I would contend that we cannot fully embrace a paradigm unless we immerse ourselves in it – and even allow ourselves to believe it is true. It is a pet theory of mine that science, at least at a certain stage of development, requires a Materialistic underpinning. If we didn't believe it was real we simply wouldn't give it so much of our attention.
Hi Richard
I got raised in a culture absolutely saturated in materialism, and I bought utterly until I started having experiences that it didn't like. My parent's religion (Protestantism) was a materialistic religion. So I had a choice - be labelled as bad by materialistic religion or mad by materialistic science - or try to transcend both mentalities.
I want to dispute your pet theory. Science, as a systematic and empirical search for knowledge has been around probably as long as we have. The science that has come to us via the yogic and hermetic routes has not focused on the purely material. What we call science these days is no more than a name appropriated by knowledge inquiries with a certain philosophical, moral and political bent. In fact we tend to track the 'beginning' of science to the advent of materialism.
I am unapologetically an animistic and I draw a clear distinction between animistic science and materialistic science. The metaphysical assumptions made by each fundamentally shape the mentality, and the ethics. From my perspective a denial of spirit permits thoughts and actions that would not otherwise be permissible. So what we see in our science and technology is not so much the pure product of intellect but the product of metaphysical assumptions and moral values. And because they are normal to us they are okay to us. Our culture is materialistic, so we embrace what it produces as normal (well, up to the point of moral outrage).
If we had had 500 years of science informed by animism and not materialism who knows where we would be. What is clear to me is that materialism is a peculiarly human thing. ET seems to be more animistic (impressions drawn from considerable reading over many years -not from any flat assertion).
The considerable, and still baffling, engineering attainments of our distant ancestors were performed by animists, not materialists. Careful examination of Egyptian and other artefacts shows evidence of tech even better than our own. But we look at what we can learn about those ancestors and assume that their apparent naturalism reflects low tech. Perhaps they got the balance right? We look back on Egyptian, Sumerian and other cultures from a self-assumed position of superiority. But we have had modern science and materialism around for about 500 years and we are in very deep shit. What is getting us out of it is quitting materialism. Its the spiritual equivalent of quitting smoking (which I used to do).
What we see today is not the product of science or technology, but of culture - of metaphysical assumptions, moral values and politics. Science is not a standalone thing. It is an expression of culture. In our case a culture made loopy by Christianity. Do you think there would be the kind of full on materialism we have had without a fucked up religion? Christianity made a strong point about setting itself apart from paganism (animism really) - and then lost its mojo. Materialism is essentially what followed - a faith without God - the humanist folly that we humans stood at the apex of creation (as homo sapiens sapiens).
I can half agree with you in the spirit that maybe the pagan world needed a cleansing and a refresh. Perhaps materialism has been that, after Christianity's purging. But I see materialistic science as a kind of antibiotic (or maybe radiotherapy would be more apt?), rather than a colonic irrigation - and it has been touch and go whether, in the long run, the cure is worse than the disease. It is certainly clear that we have to repopulate our collective psychic gut with 'good' bugs. We have to get our hearts working properly again. And we have to shrink our brains a bit - back into natural proportions with our whole being.
I think modern science has brought disciplines of inquiry that are new. But are they better than they disciplines of the yogi, shaman or magician? No, I think they have disciplined the way physical things are dealt with to a finer degree, but only because that has become the singular focus. From a materialistic perspective they are fine disciplines. But, as we know, the pesky 'observer effect' messed that up really badly.
Years ago, as I was struggling to write my thesis for my Masters Honours in Social Ecology, I came across a book called 'Faces in the Clouds'. The author, Stewart Guthrie, said (and I may paraphrase a little here) 'because there are no spirits... How did he know there were no spirits? He wrote an elaborate theory in a book based on this proposition. He's wrong, so the book is nonsense - clever nonsense, but nonsense nevertheless. How do I know? I know there are spirits from very direct and repeated experience. I am neither bad nor mad.
So I boldly conclude that materialism, like Guthrie, is wrong. Reality isn't as asserted. Why do you think science needs to be wrong?