Atheism and materialism

[Amazing Rando]

A question I've been pondering lately- how do you define the words "atheism" and "materialism?"

To me, "atheism" simply connotes a lack of belief in any deity, while "materialism" is the belief that matter and energy is the only things that constitute the universe. How do you understand these terms and their relationship with each other?

Can you think of some examples of atheists who are not mateialists and materialists who are not atheists?

[Amazing Rando]

Are Buddhists materialists?

[Duder]

A question I've been pondering lately- how do you define the words "atheism" and "materialism?"

To me, "atheism" simply connotes a lack of belief in any deity, while "materialism" is the belief that matter and energy is the only things that constitute the universe. How do you understand these terms and their relationship with each other?

Can you think of some examples of atheists who are not mateialists and materialists who are not atheists?

I certainly seems that, by your definitions of these terms, the two are not necessarily incompatible.

I can imagine atheist scientists, for example, who no not think that matter and energy are fundamental entities in the universe, but epiphenomena of deeper processes (like vibrating superstrings of . . . what?)
_____________

I don't think that Buddhists are materialists. Nor are they the opposite of materialists - idealists. They see the whole matter/mind split as being an illusion, and that the two kinds of things are in fact one. A materiaslists says that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. An idealist says that matter is an epiphenomenon of mind. A Buddhists says that both are partially right and partially wrong. Mind (or spirit) and matter are one thing, and the difference between them is illusory. Buddhists are monists.

[garthoverman]

I don't think that Buddhists are materialists. Nor are they the opposite of materialists - idealists. They see the whole matter/mind split as being an illusion, and that the two kinds of things are in fact one. A materiaslists says that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. An idealist says that matter is an epiphenomenon of mind. A Buddhists says that both are partially right and partially wrong. Mind (or spirit) and matter are one thing, and the difference between them is illusory. Buddhists are monists.

This is a pretty accurate description of my worldview, although I prefer the term "panpsychism" to "idealism."

My panpsychic concept of matter is that it is the "outside" appearance of consciousness, whereas mind (more precisely, the experience of qualia) is the "inside" appearance of consciousness. So, essentially, the mind/body distinction is illusory -- like saying that the top and the bottom of an apple are two separate things when really they are two sides of the same thing.

Yours,
Garth

[Sacrificial Ram]

I certainly seems that, by your definitions of these terms, the two are not necessarily incompatible.

I can imagine atheist scientists, for example, who no not think that matter and energy are fundamental entities in the universe, but epiphenomena of deeper processes (like vibrating superstrings of . . . what?)
_____________

I don't think that Buddhists are materialists. Nor are they the opposite of materialists - idealists. They see the whole matter/mind split as being an illusion, and that the two kinds of things are in fact one. A materiaslists says that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. An idealist says that matter is an epiphenomenon of mind. A Buddhists says that both are partially right and partially wrong. Mind (or spirit) and matter are one thing, and the difference between them is illusory. Buddhists are monists.

All reality is an illusion, abeit a very persistant one.

[LGM]

Are Buddhists materialists?

...not sure...but I'm sure you might find a wise one that would tell you that the moment you try to describe what constitutes the essence of the universe, or the god of it...

...you miss the mark.

LGM
...the sounds we make with our vocal chords, or these symbolic characters we type on these keyboards, are often quite inadequate in describing such things...

[garthoverman]

All reality is an illusion, abeit a very persistant one.

If all reality is an illusion, then it isn't reality, is it?

Don't get me wrong, the idea behind the sentiment expressed in your statement is a meaningful one in that it challenges us to look beyond the things about reality that we take for granted. Many of the things that we think are real are not necessarily so: the apparent constancy and uniformity of time, discontinuity between objects, even the existence of an objective reality at all. As linguistic creatures, our thinking tends to become as compartmentalized as our language to the point where we forget that the compartments are mental constructs, and not features of objective reality. In our language, the defintion of something says as much about what it is not as what it is, and thus we form categories in our minds even when the distinction itself is just a useful abstraction. A finger is not a wrist, and a hand is not an elbow, but where we draw the lines between them is basically arbitrary, for example.

Still, I don't like to think of subjective or abstract realities as "illusions." They are just a different type of reality that we find useful to accomplish such things as the definition and communication of words. The illusion is the belief that these are objective realities.

Your mileage may vary, certainly, but I thought I'd like to share a contrasting viewpoint.

Yours,
Garth

[Sacrificial Ram]

If all reality is an illusion, then it isn't reality, is it?

Don't get me wrong, the idea behind the sentiment expressed in your statement is a meaningful one in that it challenges us to look beyond the things about reality that we take for granted. Many of the things that we think are real are not necessarily so: the apparent constancy and uniformity of time, discontinuity between objects, even the existence of an objective reality at all. As linguistic creatures, our thinking tends to become as compartmentalized as our language to the point where we forget that the compartments are mental constructs, and not features of objective reality. In our language, the defintion of something says as much about what it is not as what it is, and thus we form categories in our minds even when the distinction itself is just a useful abstraction. A finger is not a wrist, and a hand is not an elbow, but where we draw the lines between them is basically arbitrary, for example.

Still, I don't like to think of subjective or abstract realities as "illusions." They are just a different type of reality that we find useful to accomplish such things as the definition and communication of words. The illusion is the belief that these are objective realities.

Your mileage may vary, certainly, but I thought I'd like to share a contrasting viewpoint.

Yours,
Garth

I suspect that the person who I quoted that from (ALbert Einstien), probably
had a different idea what reality was from most other people.

[HRG_new]

I certainly seems that, by your definitions of these terms, the two are not necessarily incompatible.

I can imagine atheist scientists, for example, who no not think that matter and energy are fundamental entities in the universe, but epiphenomena of deeper processes (like vibrating superstrings of . . . what?)

I think that vibrating superstrings, spin networks etc. etc. still come under an enlightened definition of matter (which in first-order approximation would be something like "that which has objectively discoverable patterns, regularities etc."). Already the standard model of elementary particles describes entities which are far removed from the matter concept of the 19th-century (= in effect, tiny little marbles) :)

That's why I prefer the term "naturalism" to "materialism" - because of this 19th-century touch.

[garthoverman]

I suspect that the person who I quoted that from (ALbert Einstien), probably
had a different idea what reality was from most other people.

To be sure, but my intent was only to show that the statement might be meaningful poetry but not rigorous philosophy. That Einstein said something to the effect of "God does not play dice," doesn't mean that he really believed in the actions of God pertaining to quantum mechanics, nor does it even mean that Einstein was right (which he wasn't regarding hidden variables).

Yours,
Garth

[Duder]

All reality is an illusion, abeit a very persistant one.

I think the Buddha would disagree, saying that there is a reality that is not an illusion - one that can be experienced directly but which is not rationally conceived nor talked about - one that is niether spiriual nor material, and yet one which somehow accounts for both of these polar opposites.

[sylas]

To me, "atheism" simply connotes a lack of belief in any deity, while "materialism" is the belief that matter and energy is the only things that constitute the universe. How do you understand these terms and their relationship with each other?

Can you think of some examples of atheists who are not mateialists and materialists who are not atheists?

Your definitions seem pretty good to me. I think that for the most part, atheists are materialists and materialists are atheists.

Some possible exceptions. Paul Davies is an atheist who is not a materialist. And I think there may be some folks who take an extreme view of God having a physical body who might be called materialists; but I can't give a name.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Duder]

Your definitions seem pretty good to me. I think that for the most part, atheists are materialists and materialists are atheists.

Some possible exceptions. Paul Davies is an atheist who is not a materialist. And I think there may be some folks who take an extreme view of God having a physical body who might be called materialists; but I can't give a name.

Cheers -- Sylas

I would not call Paul Davies an atheist. He might be, but I don't remember him saying so.

I've read everything the guy has written - and he does think there is a deep, almost teleological principle at work in or upon the universe, which guides some systems toward greater and greater organized complexity - aka "life".

[Seasanctuary]

To me, "atheism" simply connotes a lack of belief in any deity, while "materialism" is the belief that matter and energy is the only things that constitute the universe. How do you understand these terms and their relationship with each other?

Your simple definitions are pretty good. I see no necessary connection between atheism and materialism.

There's a strong connection with theism and not-materialism. It just doesn't go the other way. There can be any infinite number of substances that aren't matter and energy but are also not Gods.

Can you think of some examples of atheists who are not mateialists and materialists who are not atheists?

I'm an Atheist but not a materialist. Two reasons: I don't presume to know that matter and energy are the only things that exist anywhere. Also, I've noticed that the definition of 'material' tends to get extended to anything we discover so it's pretty silly to say that non-material things don't exist but then keep expanding the domain of material things.

Besides, what is the substance of Emily Dickenson's poems? Or the substance of the set of prime numbers? Their essence certainly isn't captured by "matter and energy."

[LGM]

Besides, what is the substance of Emily Dickenson's poems?

I might hazard a guess that Emily Dickenson’s poems are a collection of output from her neural programming stored in her cortex that includes her observations, thoughts, emotions and philosophy of life captured in an artistic and rhythmic language style and typically communicated to others using some form of printed or electronic medium.

These poems will then be read by the consumer where their concepts will be input via the ocular structure and then processed by nuerocognitive functions that will examine, evaluate, and store it in the neural programming of the cortex of one SeaSanctuary…

LGM
…or it could just be magic poetic pixie dust…I’m never certain…