Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are profoundly mistaken about what my motivations are, but I don't really care because my motivations ought to be irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make. Wanting something to be true doesn't make something any less true if, in fact, it turns out to be true. In any case, for whatever it is worth, what drive me here - what keeps bringing me back to the pipe like a crack ho - is my apparently endless fascination with the idea that some people seem unable to see something that I find so blatantly obvious. There is something for me to learn here, but I have not yet been able to get a grip on it.
The bold is what perplexes me as well, Gaylen. It is also probably why they misconstrue your motivations. I am enormously impressed with your efforts and explanatory skills but their failures only deepen my perplexity because it IS blatantly obvious.
Quote:
Also, BTW: I agree that materialism does not have to imply nihilism. I would also add that nihilism doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person. But a significant number of people do slip from materialism into nihilism, and some nihilists slip into despair, or narcissism, or become socially destructive because they see no point in upholding moral values if everything truly is just random or pre-determined. It might be helpful if these particular people understood that materialism is not the only logical option. As a general principle: people should not be deluded into thinking there is only one plausible option when, in fact, there are many plausible options. Materialism has been an excellent working assumption for science, and it may continue to be so forever, but assuming something for the sake of practicality should not cause one to lose sight of the fact that it is merely an assumption. Just because materialism works as a practical assumption for the purposes of pursuing science, it does not follow that materialism is the best choice of metaphysics when contemplating the nature of consciousness, or the grounds of all moral or aesthetic values. And it also does not mean that knowledge or wisdom is limited to just what science can deliver.
Well said!! I do think there is merit in Gldn's coinage of the God-o-phobia syndrome even though you are an atheist who seems NOT to be affected by it.
These are the kinds of posts from you, mordant, that have engendered my respect. They reveal the capacity to understand what the real issues are, unlike KC and others who seem incapable of even seeing what the issues are. That you do not engage in the intellectual effort to try and resolve them is your legitimate right. Gaylen and I are not constituted to accept that as sufficient. I have the excuse of personal experience driving my efforts. I suspect Gaylen is just a very inquisitive intellect. He has certainly revealed his enormous capacity for explanation (and patience). Sadly, it does seem to fall on permanently deaf ears, except for yours, mordant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Yes, that was pretty much my point, regardless of how Mystic took it.
I am confused as to what you think I misunderstood in your post, mordant. I know that you are afflicted by God-o-phobia and given your experiences understandably so. But what did I misunderstand?
But a significant number of people do slip from materialism into nihilism, and some nihilists slip into despair, or narcissism, or become socially destructive because they see no point in upholding moral values if everything truly is just random or pre-determined.
Citation needed.
Quote:
Just because materialism works as a practical assumption for the purposes of pursuing science, it does not follow that materialism is the best choice of metaphysics when contemplating the nature of consciousness
It is a pretty big hint, though, especially given the lack of serious alternatives.
And I won't even pick on you too much for trying to sneak in the idea that logical deduction is the best way to evaluate choices of epistemological methods - another idea which philosophers seem stuck on even though it doesn't work.
Quote:
or the grounds of all moral or aesthetic values. And it also does not mean that knowledge or wisdom is limited to just what science can deliver.
From what I can see, metaphysics doesn't really rule much of anything out. So claims that it doesn't rule out idea X isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the idea - it pretty much leaves it as valid (or not) as it was before it got the metaphysics stamp of approval.
Anyway, I'm more of a fan of asking "why should I care about idea X" rather than accepting everything which hasn't been conclusively disproved. And so far, I'm not seeing much of anything to work with here.
But a significant number of people do slip from materialism into nihilism, and some nihilists slip into despair, or narcissism, or become socially destructive because they see no point in upholding moral values if everything truly is just random or pre-determined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Citation needed.
First, just to be clear: The ways in which people emotionally react to an idea do not necessarily count as evidence for or against the truth of the idea. So I am definitely not arguing that "X makes people depressed, therefore X is a false claim." I'm simply pointing out that if X makes people depressed, and there are reasonably plausible alternatives to X, then the fact that X makes people depressed should serve as extra motivation to emphasize that X is not the only plausible option. If Y and Z are plausible options, then rational, compassionate people should not ridicule people for believing in Y or Z. Also, to be clear, I am not claiming that materialism "necessarily makes people depressed." I am expressing my own intuition that materialism is probably a "risk factor" for nihilism, which is, itself, a risk factor for depression and/or socially destructive behavior.
We should also keep in mind that the word "materialism" is used in at least a couple different ways: I'm generally referring to (1) the metaphysical position in philosophy that is generally referred to as materialism, but in common parlance, the word often means something like (2) "putting a lot of emphasis on having stuff, creature comforts, etc.". There is fairly good evidence linking materialism #2 to depression, etc., but I don't have much to offer linking #1 directly to depression. I suspect there is probably some statistical link between #1 and #2, which would make a indirect link from #1 to depression, but I have no evidence at hand for that at the moment.
Here, however, are a few examples to consider: The Culture of Depression: Nature, Materialism, and Depression
"In the purely physical universe, where there is no inherent meaning, and no dialogue with nature, we seek solace in the physical. We buy what we don't need, because it is supposed to make us feel good." [...] Ultimately, reduction of the incidence and prevalence of depression on the public health scale will not come from anti-depressants, individual psychotherapy, or from fish oil. It will come from a re-connection of the individual with the larger whole of the family, the community, a purposeful culture, and a dialogue with nature and meaning." This is just someone's opinion - not evidence for anything - but I offer it as a reminder that this opinion is fairly common, and sometimes in social settings, the general perceptions of facts are more influential than facts. But, moving on...
This post in a depression forum shows an example of how some people slip from materialism #1 to nihilism and thoughts of suicide. I'll just quote the last sentence: "Will my suicide be reported similarly to other suicides? Will they know of my disease called nihilism, and its inability to have a cure? I think not..but at the end of the day, it matters not, because all existence is worthless."
This person demonstrates the subtle slip from "life has no higher meaning" to "existence is worthless." This is the type of person I have in mind when I suggest alternatives to materialism #1 as a good grounds for avoiding materialism #2. Some liberal forms of theism are plausible alternatives, but I'm personally more interested in atheistic alternatives to metaphysical materialism. I don't think that atheism has to go hand-in-hand with materialism (either #1 or #2). There are wonderfully plausible alternatives, and I find it bothersome when people talk as if there are none. I use the term "physicalism" to indicate this larger range of science-friendly options for atheists. (And, of course, there no iron-clad reason why atheist can't be dualists, or panpsychists, or mystics of various sorts, but here I'm simply focusing on physicalism.)
Feelings are not just molecules that cause this or that behavior. It is not unscientific or in any way intellectually lazy or mere wish-fulfillment to realize that feelings go deeper than our everyday concepts of matter-in-motion. It is in this deeper intrinsic nature of feelings that a potential for "meaning" or even "higher purpose" can be found. Some people seemingly don't need anything like this, but some people do. And for those who do, I'm trying light a possible path - however vague and convoluted it may be at the moment.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-25-2016 at 08:43 AM..
I am confused as to what you think I misunderstood in your post, mordant. I know that you are afflicted by God-o-phobia and given your experiences understandably so. But what did I misunderstand?
I appreciated your kind remarks but feel that you concluded that simply because I recognize that science has limitations that I necessarily think there are or must or should be any viable alternatives to it.
Science is just a field of human endeavor and as such is subject to human limitations. We get into trouble when we reach beyond our ken. Science has not expanded our innate capabilities but rather, helped us to make the most of them. We still have finite limitations, and this makes us feel insecure and to desire transcendence. Even if we have to manufacture it out of whole cloth. I do not advocate this. I advocate acceptance.
We should also keep in mind that the word "materialism" is used in at least a couple different ways: I'm generally referring to (1) the metaphysical position in philosophy that is generally referred to as materialism, but in common parlance, the word often means something like (2) "putting a lot of emphasis on having stuff, creature comforts, etc.". There is fairly good evidence linking materialism #2 to depression, etc., but I don't have much to offer linking #1 directly to depression.
Yep, that's about what I expected.
Quote:
It is not unscientific or in any way intellectually lazy or mere wish-fulfillment to realize that feelings go deeper than our everyday concepts of matter-in-motion.
There's no question that some people build up intricate personal narratives about what is going on. The outstanding question is how much do these personal narratives have to do with reality.
Association is not cause. And I think the very premise of such an essay is misguided. Here's why.
What is depression but chronic unhappiness?
And what is unhappiness but a person getting results in life that are inferior to what they expected / assumed / feel entitled to?
So for example yes (and I have mentioned this many times in the past) a theist who becomes an atheist is at-risk for depression, particularly at first. But the cause is not atheism, but theism. Not the materialism that gives rise to atheism but the immaterialism that one was suckled on. Atheism is a realization that one's beliefs and the resultant worldview and assumptions and ideals are illusory (and in some cases, delusional). This is humbling in and of itself, but it also massively violates a lot of assumptions about how life is "supposed" to be, how "fair" it is, how comprehensible and predictable it is, and how important individuals are in the scheme of things, and the very scope and nature of one's existence and the motivational framework that one operates off of.
So sure if you suddenly recognize that you are of no particular significance whatever, have no particular externally bestowed purpose, and that life has no inherent meaning, AND you haven't developed an appreciation for the corresponding good news (intellectual freedom, the opportunity to make your own meaning and find your own purpose, to value the things you have while you have them all the more for understanding their transient nature, and on and on) then of course you will experience a deflation corresponding to the inflation you have just been disabused of. And you might become depressed about it.
But this is also true of a child who doesn't want to go to bed or wants to play on a busy street or eat nothing but sugared cereal. Such a child may well cry inconsolably when they discover that life doesn't work the way they want it to, that it is a world of broccoli as well as Fruit Loops, but we do not suggest that they are "at risk" for depression because their parents set reasonable limits and train them about the harsh nature of reality.
To acknowledge that opening one's mind to the nature of reality-as-it-is has some risks and short term pain associated with it (or even for some individuals may expose underlying mental health issues by knocking down a fragile infrastructure that has propped them up) does not imply that dealing in reality is not a viable way to live, that one cannot be happy, self actualized and hopeful without the trappings of theism. Nor is it an excuse to avoid such realizations as inherent harms.
There's no question that some people build up intricate personal narratives about what is going on. The outstanding question is how much do these personal narratives have to do with reality.
And the answer I keep trying to offer is: "A lot." Obviously I don't mean that the fact that someone believes in God is proof that God is real. Believing that X is real does not necessarily imply that X is objectively real. But my subjective qualitative experience of "believing in X" does imply that subjective qualitative experiences are real. This subjective recognition of the qualitative nature of reality in the present moment of experience is the only unshakable ground upon which to build knowledge of any sort. I accept that epistemologically stepping away from this secure ground is justified and, indeed, necessary for our continued existence, but we should never get so enamored with the new terrain that we completely forget where we came from. Each step away is an additional assumption. These are mostly good, safe, necessary assumptions, but they are, nevertheless, assumptions. Each assumption can, in principle, be questioned, but for all practical purposes we don't really need to question them. Our belief in an "external" or "objectively existing" reality that persists from moment to moment is, for the most part, a good, safe, necessary assumption and, like most people, I accept this assumption without second-guessing.
The problem with traditional materialism is not the belief that everything is essentially made of dynamic matter. The problem arises when materialists forget that our concept of "matter" - the "stuff" that composes the external/objective world - is, itself, an assumption that is ultimately grounded upon the unshakable epistemological foundation that, for each of us is, at any given moment, the subjective qualitative "thisness" on the current moment. The materialist worldview says: "I am made of dynamic material stuff" - which, I think, is a perfectly fine thing to say - but then goes on to add: "And my subjective qualitative experience of this stuff is, itself, made of this stuff, and the atoms of this stuff are externally/objectively real." It is not even the notion of "objectivity" that raises a red flag for me, but the "externality" or "ultimately devoid of subjectivity-ness" that leads to trouble. The point I keep trying to make is that the great "out there" is not really "out there" because there is no "out there." There is an objective reality, but objective reality is not "out there."
Objectivity is the relatively permanent inter-subjectively-agreed-upon marks that can be experienced by anyone who looks for them in the right way. The belief that objective reality is ultimately ontologically independent of subjective experience is a delusion. In Reality, ontological independence is an illusion because everything is ontologically interdependent. Science itself strongly suggests that this is true. Every interpretation of QM implies ontological holism (or, more specifically "non-separability") of one sort or another, with the possible exception of the Many Worlds Interpretation (but given the "quantum erasure" experiments, I doubt that even the MWI can fully escape it). String theory and various notions of a multiverse are a bit confusing in this regard, but even here I would not be surprised if some significant form of non-separability remains.
Consider this quote from physicist Lee Smolin: “Among the things that we had to struggle with werethe implications of the fact that the observer in quantum cosmology is insidethe universe. The problem is that in all the usual interpretations of quantumtheory the observer is assumed to be outside the system. That cannot be so incosmology.” [...] “What is needed is an interpretation of thestates of quantum theory that allows the observer to be part of the quantumsystem.”
What I am saying is that the "observer" does not necessarily have to be God, or human, or intelligent, or conscious, or even sentient, but it is, in the Grand Scheme of Reality, intrinsically qualitative and holistically related to everything that is conscious. I agree with Smolin (and many other physicists) that what we need is a theory that allows the observer to be part of the quantum system (i.e., we need a genuine solution to the "measurement problem" rather than a mere patch to help us work around it). I'm adding, however, that it won't just be an interpretation of QM, so much as a re-formulation of QM (or perhaps a radically new theory?) that posits currently unknown forces and/or laws of nature that will be found to have measurable causal effects within the material composing sentient nervous systems. Why? Because sentient systems "feel" stuff that (presumably, according to my theory) inanimate systems like chunks of metal or clouds of gas do not, and these feelingscause these sentient systems to "do stuff" that they would not do if they didn't "feel like" doing them.
Someone's personal narrative involving a belief in God does not imply that God exists, but this belief nevertheless causes vast systems of atoms to propel themselves through space in immensely complicated ways that would not happen if the qualitative feeling aspects of this belief did not exist. But we generally don't know these feelings objectively. We know them subjectively, and some aspect of these feelings can only be known subjectively because, for these aspects, the knowing is in the being. And the Being is One, which is why physics keeps implying the ontological non-separability of all things.
So for example yes (and I have mentioned this many times in the past) a theist who becomes an atheist is at-risk for depression, particularly at first.
Good call. Thanks for pointing this out. Theism introduces some weird, exotic expectations that are sorta like smoking crack. One's ability to generate the natural endorphins of feeling good is compromised by the Theistic High, and withdrawal is a b*tch. This is why I kept trying to emphasize that materialism (of either type) is only a problem for some people. Those who have resisted the pipe of Theism are generally not going to be at as much risk for depression.
Ultimately, I am an Existentialist. I believe very strongly in the ultimate Absurdity of Existence. I am highly confident that there is no "Ultimate Meaning" for anything, and even if there were such a Meaning, I don't think it would be (or even logically could be) a theistic-style God who provides it. I'm also somewhat confident that there is no guarantee, for anyone, of a realm of endless joy in some sort of afterlife. (BTW: I've addressed the notion of "afterlife" in this thread, especially post #125.) But I'm also, at heart, a mystic of sorts. There is no Ultimate Meaning, but there is, fundamental to Reality, a "mechanism" for the creation of meaning (more accurately, the spontaneous emergence of meaning). This "mechanism" is the fundamentally qualitative nature Reality - or, perhaps more accurately, the fundamental potential for qualitative sentient experience. This "mechanism" is the whatever-it-is that actualizes physical sentient beings from the "potentially-sentient" Void of the physical vacuum. The Void doesn't provide meaning, but it does provide the "raw potentials" out of which sentient systems can assemble meanings. Reality is not Ikea. There's no Cosmic Owner's Manual that provide sentient beings with step-by-step instructions ("easy as one-two-three!") for the assembly of happy-meaning-making.
Ontologically, we are all One, but epistemologically we are isolated by the boundaries out of which we forge out individualities. So if one succeeds in happy-meaning-making, it does not necessarily mean that others will too. As Sartre says, we are "condemned to be free" - meaning, no on can make our lives meaningful for us. We are stuck with the job of building meaning for ourselves.
My bottom line point is that we are not just random or deterministic collections of independent atoms floating in a vacuum that pointlessly clump together and pointlessly flail around for 70 years before pointlessly dissolving back into the vacuum. Each of us is Reality Itself creating meaning, and the mechanism by which we create meaning is our ability to weave the multicolored threads of qualitative feeling into a fabric of patterns that, in complementary fashion, both "instantly dissolve" and "never truly dissolve" - depending on how you look at it.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-26-2016 at 10:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UOTe
