Mod+ 249. TIM FREKE ON SOUL CRUSHING SCIENCE

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. MavPhil is assuming that moral transformation might make a difference in the afterlife. It might make for a nicer life review, but it's not clear how much of a reward for moral living (whatever that exactly means) beyond that we could assume from the information available.

    Assuming there is an afterlife, it seems like there's still a lot of mystery in what we can hope to expect beyond the Veil?
     
  2. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    I wouldn't assume you're not already beyond the veil.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  3. DominicBunnell

    DominicBunnell New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    FDRS, I can't get that article to work from here in China, but I've got a few things to say about that quotation from the interview.

    How does it follow from the fact that only matter exists that we should try to accumulate as many material things as possible in our lives? He then says it also follows from materialism that life is meaningless, selfishness is the way to go and environmental destruction is a good idea. This is all typical of people with an anti-materialist prejudice. I could just as easily say that everything is made of matter and therefore we should all play football, do flower arranging, kill ourselves, help the poor or explore outer space. There's just no connection here. Nothing follows about lifestyle, ethics or politics from the idea that everything is made of matter.
     
    steve001 and malf like this.
  4. DominicBunnell

    DominicBunnell New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    I actually want to get back to Sharon's point again, because it's really bothering me. She's saying that materialism doesn't actually explain the existence of unobserved objects or the coordination of our sensations, because we still need to know how the material world is being coordinated and maintained. Materialism just pushes the problem back rather than giving a real explanation. This is a really interesting point. Does anybody have any thoughts about it?
     
  5. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    If the idea that everything is made of matter was the only tenet of materialism, you'd be correct. But you're building up a straw man with your redefinition of materialism.

    Now, you don't believe that an individual's beliefs in general affect thinking and behavior? You don't think an individual's beliefs about the most fundamental aspects of reality, and hence life itself, affects that individual?

    I don't think you really know what you're saying.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  6. DominicBunnell

    DominicBunnell New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    OK, well let's imagine your typical philosophical materialist. He (it usually is a he) thinks that everything is made of matter, including his friends, his feelings of love, and his consumer goodies and gadgets. Now, if this materialist is an intelligent and thoughtful person, he will value and like his friends and feelings of love more than his consumer goodies. Indeed, he will be aware of all the studies showing that accumulating consumer junk doesn't make you happy and that family, friendship and community are the key things. In other words, for him, some material things are much more valuable than others. So it in no way follows from his philosophical materialism that collecting consumer goodies is the way to go or that environmental destruction is to be pursued.

    As for the idea that this version of materialism is too narrow, I guess you'll want to add in elements like no free will, no meaning, no value, no purpose, psychological egoism and so on. If you do that, then yeah I can agree with you that materialism is a bad thing, but that's hardly surprising, since you've just built all of that into the very definition of materialism!

    And yeah, of course I agree that ideas sometimes matter and can influence people's behaviour. Examples of this would be the idea that animals are mindless machines and we're not, that we have souls and black slaves don't, or that there's eternal punishment waiting for you if don't believe X. The question is, do metaphysical theories like materialism, idealism and panpsychism have a big influence on people's behaviour. I suspect not. But almost everybody here disagrees with me.

    The difference between me and most people here is that they think ALL ideas matter a great deal whereas I think only SOME do. Indeed, I would also argue this is one of the main differences between New Age/paranormal thought and professional philosophy. Professional philosophers (even religious ones like Plantinga and Van Inwagen) realize that some issues in philosophy are of merely 'intellectual' interest.
     
  7. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Any idea of a "reward and punishment" based afterlife seems to me a huge step back towards the primitive concept of a vengeful God. There are several problems with heading in that direction. One is that oversimplification can lead to the following of a set of fixed rules, rather than simply living. Another is that one may act in some particular way, not because it is truly an appropriate response to a current situation, but because of some expectation of a future reward.

    An alternative way to consider how we should live is to ignore any expectation that an afterlife will be separate from the current life. Regard it as a simple continuity. Similarly, the idea that each of us are isolated, separate individuals can be replaced with an idea of interconnectedness, that we are all aspects of a larger whole, much as our fingers while apparently separate, are part of a larger body.

    Thus the focus remains on what we can do, right here and now, today, to make a positive contribution to the whole, simply because anything we do will ripple outwards and affect both others and ourselves. This places very much more emphasis on being part of things, and in effect already being part of the afterlife too, rather than drawing lines and boundaries which separate and divide.
     
  8. I think of materialism as one might a virulent disease like rabies. Some people might simply be carriers, and continue to live as if morality and free will were real under their paradigm. Others will begin the descent into moral degeneracy, as indicated by various studies.

    We might also look at the excuse of biological determinism offered by some when instances of culturally approved sexual assaults come to light. Of course the idea that rape - or anything else for that matter - is evil is a cultural conception under materialism. There is no "ought" in matter after all, nothing proscriptive to be found in scientific descriptions.

    Thus materialist evangelism is a gamble that, in perpetuity, believers in its paradigm will continue to act in accordance with secular humanist principles despite accepting that there are no moral truths and no way to "do otherwise" in any situation. At best, the caveat to this is the preservation of moral action via laws, though it seems to me said laws would have be increasingly draconian to have an effect in the long run.

    The only reason I can think of that would justify the gamble of materialist evangelism is the belief that secular humanism is somehow the default wiring that immaterialism obfuscates/overrides. Yet even Harris has to turn to moral realism - Nagel's "obvious good" - when he argues for a science based morality.

    Humanism + Materialism seems like dubious marriage to me. Humanism, after all, has its own faith based tenets (see intrinsic rights) that are unobservable in a materialist paradigm. Science - when identified solely with the materialist paradigm - seems as troubling for secular humanism as it does for any other political group, for reasons given by an aforementioned Benjamin Cain post:

     
  9. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    Since you're into pro philosophy, have you read any Alex Rosenberg?

    I don't think anybody is building those things you mention into materialism, but rather they are logical conclusions that can be drawn from materialism. Because some materialists live their lives as if materialism weren't true doesn't really do much for me as far as arguments go. People shouldn't have to deceive themselves in order to find solace in existence.

    All I can do is refer you back to my original reply. I think it's still valid.

    All this speculation is pretty worthless anyway. The reason I'm personally opposed to materialism is because it's not true. Pretty simple.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  10. http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...ckrakers-question-the-big-science-status-quo/


     
  11. Thanks for that Jim.

    Though if business people are more honest than scientists I suspect society is in more hot water than I originally thought....though in my own experience with clinical research it's not far from truth in at least a few cases.

    I'm also wary of anyone claiming the problem is too much regulation. From what I've seen of doctors obtaining "informed" consent, there's a great need for increased improvement in how subjects of experiments are treated.
     
  12. DominicBunnell

    DominicBunnell New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. It this was a purely philosophical or intellectual desire for the truth then you'd be on some philosophy forum arguing about whether emergentist materialism or panpsychism is the more plausible theory of consciousness and the world. Instead, you seem to be worried that people who buy books by Harris or Rosenberg are going to stop believing in libertarian free will, the afterlife and objective moral values, and that this will result in society going to hell in a hand basket.
     
  13. This was posted on Kastrup's forum, seems like it might be a good (but long) read. Also seemed related to the thread topic:

    What is science? : How Yoga Helps Us Understand Science

     
  14. Formal Dining Room Set

    Formal Dining Room Set New

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  15. Thought you guys might appreciate this Mohrhoff comment, left at Radin's site:

    "Usually they are not satisfied with evidence. They want extraordinary evidence for what they regard as extraordinary claims. I usually respond by pointing out just how extraordinary the claims of the materialist mainstream are. Certain regularities in our experience of the world are held (i) to describe all there really is and (ii) to account for the very experience from which the regularities are abstracted. How extraordinary that something can (i) exist by itself, out of relation to any consciousness or experience, and (ii) exist for someone! How can something that exists by itself be experienced? How can there be consciousness of what exists by itself? Even more extraordinary is the claim that what exists by itself is adequately described by mathematical symbols and equations. Isn’t mathematics a creation of the human mind? And is not this mind a creation of matter and evolution? How extraordinary, then, that matter should be governed by mathematical laws! And how extraordinary that mathematical laws describing certain regularities in our experience should be the very laws governing all that really exists! Where is the extraordinary evidence for all that?"
     
    MysticG and Jim_Smith like this.
  16. That objection applies to certain theories of idealism too. Math is a tool used by consciousness to create the physical, but math is not necessarily going to be useful in explaining consciousness itself.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  17. Science fictions: Is the scientific endeavour always a bold and noble quest for truth? Not when it is writing its own history

     
  18. Cross posting because science doesn't have to be soul crushing. Religion and science should not be at war. There are examples of where they work together. The intelligent design movement is one example.



    I'll also point out that parapsychologists can be guilty of crushing souls too.
    http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/...howComment=1397862223769#c8247669098282307934
    (Anyone who thinks clairvoyance is the primary anomaly of a phenomenon where a person with no electrical activity in the brain is conscious, doesn't fully understand the phenomenon.)


    http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/...howComment=1397671552280#c7109696302339332504
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2014
  19. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  20. ghost

    ghost New

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    804
    Sign post: Atheist-science crushing God: coming soon.

    The Fine Tuned Universe is going to destroy all hope of a Godless universe.

    Have a nice day!
     

Share This Page