JohnathanH stated: Materialism is the pragmatic view. Anything else is imagination.
Materialism is the belief that matter is reality. That is not a pragmatic view; that is an assumption, an affirmative claim that you cannot support. Science is pragmatic, but science "gets s**t done" with or without the belief that the physical world is reality. Science is a logical method. Materialism is a philosophical position, and it contains illogical assumptions about reality.
If psychic forces, or gods were discovered, they would be natural and materialistic for the very reason that they exist with or interact with our universe.
Some religious people assert that if there is a duality to human consciousness, an immaterial supreme consciousness (god) could interact with us on a non-material, unmeasurable level. Do you not see that as a possibility? Can you prove that an ethereal god cannot influence people on a strictly spiritual level such as through a soul?
We may not at present have the means to describe it, but if it has something to do with empirical reality, it is in the realm of science. If it does not interact with our universe then it cannot be demonstrated to exist, only asserted or assumed.
The problem with this statement is that you equate empiricism with reality. This is an assumption in itself. How do you know that the material world does, in reality, exist?
Scientist are still waiting for some one to demonstrate that materialism is false, or that there are other paths to understanding the universe other than logical positivism and science.
Other philosophical positions, such as phenomenology, allow for a scientific understanding of our world without making epistemological assumptions about reality. If scientists are waiting for someone to demonstrate that materialism, the belief in the reality of matter, is assumptive, they need only look at other competing philosophies. If they are waiting for someone to demonstrate that matter does not exist, they are guilty of the same logical fallacy made by theists. How could anyone possibly prove the non-existence of the material world? Not being able to prove that it does not exist does not mean that it does exist. If you make the claim that it does exist as ultimate reality, the burden to prove that claim is on you. I'm still waiting for a materialist to prove that matter is ultimate reality.
To claim that something is true is to say that it is real, and any claim of something being real (that is to say exists) requires some demonstrable evidence and evidence comes in the form of logical positivism, materialism and science.
This is a circular argument:
What is real is defined as that which can be demonstrably evidenced.
Evidence comes in the form of logical positivism, materialism, and science.
Therefore, materialism, logical positivism and science provide us reality.
Do you see the logical fallacy inherent in this argument? It’s just like saying:
Truth is defined as that which can be demonstrably evidenced.
Evidence comes in the form of divine wisdom through God’s Word.
Therefore, God’s Word provides us with truth.
You’re begging the question. The nature of reality, how it is defined, is the very thing in question. Your premises fail to support your conclusion.
If you cannot offer evidence of something, then you cannot say it is real or that it exists, it is just assertions of one's imagination. So we merely have the assertion that materialism is false without evidence that it is.
Nobody in modern philosophy, to my knowledge, is stating that matter does not exist. Your argument is as flawed as the theist who states that atheism is illogical because an atheist cannot prove that a god does not exist. Atheists aren’t trying to prove that a god does not exist. And relativist philosophy is not stating that matter does not exist. It’s a position of skepticism, agnosticism. How do you [i]know[/i] that matter exists in reality? Is it possible that reality is altogether different from how it is perceived? If that’s even a possibility, then you cannot claim that matter is ultimate reality. Materialism is a belief, an assumption, just like theism.
Notice, I’m not stating that science is false. Science exists with or without materialism.
If somebody wants to go down the road of epistimological nihilism and assert that we can't really know anything in order to destroy materialism, let them. And then ask them if they want some antibiotics next time they are ill. Science FTW!
You’re creating a false dilemma. There are philosophical positions other than materialism and nihilism. And this antibiotics argument demonstrates such a cursory understanding of modern relativistic philosophies. It’s sophomoric. It’s on par with creationists who say, “I know evil u shun is bullsh1t cuz’ I didn’t come from no monkey!” Seriously, at least make an effort to understand opposing philosophical positions, and attempt to debate them logically instead of lazily creating strawman fallacies.
Now I would ask of that statement "Why should philosophers and theologians be consulted on what existed before our universe?" We might as well ask a baker or a pilot. They are all going to do the same thing, namely make blind unfalsifiable assertions that make sense to them personally.
I did make that statement in a different discussion. The point of that statement is that science only deals with the material world, with matter. That’s as far as it is capable of going. Like formal logic, it’s a method, not a philosophy. If we want to speculate on what lies beyond the physical world, what existed before our universe, or the true nature of reality, we can create philosophies and theologies. I’m not advocating this, BTW. I was simply stating the inability of science to touch those questions. Science, as a method, doesn't care about why matter is here or whether or not it is real. It simply shrugs its shoulders as it goes about its discovery. Scientists may care. But their speculations are as assumptive as any other theology or philosophy.
As for them being blind, unfalsifiable assumptions I would whole-heartedly agree, and materialism is no exception.
Nad
