils of the future.
• 

  adamah

  Since this is a ex-JW forum, it's important to remember this is NOT about the JWs definition of 'materialism', "the love of money and possessions", as some may mistakenly think. That's only one of the reasons why the term materialism is no longer preferable, and why something like 'physicalism' is more helpful, the belief that the universe is composed of only energy and matter, and most importartly, no 'spiritual woo'.

  Adam said- Yeah, that prove you're projecting YOUR fears onto others.

  Willmarite said- That would be possible but these are only theoretical fears of mine that do not exist.

  Is it? Being that there's absolutely NO evidence to support an idea of anything besides physicalism, I'd suggest your adoption of believe in anything else is an unconscious mechanism you and many others have adopted to avoid having to confront that idea, and the fear you are assume that must accompany. That's what defense mechanisms are all about.

  Adam- You really should be asking yourself of where you ever got the idea of spiritual woo, in the first place, as your default position? Because aside from cultural influences, there's absolutely no evidence for it.

  Willmarite said-This would be your opinion. Thanks

  Well, YEAH, and that should be pretty-darn obvious, just as is the fact that it's YOUR life, and has NO BEARING on others what you do with it?

  However, you started a thread eliciting opinions, so probably shouldn't be surprised when others take the time to offer their opinion(s). NO ONE can MAKE you do or think anything (although I realize many ex-JWs are struggling with 'defiance of authority' issues and working at rebuilding their sense of automony and ego, and will automatically rebuff any statements they perceive as attempts to control them, even if they asked for them).

  Materialist' is not synonymous with 'nihilist'. Don't insult me like that!

  'Free will' implies there's not someone (usually, some God(s)) pulling the levers. The only one yanking our chains is often US OURSELVES, and most people cannot handle the responsibility of accepting that fact, since it means they cannot deny their personal responsibility any longer.

  Willmarite said- Sorry, no intention to insult. I certainly agree with you that we and we alone have ultimate responsability to what happens to us and our planet. How does your version of materialism reconcile itself with free will?

  Sorry, as I forgot to put a 'winkie', as I wasn't actually insulted, just amused by your assumption that we must be nihilists, based on your thinking that YOU'D respond in that manner, too, IF you were a materialist (it's likely a vestige of the 'stinking thinking' that the JWs and other churches drum into the congregation as part of their attempt to straw-man atheists as living life with nothing to hope for, blah, blah, blah. Such attempts to define others who they disagree with make me .)

  I don't see any conflict with physicalism and free will: why should there be?

  God defines His will, and humans have to follow His will, or face punishment. The problem of lack of free will partly stems from the idea of a God possessing Divine foreknowledge (prescience), but if you take a God out of the equation, any problems with free will essentially disappear (aside from social effects which hinder free will, eg laws).

  BTW, I don't fully agree with the words of Bertrand Russell, as it reads as rather nihilistic. Yes, there's a school in physics that think eventually the Universe will end up in heat death, but it's an assumption, and an idea that's not agreed upon. Those prone to Chicken Little thinking (eg "Armageddon is coming!") are likely going to be worried about what MIGHT happen, long after they're dead. Such thinking stems from the same lack of perspective, just a slightly different flavor of it.

  Adam
• 

  willmarite

  Hi Adam. I don't think you've thought thru completely the implications of your belief in materialism or physicalism. Many have done so such as Sam Harris who has written the book "The Illusion of Free Will". You can read a short article on his book here:

  http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-will

  Stephen Hawking has thought thru the question as a materialist or physicalist and writes in his book The Grand Design:

  "Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."

  Sam Harris says that there is no intellectually respectable position to deny that free will is an illusion. If you disagree that belief in materialism or physicalism doesn't logically lead to the belief that free will is an illusion you will have to explain your position better.
• 

  J. Hofer

  we already had endless threads about the (non)existence of free will. in the end the question is: free from what? you're FREE to jump down a 10 story building, but you WILL break your bones - even if you would prefer a different outcome. once we aks ourselves WHY we believe something or decide one way or another, it becomes obvious that there are too many external and internal influences to call any of this free. at least not in the absolute sense it's often used.
• 

  adamah

  Hi Adam. I don't think you've thought thru completely the implications of your belief in materialism or physicalism. Many have done so such as Sam Harris who has written the book "The Illusion of Free Will". You can read a short article on his book here:

  Yeah, thanks, I'm aware of the questions arising from neuroscience which shows that intent for an action seemingly requires unconscious pre-planning, but I don't find the findings or Sam Harris' conclusion to be compelling, in the least.

  Those findings imply there is some lag-time, a delay in the processing which is quite subconscious to the individual (but can be intercepted, and hence used to predict what the individual will do BEFORE he consciously chooses to act). The finding don't imply there's some exterior force pulling on our strings, as if we're marionette. The brain works in a complex manner, and there's no need to resort to "God Dun It!" thinking everytime some mystery arises.

  Adam
• 

  Seraphim23

  Bohm I didn’t really limit love to procreation when talking about the materialist view point because I also mentioned evolutionary purposes. These would be to do with a whole range of things with all of them really subservient to DNA survival. However I would probably say similar things to you about love giving life meaning except for the small fact that such things are meaningless unless love continues on after death. You would say this doesn’t matter. It is going to be up to the individual to decide which view has more merit.

  I would say as you guessed that if love disappeared forever even if it had lasted for 100 billion years or a single second then it has no meaning because 100 billion years and a second are the same when measured against infinite nothingness that both will become.

  As for explaining in a concrete way what the soul is, or what part of me will continue to exist after my death, that is just as hard as explaining other things that are not made of substance. It’s a material universe and we can only think in terms of material hence the hard problem of consciousness. One can pontificate about the breakdown of logic in reducing everything to a material correlate but what’s the point in that? All that will happen is that the world view one already has will be used as though it were evidence to interpret the data when the data itself is subject to interpretation. A never ending debate will ensue as it always has done. Best to wait until death and then we will both know who is correct. In the meantime assume as though love has meaning and is not an accident without purpose, or that love is its own purpose which is a non-material position of course, but a pragmatic one.
• 

  bohm

  Seraphim:

  However I would probably say similar things to you about love giving life meaning except for the small fact that such things are meaningless unless love continues on after death. You would say this doesn’t matter. It is going to be up to the individual to decide which view has more merit.

  But why are the meaningless if we actually die. Is there any logical reasons why we should think so or is it just a matter of taste? If its just a matter of taste, I see no reason why you should have anything to fear from an materialistic world-view: It would only be you who, due to a subjective matter of taste, made yourself feel bad when you could just as reasonably feel good. It would be the equivalent of any other irrational fear, like being afraid of open spaces.

  I would say as you guessed that if love disappeared forever even if it had lasted for 100 billion years or a single second then it has no meaning because 100 billion years and a second are the same when measured against infinite nothingness that both will become.

  Yes but what happends during the "infinite of time" that determines your life has value now? Lets say you are 100 billion years in during your infinite life. If we say a normal human life 100 years, then compared to 100 billion years your entire lifespan is equivalent to 31 milliseconds of your current life. How often do you think of any given 31 milliseconds of your current life? Would you remember it at all?

  Is it your continued remembering and thinking about your current life that give your current life now value (if so, how?) or is it the fact that you will go on and do other things in the future that give the things you do now value? If so, I simply dont see the logical connection. Is the reason why a good meal today has value that in 100 billion years a person you would barely recognize as yourself will have a completely different meal? I just dont see the logic.
• 

  Seraphim23

  Logic breaks down when it comes to defining the details of infinity because logic is always finite. The limits of human cognition become apparent. All I can say is that a millisecond is always going to be a percentage of a forever that exists, even if it gets smaller and smaller, whereas a billion billion years is always going to be a zero percentage of an infinity of nothing. Each person has to decide for themselves if truth is real or not and what it might be if it is. You don’t need to win or lose a debate with me to decide what you think is the case about reality. There will always be believers and non-believers while people exist. Nothing here will change that.
• 

  jgnat

  Well, I'm not Sam Harris. From what I can see there are moments where choice sits on a razors edge and some choose a better life. Entropy stymied. The existence of complexity thumbs it's nose at entropy.

  When I read Quantum Physics or listen to a physicist explain the implications of the Higgs Boson, we are living on the edge of chance every day. But perhaps that is the mystery.