it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. But there are neuro-scientists, and other scientists, who are not at all materialistic in their approach, so it's not an problem of science per se, it's more an attribute of Western secular culture. — Wayfarer

It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious. I guarantee you that Christians in Syria, Muslims in India and Hindus in Bangladesh would love for the culture in which they live to be much more secular than it is.

Your bete noire is reductive materialism, a worldview which I also vigorously reject. But you keep on linking it to other really good things about Western culture, such as secularism, scepticism and an appreciation of science, which is irritating, as it has nothing to do with those things.

Such as?

you can work that out.

No provide examples. First of all you are saying that money isn't everything. While I would agree, that isn't what I mean when referring to materialism. Materialism is the belief that the material world is all that there is. You seem to be proposing some other idea and I'm curious as to what that idea could be.

Here's a short overview of the kind of thing I have in mind.

It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious. — AndrewK

I really do understand it - secularism is the principle that one is free to follow any religion or none, but this particular conversation started off with the remark about whether Craig Venter is 'playing God' and his quip that he's not 'playing'. Anyway, I regard Venter (et al's) 'aggressive naturalism' as a kind of faux religion, so my remark stands.

I read your article, and I find it to be religious bullshit. To argue that scientists have "faith" in science is a joke. It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results. Religion does not. I don't see any logical attack on scientific materialism or naturalism for that matter that isn't in defense of a religion.

It's not 'my article', it is the first thing that came up on a google search. Obviously you can't understand the distinction made in the article between scientific method and scientific materialism and it's not up to me to educate you.

If you have a point you should be able to articulate it. All you did was say I was wrong and pull up an article weakly supporting your belief. The reason I'm posting my viewpoint on here is because I want people to disagree with me. You disagree, and you went through the effort of commenting, but now It's not up to you to educate me??. Is that the case or do you just not have an actual argument and you're trying to back out.

You've asked a lot of questions in this thread, and I have tried to answer them. That article, which I found when you asked, gives a reasonable account of the issue, with references to recognised authors - but you just said it's 'religious bullshit' - so what's to discuss? If you take that approach then really I don't want to bother.

I'm sorry if I offended you by insinuating that the article you posted was religious bullshit. I don't have a very favorable opinion of religious belief. I see it as corrupting the minds of the youth and damaging our scientific advancement towards a better tomorrow. This article was from a website called sciencemeetsreligion.org . The whole concept here seems that religion should't have to be subject to the scientific method because science is a religion in itself and I find that claim to be laughable.

""But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]""

Why would we have to discard art, literature, music etc by operating under the perspective of materialism?

"When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws"

It's not faith if it produces verifiable results.

you just said it's 'religious bullshit' - so what's to discuss? — Wayfarer

Your opinion, not the propagandist one of that article. I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Accepting that proof isn't everything is slowing down the progression of mankind. However I am very open to new ideas. If I seem hostile in presentation it is because I'm quitting smoking and haven't smoked a cigarette in a week. You disagree with me and that leaves me with room to learn. I would appreciate it if you could explain why you disagree with me.

It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results. — MonfortS26

It is having faith in the principle of induction - the belief that the future will be like the past. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to logically ground belief in that principle - one has to take it on faith.... or (we expect, based on our faith in that principle) starve.

Personally, I'm happy to take that leap of faith, as Hume himself was.

Maybe the problem here lies in my definition of faith. I see faith as being knowledge without justification. I have knowledge beyond reasonable doubt that the future will be like the past, but I wouldn't say that is unjustified because I see it as being unreasonable that the future not be like the past in cases of natural law. Isn't that the point of investigating natural law?

Well, that's better - at least that's a discussion.

I read in one of your other threads you were brought up in a dogmatic Christian household, I can understand why you have those views. But there are many objections to materialism aside from the obvious.

Here are some quotes from scientific materialists:

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.

Francis Crick

We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.

Richard Dawkins

Love it or hate it, phenomena like this [i.e. organic molecules] exhibit the heart of the power of the Darwinian idea. An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.

Daniel Dennett

Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but I think these make the point. The underlying belief of that kind of hardline materialism is that life really is like a complex chemical reaction, and what we understand to be minds and other people, really are like, in Daniel Dennett's words, 'moist robots'. There was a huge amount of literature and drama around these themes in the 20th century.

A lot of these people say they're humanists, but 'secular humanism' has its roots in the Italian Renaissance. it was critical of religion and the church - got into trouble for it - but in no way was it materialist in the above sense. It tried to bring back the classical Greek philosophers and their metaphysical principles. That was the basis of 'secular humanism' in the renaissance. It was nothing like what materialism says.

None of the above are bad people - Crick was a major scientist - but it's not by virtue of their philosophy, in my view. It's because they grew up in a humanistic culture, that valued freedom of thought, freedom of expression, critical thinking, and scientific discovery. And all of that is a consequence of the development of the Christian West. I think what you would see as a consequence of putting their ideas into action, is a culture that is a lot less free, because it grants the human being no intrinsic reality.

I don't have a very favorable opinion of religious belief. I see it as corrupting the minds of the youth and damaging our scientific advancement towards a better tomorrow.

As if minds aren't being corrupted already by the free availability of online pornography and all of the nefarious activities that people get up to on the internet. you can loose your home without leaving it, gambling on the internet.

I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

There was a powerful philosophical movement called Logical Positivism which was started by a brilliant phllosopher, A J Ayer, when he was still in his twenties. He published a book called Language Truth and Logic, which argued for 'the principle of verificationism'. Very hard to summarise it, or the arguments around it, I spent a whole semester on it. But suffice to say that in the end, it had to be admitted that Ayer's principle of verificationism couldn't be justified on it's own terms. Why not? Because the statement that 'every proposition has to be verifiable with respect to some state of affairs', could not itself be verified by those means. (I'm paraphrasing here.)

And all of that is a consequence of the development of the Christian West. I think what you would see as a consequence of putting their ideas into action, is a culture that is a lot less free, because it grants the human being no intrinsic reality. — Wayfarer

It may be a consequence of the development of the Christian West, but does Christianity contain any value to the future of society? I don't think taking away a source of "intrinsic reality" would be a bad thing. It would force people to think for themselves instead of accepting a false notion of there being a correct view of reality. It would lead to a more authentic society in my opinion.

As if minds aren't being corrupted already by the free availability of online pornography and all of the nefarious activities that people get up to on the internet. you can loose your home without leaving it, gambling on the internet. — Wayfarer

I don't see pornography and gambling as being damaging to the human intellect in the same way that religion is.

There was a powerful philosophical movement called Logical Positivism which was started by a brilliant phllosopher, A J Ayer, when he was still in his twenties. He published a book called Language Truth and Logic, which argued for 'the principle of verificationism'. Very hard to summarise it, or the arguments around it, I spent a whole semester on it. But suffice to say that in the end, it had to be admitted that Ayer's principle of verificationism couldn't be justified on it's own terms. Why not? Because the statement that 'every proposition has to be verifiable with respect to some state of affairs', could not itself be verified by those means. (I'm paraphrasing here.) — Wayfarer

This sounds a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorems which is a concept I have had trouble grasping but I blame that on a lack of a solid mathematical foundation. The way I understand it, It was all about the limits of math in the same way that I think you are using the principle of verificationism to show the limits of logic. I think there will always be circular reasoning in using a technique for understanding reality on it-self.

My opinion on Christianity is that it has outlived its purpose. Humans have evolved through it but it's time is ending the further science advances because I believe science can do a better job than any of the functions of the bible.

I don't see pornography and gambling as being damaging to the human intellect in the same way that religion is.

I have nothing further to say to you.

If you disagree with me, try to persuade me to your point of view. What is the point of philosophy if you don't debate people you disagree with? Does what I said make you think I'm too far gone or something? I really don't understand why you would just shut down like that