Zen

[RJM]

Science generally says, we cease to exist

Firstly then 'science' has to know what constitutes a whole human being -- not just the physical brain and body, which is all science can measure? And because that's all science can measure, science concludes that's (probably) all there is ... until perhaps in the future science can find a way to measure more?

think there's a more fundamental reason why we come up with supernatural explanations.

Our cognitive development places each of us at the centre of the universe. We are almost incapable of imagining a universe without ourself in it.

Have you ever had a 'supernatural' experience or encounter? Have you ever had a prophetic dream? Or a prayer clearly answered?

If not how can 'materialists' speak for folks who have? And just dismiss their spiritual experiences as the mind playing tricks?

 

[RJM]

@Bloodshot
If it is not actually your view that everyone and anyone who has had what they believe is a genuine 'psychic' or spiritual experience is misled by their own mind, then I apologise.

 

[Thomas]

There are, but I've yet to encounter any framing of this that offers a preferable explanation. All this does is push the hard problem etc into a different domain, it doesn't provide any extra explanatory power.

For me, the 'Hard Problem' for Materialism is that it is incoherent.

The claims of Materialism are meta-physical claims. They go beyond the physical, the claim is not about the physical itself, it goes beyond that to claim about the nature of existence, of reality.

The success of the physical sciences in explaining, exploring and exploiting the physical is no sufficient reason to assume there is nothing more going on. Empiricism is insufficient to prove a metaphysical claim.

Moreover the Materialist meta-physical claim cannot be proven by its own methods – physical observation and evidence-based empiricism – because those methods are purely physical. Nor is there a deductive argument which could confirm the truth of materialism as a metaphysical principle.

This renders the more extreme, dogmatic claims for materialism as both irrational and absurd.

The 'failure' is not a failure of science, which by its own axioms restricts itself to investigating the physical, rather it is an example of philosophical overreach to claim that an investigation into the physical thereby disproves the possibility of the meta-physical.

 

[RJM]

The 'failure' is not a failure of science, which by its own axioms restricts itself to investigating the physical, rather it is an example of philosophical overreach to claim that an investigation into the physical thereby disproves the possibility of the meta-physical.

That's a good way of putting it. It's 'science mission creep' and no really objective science supports it

 

[wil]

no need for any God/Gods/Goddesses.

I like the God/Gods/Goddesses (and saints, gurus) many times as various things...not entities but avatars or reminders, or as helpers sometimes I need friends to assist me mentally or support me motivationally...they are handy to call on...of course they all all within, within my conscious or subconscious mind, within my heart or energy center providing the werewithal to do the right thing or walk the extra mile or continue on the right path.

 

[wil]

For me, the 'Hard Problem' for Materialism is that it is incoherent.

The claims of Materialism are meta-physical claims. They go beyond the physical, the claim is not about the physical itself, it goes beyond that to claim about the nature of existence, of reality.

The success of the physical sciences in explaining, exploring and exploiting the physical is no sufficient reason to assume there is nothing more going on. Empiricism is insufficient to prove a metaphysical claim.

Moreover the Materialist meta-physical claim cannot be proven by its own methods – physical observation and evidence-based empiricism – because those methods are purely physical. Nor is there a deductive argument which could confirm the truth of materialism as a metaphysical principle.

This renders the more extreme, dogmatic claims for materialism as both irrational and absurd.

The 'failure' is not a failure of science, which by its own axioms restricts itself to investigating the physical, rather it is an example of philosophical overreach to claim that an investigation into the physical thereby disproves the possibility of the meta-physical.

Don't you think that is your perspective and others can benefit themselves and the world by believing as they believe? We each need our own self imposed crutches, for some it is their religion, their God or goddesses that soothes their sole.

I say you do you, and dont hurt others or impose your beliefs on others unless you are ready to take care of them for the rest of their lives.

 

[wil]

Have been doing that all through my atheistic days. That has stood for me.
(Currently, we are in a vegetarian phase for the month of Shravana, auspicious to Lord Shiva).
My grandson gave us a treat for his first monthly stipend as a law intern (USD 314.63). The fare included mixed lentils (known as 'dal makhani'), paneer (cottage cheese) and veg. 'kofta' (potato).
However, no bar to non-veg. food outside the house.

I had a roommate who ate in phases like that...he was vegan for the first couple months of the year. I didnt understand it. Just like I dont understand fish on Friday.

But what did irk me, was his claim that during that time he was vegan...he didnt say he was on a vegan diet, or vegan temporarily he claimed "I am a vegan" that to me seemed disengenuous...and frankly an insult to those on that path.

 

[wil]

No. The issue is that spiritual powers need our invitation. What you get is spiritual. Spiritual laws are not always the same as natural laws. Sometimes spiritual law is at odds and even opposite to natural, material expectation. The last shall be first. Jesus said it all.

Yes.
Lol...by good one...i meant hilarious.

Spiritual laws are only laws to those that believe them.

Natural laws have physical consequences you dont have to believe two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time...you can run a red-light and prove it.

 

[RJM]

Yes.
Lol...by good one...i meant hilarious.

Spiritual laws are only laws to those that believe them.

Natural laws have physical consequences you dont have to believe two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time...you can run a red-light and prove it.

Glad to amuze you, wil

 

[RJM]

Spiritual laws are only laws to those that believe them.

Jesus believed them. Perhaps they apply whether you believe them or not

Natural laws have physical consequences you dont have to believe two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time...you can run a red-light and prove it.

Yes. Natural laws apply to the material world of nature, time and space. But there is more ...

 

[Thomas]

Don't you think ...

I offered a reasoned rebuttal of materialism, and you respond with this?

Care to explain?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We thus go to all kinds of elaborate lengths to construct scenarios in which we continue to exist after we die.

We give so muh importance to ourselves, though we have been here for just about 200,000 years out of 13.78 billion.
It was necessary for religions to give importance to us, because they wanted to trap us.
So Abrahamic religions offer ever-lasting life, Islam offers 72 houris and so much more, Theist Hinduism offers vacations in Heaven.
Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism and Buddhism say that we are insubstantial, impermanent. That is the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation ..

Why should I accept that? What is the evidence for it? Bertrand Russell was one of the people who turned me to atheism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. they are handy to call on...of course they all all within, within my conscious or subconscious mind, within my heart or energy center providing the wherewithal to do the right thing or walk the extra mile or continue on the right path.

Yeah, my old Gods and Goddesses are always with me, though I do not worship them now. They are still friends.

 

[Thomas]

Why should I accept that? What is the evidence for it? Bertrand Russell was one of the people who turned me to atheism.

You aren't obliged to accept it.

The point Aquinas was making is that any objection can be answered – the atheist is under no obligation or necessity to accept it, but the atheist cannot argue that the Christian cannot provide a reasonable argument for their belief.

A belief in God is not unreasonable, illogical or irrational – it's a faith position.

 

[wil]

I offered a reasoned rebuttal of materialism, and you respond with this?

Care to explain?

this was my explanation.

Don't you think that is your perspective and others can benefit themselves and the world by believing as they believe? We each need our own self imposed crutches, for some it is their religion, their God or goddesses that soothes their sole.

I say you do you, and dont hurt others or impose your beliefs on others unless you are ready to take care of them for the rest of their lives.

 

[wil]

You aren't obliged to accept it.

The point Aquinas was making is that any objection can be answered – the atheist is under no obligation or necessity to accept it, but the atheist cannot argue that the Christian cannot provide a reasonable argument for their belief.

A belief in God is not unreasonable, illogical or irrational – it's a faith position.

I believe all of us provide and acceptable reasonable argument for our belief....acceptable and reasonable to ourselves

Yet often not acceptable or reasonable to others...hence the disagreements continue and we have dozens of religions and thousands of denominations still arguing since each and every one of them split off from the previous. (Have we ever seen any of them rejoin the fold, not talking individuals here but whole belief systems?....)

Where as the materialistic individuals build cars and rockets, bake cake and bread, create air conditioning and boats...which all religions each and every one utilize.

 

[wil]

Jesus believed them. Perhaps they apply whether you believe them or not

Yes. Natural laws apply to the material world of nature, time and space. But there is more ...

Surely you mean "it is written" thousands of years ago, by people who wrote it down decades after the words were purported to have been said, and today deemed 100% accurate and verbatim by many...

Yes, I agree that natural laws apply to the material world and nature, time and space AND that you believe there is more.

I also believe there is more and that that more will be explained and proven someday, by science, chemistry, physics, biology, peer reviewed and duplicated by others.

 

[RJM]

Surely you mean "it is written" thousands of years ago, by people who wrote it down decades after the words were purported to have been said, and today deemed 100% accurate and verbatim by many...

If that's what I meant, I would have written that.

I agree that natural laws apply to the material world and nature, time and space AND that you believe there is more.

Yes. That's what I said.

I also believe there is more and that that more will be explained and proven someday, by science, chemistry, physics, biology, peer reviewed and duplicated by others.

I understand. Scientific materialists believe nature is all, and that science will one day have all the answers. It's a very common position. Not everyone agrees.

 

[RJM]

I believe the Earth is a living entity, like probably most other planets. I believe there is life everywhere in the universe, but in forms we as carbon based life forms cannot recognize as living, and that life fills all space, invisible to our so-limited human senses – life both lesser and far greater than human beings – great cosmic beings able to walk between stars, possessed of energy forms in dimensions far beyond our human perception and understanding – but who are able to make themselves known to humans, if and when they choose to.

Angels if you like.

I believe life is everywhere