• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why aren't all atheists materialists?

Christian

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
1,090
The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?
 
Well, there a lot of atheists that came to atheist through various paths and may disagree with each others...

And, of course, materialism has several definitions...


But, yes, indeed, many atheists do agree with the naturalistic materialism premise...
 
Christian said:
The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the metaphysical position and not a love of material things.

Why do you think that it ought to lead to Materialism and what version of Materialism do you think it ought to lead to?

Some atheists reject all metaphysical claims including Materialism.

In fact I would say that the majority of atheists are in fact pragmatic empiricists, in other words we believe that the best source of reliable knowledge is the scientific method backed by testable empirical evidence, but make no strong claim about firm philosophical foundation.

Rather we say that the scientific method has been shown to work and has yielded knowledge far beyond any other epistemic system.

As Carl Sagan said "absolute truth we leave to the priests and politicians".

Anyhow that is my position and based on my experience here it is probably the position of many of the other atheists here.

In the past I have advocated a sort of minimalist Materialism, which is not really what philosophers would term Materialism.

I would say that most atheists would also hold the position of Naturalism.
 
Last edited:
Christian said:
The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Wrong, my friend. In fact, we live in an era where a great deal of people state they do not believe in God... but they still display a belief in such things as "the afterlife", "the soul", "the quale" and "there'sgottobesomethingelse"-ish types of beliefs. The Dualist Hunch is very strong and doesn't necessarily die with a lack of belief in a Creator.

It should, of course, be consistent and logic to be a materialist as a consequence of being an Atheist... but one thing you'll find is humans are rarely consistent.
 
Robin said:
I assume you mean the metaphysical position and not a love of material things.
Click to expand...

Yes, correct. Do you agree with this definition?

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

Robin said:
Why do you think that it ought to lead to Materialism and what version of Materialism do you think it ought to lead to?
Click to expand...

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them, why would atheism believe any but matter exists?

Robin said:
Some atheists reject all metaphysical claims including Materialism.
Click to expand...

You lost me here. I don't understand why materialism is a metaphysical claim.

Robin said:
In fact I would say that the majority of atheists are in fact pragmatic empiricists, in other words we believe that the best source of reliable knowledge is the scientific method backed by testable empirical evidence, but make no strong claim about firm philosophical foundation.
Click to expand...

Materialists don't believe the scientific method is the only realiable source to test knowledge?

Robin said:
Rather we say that the scientific method has been shown to work and has yielded knowledge far beyond any other epistemic system.

As Carl Sagan said "absolute truth we leave to the priests and politicians".
Click to expand...

So you are saying that to say that only matter exists is an absolute statement of truth, which cannot be compatible with pragmatic empirists?

Robin said:
In the past I have advocated a sort of minimalist Materialism, which is not really what philosophers would term Materialism.
Click to expand...

I don't know the difference, can you explain Robin?

Robin said:
I would say that most atheists would also hold the position of Naturalism.
Click to expand...

I can't see the difference between naturalism and materialism. I'm sure there must be.
 
Christian said:
The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Hm. The conclusion is that 'I don't believe God is a real being'. Materialism can bring you to that conclusion, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way. For instance, it may be that a particular atheist was convinced by the Problem of Evil, and may still believe in other dualistic ideas even though they've discarded their belief in God. An atheist might be raised in a religious tradition (like Jainism) that is atheistic but still has supernatural concepts.

It would be easy for me to just say I'm an empiricist, but before I became an agnostic atheist, I was an agnostic theist for awhile: I no longer believed in the God of the Bible (having read it from cover to cover), so there was a long process between being a believer and being an empiricist. I just couldn't get my head around the idea that nature did not require a supernatural explanation. Logic and science courses in college (went back to school in my thirties) helped me a lot with that.
 
I found on another forum that "materialist" and "materialism" were put forth as straw man descriptions - basically ridiculing anyone who could possibly think that everything is matter and matter is everything.

Since Einstein, we know that matter and energy are different facets of the same thing and convertible one to the other. So, any educated "materialist" knows there's more to the universe than matter - there's energy as well.

And now, dark matter and dark energy also and at least four forces and who knows what remains to be discovered. And all the myriad ways these "elements" and energy and forces can interact. Its NOT all just matter! :mad:

I preferred "naturalist", saying that everything has a natural explanation. I also coined the term "explanationist" - one who believes everything, no matter how bizarre, can ultimately be explained.

At least that's my take on it! ;)
 
Mister Agenda said:
Hm. The conclusion is that 'I don't believe God is a real being'. Materialism can bring you to that conclusion, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way. For instance, it may be that a particular atheist was convinced by the Problem of Evil, and may still believe in other dualistic ideas even though they've discarded their belief in God. An atheist might be raised in a religious tradition (like Jainism) that is atheistic but still has supernatural concepts.

It would be easy for me to just say I'm an empiricist, but before I became an agnostic atheist, I was an agnostic theist for awhile: I no longer believed in the God of the Bible (having read it from cover to cover), so there was a long process between being a believer and being an empiricist. I just couldn't get my head around the idea that nature did not require a supernatural explanation. Logic and science courses in college (went back to school in my thirties) helped me a lot with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I found on another forum that "materialist" and "materialism" were put forth as straw man descriptions - basically ridiculing anyone who could possibly think that everything is matter and matter is everything.

Since Einstein, we know that matter and energy are different facets of the same thing and convertible one to the other. So, any educated "materialist" knows there's more to the universe than matter - there's energy as well.

And now, dark matter and dark energy also and at least four forces and who knows what remains to be discovered. And all the myriad ways these "elements" and energy and forces can interact. Its NOT all just matter! :mad:

I preferred "naturalist", saying that everything has a natural explanation. I also coined the term "explanationist" - one who believes everything, no matter how bizarre, can ultimately be explained.

At least that's my take on it! ;)
Click to expand...

I see. Very interesting. I was thinking that materialism included "energy" like the same thing as matter only in a different form. Is this distinction widespread? So, a naturalist is a materialist who includes energy and other that we don't know yet?
 
It's simple: A person that believes one supernatural thing does not have to believe ALL supernatural things. A person who disbelieves one supernatural thing does not have to disbelieve ALL supernatural things.
 
I was thinking that materialism included "energy" like the same thing as matter only in a different form.
Click to expand...

And it very well may be used that way.

So, in that case you have matter, and energy, and anti-matter, and the electromagnetic force and gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So far.

If being a "materialist" means you accept all the above and all their varied interactions and leave the door open for future forces or "matter" types, then I guess it's a respectable term. But I've found it used by psi-proponents and religious types in a condescending manner - kinda like tying you to an ancient Greek "atomist" position. They then imply there's "more" than the list above, that only they are enlightened enough to see.

Its just a game played with labels.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
And it very well may be used that way.

So, in that case you have matter, and energy, and anti-matter, and the electromagnetic force and gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So far.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is that I undestand materialism to be.

Fast Eddie B said:
If being a "materialist" means you accept all the above and all their varied interactions and leave the door open for future forces or "matter" types, then I guess it's a respectable term. But I've found it used by psi-proponents and religious types in a condescending manner - kinda like tying you to an ancient Greek "atomist" position. They then imply there's "more" than the list above, that only they are enlightened enough to see.

Its just a game played with labels.
Click to expand...

Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom